Holy shit. So General McChrystal (head guy in charge in Afghanistan) was just fired by Obama for comments he made in a Rolling Stones article that disparaged the President and his camp's decisions on war.
What do you guys think? I think McChrystal, being top brass, and having been recently in charge of the Pentagon's black ops for 5 years, has to be a pretty calculating guy. I think he did this purposefully as he knew he was facing the prospect of an unwinnable war that he didn't want to be a scapegoat for.
From the article:
Even those who support McChrystal and his strategy of counterinsurgency know that whatever the general manages to accomplish in Afghanistan, it's going to look more like Vietnam than Desert Storm. "It's not going to look like a win, smell like a win or taste like a win," says Maj. Gen. Bill Mayville, who serves as chief of operations for McChrystal. "This is going to end in an argument."
BTW the article linked above is EXTREMELY interesting... good insight into how crazy (and badly) the whole war is going.
I especially liked this bit:
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. During the Iraq surge, his team killed and captured thousands of insurgents, including Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq. "JSOC was a killing machine," says Maj. Gen. Mayville, his chief of operations. McChrystal was also open to new ways of killing. He systematically mapped out terrorist networks, targeting specific insurgents and hunting them down – often with the help of cyberfreaks traditionally shunned by the military. "The Boss would find the 24-year-old kid with a nose ring, with some fucking brilliant degree from MIT, sitting in the corner with 16 computer monitors humming," says a Special Forces commando who worked with McChrystal in Iraq and now serves on his staff in Kabul. "He'd say, 'Hey – you fucking muscleheads couldn't find lunch without help. You got to work together with these guys.' "
That's an interesting point about McChrystal not wanting to be scapegoated. Still, there's a need for decorum between the President and his generals in public. He should have known there would be a backlash for what he was saying. What he should have done is resigned and then spoken out against the President as a retired general. I think everyone agrees that we're definitely not in it to win it down there because we're not unleashing the full power of our military, but McChrystal could have chosen a more opportune time to make the remarks that he did.
On June 24 2010 04:00 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: No debate, it was insubordination no matter how you look at it.
You are not in the military, don't make judgments like this.
It was not insubordination, he's the damn general in charge. He can speak his mind however he damn well pleases.
Wtf is happening here, our generals overseas are having to be PC? Fuck this administration, I'm having to join up for 4 years following this next year and this is what I have to look forwards to?
When your man in charge has to fear being sacked over disagreements then all you get is a parrot in charge. Fuckin bullshit is what it is...
On June 24 2010 04:00 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: No debate, it was insubordination no matter how you look at it.
You are not in the military, don't make judgments like this.
It was not insubordination, he's the damn general in charge. He can speak his mind however he damn well pleases.
Wtf is happening here, our generals overseas are having to be PC? Fuck this administration, I'm having to join up for 4 years following this next year and this is what I have to look forwards to?
When your man in charge has to fear being sacked over disagreements then all you get is a parrot in charge. Fuckin bullshit is what it is...
It was insubordination whether I was in the military or not is not the issue, he not only bad mouthed the POTUS but the sec of defense, the vice president and so on. That and he did it publicly and if led to believe he did it on purpose.
On June 24 2010 04:00 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: No debate, it was insubordination no matter how you look at it.
You are not in the military, don't make judgments like this.
It was not insubordination, he's the damn general in charge. He can speak his mind however he damn well pleases.
Wtf is happening here, our generals overseas are having to be PC? Fuck this administration, I'm having to join up for 4 years following this next year and this is what I have to look forwards to?
When your man in charge has to fear being sacked over disagreements then all you get is a parrot in charge. Fuckin bullshit is what it is...
It was insubordination whether I was in the military or not is not the issue, he not only bad mouthed the POTUS but the sec of defense, the vice president and so on. That and he did it publicly and if led to believe he did it on purpose.
Uh it seems you don't quite know what insubordination is.
Insubordination is not following a lawful order given by your commanding officer. This general followed orders so he didn't commit any insubordination.
So yea you being in the military or not seems to be an issue or you'd understand this. You might have a point if it hinged on the fact that a subordinate should never QUESTION a commanding officer but that's something else altogether.
On June 24 2010 04:08 travis wrote: All positions of great influence are mostly political these days.
Especially the missionary position that I was showin' Ms.Obama last night.
Can I get a HOO RAH
OOH RAH.
On a side note, I talk shit about my commander all the time and it isn't insubordination. It's criticism. People need to get the sand out of their vag and realize this is the fucking MILITARY not some fucking day camp you go to for four years. Fuckin' disgusting
On June 24 2010 04:00 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: No debate, it was insubordination no matter how you look at it.
You are not in the military, don't make judgments like this.
It was not insubordination, he's the damn general in charge. He can speak his mind however he damn well pleases.
Generally the Brass publicly agrees with the President's plans. Their personal opinion is not really suppose to be heard in the public.
The problem with this is that it leads to those in charge being able to put all the blame on their lessers. The only way for there to be any personal responsibility is if those who are taking action are vocal about it. Hence why it is not insubordination, and why it should be encouraged to voice dissent.
... holy shit. i tried reading the comments to see if there were any interesting discussions. lol. bad idea. all there was were a few good comments surrounded by obama shitters.
and from what i understand, wasn't obama right in dismissing him? It's one thing if a soldier or a person of smaller rank voices dissent over the decisions made, but if the man in charge publicly voices his blatant disapproval, than there would be fewer public support, and a whole shitstorm starts raging (not that there isn't one already), and nothing comes good out of that. look at vietnam.
not to mention if obama didn't take action, future generals could take that in the event of any unpopular situation, whether it be a war, or invasion, or whatever, they could openly speak their minds against administration and whatnot and get away with it.
“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.”
On June 24 2010 04:00 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: No debate, it was insubordination no matter how you look at it.
You are not in the military, don't make judgments like this.
It was not insubordination, he's the damn general in charge. He can speak his mind however he damn well pleases.
Generally the Brass publicly agrees with the President's plans. Their personal opinion is not really suppose to be heard in the public.
The problem with this is that it leads to those in charge being able to put all the blame on their lessers. The only way for there to be any personal responsibility is if those who are taking action are vocal about it. Hence why it is not insubordination, and why it should be encouraged to voice dissent.
Right or wrong, the military should keep its opinions private. Trashing the administration sends all the wrong signals to everyone, especially our enemies (like the Taliban). For that reason, McChrystal had to go.
That said, the criticisms levelled by McChrystal and his staff are basically right. The administration is full of idiots who have no idea what they are doing in Afghanistan. I would not be surprised if McCrystal let the Rolling Stone article air "as is" simply because he was fed up with the crap that he was taking from above. Hell, Obama wouldn't even meet with McCrystal during the first ten months of his presidency. What more needs be said?
The General is a "soldier's general" it seems. He really cares about his troops and is known to even go on patrols occasionally.
This is purely speculation, but what I feel happened is that you have an administration that doesn't know how to do much of anything, much less run a war (actually that is fact, not speculation). You also have a general trying to win a war and protect the lives of his troops. The administration is running the war as they see fit and not in the way the general was asking them to (for instance, not giving him the troop numbers that he needs).
He realized it was a lost cause and decided to, in a sense, get the information out there that the current administration is inept. That is the reason he agreed to the interview in the first place. Generals are not stupid people. He knew the reprecussions of doing the interview. I would assume this was all calculated on his part.
If this had happened when Bush was President, the entire media would probably be praising the general.
On June 24 2010 03:55 Cleomenes wrote: Any military serviceman have an opinion on this? I trust your opinion on this more then some news service.
I'm in the army, and we don't have any special insight on this. We get the same news, and are just as smart/stupid as everyone else.
"The fucking lads love Stan McChrystal," says a British officer who serves in Kabul. "You'd be out in Somewhere, Iraq, and someone would take a knee beside you, and a corporal would be like 'Who the fuck is that?' And it's fucking Stan McChrystal."
Its the idea of moments like this that made me believe that military men would have a fresh opinion.
If he really did want to get out of that position to avoid being the scapegoat he could have resigned could he not? Why would he go out like that, must be a slip-up on his part or he just didn't care anymore.
On June 24 2010 04:27 Mystlord wrote: No question. Breaking chain of command, breaking rules of conduct... I agree with the decision.
