Should McChrystal be fired?

[hakr100]

Depends on what the government is restricting.

 

[Cajun83]

I appreciate warnings from the State Department about dangers in some foreign countries, but not restrictions.

Totally agree...

 

[brab]

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?

 

[3devious]

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.

 

[hood420]

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.

 

[Zenze]

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.

 

[brab]

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.

 

[Fenga Papit]

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?

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.

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.

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

 

[3devious]

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.

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.

 

[Fenga Papit]

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.

 

[droid_freak]

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.

 

[hakr100]

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.

 

[ballisticn8]

hackr, this:

yep, it makes me laugh every time...

 

[hakr100]

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.

 

[ballisticn8]

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?

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...

 

[hakr100]

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?

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.

 

[RickJ]

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.

 

[hakr100]

Inviting mayhem or worse on your neighbor is something for which the "inviter" should share responsibility, if the mayhem happens.

 

[brab]

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.

 

[brab]

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.

 

[hakr100]

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.

 

[brab]

Where are you mister Fenga?

 

[brab]

test; just wanted to make sure I was here.

 

[hakr100]

test; just wanted to make sure I was here.

Nope. You're not here. Where are you?

 

[brab]

Wherever I go there I is!