Go Back   Android Forums > Android Community > The Lounge > Politics and Current Affairs
Politics and Current Affairs All things political.

Get excited for the Samsung Galaxy S5! Find everything you need and discuss it in our Galaxy S5 Forum!

test: Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old June 22nd, 2010, 09:07 AM   #1 (permalink)
Senior Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
hakr100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,005
 
Device(s): HTC/Verizon Incredible
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 15
Thanked 65 Times in 54 Posts
Default Should McChrystal be fired?

Gen. Stanley McChrystal, America's top commander in Afghanistan, and his staff, made comments in a Rolling Stone article that will be in Friday's edition. The comments mock top civilian officials, including President Obama Vice President Joe Biden.

McChrystal is supposed to meet with the president and White House officials tomorrow (Wednesday, 23 June) to discuss his disparaging remarks. He also has apologized for the remarks.

Now, while some may disagree, there's really no acceptable explanation for the general's public remarks that disparage his commander. Officers of the United States military are not allowed to publicly disparage the President. Period.

So, the issue really is whether McChrystal should be fired or whether he should be retained. McChrystal is important to the war in Afghanistan, but...he can be replaced.

So, what think you?

hakr100 is offline  
Reply With Quote
sponsored links
Old June 22nd, 2010, 09:08 AM   #2 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
MutantCheese's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Edge of Insanity
Posts: 782
 
Device(s): LG G2, Samsung Galaxy Nexus, Galaxy Tab 10.1 32GB, Moto Droid X (GB 2.3.3 rooted)
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 18
Thanked 98 Times in 66 Posts
Default

give him a raise.

j/k I think he should be reprimanded, but not fired. The change of command in a combat situation is never good for moral or continuity of the operation, unless it for gross incompetence.
MutantCheese is offline  
Last edited by MutantCheese; June 22nd, 2010 at 09:10 AM.
Reply With Quote
Old June 22nd, 2010, 09:21 AM   #3 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
ballisticn8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Gender: Male
Posts: 760
 
Device(s): VZW Note 3
Carrier: Verizon

Thanks: 190
Thanked 157 Times in 97 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MutantCheese View Post
give him a raise.
hahaha, nice, i choked on my coffee a little bit.
__________________
*Insert witty line here*
ballisticn8 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old June 22nd, 2010, 09:26 AM   #4 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Washington, DC area
Posts: 1,362
 
Device(s): Motorola Droid 2 R2D2 edition, Motorola Xoom with over 100 RELEVANT, working apps added (NE2 2/17/20
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 150
Thanked 116 Times in 93 Posts
Default

There is no acceptable explanation for his actions. I wouldn't fire him for speaking the truth, but if there is an official course of action for punishing a commander guilty of publicly disparaging your commander in chief, I say it should be carried out.

Maybe more of us can get fired for expressing our views on the current administration and all of the Whitehouse's yesmen can do some work for a change.
3devious is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old June 22nd, 2010, 09:38 AM   #5 (permalink)
Senior Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
hakr100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,005
 
Device(s): HTC/Verizon Incredible
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 15
Thanked 65 Times in 54 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3devious View Post
There is no acceptable explanation for his actions. I wouldn't fire him for speaking the truth, but if there is an official course of action for punishing a commander guilty of publicly disparaging your commander in chief, I say it should be carried out.

Maybe more of us can get fired for expressing our views on the current administration and all of the Whitehouse's yesmen can do some work for a change.

Officers in the U.S. military are not allowed to publicly criticize the CiC. The acceptable way for someone like McChrystal to protest his displeasure with the CiC is to resign his commission.

For a military officer, the issue is not "speaking the truth," as your post says.

As a private citizen, you have the right to criticize any public official you feel is deserving of it. You give up that right when you put on an officer's uniform.

This is not a matter of...politics, per se, although the general's behavior may have political ramifications.
hakr100 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old June 22nd, 2010, 09:49 AM   #6 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Washington, DC area
Posts: 1,362
 
Device(s): Motorola Droid 2 R2D2 edition, Motorola Xoom with over 100 RELEVANT, working apps added (NE2 2/17/20
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 150
Thanked 116 Times in 93 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hakr100 View Post
For a military officer, the issue is not "speaking the truth," as your post says.
I know that, which is why I said if there is a procedure for handling this situation, it should be carried out. I still feel that pointing out facts does not make him a poor general and that most of these cronies have no real use at all. Pandering to them is a waste of time and the officials in the Whitehouse are doing nothing but that right now.