Yup. We have civilian control over the government. Any grievances should be done in private with the President or whoever you have a problem with.
We do technically have civilian control over the military. That being said, I know members of the military serve and protect us unquestioningly and do their duty for their country.
That being said, if I had a commander in chief balking on what really needs to be done to finish the war and bring as many of my fellow soldiers home safely as possible (which is what all Americans want), I would also question him and wonder if I should be risking my life as well when my hands are being tied by my own government.
McChrystal should have talked to Obama, but guess what, Obama hardly ever made time for the general and did not give the general what he needed to be successful. McChrystal has to go to sleep every night with those soldiers on his mind. You could say the same thing about Obama, but I honestly don't believe he cares.
I agree that McChrystal should be removed for speaking out, but the truth about the war needs to be known one way or the other and I support the general fully. I want those soldiers home safely and to not have their lives given needlessly without support from the government.
On June 24 2010 04:27 Mystlord wrote: No question. Breaking chain of command, breaking rules of conduct... I agree with the decision.
Yeah... if this were just a random, "mouthed-off where reporters could hear" it would be easily forgivable, but giving an interview to Rolling Stone is clearly a premeditated act. You cannot have your active generals playing political games.
He realized it was a lost cause and decided to, in a sense, get the information out there that the current administration is inept. That is the reason he agreed to the interview in the first place. Generals are not stupid people. He knew the reprecussions of doing the interview. I would assume this was all calculated on his part.
How patriotic. <_< He thinks stuff is going poorly, so instead of doing his job, he makes a big mess and accomplishes absolutely nothing in the process.
On June 24 2010 04:50 oBlit wrote: McChrystal should have talked to Obama, but guess what, Obama hardly ever made time for the general and did not give the general what he needed to be successful. McChrystal has to go to sleep every night with those soldiers on his mind. You could say the same thing about Obama, but I honestly don't believe he cares.
Its impossible to take you seriously when you are comfortable saying the president doesn't care about the troops.
US military involvement in the Middle East is pretty hilarious at this point. Completely disregarding the massive amounts of civilian casualties, that is. What a fucking circus.
He realized it was a lost cause and decided to, in a sense, get the information out there that the current administration is inept. That is the reason he agreed to the interview in the first place. Generals are not stupid people. He knew the reprecussions of doing the interview. I would assume this was all calculated on his part.
How patriotic. <_< He thinks stuff is going poorly, so instead of doing his job, he makes a big mess and accomplishes absolutely nothing in the process.
On June 24 2010 04:50 oBlit wrote: McChrystal should have talked to Obama, but guess what, Obama hardly ever made time for the general and did not give the general what he needed to be successful. McChrystal has to go to sleep every night with those soldiers on his mind. You could say the same thing about Obama, but I honestly don't believe he cares.
Its impossible to take you seriously when you are comfortable saying the president doesn't care about the troops.
My opinion is that he doesn't really care. Otherwise he would do whatever he could to help insure the safety of the troops over there (for instance, getting the troop levels to where they need to be and not telling our enemies when we will stop fighting them.
I honestly believe that all Obama cares about is his own image and pushing his agenda. It is all a song and dance for him to move this country where he wants it to be.
I find it so amusing that you ignore the point about not giving the general what he needed and pointed out my personal opinion on how sorry of a person the president is. If it was my decision, the generals running the operations would get whatever they needed to win the war and come home.
I pretty much agree with this. From what I heard on NPR today, this is the latest in a long string of insubordination by McChrystal. He publicly leaked information that should have only been known to the president, such as his opinion on the new soldiers being sent to Iraq, and the exact number he was asking. According to what I heard, that was unprecedented to be so public about what he was asking, it was if he wanted to be fired. IDK how much of that is truth, but if that is true, then I would say this is warranted.
On June 24 2010 03:55 Cleomenes wrote: Any military serviceman have an opinion on this? I trust your opinion on this more then some news service.
The war is unwinnable, Petreus is a sissy, Obama is black and I'm goooinng streeeeeeaaaaakkking!!11!
User was banned for this post.
You think you can silence me? Let's remember which one of us is General Stanley mother fucking McChrystal.
I'm puttin' a mark out on the reporter meathead who thought he had the nerve to translate my brilliance to a bunch of lefty cry-babies who wouldn't know COIN if it stood for Conan O'brien's Irish Nutsack. Rawling Stun? Never heard of it.
I'm comin' for you kid. And I'm a-bringin' hell with me:
On June 24 2010 05:12 motbob wrote: Petraeus won Iraq. Maybe he can win Afghanistan.
I hope so. Iraq has shaped up pretty well in the last few months, and I think the way things have been going in Afghanistan we need some new blood in there. Best of luck to our men and women in uniform, and God Bless.
I'm not convinced the Obama administration knows what they are doing in this war but trading McChrystal for Patraeus is a good deal. Patraeus has way more experience with politicians and being discrete. McChrystal should probably go back to working with Spec Ops or working closer with the troops, it seems to be what he loves.
While i agree with most of what McCrystals said a magazine (especially the Rolling stones??) is not the forum to discuss your thoughts. It was insubordination and there really isn't any debate on that. He grew frustrated with the situation and let off steam in the wrong way. Perhaps a calculated move on his part but he couldn't expect any other outcome.
On June 24 2010 04:59 hifriend wrote: US military involvement in the Middle East is pretty hilarious at this point. Completely disregarding the massive amounts of civilian casualties, that is. What a fucking circus.
Then lets call WW2 hilarious while where at it. I mean there was more civilian casualties in that war then Iraq or Afghanistan. That's also disregarding that the terrorists are using civilians as shields.
This is pure drama at it's finest. Something that doesn't need to happen, and I would bet both sides suck because of it. Soldiers are left in the wind, and as such this could/will bring down morale. It sucks, when the top start showing drama. Nasty situation that really could of been avoided.
WW2 was a world war, with two massive sides facing off. (And Germany's invasion of Russia + Japan's invasion of China drove the civilian casualties through the roof.) Not remotely comparable to Iraq/Afghanistan.
On June 24 2010 05:12 motbob wrote: Petraeus won Iraq. Maybe he can win Afghanistan.
lol, define "win".
Casualties:
Year US UK Other Total 2003 486 53 41 580 2004 849 22 35 906 2005 846 23 28 897 2006 822 29 21 872 2007 904 47 10 961 2008 314 4 4 322 2009 149 1 0 150 2010 38 0 0 38
That's such a ridiculous drop in casualties. Stability is on the rise over there. We won the war.
u call it "war"? i call it genocide of the middle eastern population
Its not like stuff was exactly peachy before we got there. The entire Middle East situation has always been a mess that needed to be fixed. Just because we're sorting it out now rather than later doesn't mean that its any worse.
On June 24 2010 05:12 motbob wrote: Petraeus won Iraq. Maybe he can win Afghanistan.
lol, define "win".
Casualties:
Year US UK Other Total 2003 486 53 41 580 2004 849 22 35 906 2005 846 23 28 897 2006 822 29 21 872 2007 904 47 10 961 2008 314 4 4 322 2009 149 1 0 150 2010 38 0 0 38
That's such a ridiculous drop in casualties. Stability is on the rise over there. We won the war.
The war against the Iraq military was won before 2005. The rest doesn't have anything to do with winning. You don't win a fight against a population you are trying to control after having invaded their country. There is still corruption, chaos, instability in Iraq (see here).
On June 24 2010 05:12 motbob wrote: Petraeus won Iraq. Maybe he can win Afghanistan.
lol, define "win".
Casualties:
Year US UK Other Total 2003 486 53 41 580 2004 849 22 35 906 2005 846 23 28 897 2006 822 29 21 872 2007 904 47 10 961 2008 314 4 4 322 2009 149 1 0 150 2010 38 0 0 38
That's such a ridiculous drop in casualties. Stability is on the rise over there. We won the war.
u call it "war"? i call it genocide of the middle eastern population
Its not like stuff was exactly peachy before we got there. The entire Middle East situation has always been a mess that needed to be fixed. Just because we're sorting it out now rather than later doesn't mean that its any worse.
Who assigned you arbiter of who gets to live and die, and what government a nation gets? Or right, I guess insubordination to the United States is a crime?
