I don't post chatty opiners. Nance has the chops to know what he is talking about. This is worth your time.

[flashman13]

19. I was quite literally writing a post about treaties under the Constitution when I saw your post. I guess I'll bag that.

Now, as far as shooting the messenger, you don't rebut what Nance says, only that as a vet he shouldn't say it. I see it as a former intelligence officer using his expertise and experience to enlighten the rest of us of potential consequences vis-a-vis NATO and Europe. He could have intentionally omitted discussing the internal political consequences.

No question about it. An order to attack a NATO treaty ally would be an illegal order. The upper echelons of the military certainly understand the consequences. The big question is, would they refuse to execute that illegal order? Up until very recently I would say that they absolutely would not execute such a blatantly illegal order. At this point I am not all that sure. However, I also think many in the lower ranks would also know it was an illegal order and would refuse obey and would not attack NATO military personnel which they have trained with for decades. It could fracture the military. How would China and Russia react to dissension in the ranks? Those are more uncharted consequences. Or the whole thing could swing in the other direction. The general officers could say enough of Trump's BS and stage a coup to remove the entire regime. Again I would never believe that possible, but we have never been in this position before. Anything is possible.

In summary, a mad man has been allowed to drive us to the edge of a cliff. If he pushes us over that edge every man, woman and child both here and abroad will pay an extremely high price.

Let me just finish by saying that after Munich, Churchill clearly described a hypothetical of the consequences of appeasement. That hypothetical was WWII. If you're not worried, you're not paying attention.