I hope he really drags out the unclassified dirty laundry when he is no longer held to his command.
3devious is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old June 22nd, 2010, 10:00 AM   #7 (permalink)
Senior Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
hakr100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,005
 
Device(s): HTC/Verizon Incredible
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 15
Thanked 65 Times in 54 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3devious View Post
I hope he really drags out the unclassified dirty laundry when he is no longer held to his command.
Indeed. What we've been doing in Afghanistan has been a clusterf**k from the moment Bush put us in there.
hakr100 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old June 22nd, 2010, 10:02 AM   #8 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
MutantCheese's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Edge of Insanity
Posts: 782
 
Device(s): LG G2, Samsung Galaxy Nexus, Galaxy Tab 10.1 32GB, Moto Droid X (GB 2.3.3 rooted)
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 18
Thanked 98 Times in 66 Posts
Default

I'm glad that Obama has kept his campaign promise to bring our troops home...

[/end sarcasm]
MutantCheese is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to MutantCheese For This Useful Post:
2003vstrom (June 22nd, 2010), ballisticn8 (June 22nd, 2010), dpizzo (July 6th, 2010)
Old June 22nd, 2010, 10:10 AM   #9 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Washington, DC area
Posts: 1,362
 
Device(s): Motorola Droid 2 R2D2 edition, Motorola Xoom with over 100 RELEVANT, working apps added (NE2 2/17/20
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 150
Thanked 116 Times in 93 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hakr100 View Post
Indeed. What we've been doing in Afghanistan has been a clusterf**k from the moment Bush put us in there.
Oh, but I thought that was the "Necessary War," the "Good War," the "This is where the people who attacked NY are and these are the enemies we should be fighting" war, the "Atleast we aren't killing people for oil" war? Now it's "WTF are we doing in Afghanistan, anyway? Damn you, Bush!" Wow. Most people can't remember what happened 10 years ago, now we can't remember 1 year ago when we were so worried this guy was going to resign because we weren't giving him the tools to fight.
3devious is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old June 22nd, 2010, 11:06 AM   #10 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 487
 
Device(s): Sprint HTC Hero with 318 Hemi and Edelbrock headers.
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 99
Thanked 38 Times in 33 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hakr100 View Post
So, the issue really is whether McChrystal should be fired or whether he should be retained. McChrystal is important to the war in Afghanistan, but...he can be replaced.

So, what think you?
Replacing a popular and great general while prosecuting an action is no easy task. Just ask Abe Lincoln.

To answer your question, no, he should not be replaced. General McChrystal will be reprimanded, and rightly so under Article 88 of the UCMJ, but Oilbama is a complete idiot (well, he is already) if he insists on the general's resignation. He won't fire him, the general will offer his resignation at some point during the reprimand. That is what a man of honor like an officer does. If Oilbama has a lick of sense, he will be satisfied with the offer of resignation, put his over-sized ego in check, and decline. Hopefully Oilbama will then give his general more support to fight.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3devious View Post
I know that, which is why I said if there is a procedure for handling this situation, it should be carried out. I still feel that pointing out facts does not make him a poor general and that most of these cronies have no real use at all. Pandering to them is a waste of time and the officials in the Whitehouse are doing nothing but that right now.

I hope he really drags out the unclassified dirty laundry when he is no longer held to his command.
Under Article 2 (UCMJ) retired members that draw pay or benefits are still held to the same standard as active duty members. If General McChrystal offers his resignation and it is accepted, then retires (his career would be over anyway), the general will still be subject to prosecution under the UCMJ. Prosecution under Article 88 has happened only once since the UCMJ was enacted in 1950 with United States v. Howe.

So the general could speak out somewhat if he retired, but he still would have to tread very lightly. Then there is Article 134.....
Fenga Papit is offline  
Reply With Quote
sponsored links
Old June 22nd, 2010, 11:08 AM   #11 (permalink)
Senior Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
hakr100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,005
 
Device(s): HTC/Verizon Incredible
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 15
Thanked 65 Times in 54 Posts
Default

To get back on topic, apparently McChrystal may be guilty of gross insubordination.

"Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct."

Now...obviously...there are other factors in play here. The general's remarks put the POTUS in a tough situation. If I were Obama, I'd refuse to accept the general's resignation.
hakr100 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old June 22nd, 2010, 11:14 AM   #12 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Washington, DC area
Posts: 1,362
 
Device(s): Motorola Droid 2 R2D2 edition, Motorola Xoom with over 100 RELEVANT, working apps added (NE2 2/17/20
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 150
Thanked 116 Times in 93 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hakr100 View Post
If I were Obama, I'd refuse to accept the general's resignation.
That would be funny. What do you do if you're a general in the military and they refuse to accept your resignation? Can the Joint Chiefs bust you down to peeling potatoes? How does that work?
3devious is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old June 22nd, 2010, 11:18 AM   #13 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 487
 