On June 24 2010 05:12 motbob wrote: Petraeus won Iraq. Maybe he can win Afghanistan.
lol, define "win".
Casualties:
Year US UK Other Total 2003 486 53 41 580 2004 849 22 35 906 2005 846 23 28 897 2006 822 29 21 872 2007 904 47 10 961 2008 314 4 4 322 2009 149 1 0 150 2010 38 0 0 38
That's such a ridiculous drop in casualties. Stability is on the rise over there. We won the war.
So we "won" a war that should have never been started. Thousands of our souldiers have dies, tens of thousands, if not more, innocent iraqis have been murdered, and put this country in a horrible fiscal hole.
All for what? Throwing out a regime who had NOTHING to do with 9/11? Capturing wmds that did not exist?
Yeah, we sure have won this war. It was all totally worth it.
Military men have no business questioning whats being asked of them. There job is to simply get whats being asked of them done, as best they can. If the President ask for your opinion as a general you give it to him, but if he ask you to do something. Even If you think its a bad idea. You shut up and try to get it done.
On June 24 2010 05:12 motbob wrote: Petraeus won Iraq. Maybe he can win Afghanistan.
lol, define "win".
Casualties:
Year US UK Other Total 2003 486 53 41 580 2004 849 22 35 906 2005 846 23 28 897 2006 822 29 21 872 2007 904 47 10 961 2008 314 4 4 322 2009 149 1 0 150 2010 38 0 0 38
That's such a ridiculous drop in casualties. Stability is on the rise over there. We won the war.
u call it "war"? i call it genocide of the middle eastern population
Its not like stuff was exactly peachy before we got there. The entire Middle East situation has always been a mess that needed to be fixed. Just because we're sorting it out now rather than later doesn't mean that its any worse.
LOL so killing even more people and staining Americas hands with even MORE blood fixed the situation?
On June 24 2010 05:50 InToTheWannaB wrote: Military men have no business questioning whats being asked of them. There job is to simply get whats being asked of them done, as best they can. If the President ask for your opinion as a general you give it to him, but if he ask you to do something. Even If you think its a bad idea. You shut up and try to get it done.
Thats right. Shut up and obey orders you little serf! Sorta sounds like our entire government.
On June 24 2010 05:12 motbob wrote: Petraeus won Iraq. Maybe he can win Afghanistan.
lol, define "win".
Casualties:
Year US UK Other Total 2003 486 53 41 580 2004 849 22 35 906 2005 846 23 28 897 2006 822 29 21 872 2007 904 47 10 961 2008 314 4 4 322 2009 149 1 0 150 2010 38 0 0 38
That's such a ridiculous drop in casualties. Stability is on the rise over there. We won the war.
u call it "war"? i call it genocide of the middle eastern population
I agree.
Me too... Except who's committing the genocide? American troops, or umm, the terrorists specifically targeting civilians by blowing themselves up in crowded markets? Durka durka durka.
It would be one thing if he'd been overheard saying those things, say, at a party to one of his friends or colleagues. Obama probably still would have been pissed but there just would have been a private notice of displeasure.
But he said it, on the record, to a journalist.
When a serving military commander badmouths his commander-in-chief and govt on the record, to the press, without prompting, then there's really no choice except to fire him. It's Douglas MacArthur all over again.
Something to remember is that Obama likely did not WANT to fire McChrystal. He's a politician and he reads history. He knows exactly how popular firing MacArthur made Truman and I think he can accurately predict that a lot of people will not look kindly on this sacking. Even for people who support the decision, it does not paint a picture of a mission going well. It is in fact more bad news for him, and if he could have buried the whole matter and handled it internally he would have, as it would have been in his best interests politically.
I'm not sure I buy the idea that McChrystal got fired deliberately. I honestly have more respect for him as a person than to believe he'd do that, which would amount to basically abandoning his guys in a dishonorable way. Not to mention that his career may now be over. I think it's more likely that he just forgot himself and had hubris take over.
On June 24 2010 05:12 motbob wrote: Petraeus won Iraq. Maybe he can win Afghanistan.
lol, define "win".
Casualties:
Year US UK Other Total 2003 486 53 41 580 2004 849 22 35 906 2005 846 23 28 897 2006 822 29 21 872 2007 904 47 10 961 2008 314 4 4 322 2009 149 1 0 150 2010 38 0 0 38
That's such a ridiculous drop in casualties. Stability is on the rise over there. We won the war.
So we "won" a war that should have never been started. Thousands of our souldiers have dies, tens of thousands, if not more, innocent iraqis have been murdered, and put this country in a horrible fiscal hole.
All for what? Throwing out a regime who had NOTHING to do with 9/11? Capturing wmds that did not exist?
Yeah, we sure have won this war. It was all totally worth it.
That's right. When you lose an argument, don't concede the point. Pivot to another point. That's how we do it on the internet.
On June 24 2010 05:12 motbob wrote: Petraeus won Iraq. Maybe he can win Afghanistan.
lol, define "win".
Casualties:
Year US UK Other Total 2003 486 53 41 580 2004 849 22 35 906 2005 846 23 28 897 2006 822 29 21 872 2007 904 47 10 961 2008 314 4 4 322 2009 149 1 0 150 2010 38 0 0 38
That's such a ridiculous drop in casualties. Stability is on the rise over there. We won the war.
u call it "war"? i call it genocide of the middle eastern population
I agree.
Me too... Except who's committing the genocide? American troops, or umm, the terrorists specifically targeting civilians by blowing themselves up in crowded markets? Durka durka durka.
On June 24 2010 05:44 GuerrillaRepublik wrote: u call it "war"? i call it genocide of the middle eastern population
I agree.
Calling a war a genocide diminishes the weight of the word and repulsiveness of the concept. If every war is a 'genocide' then how do you distinguish a real genocide from a war? If you want to avoid genocides, diminishing the word to meaninglessness isn't productive.
It was obvious he had to be fired. Are you really going to keep a GENERAL that openly states the war is futile? Obviously you need someone who has the mentality to get the job done. Whether or not gen McChrystal was right is besides the point and as people say this was most likely done with the intention of getting sacked. Sure he could do the same thing within closed doors but then the reason wouldn't be made public. I choose to believe that McChrystal did this to pose a strong anti afghanistan war statement rather than trying to escape being the scapegoat for that war.
I don't see how you could argue that anyone did anything morally wrong here. Sure McChrystal's statement might have been highly unprofessional but from a moral standpoint it was the right thing to do if you want to contribute to ending the war.
I personally think this war needs to go on for atleast as long as it takes to pressure the Pakistani government into destroying the taliban within Pakistan. To do this you NEED control over the Afghani border otherwise the taliban will just go back to Afghanistan.
Terrorism was started by all the wars in the middle east that made some people over there get a deep hatred for westerners (primarily americans). To end terrorism you need to root out tthe terrorist military organisations and destroy them aswell as reach out to the people. People down there have been living in war zones for a long time and need to be reassured that we are the good guys. But neither of that can be acomplished unless the Taliban are forcefully disarmed. No ammount of diplomacy will change the minds of those few sorry ass brain washed wrecks. Their organisation needs to fall and to speak about diplomacy with these people is in my opinion naive.
On June 24 2010 05:44 GuerrillaRepublik wrote: u call it "war"? i call it genocide of the middle eastern population
I agree.
Calling a war a genocide diminishes the weight of the word and repulsiveness of the concept. If every war is a 'genocide' then how do you distinguish a real genocide from a war? If you want to avoid genocides, diminishing the word to meaninglessness isn't productive.
What else do you call the murder of tens of thousands of innocent people.?
On June 24 2010 03:30 snotboogie wrote:General McChrystal (head guy in charge in Afghanistan) was just fired by Obama for comments he made in a Rolling Stones article that disparaged the President and his camp's decisions on war.
Actually I believe General McChrystal resigned from his post as commander of forces in Afghanistan, and was not fired by Obama. Please fact check yourself before posting.
On June 24 2010 03:30 snotboogie wrote:General McChrystal (head guy in charge in Afghanistan) was just fired by Obama for comments he made in a Rolling Stones article that disparaged the President and his camp's decisions on war.
