930 Forums
=> GENERAL DISCUSSION => Topic started by: killsaly on June 22, 2010, 04:26:10 pm
-
So it has been on the news all day at work, and i broke down and read the whole thing. I must have missed something... Other than an aide saying "Biden? Bite Me?" or whatever, it didnt really seem bad. It was mostly a discussion of the war and the general with minimal reference to the president or his staff. It seems like the news is trying to make this into a bigger issue. I mean really, there isnt ANY thing else going on today? Really? You gotta call the general back to dc to explain this article? What a crock of shit. Maybe by reading it too fast i missed something, but i dont think so.
Anybody else read it and think it not worth even a tounge lashing, let alone the talk of firing McChrystal that is all over the 24 hour news broadcasts?
-
The hyperbole on the news stations has been ridiculous. A couple advisors got a little trigger-happy while being interviews (excuse the pun), but other than that, nothing McChrystal said was out of line, in my opinion. Being the commander in Afghanistan is a no-win situation, you need someone with a little "don't give a fuck" in the position or they'll be eaten alive.
-
I have not read it but it sounds like he knew this would get him canned and saw it as a way out. It is fucking Afghanistan, after all. Would you want to serve there? Regardless, the most intriguing thing about this issue is the Firebutt McGee shoutout from James Murphy.
-
Regardless, the most intriguing thing about this issue is the Firebutt McGee shoutout from James Murphy.
i don't think the mcchrystal article is out yet (yes, it's causing controversy before it's been published). the current issue, 1107, with the ixkpd-bk shoutout haz jay-z on the cover, and the extreme-leftie piece-of-the-month is about how obama failed to crack down on BP. no mention of mcchrystal.
edit: the mcchrystal piece is in 1108, but can be read here: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/119236
-
I don't know if this is true, but Maureen Dowd's latest column says he was involved in the Tillman cover-up, which if true means he never should have been given this job in the first place. Can his ass.
-
Well, I stand corrected.
I did hear that he was involved with the cover-up this morning. It makes you wonder how he got this position knowing that.
-
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/06/how-mcchyrstal-and-co-blew-the-rolling-stone-profile.php
-
Would you want to serve there?
I already did in 03 and 04. It definitely was a shit hole back then, and i cant see it having gotten any better since. (so no i would not)
And I think the fact that he got the job was probably due to:
It doesn't hurt that McChrystal was also extremely successful as head of the Joint Special Operations Command, the elite forces that carry out the government's darkest ops.
-
Killsally, just out of curiosity, if you had talked like that about your commanding officer and your country's allies to the press, what do you think would have happened to you?
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCNqKrX1sx8&feature=related
Killsally, just out of curiosity, if you had talked like that about your commanding officer and your country's allies to the press, what do you think would have happened to you?
-
Doc, I had standing orders to NOT talk to the press, so it wouldnt be an issue. But I am also think myself to be pretty smart, especially back then in regards to higher ups and the chain of command, so it definitely wouldnt have been an issue.
I dont want to give the impression that i approve of the Obama admin bashing by his staff... He shouldnt have given the interview in the first place, and he should have put a leash on his staff, because i would imagine he knew how they acted and talked around each other when drunk and otherwise.
I know my first post seemed overly sympathetic to the general, I just thought it was a bit tame what was printed when compared to what the news was making it out to be. It was a bad thing, and Obama had no choice in what he did. Generals and their staff shouldnt be giving interviews to the press in this "embedded" fashion. They definitely shouldnt talk shit "on the record."
The really sad part about the interview was how it makes the state of the war appear. It seems to be a perpetual nightmare. Nothing can change over there in a year, or a decade.
Also, believe it or not, Bush at the time I was in the military and deployed over there was pretty popular with the troops. I cant really think of any bad mouthing I ever heard. We were too concerned with the mission and our personal safety.
-
Doesn't hurt that the vast majority of military members are Republicans
-
Not all... Some members/former members are Libertarians. A few democrats. And all the colors of the rainbow!!!!
-
Doesn't hurt that the vast majority of military members are Republicans
Surely individuals in that group harassing that poor Muslim soldier in Texas also vote GOP, if they vote at all.
Muslim soldier: Army has not addressed harassment complaints
Coming to terms with a Muslim identity in the U.S. Army
By William Wan
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, May 17, 2010; 11:54 AM
Two months after a Muslim soldier complained to the Pentagon about being harassed in the wake of the Fort Hood shootings, Spec. Zachari Klawonn said the Army has not followed through on its promises to address problems at the country's largest military base.