Device(s): Sprint HTC Hero with 318 Hemi and Edelbrock headers.
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 99
Thanked 38 Times in 33 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3devious View Post
That would be funny. What do you do if you're a general in the military and they refuse to accept your resignation? Can the Joint Chiefs bust you down to peeling potatoes? How does that work?
When Oilbama refuses to accept General McChrystal's resignation, the JC's take their cue and stay the hell away from this one. It's between President Obama and General McChrystal now.
Fenga Papit is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old June 22nd, 2010, 11:35 AM   #14 (permalink)
Senior Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
hakr100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,005
 
Device(s): HTC/Verizon Incredible
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 15
Thanked 65 Times in 54 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3devious View Post
That would be funny. What do you do if you're a general in the military and they refuse to accept your resignation? Can the Joint Chiefs bust you down to peeling potatoes? How does that work?

I'd explain this, but...I'm not sure it would matter, eh?
hakr100 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old June 22nd, 2010, 05:32 PM   #15 (permalink)
Senior Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
hakr100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,005
 
Device(s): HTC/Verizon Incredible
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 15
Thanked 65 Times in 54 Posts
Default

Well, I've read a lot more about the general. He needs to go.
hakr100 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old June 22nd, 2010, 06:24 PM   #16 (permalink)
Member
 
droid_freak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Idaho
Posts: 199
 
Device(s): Droid Charge HTC TBolt Nook Color
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 33
Thanked 23 Times in 18 Posts
Send a message via Yahoo to droid_freak rob.cude@gmail.com
Default

Did anyone really pay much attention to this, most of the article are quotes from his staff and others around him not directly from Gen McChrystal being interviewed. Not to say that he did not say these things but the political crap that goes on behind the scenes is incredible, been there done that. They, the politicians should stay the hell out of his way and let a warrior fight the damn war, not a bunch of panty waste political idiots. Gen McChrystal is a true man of honor and I am proud to have worked with him. Our Afghanistan Ambassador is a spineless little school girl, and so are most of the rest of the current administration. Don't hurt the poor Taliban, treat them with respect, they are human too, that is complete crap and we should hunt down every one of them. Just my two cents worth.
droid_freak is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to droid_freak For This Useful Post:
Fenga Papit (June 22nd, 2010)
Old June 22nd, 2010, 06:47 PM   #17 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 487
 
Device(s): Sprint HTC Hero with 318 Hemi and Edelbrock headers.
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 99
Thanked 38 Times in 33 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by droid_freak View Post
Did anyone really pay much attention to this, most of the article are quotes from his staff and others around him not directly from Gen McChrystal being interviewed. Not to say that he did not say these things but the political crap that goes on behind the scenes is incredible, been there done that. They, the politicians should stay the hell out of his way and let a warrior fight the damn war, not a bunch of panty waste political idiots. Gen McChrystal is a true man of honor and I am proud to have worked with him. Our Afghanistan Ambassador is a spineless little school girl, and so are most of the rest of the current administration. Don't hurt the poor Taliban, treat them with respect, they are human too, that is complete crap and we should hunt down every one of them. Just my two cents worth.
Hear hear! General McChrystal is a true patriot, and that confuses Oilbama immensely. No way he should fire the general. Instead, Oilbama would be better off having one of his beer summits, but just between him and General McChrystal this time, and in private. Afterward the general can announce a public apology so Oilbama's earth-shattering ego is stroked properly and then General McChrystal can get back down to the business of killing them that needs killin'.

And when located, the Taliban should be prosecuted with extreme prejudice. My sights at 700 meters....adjust for windage and elevation....gentle, deliberate pull...breaks at 4 lbs.....*pop*...no more terrorist.
Fenga Papit is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old June 23rd, 2010, 02:11 AM   #18 (permalink)
Member
 
hood420's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Lansing, MI
Posts: 371
 
Device(s): Sprint Hero
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 17
Thanked 21 Times in 17 Posts
Default

I admire that the General spoke out. I don't understand why he shouldn't be allowed to speak out publicly against his superiors, if his problems aren't addressed internally then he should be able to appeal to the American people. The politicians are allowed to recklessly make any statement they want. They often publicly criticize other politicians, judges, generals and others, and thats's OK. But somehow politicians are the only ones who get that privilege, could it be because they're the ones who made those very laws preventing others from doing the same thing? What a joke...
hood420 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old June 23rd, 2010, 06:27 AM   #19 (permalink)
Senior Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
hakr100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,005
 