Actually I believe General McChrystal resigned from his post as commander of forces in Afghanistan, and was not fired by Obama. Please fact check yourself before posting.
On June 24 2010 03:30 snotboogie wrote:General McChrystal (head guy in charge in Afghanistan) was just fired by Obama for comments he made in a Rolling Stones article that disparaged the President and his camp's decisions on war.
Actually I believe General McChrystal resigned from his post as commander of forces in Afghanistan, and was not fired by Obama. Please fact check yourself before posting.
Politically, the two are unrecognizable.
Maybe that is so. But in terms of how people view the news, resignation is a bit more dignified than getting sacked. But if the OP wishes to sensationalize his post, he should at least get the terminology correct.
On June 24 2010 03:30 snotboogie wrote:General McChrystal (head guy in charge in Afghanistan) was just fired by Obama for comments he made in a Rolling Stones article that disparaged the President and his camp's decisions on war.
Actually I believe General McChrystal resigned from his post as commander of forces in Afghanistan, and was not fired by Obama. Please fact check yourself before posting.
Politically, the two are unrecognizable.
Maybe that is so. But in terms of how people view the news, resignation is a bit more dignified than getting sacked. But if the OP wishes to sensationalize his post, he should at least get the terminology correct.
On June 24 2010 05:44 GuerrillaRepublik wrote: u call it "war"? i call it genocide of the middle eastern population
I agree.
Calling a war a genocide diminishes the weight of the word and repulsiveness of the concept. If every war is a 'genocide' then how do you distinguish a real genocide from a war? If you want to avoid genocides, diminishing the word to meaninglessness isn't productive.
What else do you call the murder of tens of thousands of innocent people.?
Slaughter? Genocide implies a malicious intent against a group. By definition, it's "the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group." That hasn't happened in Iraq. Most of the killing has been random, and generally the Sunni suicide bombings against Shi'a population centers have been out of desperation. You wouldn't call IRA bombings genocide.
On June 24 2010 05:44 GuerrillaRepublik wrote: u call it "war"? i call it genocide of the middle eastern population
I agree.
Calling a war a genocide diminishes the weight of the word and repulsiveness of the concept. If every war is a 'genocide' then how do you distinguish a real genocide from a war? If you want to avoid genocides, diminishing the word to meaninglessness isn't productive.
I didnt call war a genocide, because i know and believe it isnt a war but a genocide of middle eastern population. War? can you exaplain to me how its a war? because of this "War on terror" ?We "invaded" iraq because we the great nation that has the right to have 750+ military bases around the globe and act like a world dictator thought that Suddam had the WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. But did we find it? no. Suddam was shown as a evil facist dictator that mass murdered there own civilians with chemical weapons but who gave them the chemical weapons? We did, to help them go to war with Iran. We invaded Iraq and just we calling it a war.
On June 24 2010 05:44 GuerrillaRepublik wrote: u call it "war"? i call it genocide of the middle eastern population
I agree.
Calling a war a genocide diminishes the weight of the word and repulsiveness of the concept. If every war is a 'genocide' then how do you distinguish a real genocide from a war? If you want to avoid genocides, diminishing the word to meaninglessness isn't productive.
What else do you call the murder of tens of thousands of innocent people.?
See there. It's more complex than yes/no genocide, because it depends too much on different definitions of the term, which means, in my opinion, it becomes useless to discuss it in that way unless you want to argue about it in a legal context.
I still object to calling lower casualties in Iraq "winning", because that ignores the face the population is hardly any better off than before the invasion. Eventually, of course, violence and internal strife will die down to pre-occupation levels, and there doesn't seem to be any prospect of continuation of the massive violence and attacks on the scale of a few years back, although there still are a lot of suicide bombings, but that is to be expected, and not necessarily caused by any US-military intervention (I'd be interested in sources for that).
(not to mention the Iraq government is basically a puppet government set up for oil interests and keeping civil unrest at a minimum. )
I think McChrystal made those comments knowing full well what would happen.
He must know that the war, with our current administration's priorities and rules of engagement, is unwinnable. So he probably made his decision knowing that one of two things would happen:
1) He gets fired, and is no longer in charge of a bloody, long, downhill war which he might take the blame for. In addition, he has stood up for soldiers and stated his honest opinion. 2) His complaints are listened to and he somehow manages to get more policy-changing power out of it, which he can wield to improve the course of the war as he sees fit.
Either way he wins. One thing I know for certain is that the General is NOT A STUPID MAN. He made these comments for a reason. I think this is a very, very bad sign for the state of the war in Afghanistan- when the man in charge is trying to get himself fired, you know the war is going poorly.
On June 24 2010 06:14 StarBrift wrote:Terrorism was started by all the wars in the middle east that made some people over there get a deep hatred for westerners (primarily americans). To end terrorism you need to root out tthe terrorist military organisations and destroy them aswell as reach out to the people. People down there have been living in war zones for a long time and need to be reassured that we are the good guys. But neither of that can be acomplished unless the Taliban are forcefully disarmed. No ammount of diplomacy will change the minds of those few sorry ass brain washed wrecks. Their organisation needs to fall and to speak about diplomacy with these people is in my opinion naive.
Care to elaborate on the notion that the western world (well US in particular, but also france, UK and other parties) are the good guys in this scenario. I mean historically, you can't honestly think that western imperialism has had a stabilizing effect on the middle east? Ever since the rise of the petroleum industry western society and soviet union have only had one interest in this otherwise insignificant area of land. Not to mention the establishment of Israel.
Read up on the Sykes–Picot Agreement and puzzle together what's went down since then and you'll have no trouble understanding the desperation and hatred resulting in *gasp* terrorism.
As already said, the General resigned with his own free will. Obama accepted his resignation, no "firing" went on. What did you want Obama to do? Tell the General no he can't quit?
The issue that caused the resignation is valid as well. Under US Military regulations what he did was grounds for punishment. (Also sourced on page 2 of this thread) + Show Spoiler +
“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.”
I personally approve the president's decision to deny McChrystal's resignation and fire him. Not only did he not take prudent actions for the already disorganized military in Afghanistan, but he's also trying to escape his failed job instead of making it better. I totally understand how he desperately wants to get out of his situation but come on, he's in a significant position and it requires determination, consistency, and other motives most people don't have. He's a general for god's sake. It's uncommon for a general to quit; it's usually the younger soldiers who do that. Just deal with it or go home empty-handed.
But the most interesting action by Obama to me was that he didn't give a damn about how the press will see this, as he said that McChrystal "made a poor judgement" and fires him after his 1on1 talk together. That's what I want to see in a leader. Not a happy go lucky president who cares how the press will see him and acts accordingly to it, but someone who can put all that aside and have his own firm, reasonable decisions.
On June 24 2010 03:55 Cleomenes wrote: Any military serviceman have an opinion on this? I trust your opinion on this more then some news service.
I'm in the army, and we don't have any special insight on this. We get the same news, and are just as smart/stupid as everyone else.
"The fucking lads love Stan McChrystal," says a British officer who serves in Kabul. "You'd be out in Somewhere, Iraq, and someone would take a knee beside you, and a corporal would be like 'Who the fuck is that?' And it's fucking Stan McChrystal."
Its the idea of moments like this that made me believe that military men would have a fresh opinion.
Ah, I see what you mean. I'm sure a lot of people have their opinion of what Gen. McChrystal is like personally (e.g. the quote you gave, or this other quote from the same article: "Bottom line?" says a former Special Forces operator who has spent years in Iraq and Afghanistan. "I would love to kick McChrystal in the nuts. His rules of engagement put soldiers' lives in even greater danger. Every real soldier will tell you the same thing."), or how good of a job he's doing running things. To me, though, this seems like a simple action/reaction. General X said blah blah, President Y had to fire him. It seems cut and dry. You just don't do that while in uniform.
I doubt McChrystal wanted to be fired. The remarks seemed to have been made off-the-record and the general or his aides probably weren't expecting them to be high-profile.
On June 24 2010 07:03 Mothxal wrote: I doubt McChrystal wanted to be fired. The remarks seemed to have been made off-the-record and the general or his aides probably weren't expecting them to be high-profile.