This Story
*
Muslim soldier: Army has not addressed harassment complaints
*
Serving his country, testing his faith
*
Coming to terms with a Muslim identity in the U.S. Army
Commanders at Fort Hood, Tex., moved Klawonn, 20, off post for his safety in March after a threatening note with religious slurs was left at his barracks door. But then the military failed to provide him the standard stipend for off-post housing, Klawonn said. In recent weeks, he's had to take out two loans, borrow an additional $300 from a nonprofit group and pawn his possessions to pay the bills.
Klawonn said he asked for the housing allowance repeatedly, making his appeals up the chain of command. Last week, after a reporter asked about the housing allowance, Klawonn said he was called by his commanders and told he would begin receiving his stipend June 1.
-
Gregory Kane: Let's require presidents to have prior military service
By: Gregory Kane
Examiner Staff Writer
June 28, 2010
Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Let_s-require-presidents-to-have-prior-military-service-97269404.html#ixzz0s9yNZFLn
Am I the only one confused about the entire Obama-McChrystal affair?
Gen. Stanley McChrystal was America's guy leading the war effort in Afghanistan. He made a comment in Rolling Stone magazine that President Obama didn't like. According to news reports, McChrystal criticized a comment that Vice President Biden made about the war effort. A leaked memorandum hinting that the war would be lost without 40,000 more U.S. troops being sent to Afghanistan also raised Obama's hackles.
The argument goes that Obama, as commander in chief, had no choice but to fire McChrystal. And that's where my confusion comes in. I'm still wondering exactly why Obama is the commander in chief.
Yes, I'm at it again. I've said this once, and I've said it again: Barack Obama has no business being commander in chief of America's armed forces. I know it. You know it. He knows it.
And lest anyone think I'm just picking on Obama, I'm applying the same criterion across the board: No one who hasn't had military experience should be sitting in the White House.
I've come to the conclusion that maybe I'm funny that way. The first presidential campaign I have any memory of is the one between Sen. John F. Kennedy of Massachusetts and Vice President Richard M. Nixon in 1960.
I wasn't even 9 years old, but when I read newspaper accounts of the two men's qualifications to lead the country, one of the first things I looked for was military experience.
Since 1960, in every presidential campaign, I've looked for those military qualifications. But I didn't know how important they were until I joined the Air Force in 1974, where the military training instructors did their best to whip raw recruits into shape.
They chewed us out. They threatened, intimidated, cajoled and used any tactic to turn us from civilians into airmen.
Our bunks had to be made a certain way. Our clothes had to be folded or hung in our lockers a certain way. The shoes had to be spit-shined, and even the belts on our uniforms had to pass military muster.
Any variation from any of these rules, any infraction, was met with a demand from one of the drill sergeants for us to "Whip out a 341 form!"
At some point during our basic training, the squadron commander explained why we were being put through all this hell. He conceded that the goal was to deliberately submit us to a stressful situation to see how well we could hold up.
And if we couldn't take the stress of basic training, he admonished, it wasn't likely we could take the greater stress of a combat situation.
Once I left the Air Force, I pondered whether Americans would ever elect a president who passed on going through such stress. How could such a person bear the stress of being commander in chief?
Obama had his chance to serve in the military and passed on it. He chose a career in community organizing and law. If a person passes on a military career for whatever reason, I don't want him or her telling me years later that he or she wants to be commander in chief of the very armed forces that person didn't think were worthy of joining.
Before he became president, what were Obama's qualifications to be commander in chief, and why did he think he deserved the job with no military experience? The media had the responsibility to ask those questions in 2008 but didn't.
I'm betting McChrystal wishes they had.
-
oh the examiner, you so crazy
-
McChrystal f*cked up. Pubic perception called into question Obama's leadership in military affairs. Obama responds with the only politically correct move. Really simple.
-
Before he became president, what were Obama's qualifications to be commander in chief, and why did he think he deserved the job with no military experience? The media had the responsibility to ask those questions in 2008 but didn't.
(Speaking slowly, as if to a child): The whole reason the President is Commander in Chief is the founders recognized the importance of civilian control of the military.
-
I'm not saying I disagree with what you're saying, but why is it that people always want to quote the founders, as if everything that was relevent and applicable 235 years ago is still relevant and applicable today? As if the founders have some kind of hallowed moral and philosophical standing that we always need to look to? Those founders mowed down lots of Native Americans, and owned lots of slaves, too.
Before he became president, what were Obama's qualifications to be commander in chief, and why did he think he deserved the job with no military experience? The media had the responsibility to ask those questions in 2008 but didn't.
(Speaking slowly, as if to a child): The whole reason the President is Commander in Chief is the founders recognized the importance of civilian control of the military.