Device(s): HTC/Verizon Incredible
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 15
Thanked 65 Times in 54 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hood420 View Post
I admire that the General spoke out. I don't understand why he shouldn't be allowed to speak out publicly against his superiors, if his problems aren't addressed internally then he should be able to appeal to the American people.
In our system, the president is the commander-in-chief. The top brass report to the president. He or she is their boss. If a general has a gripe, he or she can complain up through the chain of command and even speak directly and privately to the president if necessary. But what an active duty general cannot do is speak out publicly over a dispute with his boss, the commander-in-chief.
hakr100 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old June 23rd, 2010, 08:21 AM   #20 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Washington, DC area
Posts: 1,362
 
Device(s): Motorola Droid 2 R2D2 edition, Motorola Xoom with over 100 RELEVANT, working apps added (NE2 2/17/20
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 150
Thanked 116 Times in 93 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hakr100 View Post
But what an active duty general cannot do is speak out publicly over a dispute with his boss, the commander-in-chief.
Yup, anyone who works for a retired military person who is still stuck in that mindset knows this well. Commanders take feedback from their subordinates but still do what they will. Only in an organization that pretends to have a chain of command can you tell your superiors that you will "take their comments under advisement." That phrase goes downhill, not up. Sort of like another substance that keeps rolling over me...
3devious is offline  
Reply With Quote
sponsored links
Old June 23rd, 2010, 12:10 PM   #21 (permalink)
brab
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Default

A milatary man of honor would not have publically rebuked those above him in the chain of command unless he felt he had no other choice and if so he should suffer the consequences. He should receive punishment proscribed under article 88 and be fired.

Fenga
If you were in the milatary, you know that what he did goes against the disipline he is supposed to instill in his subordinates and the rules that he swore to uphold. He swore an oath of allegiance to the commander in chief whether he or you like him or not. I suppose that oath is meaningless to you. You support McCrystal only because he said something to denigrate this president. This president has tripled the number of troops in Afghanistan and the war is being run exactly the way McChrystal has chosen to run it. He has defined the rules of engagement which many of his own troops believe leave them defenseless. Since the war is not going that well, maybe this is his way to take the easy way out and not finish it.

If he was as smart as you think he is, he wouldn't have said what he said publically.
 
Last edited by brab; June 23rd, 2010 at 12:14 PM. Reason: Syntax correction
Reply With Quote
Old June 23rd, 2010, 12:18 PM   #22 (permalink)
Senior Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
hakr100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,005
 
Device(s): HTC/Verizon Incredible
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 15
Thanked 65 Times in 54 Posts
Default

General was relieved of command, according to news reports.
hakr100 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old June 23rd, 2010, 12:45 PM   #23 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Washington, DC area
Posts: 1,362
 
Device(s): Motorola Droid 2 R2D2 edition, Motorola Xoom with over 100 RELEVANT, working apps added (NE2 2/17/20
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 150
Thanked 116 Times in 93 Posts
Default

If that is the punishment in article 88, so be it. Firing him is letting him off easy in my opinion. Now, he doesn't have to deal with all of this.

If you want to start nitpicking about oaths, Brab, consider an instance where an american citizen traveled on an Indonesian passport to a volatile nation at at time when we (the peons) were not supposed to be going there? I guess some people get their feet held to the fire for conduct unbecoming a soldier while others can't even be a proper citizen, but I guess that is OK. No one seems to see the irony of having a meltdown over some jerk's diarreah of the mouth vs. rewarding flagrant disregard of State Department mandates and being buried under accolade after accolade.

One individual's possible disgust for a nation he pretends to lead does not excuse his commander's moments of high drama, but it is difficult to be too outraged with the later when it is doubtful that he is much worse than the former. Some folks are willing to give Obama a pass because everything is Bush's fault. By that logic, the President brought those incidents upon himself.

The general requested significantly more troops than he was given and was still hamstrung with the way he could carry on the war. I guess he should have taken his troops that were sent to him as a means of pandering to the people who wanted to hold the president responsible for his campaign and innauguration posturing with a smile. Certain federal law enforcement agencies have had their budgets cut by 85% and yet they get called on the carpet for all of the gaps that no one wants to pay to fill.

The point is, it's still improper to criticize the person at the top, but the people at the top certainly deserve it. Perhaps there should be more effort put into not making so many boneheaded manuevers so that people won't have to work so hard to restrain themselves from blowing off steam about the sheer idiocracy we are ruled by.
3devious is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old June 23rd, 2010, 01:10 PM   #24 (permalink)
Senior Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
hakr100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,005
 
Device(s): HTC/Verizon Incredible
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 15
Thanked 65 Times in 54 Posts
Default

"If you want to start nitpicking about oaths, Brab, consider an instance where an american citizen traveled on an Indonesian passport to a volatile nation at at time when we (the peons) were not supposed to be going there?"