As long as he didn't tell the reporter that his comments were off the record, the guy can print anything the General says. I find it hard to believe that he didn't know this considering he probably deals with media every day.
Having said that I don't blame Obama for firing him, but I also don't blame the General. When Bush's generals were coming out and criticizing him and Rumsfeld most of us weren't complaining. From a military standpoint this was bad but from a political one transparency and criticism of the government is good.
On June 24 2010 07:03 Mothxal wrote: I doubt McChrystal wanted to be fired. The remarks seemed to have been made off-the-record and the general or his aides probably weren't expecting them to be high-profile.
As long as he didn't tell the reporter that his comments were off the record, the guy can print anything the General says. I find it hard to believe that he didn't know this considering he probably deals with media every day.
Having said that I don't blame Obama for firing him, but I also don't blame the General. When Bush's generals were coming out and criticizing him and Rumsfeld most of us weren't complaining. From a military standpoint this was bad but from a political one transparency and criticism of the government is good.
I was thinking of this quote in Politico. Maybe people in the Pentagon always assume the media won't be problematic.
On June 24 2010 05:44 Severedevil wrote: WW2 was a world war, with two massive sides facing off. (And Germany's invasion of Russia + Japan's invasion of China drove the civilian casualties through the roof.) Not remotely comparable to Iraq/Afghanistan.
Actuality yeah it is.
What was the qoute?
US military involvement in the Middle East is pretty hilarious at this point. Completely disregarding the massive amounts of civilian casualties, that is. What a fucking circus.'
What's the main point?
disregarding the massive amounts of civilian casualties
So in that aspect, yes they are comparable. Point is if your just going after civilian causalities then lamblast other wars ALSO. That's not to say my point was that, other wars had more civilian casualties that resulted because they WENT after the civilian population.
I must say I agree with the leftist turd above in believing the U.S. should withdraw from Afghanistan and Iraq, but for entirely different reasons. "Genocide." Raphael Lemkin, supporter of Allied bombings of Germany and German-occupied Europe, would be sickened and stunned to see his life's work used in this way.
On June 24 2010 05:44 Severedevil wrote: WW2 was a world war, with two massive sides facing off. (And Germany's invasion of Russia + Japan's invasion of China drove the civilian casualties through the roof.) Not remotely comparable to Iraq/Afghanistan.
Actuality yeah it is.
What was the qoute?
US military involvement in the Middle East is pretty hilarious at this point. Completely disregarding the massive amounts of civilian casualties, that is. What a fucking circus.'
What's the main point?
disregarding the massive amounts of civilian casualties
So in that aspect, yes they are comparable. Point is if your just going after civilian causalities then lamblast other wars ALSO. That's not to say my point was that, other wars had more civilian casualties that resulted because they WENT after the civilian population.
What I meant is, US involvment in the middle east and everything that surrounds it is so ridiculous it almost gets humorous at this point. But of course there's nothing humorous about it seeing as tens of thousands of innocents have lost their lives in the process, and peace and stability have been severely damaged in the region.
Comparing WW2 with the iraq or afghanistan invasion is simply ridiculous because it's quite debatable whether there was even sufficient justification to invade Iraq in the first place. Actually it's not even debatable seeing as high ranked pentagon officials have alleged that the war was in fact a violation of international law, there was almost no support in the UN etc.
On June 24 2010 06:14 StarBrift wrote:Terrorism was started by all the wars in the middle east that made some people over there get a deep hatred for westerners (primarily americans). To end terrorism you need to root out tthe terrorist military organisations and destroy them aswell as reach out to the people. People down there have been living in war zones for a long time and need to be reassured that we are the good guys. But neither of that can be acomplished unless the Taliban are forcefully disarmed. No ammount of diplomacy will change the minds of those few sorry ass brain washed wrecks. Their organisation needs to fall and to speak about diplomacy with these people is in my opinion naive.
Care to elaborate on the notion that the western world (well US in particular, but also france, UK and other parties) are the good guys in this scenario. I mean historically, you can't honestly think that western imperialism has had a stabilizing effect on the middle east? Ever since the rise of the petroleum industry western society and soviet union have only had one interest in this otherwise insignificant area of land. Not to mention the establishment of Israel.
Read up on the Sykes–Picot Agreement and puzzle together what's went down since then and you'll have no trouble understanding the desperation and hatred resulting in *gasp* terrorism.
Yes. The people who turn soccer fields into execution areas, stop little girls from going to school, grow and traffic heroine, and kill women who go outside without a veil and a male escort... They're definitely the good guys.
On June 24 2010 06:14 StarBrift wrote:Terrorism was started by all the wars in the middle east that made some people over there get a deep hatred for westerners (primarily americans). To end terrorism you need to root out tthe terrorist military organisations and destroy them aswell as reach out to the people. People down there have been living in war zones for a long time and need to be reassured that we are the good guys. But neither of that can be acomplished unless the Taliban are forcefully disarmed. No ammount of diplomacy will change the minds of those few sorry ass brain washed wrecks. Their organisation needs to fall and to speak about diplomacy with these people is in my opinion naive.
Care to elaborate on the notion that the western world (well US in particular, but also france, UK and other parties) are the good guys in this scenario. I mean historically, you can't honestly think that western imperialism has had a stabilizing effect on the middle east? Ever since the rise of the petroleum industry western society and soviet union have only had one interest in this otherwise insignificant area of land. Not to mention the establishment of Israel.
Read up on the Sykes–Picot Agreement and puzzle together what's went down since then and you'll have no trouble understanding the desperation and hatred resulting in *gasp* terrorism.
Yes. The people who turn soccer fields into execution areas, stop little girls from going to school, grow and traffic heroine, and kill women who go outside without a veil and a male escort... They're definitely the good guys.
See this is the problem with you americans. There has to be good and there has to be evil. No gray-scale what so ever and not even the faintest attempt at understanding the underlying historical causes for the current situation. And what you're describing isn't iraq by the way.
On June 24 2010 06:48 brain_ wrote: I think McChrystal made those comments knowing full well what would happen.
He must know that the war, with our current administration's priorities and rules of engagement, is unwinnable. So he probably made his decision knowing that one of two things would happen:
1) He gets fired, and is no longer in charge of a bloody, long, downhill war which he might take the blame for. In addition, he has stood up for soldiers and stated his honest opinion. 2) His complaints are listened to and he somehow manages to get more policy-changing power out of it, which he can wield to improve the course of the war as he sees fit.
Either way he wins. One thing I know for certain is that the General is NOT A STUPID MAN. He made these comments for a reason. I think this is a very, very bad sign for the state of the war in Afghanistan- when the man in charge is trying to get himself fired, you know the war is going poorly.
bla bla all that stick up for his soldiers bullshit I think it is far more likely he is politically opposed to Obama and wanted to make the president look like an idiot.
On June 24 2010 06:14 StarBrift wrote:Terrorism was started by all the wars in the middle east that made some people over there get a deep hatred for westerners (primarily americans). To end terrorism you need to root out tthe terrorist military organisations and destroy them aswell as reach out to the people. People down there have been living in war zones for a long time and need to be reassured that we are the good guys. But neither of that can be acomplished unless the Taliban are forcefully disarmed. No ammount of diplomacy will change the minds of those few sorry ass brain washed wrecks. Their organisation needs to fall and to speak about diplomacy with these people is in my opinion naive.
Care to elaborate on the notion that the western world (well US in particular, but also france, UK and other parties) are the good guys in this scenario. I mean historically, you can't honestly think that western imperialism has had a stabilizing effect on the middle east? Ever since the rise of the petroleum industry western society and soviet union have only had one interest in this otherwise insignificant area of land. Not to mention the establishment of Israel.
Read up on the Sykes–Picot Agreement and puzzle together what's went down since then and you'll have no trouble understanding the desperation and hatred resulting in *gasp* terrorism.
Yes. The people who turn soccer fields into execution areas, stop little girls from going to school, grow and traffic heroine, and kill women who go outside without a veil and a male escort... They're definitely the good guys.
See this is the problem with you americans. There has to be good and there has to be evil. No gray-scale what so ever and not even the faintest attempt at understanding the underlying historical causes for the current situation. And what you're describing isn't iraq by the way.
Not to mention the denial of our crimes, assumption we can intervene wherever we want, expansive view of "American Interests", nationalism, that sort of thing.