-
I'm not saying I disagree with what you're saying, but why is it that people always want to quote the founders, as if everything that was relevent and applicable 235 years ago is still relevant and applicable today? As if the founders have some kind of hallowed moral and philosophical standing that we always need to look to? Those founders mowed down lots of Native Americans, and owned lots of slaves, too.
Yeah, but the parts of the Constitution that allowed them to mow down Native Americans and own slaves have subsequently been amended (although I guess the Second Amendment, originally colloquially called the "Mow Down Native Americans Amendment," unfortunately still stands). The part of the Constitution that provides for civilian control of the military has not changed.
I think it's also worth noting that many of the types who question Obama's qualifications to be Commander in Chief had no such qualms about Dubya, even though Dubya's main qualification was his skill at military-like posturing.
-
I'm not saying I disagree with what you're saying, but why is it that people always want to quote the founders, as if everything that was relevent and applicable 235 years ago is still relevant and applicable today? As if the founders have some kind of hallowed moral and philosophical standing that we always need to look to? Those founders mowed down lots of Native Americans, and owned lots of slaves, too.
Before he became president, what were Obama's qualifications to be commander in chief, and why did he think he deserved the job with no military experience? The media had the responsibility to ask those questions in 2008 but didn't.
(Speaking slowly, as if to a child): The whole reason the President is Commander in Chief is the founders recognized the importance of civilian control of the military.
Just like all the gun nuts like to quote their constitutional 2nd amendment rights when the pinnacle of military technology in the late 18th century was a smooth bore musket that would take 30 seconds at best to reload.
-
(Speaking slowly, as if to a child): The whole reason the President is Commander in Chief is the founders recognized the importance of civilian control of the military.
Wasn't our first President a General?
-
(Speaking slowly, as if to a child): The whole reason the President is Commander in Chief is the founders recognized the importance of civilian control of the military.
Wasn't our first President a General?
(Speaking slowly as if to a child, again): Yes our first president was a General; that doesn't mean that military experience is a prerequisite for the job, it just means that he happened to have it.
-
(http://usera.imagecave.com/Reddog1/popcorn.gif.jpg)
-
(Speaking slowly as if to a child, again): Yes our first president was a General; that doesn't mean that military experience is a prerequisite for the job, it just means that he happened to have it.
I was not pointing out that military experience should be a pre-requisite, but instead that if our founding fathers really wanted to "maintain civilian control" as you have eluded here, they would have banned military leaders from being President, which they didn't do.
Instead, what they did do was split control of the military between two of the three pillars of our Democracy, with oversight of the third. What they wanted to point out was not that a civilian should be in control, but instead that the military has a place in our democracy, but is not as important as the Executive Branch, the Legislative Branch or the Judicial Branch.
It doesn't matter if they're civilian or a military person so long as they're elected by the people, cannot unilaterlaly declare war without authorization from Congress and maintains all decisions within the bounds of the Constitution, as reviewed by the Supreme Court.
-
Oh, and McChrystal did not f#ck up. He wanted to get fired. His interview and susequent comments indicate that he wanted to end his tenure in charge of the Afghan campaign and quitting was not an option for him. This was a very calculated move leaving Obama no choice but to fire him. To make this political is to join the silly grandstanding.
He had his say, he had his day, and the President is right to move on.
-
If you are serving in the office of President, you are by definition not active duty military, and therefore you are serving in a civilian capacity, even if you have a military background.
And the idea that McChrystal wanted to get fired is ridiculous. His staff wanted to get fired too, I suppose? Now he is leaving the military. Why not just resign?
A much more sensible explanation is that McChrystal dissed his civilian leaders once before in front of the press and got away with it (and he also got away with his role in the Tilman cover up). He freely admitted lacking respect for Obama -- so he thought that this too, he could get away with. Reportedly when he came to the White House he didn't even have a resignation prepared.
Finally, the very few people who are hand-wringing over his departure seem to overlook the fact that the war itself is going badly. Even if McChrystal hadn't made this gaffe he would have been eligible for removal.
-
If you are serving in the office of President, you are by definition not active duty military, and therefore you are serving in a civilian capacity, even if you have a military background.
Now you're just being silly. Once in the military, always in the military, especially if you reach the rank of General, which at least a dozen of our Presidents have. I'm sure when they were elected to office, they simply "forgot" all of that military training now that they are "civilians" with the election.
The notion that you have to have military experience to be President is as silly as the notion that you become a civilian as soon as you're elected President if you come from the Military.
-
If you are serving in the office of President, you are by definition not active duty military, and therefore you are serving in a civilian capacity, even if you have a military background.
Now you're just being silly. Once in the military, always in the military, especially if you reach the rank of General, which at least a dozen of our Presidents have. I'm sure when they were elected to office, they simply "forgot" all of that military training now that they are "civilians" with the election.