Is some sort of oath necessary for an ordinary citizen to travel abroad? I don't remember anyone ever asking me to affirm in an oath that I would not go to X, Y, or Z.

I don't think the government of the United States is on the right side when it tries to or in fact does restrict its citizens' travel destinations. And I think those on the right should agree. I appreciate warnings from the State Department about dangers in some foreign countries, but not restrictions.
hakr100 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old June 23rd, 2010, 01:29 PM   #25 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Washington, DC area
Posts: 1,362
 
Device(s): Motorola Droid 2 R2D2 edition, Motorola Xoom with over 100 RELEVANT, working apps added (NE2 2/17/20
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 150
Thanked 116 Times in 93 Posts
Default

So, it is OK to circumvent restrictions if they're stupid?
3devious is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old June 23rd, 2010, 02:16 PM   #26 (permalink)
Senior Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
hakr100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,005
 
Device(s): HTC/Verizon Incredible
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 15
Thanked 65 Times in 54 Posts
Default

Depends on what the government is restricting.
hakr100 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old June 23rd, 2010, 03:00 PM   #27 (permalink)
Member
 
Cajun83's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Marrero, Louisiana
Posts: 209
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 5
Thanked 28 Times in 20 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hakr100 View Post
I appreciate warnings from the State Department about dangers in some foreign countries, but not restrictions.

Totally agree...
Cajun83 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old June 23rd, 2010, 03:15 PM   #28 (permalink)
brab
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Default

You know Mr. Devious, the backbone of our military and government is built on an oath, which I'm sure you've never taken, "To support and defend the Constitution of the United States, so help me God."

Now that may be nitpicking. to you but I thought you conservatives were all for flag waving and God and country and rule of law. Guess I had that all wrong?
 
Reply With Quote
Old June 23rd, 2010, 03:42 PM   #29 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Washington, DC area
Posts: 1,362
 
Device(s): Motorola Droid 2 R2D2 edition, Motorola Xoom with over 100 RELEVANT, working apps added (NE2 2/17/20
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 150
Thanked 116 Times in 93 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brab View Post
You know Mr. Devious, the backbone of our military and government is built on an oath, which I'm sure you've never taken, "To support and defend the Constitution of the United States, so help me God."

Now that may be nitpicking. to you but I thought you conservatives were all for flag waving and God and country and rule of law. Guess I had that all wrong?
The ignorance you flaunt in your comments suggests that you are more wrong than you can imagine. I am not a guy for one thing and I am not conservative for another. Just because I am not on the bandwagon doesn't make me a member of the Tea Party. I am not even religious. Just because I think you are trying to spin this to suit your needs doesn't make me a member of anything. I am just someone who questions a comment you made.

For your lack of information, I took that oath and I put a lot more stock in it than the current administration or anyone who apologizes for their blatant disregard for their oath of office and I certainly don't hide behind that which I have to protect to suit my needs.

You were the first person to start saying the man had no character, yet the main man has less character than a cartoon. Deriding one individual while excusing someone far worse is nitpicking. Get some facts before you open that mouth of yours.
3devious is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old June 23rd, 2010, 03:47 PM   #30 (permalink)
Member
 
hood420's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Lansing, MI
Posts: 371
 
Device(s): Sprint Hero
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 17
Thanked 21 Times in 17 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hakr100 View Post
In our system, the president is the commander-in-chief. The top brass report to the president. He or she is their boss. If a general has a gripe, he or she can complain up through the chain of command and even speak directly and privately to the president if necessary. But what an active duty general cannot do is speak out publicly over a dispute with his boss, the commander-in-chief.
I'm well aware of the laws and rules, I just disagree with them. I also tend to disagree with the President being Commander & Chief. Sure the president should be making the big decisions, but I disagree with him being treated as the direct superior of anyone in the military, as I said he's simply a politician who may or may not have any military experience or qualifications. I really think the military should have their own leadership that is treated similar to another branch of government.
hood420 is offline  
Reply With Quote
sponsored links
Old June 23rd, 2010, 04:10 PM   #31 (permalink)
Member
 
Zenze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 210
 
Device(s): HTC Inc
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 15
Thanked 10 Times in 9 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hood420 View Post
I'm well aware of the laws and rules, I just disagree with them. I also tend to disagree with the President being Commander & Chief. Sure the president should be making the big decisions, but I disagree with him being treated as the direct superior of anyone in the military, as I said he's simply a politician who may or may not have any military experience or qualifications. I really think the military should have their own leadership that is treated similar to another branch of government.
I disagree. I think that the military being controlled by a civilian is very important (and I assume the founding fathers would agree with me). I could be wrong but it seems to me that most states where the military have that much control are dictatorships etc.
__________________
"Both politicians and diapers need to be changed frequently, and for the same reason." -Unknown
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." -Albert Einstein
Zenze is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old June 23rd, 2010, 08:02 PM   #32 (permalink)
brab
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3devious View Post
If you want to start nitpicking about oaths, Brab
Excuse me, Ms. Devious, I didn't put those words in your mouth and since you have taken that oath, as I have, then you should understand that I was not nickpicking.