Hey, if one of these "the Taliban mistreated the people" people advocates invading Saudi Arabia because they execute people for hugging and women can't even drive I'll give them some respect. At least they'd be consistent .
On June 24 2010 04:00 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: No debate, it was insubordination no matter how you look at it.
You are not in the military, don't make judgments like this.
It was not insubordination, he's the damn general in charge. He can speak his mind however he damn well pleases.
Wtf is happening here, our generals overseas are having to be PC? Fuck this administration, I'm having to join up for 4 years following this next year and this is what I have to look forwards to?
When your man in charge has to fear being sacked over disagreements then all you get is a parrot in charge. Fuckin bullshit is what it is...
It was insubordination whether I was in the military or not is not the issue, he not only bad mouthed the POTUS but the sec of defense, the vice president and so on. That and he did it publicly and if led to believe he did it on purpose.
Uh it seems you don't quite know what insubordination is.
Insubordination is not following a lawful order given by your commanding officer. This general followed orders so he didn't commit any insubordination.
So yea you being in the military or not seems to be an issue or you'd understand this. You might have a point if it hinged on the fact that a subordinate should never QUESTION a commanding officer but that's something else altogether.
that is right, but just because hes using the wrong term doesnt mean his point is wrong.
On June 24 2010 06:14 StarBrift wrote:Terrorism was started by all the wars in the middle east that made some people over there get a deep hatred for westerners (primarily americans). To end terrorism you need to root out tthe terrorist military organisations and destroy them aswell as reach out to the people. People down there have been living in war zones for a long time and need to be reassured that we are the good guys. But neither of that can be acomplished unless the Taliban are forcefully disarmed. No ammount of diplomacy will change the minds of those few sorry ass brain washed wrecks. Their organisation needs to fall and to speak about diplomacy with these people is in my opinion naive.
Care to elaborate on the notion that the western world (well US in particular, but also france, UK and other parties) are the good guys in this scenario. I mean historically, you can't honestly think that western imperialism has had a stabilizing effect on the middle east? Ever since the rise of the petroleum industry western society and soviet union have only had one interest in this otherwise insignificant area of land. Not to mention the establishment of Israel.
Read up on the Sykes–Picot Agreement and puzzle together what's went down since then and you'll have no trouble understanding the desperation and hatred resulting in *gasp* terrorism.
Yes. The people who turn soccer fields into execution areas, stop little girls from going to school, grow and traffic heroine, and kill women who go outside without a veil and a male escort... They're definitely the good guys.
See this is the problem with you americans. There has to be good and there has to be evil. No gray-scale what so ever and not even the faintest attempt at understanding the underlying historical causes for the current situation. And what you're describing isn't iraq by the way.
The problem with that thinking is that leaves every man to determine his own morality, and frankly, i would love to go steal some stuff, and what is your right to infringe upon my right to do that? It's not evil in my book, is it evil in yours? Of course, the counter to this thinking is that this is the state of nature in lockian thinking, and then men form goverments to secure rights because every man byhimself cannot determine that. But then that asks, why cant we invade and take all of their oil? our god says we can =P
Anyway, we are getting way off topic. What do you think of the decision to put in petraus? That either will win him the presidency (every succesful miltary leader in american history, world history lol, has been elected) or it will screw him. what a silly name, petraus
On June 24 2010 04:00 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: No debate, it was insubordination no matter how you look at it.
You are not in the military, don't make judgments like this.
It was not insubordination, he's the damn general in charge. He can speak his mind however he damn well pleases.
Wtf is happening here, our generals overseas are having to be PC? Fuck this administration, I'm having to join up for 4 years following this next year and this is what I have to look forwards to?
When your man in charge has to fear being sacked over disagreements then all you get is a parrot in charge. Fuckin bullshit is what it is...
I thought the Commander in Chief outranked generals. :S
On June 24 2010 06:14 StarBrift wrote:Terrorism was started by all the wars in the middle east that made some people over there get a deep hatred for westerners (primarily americans). To end terrorism you need to root out tthe terrorist military organisations and destroy them aswell as reach out to the people. People down there have been living in war zones for a long time and need to be reassured that we are the good guys. But neither of that can be acomplished unless the Taliban are forcefully disarmed. No ammount of diplomacy will change the minds of those few sorry ass brain washed wrecks. Their organisation needs to fall and to speak about diplomacy with these people is in my opinion naive.
Care to elaborate on the notion that the western world (well US in particular, but also france, UK and other parties) are the good guys in this scenario. I mean historically, you can't honestly think that western imperialism has had a stabilizing effect on the middle east? Ever since the rise of the petroleum industry western society and soviet union have only had one interest in this otherwise insignificant area of land. Not to mention the establishment of Israel.
Read up on the Sykes–Picot Agreement and puzzle together what's went down since then and you'll have no trouble understanding the desperation and hatred resulting in *gasp* terrorism.
Yes. The people who turn soccer fields into execution areas, stop little girls from going to school, grow and traffic heroine, and kill women who go outside without a veil and a male escort... They're definitely the good guys.
See this is the problem with you americans. There has to be good and there has to be evil. No gray-scale what so ever and not even the faintest attempt at understanding the underlying historical causes for the current situation. And what you're describing isn't iraq by the way.
Yes, this is the problem with all Americans. All of them. Thankfully, we always have other nationalities to remind us of what none of us are capable of: history and considering that there's a greyscale!
On June 24 2010 04:00 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: No debate, it was insubordination no matter how you look at it.
You are not in the military, don't make judgments like this.
It was not insubordination, he's the damn general in charge. He can speak his mind however he damn well pleases.
Wtf is happening here, our generals overseas are having to be PC? Fuck this administration, I'm having to join up for 4 years following this next year and this is what I have to look forwards to?
When your man in charge has to fear being sacked over disagreements then all you get is a parrot in charge. Fuckin bullshit is what it is...
I thought the Commander in Chief outranked generals. :S
Yup. And he does have a right to voice his opinions, but to refer to Biden as "Bite Me" and the national security advisor as a clown is unacceptable. It's out-of-line.
On June 24 2010 06:14 StarBrift wrote:Terrorism was started by all the wars in the middle east that made some people over there get a deep hatred for westerners (primarily americans). To end terrorism you need to root out tthe terrorist military organisations and destroy them aswell as reach out to the people. People down there have been living in war zones for a long time and need to be reassured that we are the good guys. But neither of that can be acomplished unless the Taliban are forcefully disarmed. No ammount of diplomacy will change the minds of those few sorry ass brain washed wrecks. Their organisation needs to fall and to speak about diplomacy with these people is in my opinion naive.
Care to elaborate on the notion that the western world (well US in particular, but also france, UK and other parties) are the good guys in this scenario. I mean historically, you can't honestly think that western imperialism has had a stabilizing effect on the middle east? Ever since the rise of the petroleum industry western society and soviet union have only had one interest in this otherwise insignificant area of land. Not to mention the establishment of Israel.
Read up on the Sykes–Picot Agreement and puzzle together what's went down since then and you'll have no trouble understanding the desperation and hatred resulting in *gasp* terrorism.
Yes. The people who turn soccer fields into execution areas, stop little girls from going to school, grow and traffic heroine, and kill women who go outside without a veil and a male escort... They're definitely the good guys.
See this is the problem with you americans. There has to be good and there has to be evil. No gray-scale what so ever and not even the faintest attempt at understanding the underlying historical causes for the current situation. And what you're describing isn't iraq by the way.
Yes, thats the problem with (real) Americans. We believe in good and evil. All the things I mentioned are undeniably evil, regardless of the causes. Saying that oppression, cruelty, and genocide aren't evil because historical causes led to them... Is that like saying that the means justify the end?
I don't even know what kind of fucked up logic you are trying to put forth here, other than "ZOMG AMERIKKANS ARE DUMB AND INSENSITIVE". You'll look like an idiot if you honestly try to tell me that the Taliban is better.
On June 24 2010 05:12 motbob wrote: Petraeus won Iraq. Maybe he can win Afghanistan.
lol, define "win".