The notion that you have to have military experience to be President is as silly as the notion that you become a civilian as soon as you're elected President if you come from the Military.
You really have no idea what you're talking about. If you're not in the military, you are a civilian. You cannot be in the military and hold another full time job, whether it's President or Car Wash Specialist. You should stick to discussing your latest cell phones.
-
I totally agree that mccrystal wanted to go. Its the only explanation for such an obvious mistake. You don't get where he got without some political savvy. It was a f*ck for a person in his position . . .but seemingly not for him personally. So do we see Palin/McCrystal 2012? 'We won't quit on democracy . . .just on alaska and the armed forces'
-
I totally agree that mccrystal wanted to go. Its the only explanation for such an obvious mistake. You don't get where he got without some political savvy. It was a f*ck for a person in his position . . .but seemingly not for him personally. So do we see Palin/McCrystal 2012? 'We won't quit on democracy . . .just on alaska and the armed forces'
I'm too lazy to look it up right now, but I'm pretty sure I read that McChrystal is at least a liberally socially and voted for Obama.
-
You really have no idea what you're talking about. If you're not in the military, you are a civilian. You cannot be in the military and hold another full time job, whether it's President or Car Wash Specialist. You should stick to discussing your latest cell phones.
I'll get to the phones in a minute.
Now you're using technicalities, which is exactly the point I made from the beginning to undermine you're orignal argument.
You were upset that there was a notion made that Obama is unfit to serve as commander in chief of the Armed Forces because he never served in the military.
You said "The whole reason the President is Commander in Chief is the founders recognized the importance of civilian control of the military."
If every President is a civilain regardless of military service, a point which you somehow think I don't understand, then why would you opposed to an idea that every President needs to have military experience using the argument that the founding fathers wanted civilian control? If every President is a civilian then having the requirement that every President have military expericene doesn't effect your argument one bit because every President is a civilain, and thus maintaining civilian control of the military.
-
Now, going back to my original point, civilian vs military experience had absolutely no bearing on the founding fathers decision to make the President in charge of the armed forces.
The only thing that mattered was that the military was not one of the pillars of our democracy, that the President did not have autonomous authority without the consent of congress, and that the Supreme Court has oversight authority.
We have had great Presidents with substantial military experience and great Presidents with no military experience (as well as bad Presidents in each category). The only thing that matters is that they were elected by the people and upheld the constitution when it comes to the military, or suffered the consequences when they didn't (whether that was criminal or lack of re-election).
-
You really have no idea what you're talking about. If you're not in the military, you are a civilian. You cannot be in the military and hold another full time job, whether it's President or Car Wash Specialist. You should stick to discussing your latest cell phones.
I'll get to the phones in a minute.
Now you're using technicalities, which is exactly the point I made from the beginning to undermine you're orignal argument.
You were upset that there was a notion made that Obama is unfit to serve as commander in chief of the Armed Forces because he never served in the military.
You said "The whole reason the President is Commander in Chief is the founders recognized the importance of civilian control of the military."
If every President is a civilain regardless of military service, a point which you somehow think I don't understand, then why would you opposed to an idea that every President needs to have military experience using the argument that the founding fathers wanted civilian control? If every President is a civilian then having the requirement that every President have military expericene doesn't effect your argument one bit because every President is a civilain, and thus maintaining civilian control of the military.
This is a nonsensical and circular argument of the sort one only finds on computer forums. The idea that you cannot be a President without a military background implicitly calls into question the concept of civilian control, even if a President is no longer in the military.
-
This is a nonsensical and circular argument of the sort one only finds on computer forums.
I know. That's YOUR argument and I was pointing out how circular it was.
-
(http://www.global-changes.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/Internet_argument.jpg)
-
Come on - it's fantastic that we have spent this much time agreeing on the what (military service should not be a requirement for President) but not on the why (founding fathers intentions). Only on the internet and I would argue even more so, only on the 9:30 board.
I blame the Japan-Paraguay game. If that game was even the slightest bit exciting I never would have clicked on this thread....
-
I know. That's YOUR argument and I was pointing out how circular it was.
Try speaking slowly to him, as if to a retarded adult.
-
Wow, the first topic i ever made on here...
I dont think it is necessary to have been in the military first to become commander and chief, but it helps.
So does being smart.
And being a great rhetorician.
And being a governor.
Or secretary of state.
-
you know what helps generals succeed? not guzzling bud light limes in front of a journalist
-
bud light lime
I thought that was the street lingo for Afghan opiates?
-
man, i had to fix that post.
opiates would be more respectable