The so help me God part is issentially irrelevant to me. It's the declaration of loyalty that is. McCrystal, did not stand by his declaration of loyalty and he knows it, thus his resignation.

I wish he could take those words back but he gave the president little choice.

Petraeus is an upgrade anyway. Maybe things will work out better and he will be given more lattitude to conduct the war.

Hopefully the rules of engagement will be tilted back into the favor of our fighting men and women and the arbitrary deadline for withdrawal retracted.
 
Reply With Quote
Old June 23rd, 2010, 08:52 PM   #33 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 487
 
Device(s): Sprint HTC Hero with 318 Hemi and Edelbrock headers.
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 99
Thanked 38 Times in 33 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brab View Post
Fenga
If you were in the milatary, you know that what he did goes against the disipline he is supposed to instill in his subordinates and the rules that he swore to uphold. He swore an oath of allegiance to the commander in chief whether he or you like him or not.
While Oilbama is doing his best to turn America into a Marxist banana republic, our country is not to the point where our military - even General McChrystal - swears an oath of allegiance to the CIC. You sure you were in the military?


Quote:
Originally Posted by brab View Post
I suppose that oath is meaningless to you.
It sure as hell is! I never took an oath of allegiance to the CIC, regardless who it might be at that time or the future.

Quote:
Originally Posted by brab View Post
You support McCrystal only because he said something to denigrate this president.
Wrong, but now you need to prove your accusation. I'll be waiting.

Quote:
Originally Posted by brab View Post
This president has tripled the number of troops in Afghanistan and the war is being run exactly the way McChrystal has chosen to run it. He has defined the rules of engagement which many of his own troops believe leave them defenseless. Since the war is not going that well, maybe this is his way to take the easy way out and not finish it.

If he was as smart as you think he is, he wouldn't have said what he said publically.
Again you exhibit your inexperience and lack of understanding of our military. McChrystal, or any CO is not a god that does whatever they want. The government, the CIC, makes the decisions and restrictions as to how the war will be waged or run. Perhaps you have forgotten how Oilbama decided not to make a decision for months and made General McChrystal wait because Oilbama thought no decision would mean he couldn't get blamed for making a bad one? Remember that picture with both of them on AF1? Oilbama got pissed this time because the general was the one person he could lash out at. If he could, I have no doubt that Oilbama would punish every American citizen harshly for speaking out against him.

The funny part now is how Oilbama, the leader of misguided liberals, now chooses to appoint General Petraeus to replace General McChrystal. Anyone remember how the liberals displayed their absolute hate and hostility for General Petraeus and our military (again!) with this?

Oilbama and his party of Hate & Hypocrisy™ exposes their idiocy and hypocrisy again!

Fenga Papit is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old June 24th, 2010, 07:09 AM   #34 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Washington, DC area
Posts: 1,362
 
Device(s): Motorola Droid 2 R2D2 edition, Motorola Xoom with over 100 RELEVANT, working apps added (NE2 2/17/20
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 150
Thanked 116 Times in 93 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brab View Post
I wish he could take those words back but he gave the president little choice.
I am not so sure he would have anyway. I think he wanted out and chose his means of exit poorly.

Quote:
Petraeus is an upgrade anyway. Maybe things will work out better and he will be given more lattitude to conduct the war.

Hopefully the rules of engagement will be tilted back into the favor of our fighting men and women and the arbitrary deadline for withdrawal retracted.
I fully agree with that. A man who served on his security detail was truly amazed with how active and efficient he is at his job. I hope that the administration trusts him enough to do it. The bottlenecks that frustrated McChrystal so were in place before he assumed command and only eased superficially as he set to work.