Casualties:
Year US UK Other Total 2003 486 53 41 580 2004 849 22 35 906 2005 846 23 28 897 2006 822 29 21 872 2007 904 47 10 961 2008 314 4 4 322 2009 149 1 0 150 2010 38 0 0 38
That's such a ridiculous drop in casualties. Stability is on the rise over there. We won the war.
u call it "war"? i call it genocide of the middle eastern population
I agree.
Nobody on this site seems to know what genocide means. It's only genocide if it's a systemic policy based upon religious, ethnic, national or political grounds. This is not.
On June 24 2010 06:14 StarBrift wrote:Terrorism was started by all the wars in the middle east that made some people over there get a deep hatred for westerners (primarily americans). To end terrorism you need to root out tthe terrorist military organisations and destroy them aswell as reach out to the people. People down there have been living in war zones for a long time and need to be reassured that we are the good guys. But neither of that can be acomplished unless the Taliban are forcefully disarmed. No ammount of diplomacy will change the minds of those few sorry ass brain washed wrecks. Their organisation needs to fall and to speak about diplomacy with these people is in my opinion naive.
Care to elaborate on the notion that the western world (well US in particular, but also france, UK and other parties) are the good guys in this scenario. I mean historically, you can't honestly think that western imperialism has had a stabilizing effect on the middle east? Ever since the rise of the petroleum industry western society and soviet union have only had one interest in this otherwise insignificant area of land. Not to mention the establishment of Israel.
Read up on the Sykes–Picot Agreement and puzzle together what's went down since then and you'll have no trouble understanding the desperation and hatred resulting in *gasp* terrorism.
Yes. The people who turn soccer fields into execution areas, stop little girls from going to school, grow and traffic heroine, and kill women who go outside without a veil and a male escort... They're definitely the good guys.
See this is the problem with you americans. There has to be good and there has to be evil. No gray-scale what so ever and not even the faintest attempt at understanding the underlying historical causes for the current situation. And what you're describing isn't iraq by the way.
Yes, this is the problem with all Americans. All of them. Thankfully, we always have other nationalities to remind us of what none of us are capable of: history and considering that there's a greyscale!
I personally feel the war effort is in even better hands in Petraeus. A fortunate turn of events.
You're right of course in that this doesn't apply to all americans, possibly not even to majority but regardless, shit gets scary when that line of thought is prevalent is the freaking government and foreign policies. To be fair I don't have much to contribute on the actual topic so I'm not going to write here again.
Yup. And he does have a right to voice his opinions, but to refer to Biden as "Bite Me" and the national security advisor as a clown is unacceptable. It's out-of-line.
For the record, McChrystal never called the Vice President "Bite Me".
On June 24 2010 05:44 Severedevil wrote: WW2 was a world war, with two massive sides facing off. (And Germany's invasion of Russia + Japan's invasion of China drove the civilian casualties through the roof.) Not remotely comparable to Iraq/Afghanistan.
Actuality yeah it is.
What was the qoute?
US military involvement in the Middle East is pretty hilarious at this point. Completely disregarding the massive amounts of civilian casualties, that is. What a fucking circus.'
What's the main point?
disregarding the massive amounts of civilian casualties
So in that aspect, yes they are comparable. Point is if your just going after civilian causalities then lamblast other wars ALSO. That's not to say my point was that, other wars had more civilian casualties that resulted because they WENT after the civilian population.
What I meant is, US involvment in the middle east and everything that surrounds it is so ridiculous it almost gets humorous at this point. But of course there's nothing humorous about it seeing as tens of thousands of innocents have lost their lives in the process, and peace and stability have been severely damaged in the region.
Comparing WW2 with the iraq or afghanistan invasion is simply ridiculous because it's quite debatable whether there was even sufficient justification to invade Iraq in the first place. Actually it's not even debatable seeing as high ranked pentagon officials have alleged that the war was in fact a violation of international law, there was almost no support in the UN etc.
Wait, so US soldiers dieing is a circus? Are YOU FORGETTING the other countries that are involved in Afghanistan? OR perhaps the countries that followed in Iraq? Why are you singling out US in this when other countries are also fighting?
There was no peace in the region, maybe stability but that completely disregarding what rock the people where living under.
You are NOT getting this.
You make the point about civilian deaths I bring up ww2 because of the civilian deaths. That is the point of comparison, so much to the fact that the US is NOT specifically bombing cities because they happen to be German. Wither the war is legal, illegal, wrong, right, etc is irrelevant to that point of comparison.
Kofi Annan, you are not referring to him are you, about UN?
On June 24 2010 06:14 StarBrift wrote:Terrorism was started by all the wars in the middle east that made some people over there get a deep hatred for westerners (primarily americans). To end terrorism you need to root out tthe terrorist military organisations and destroy them aswell as reach out to the people. People down there have been living in war zones for a long time and need to be reassured that we are the good guys. But neither of that can be acomplished unless the Taliban are forcefully disarmed. No ammount of diplomacy will change the minds of those few sorry ass brain washed wrecks. Their organisation needs to fall and to speak about diplomacy with these people is in my opinion naive.
Care to elaborate on the notion that the western world (well US in particular, but also france, UK and other parties) are the good guys in this scenario. I mean historically, you can't honestly think that western imperialism has had a stabilizing effect on the middle east? Ever since the rise of the petroleum industry western society and soviet union have only had one interest in this otherwise insignificant area of land. Not to mention the establishment of Israel.
Read up on the Sykes–Picot Agreement and puzzle together what's went down since then and you'll have no trouble understanding the desperation and hatred resulting in *gasp* terrorism.
Yes. The people who turn soccer fields into execution areas, stop little girls from going to school, grow and traffic heroine, and kill women who go outside without a veil and a male escort... They're definitely the good guys.
See this is the problem with you americans. There has to be good and there has to be evil. No gray-scale what so ever and not even the faintest attempt at understanding the underlying historical causes for the current situation. And what you're describing isn't iraq by the way.
Yes, thats the problem with (real) Americans. We believe in good and evil. All the things I mentioned are undeniably evil, regardless of the causes. Saying that oppression, cruelty, and genocide aren't evil because historical causes led to them... Is that like saying that the means justify the end?
I don't even know what kind of fucked up logic you are trying to put forth here, other than "ZOMG AMERIKKANS ARE DUMB AND INSENSITIVE". You'll look like an idiot if you honestly try to tell me that the Taliban is better.
Well I never said any of that, and you seem to fail to understand that I was addressing the ridiculous statement expressing how middle eastern citizens just need to learn to perceive the US as "the good guy." And you're in fact the one advocating that the means justify the end, in that you argue that the death of tens of thousands and the further instabilizing of an already broken region, as long as it assures the prevailence of what you refer to as "good."
And yeah lets just ignore the fact that US played a major roll in causing many of the problems in the first place, what good is history right?
On June 24 2010 08:19 angelicfolly wrote: Wait, so US soldiers dieing is a circus?
Of course US casualties are equally sad, but would you agree that there is a bit of a scewed focus in media and the general public toward the considerably small amount of casualties amongst US troops? It's especially saddening reading about the movement of iraq veterans against the war, basically people wondering what the hell they were fighting for in the first place and what good will ever come out of it.
On June 24 2010 08:19 angelicfolly wrote: Are YOU FORGETTING the other countries that are involved in Afghanistan? OR perhaps the countries that followed in Iraq? Why are you singling out US in this when other countries are also fighting?
UK (and france to a lesser extent) are also responsible but the thread was initially about USA and then it kind of went on from there.
On June 24 2010 08:19 angelicfolly wrote: There was no peace in the region, maybe stability but that completely disregarding what rock the people where living under.
Well lets put it this way then, we haven't exactly gotten any closer.
On June 24 2010 08:19 angelicfolly wrote: You make the point about civilian deaths I bring up ww2 because of the civilian deaths.
That is the point of comparison, so much to the fact that the US is NOT specifically bombing cities because they happen to be German. Wither the war is legal, illegal, wrong, right, etc is irrelevant to that point of comparison.
I think there's a difference in making a point about the civilian casualties resulted by the waging of an illegal war as opposed to the inevitable casualties of a world war that forced such a large number of nations into participation. I don't think there's any real point in comparing at all, and frankly I find it a bit appalling that you would bring up WW2 as some sort of counter-argument in the first place.
