There are very good moral arguments for making public sector strikes illegal. And equally good arguments against the idea. It’s not like the thing’s clear-cut, because even if you can’t strike, you can still quit en-masse.

That’s a shitty bit of apologetics for slavery. No, government employ is not like slavery and you cannot excuse slavery by claiming it was.

No, you have that the wrong way up. The working class are those who work for other people because they don’t want to be responsible for their own business. (I’m not suggesting there’s anything wrong with that.) Everyone else is varying degrees of middle class. Apart from e.g. The Queen, who is one of about ten people…

Maybe we shouldn’t be taking unionisation advice from a man who believes the unions are a key way of sticking it to those ebil jooz...

Yes, that’s exactly the point I was making. They won’t be given those unlawful orders because the people giving them would go to jail, and they wouldn’t follow them because they would. Trump is at the top of the chain of command, he’s not in direct command of the grunts.

The ROE can’t change the fundamental laws. Shooting unarmed civilians is murder. Giving the order to shoot them is a crime too. All Trump’s done is say that such an order may be given, but no-one’s going to give it because Trump saying that doesn’t change the law in any way.

It was more that by the end they didn’t really care if the Communist Vietnamese won or not. Aside from the loss of prestige/pride because they’d previously declared their aim as preventing that, anyway. 

I’m not sure what evidence you base that belief on. Although perhaps it’s a matter of characterising what they do differently rather than arguing about facts.

At least in sane countries’ armies they are, in fact, obliged to consider all orders carefully to be sure they’re legal before carrying them out. Which is the same as you said, but more so.

Yes, which is why no-one’s going to get ordered to fire at immigrants. He can’t give that order directly, and in between him and the people who’d have to carry it out are sane people who’d be charged with murder.

They have, and I didn’t mean to imply they haven’t tried to adapt. But the fundamental problem is that the current situation isn’t a job for the IDF at all. 

That is literally how the Kindertransport worked, you racist fuckhead.

Chain of command. Trump can’t give grunts orders. The people on the ground are well aware they can be charged with criminal offences for following unlawful orders, and in this case we’d be talking about straight-up murder charges. 

OK, but seriously, the big question here is why the fuck people go into a McDonalds and expect anything other than an encounter with life’s left-behinds. Some meth-head screaming about how the Queen’s a lizardman who’s also simultaneously black-Jesus-Hitler and the chief communist-Jew-financier is ambience.

The troops have a duty to obey orders. And they will - because Trump can’t actually order them to shoot the migrants. They will obey the orders of their lawful superiors to stand around doing nothing.

I think historians who look more to the bigger picture would say that the Vietnam War went on long enough that the reasons for going to war in Vietnam in the first place had gone away.

“What do you think this will foster, say 20 years from now?”

Israel has a bit of a problem: due to (still fairly recent) history they’re set up to fight wars against enemy countries with proper military forces, but now they’re doing something that’s more like an extreme form of riot control than fighting a war.

Obviously there’s no comparison between being shot in the face and hit in the face by a rock, but throwing rocks can still be lethal. There’s not a lot of difference if the soldiers have to stand there and take it without returning fire, it has to be said.

Of course it’s all still illegal. Trump hasn’t actually given the troops the right to fire on anyone. He’s made a big show out of something meaningless, as he does all the time because his supporters are morons.