Those soldiers have signed away some of their constitutional rights and I believe that expecting them to toil under the yoke of an abuser with no recourse and then going on about what dispicable human beings they are for not perpetuating it is nitpicky. Do I support the behavior? No. The chain of command has failed on both ends but only one of those ends is being punished. The rules are such that your superiors may abuse you but the intention is that those above are held to an even higher standard than those of us below and are to be held accountable. They are not. Bad officer? Yes. Miserable human being? Only if you can admit that he served under a miserable human being as well.
3devious is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old June 24th, 2010, 07:19 AM   #35 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 487
 
Device(s): Sprint HTC Hero with 318 Hemi and Edelbrock headers.
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 99
Thanked 38 Times in 33 Posts
Default

It is poetic justice, and it cracks me up, that McChrystal voted for Oilbama and got fired by him. Almost as funny as when a liberal is a victim of violent crime.
Fenga Papit is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old June 24th, 2010, 08:37 AM   #36 (permalink)
Member
 
droid_freak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Idaho
Posts: 199
 
Device(s): Droid Charge HTC TBolt Nook Color
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 33
Thanked 23 Times in 18 Posts
Send a message via Yahoo to droid_freak rob.cude@gmail.com
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brab View Post
Petraeus is an upgrade anyway. Maybe things will work out better and he will be given more lattitude to conduct the war.

Hopefully the rules of engagement will be tilted back into the favor of our fighting men and women and the arbitrary deadline for withdrawal retracted.
Considering you probably have never fought in either of our current wars you should remember that Gen Petraeus is the one who put together the new rules of engagment that so limit our military, I watched them change over the 5 years that I spent in these combat zones and it made you sicker each time they limited your ability to fight the enemy.
droid_freak is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old June 24th, 2010, 10:25 AM   #37 (permalink)
Senior Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
hakr100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,005
 
Device(s): HTC/Verizon Incredible
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 15
Thanked 65 Times in 54 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenga Papit View Post
It is poetic justice, and it cracks me up, that McChrystal voted for Oilbama and got fired by him. Almost as funny as when a liberal is a victim of violent crime.

Fascinating. I fail to see any humor in either situation. Perhaps you might enlighten us.

1. Why does it "crack" you up when a reasonably honorable man with a long history of service to his country is fired because of a human shortcoming he could not control?

2. Do you think you should get a pass on the penalties if you vote for someone, then commit a serious violation of the rules?

3. Why is it funny to you when anyone is a a victim of violent crime?

I think the general got what he deserved for his behavior, but I don't see any humor in it. I'm glad he was allowed to resign and that as a result he will keep his four stars, which will make a difference to him and his family.
hakr100 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old June 24th, 2010, 10:29 AM   #38 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
ballisticn8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Gender: Male
Posts: 760
 
Device(s): VZW Note 3
Carrier: Verizon

Thanks: 190
Thanked 157 Times in 97 Posts
Default

hackr, this:



yep, it makes me laugh every time...
ballisticn8 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old June 24th, 2010, 10:33 AM   #39 (permalink)
Senior Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
hakr100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,005
 
Device(s): HTC/Verizon Incredible
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 15
Thanked 65 Times in 54 Posts
Default

Yeah, that ought to be really funny for the guy who put up the sign if his neighbor is attacked, because there is no doubt the "sign poster" will be sued successfully and probably lose his house. He might also face criminal prosecution.

Yuck, yuck, yuck.
hakr100 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old June 24th, 2010, 10:40 AM   #40 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
ballisticn8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Gender: Male
Posts: 760
 
Device(s): VZW Note 3
Carrier: Verizon

Thanks: 190
Thanked 157 Times in 97 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hakr100 View Post
Yeah, that ought to be really funny for the guy who put up the sign if his neighbor is attacked, because there is no doubt the "sign poster" will be sued successfully and probably lose his house. He might also face criminal prosecution.

Yuck, yuck, yuck.
did he commit a crime?!? all i see is a home owner practicing free speech yet you are under the assumption that they can be sued and lose their house in the situation the neighbor was the victim of a crime, on top of facing criminal prosecution. wow, you really are kind of far out there aren't you? o_O

hackr, please tell me if you can exactly what crime the home owner with the sign is committing? as i said, all i see an act of free speech.

do libs really want to prosecute people for practicing the first and second amendment rights now? apparantly in your post you found the thought of the person being sued, losing their home, and being tried for criminal crimes funny...
ballisticn8 is offline  
Last edited by ballisticn8; June 24th, 2010 at 10:57 AM. Reason: added quote
Reply With Quote
sponsored links
Old June 24th, 2010, 11:32 AM   #41 (permalink)
Senior Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
hakr100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,005
 
Device(s): HTC/Verizon Incredible
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 15
Thanked 65 Times in 54 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ballisticn8 View Post
did he commit a crime?!? all i see is a home owner practicing free speech yet you are under the assumption that they can be sued and lose their house in the situation the neighbor was the victim of a crime, on top of facing criminal prosecution. wow, you really are kind of far out there aren't you? o_O

hackr, please tell me if you can exactly what crime the home owner with the sign is committing? as i said, all i see an act of free speech.

do libs really want to prosecute people for practicing the first and second amendment rights now? apparantly in your post you found the thought of the person being sued, losing their home, and being tried for criminal crimes funny...

If his neighbor is attacked, charges against the sign poster might start with reckless endangerment. Doing something which you know is dangerous to others and ignoring the possible consequences, such as "inviting" criminals to break into the house next door, might qualify. That's on the criminal side.

On the civil side, the possibilities are...endless.

You mention the first and second amendments. The first allows free speech but along with that right comes a minor requirement for exercise of responsibility. The second amendment is not in play; there is no federal requirement that anyone own a firearm.
hakr100 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old June 24th, 2010, 11:33 AM   #42 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 258
 
Device(s): Evo, Hero
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 30
Thanked 64 Times in 45 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hakr100 View Post
Yeah, that ought to be really funny for the guy who put up the sign if his neighbor is attacked, because there is no doubt the "sign poster" will be sued successfully and probably lose his house. He might also face criminal prosecution.

Yuck, yuck, yuck.

Yeah, that is a line of reasoning that is pretty hard for me to follow. I suppose it is symptomatic of our society where everyone else but me is responsible for the choices that I make, and Im gonna sue someone when it all goes to crap on me.
RickJ is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old June 24th, 2010, 11:41 AM   #43 (permalink)
Senior Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
hakr100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,005
 
Device(s): HTC/Verizon Incredible
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 15
Thanked 65 Times in 54 Posts
Default

Inviting mayhem or worse on your neighbor is something for which the "inviter" should share responsibility, if the mayhem happens.
hakr100 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old June 24th, 2010, 11:58 AM   #44 (permalink)
brab
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Default

Mr. Fenga

Here is the oath and of course you will somehow wiggle your way out of your stance that you never took an oath to support the CIC. If you didn't, you must have just stood there with your hand up and moved your lips

“I … do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.”

And before you say anything else, make sure you understand what the Uniform Code of Milatary justice is. You act like you love this country so much, yet you would deny the very keystone upon which our milatary structure and thus our security rests, with the CIC ultimately in charge of and the commander of every single individual in the US Milatary whether you like it or not.

Now stick that in your pipe and smoke it unless it's full of something else.
 
Reply With Quote
Old June 24th, 2010, 12:06 PM   #45 (permalink)
brab
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Default

And Fenga

A fringe group came out with the "Betrayus" jargon against Petraeus and you assign that stance to all liberals. That's just not true and you know it. The far left of the Democratic party does not define the Democratic party.

That would be like me accusing you of supporting those Tea Baggers who hold up "Joker", or "Nazi" posters of Barrack Obama. I hope the far right of the Republican party does not define the Republican party.
 
Last edited by brab; June 24th, 2010 at 12:09 PM. Reason: spelling
Reply With Quote
Old June 24th, 2010, 04:38 PM   #46 (permalink)
Senior Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
hakr100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,005
 
Device(s): HTC/Verizon Incredible
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 15
Thanked 65 Times in 54 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brab View Post
And Fenga

A fringe group came out with the "Betrayus" jargon against Petraeus and you assign that stance to all liberals. That's just not true and you know it. The far left of the Democratic party does not define the Democratic party.

That would be like me accusing you of supporting those Tea Baggers who hold up "Joker", or "Nazi" posters of Barrack Obama. I hope the far right of the Republican party does not define the Republican party.

These days, there's little room in the Republican Party for those office seekers who are not "far right." What few moderates left in the GOP are being driven out, or are the targets for being driven out. The best hope for the future of the GOP is for these hard-righties to lose, and for the Republicans to rebuild their party around moderates who are just right of center. This country is best "run" from the middle.
hakr100 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old June 24th, 2010, 07:53 PM   #47 (permalink)
brab
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Default

Where are you mister Fenga?
 
Reply With Quote
Old June 30th, 2010, 06:27 PM   #48 (permalink)
brab
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Default

test; just wanted to make sure I was here.
 
Reply With Quote
Old June 30th, 2010, 07:31 PM   #49 (permalink)
Senior Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
hakr100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,005
 
Device(s): HTC/Verizon Incredible
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 15
Thanked 65 Times in 54 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brab View Post
test; just wanted to make sure I was here.
Nope. You're not here. Where are you?
hakr100 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old June 30th, 2010, 08:52 PM   #50 (permalink)
brab
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Default

Wherever I go there I is!
 
Reply With Quote
Reply


Go Back   Android Forums > Android Community > The Lounge > Politics and Current Affairs
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:50 AM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.