On June 24 2010 08:19 angelicfolly wrote: Kofi Annan, you are not referring to him are you, about UN?
On June 24 2010 04:00 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: No debate, it was insubordination no matter how you look at it.
You are not in the military, don't make judgments like this.
It was not insubordination, he's the damn general in charge. He can speak his mind however he damn well pleases.
Wtf is happening here, our generals overseas are having to be PC? Fuck this administration, I'm having to join up for 4 years following this next year and this is what I have to look forwards to?
When your man in charge has to fear being sacked over disagreements then all you get is a parrot in charge. Fuckin bullshit is what it is...
I thought the Commander in Chief outranked generals. :S
On June 24 2010 08:35 Tdelamay wrote: There is no winning. Only losing. Wars are no longer fought by soldiers, but by economies.
I doubt this was ever not the case.
I disagree. Some of the more outlandish military opinions recognized early on that reconciliation with the Taliban was the most stable way forward, but this is a taboo to the American public. There is no implicit rule that a war campaign cannot succeed - but it is rarely a judicious undertaking, misguided by wishful images of what a victory outcome must look like.
Now we're open to talk because we have no alternative, but the Taliban sees a victory on the horizon and isn't backing down.
On June 24 2010 08:53 sikyon wrote: Frankly I give a big thumbs up to Obama for this because it takes balls to sack the military commander. Alot of the times military commanders forget their bosses are "civies" and the civilian leaders are too pansy to do anything about it.
I think the balls are on the other foot here. If you read the article, McChrystal's estimation was that the Obama government doesn't know shit about military strategy but has far-reaching opinions about how the war should be fought. This, and Obama didn't take the time to meet and discuss strategy with McChrystal, but never hesitated to chastise when his general spoke out of beat. Fighting a losing battle is frustrating, but it is shameful to never voice your dissent, privately first-and-foremost. I get the impression from these articles that private criticisms weren't taken seriously, and we're only seeing the public tip of the iceberg.
You don't voice public opinion like that about your commander. I would shit all over you if I was your CO... but what do I know, I was only in Cadets (it's like pre-officer training) for 6 years.
Frankly I give a big thumbs up to Obama for this because it takes balls to sack the military commander. Alot of the times military commanders forget their bosses are "civies" and the civilian leaders are too pansy to do anything about it.
On June 24 2010 05:12 motbob wrote: Petraeus won Iraq. Maybe he can win Afghanistan.
lol, define "win".
Casualties:
Year US UK Other Total 2003 486 53 41 580 2004 849 22 35 906 2005 846 23 28 897 2006 822 29 21 872 2007 904 47 10 961 2008 314 4 4 322 2009 149 1 0 150 2010 38 0 0 38
That's such a ridiculous drop in casualties. Stability is on the rise over there. We won the war.
The war against the Iraq military was won before 2005. The rest doesn't have anything to do with winning. You don't win a fight against a population you are trying to control after having invaded their country. There is still corruption, chaos, instability in Iraq (see here).
On June 24 2010 05:12 motbob wrote: Petraeus won Iraq. Maybe he can win Afghanistan.
lol, define "win".
Casualties:
Year US UK Other Total 2003 486 53 41 580 2004 849 22 35 906 2005 846 23 28 897 2006 822 29 21 872 2007 904 47 10 961 2008 314 4 4 322 2009 149 1 0 150 2010 38 0 0 38
That's such a ridiculous drop in casualties. Stability is on the rise over there. We won the war.
u call it "war"? i call it genocide of the middle eastern population
Its not like stuff was exactly peachy before we got there. The entire Middle East situation has always been a mess that needed to be fixed. Just because we're sorting it out now rather than later doesn't mean that its any worse.
Who assigned you arbiter of who gets to live and die, and what government a nation gets? Or right, I guess insubordination to the United States is a crime?
Yeah because what they had before was really working with the rest of the world.....
[e] To all the people trashing america you realize how different the globe would be today if America didn't do anything, particularily the 'world enforcer' everyone always falls back on. Whether we should have gone into Iraq when we did or not, we would have later. If you honestly think saddam hussein was a good guy doing the right things for his country and wasn't a problem, you're an idiot.
Of course US casualties are equally sad, but would you agree that there is a bit of a scewed focus in media and the general public toward the considerably small amount of casualties amongst US troops? It's especially saddening reading about the movement of iraq veterans against the war, basically people wondering what the hell they were fighting for in the first place and what good will ever come out of it.
Civilian deaths are sad, soldier deaths are sad. The thing is that's the face of war. To somehow single out one nation because EVERY nation has had both happen, is a disregard to what war actually is. Also to somehow imply that the US doesn't care or somehow targets civilians is a dishonest thing to do (be honest this was what your trying to do).
Do you realize that the Iraq vets against the war is a small minority compared to the rest of the troops who believe they are doing something worthwhile? Also it should be a good thing that there are small deaths of US soldiers, I mean the US has to look out for IT'S population (if you really are faulting the US for this go after every country also).
UK (and france to a lesser extent) are also responsible but the thread was initially about USA and then it kind of went on from there.
So it's ok to single out the US when you make a statement that applies to everyone?
Well lets put it this way then, we haven't exactly gotten any closer
Wrong, we have gotten closer, regardless of your thoughts on US interests. You see the reason why there is still instability is because the people who originally was hurting the population want control again, thus they are attacking everybody for it. Regardless of how you view things, there is ground to the fact that we have gotten closer.
I'm referring to the UN as an entity.
Then give a link to the UN stating such a thing that doesn't have Annan in it. If you can't find out then you are referring to Annan.
On June 24 2010 04:20 Sadist wrote: you can criticize all you wan. Just dont do it in public
Pretty much this. It's like if you work at McDonalds and you say how much you hate McDonalds and prefer DQ. So fired. Although i'm surprised no warning was given instead? Any word on this?
On June 24 2010 04:20 Sadist wrote: you can criticize all you wan. Just dont do it in public
Pretty much this. It's like if you work at McDonalds and you say how much you hate McDonalds and prefer DQ. So fired. Although i'm surprised no warning was given instead? Any word on this?
The world is not frozen in a vacuum, just waiting for the spotlight of the press before taking action. Things have been happening behind the scenes that we do not hear about, and you can be certain that private criticisms have already been expressed. The military chain of command indoctrinates the virtue of confidence more than anyone other group (second only to political campaigns and religious cults).
It sounds more like there is an absence of leadership from Obama himself. Firing a very competent general for his 0 tolerance for political bullshit is a cowardly move, and 100% political. Obama brought this on himself by not getting his hands dirty.
On June 24 2010 05:44 GuerrillaRepublik wrote: u call it "war"? i call it genocide of the middle eastern population
I agree.
Calling a war a genocide diminishes the weight of the word and repulsiveness of the concept. If every war is a 'genocide' then how do you distinguish a real genocide from a war? If you want to avoid genocides, diminishing the word to meaninglessness isn't productive.
What else do you call the murder of tens of thousands of innocent people.?
You've completely misused the words "murder" and "genocide" so far. I suggest you purchase a dictionary before posting again.
On June 24 2010 04:20 Sadist wrote: you can criticize all you wan. Just dont do it in public
Pretty much this. It's like if you work at McDonalds and you say how much you hate McDonalds and prefer DQ. So fired. Although i'm surprised no warning was given instead? Any word on this?
Lol.
I used to work at subway, and I constantly told people the breakfast is shit (it is), I told them when they ordered water bottles I could give them free water instead, I told them when the cookies were old, I told them when we didn't have fresh bread, I told them how long the meat has been sitting out etc
I wasn't a great salesman in their eyes, but at least I was honest.
talking back to a superior officer at my level is an Article 15 (non-judicial punishment) on record depending on how high the superior officer is. Talking shit about the commander in chief to the press, especially that high up in the brass, would be suicide to any service member's career. I think MacArthur got shitcanned in a similar way.
On June 24 2010 09:15 mmp wrote: Things have been happening behind the scenes that we do not hear about, and you can be certain that private criticisms have already been expressed.
Firing a very competent general for his 0 tolerance for political bullshit is a cowardly move, and 100% political.
Grats on contradicting yourself. I highly doubt it's 0 tolerance... do you really think that obama would bring previous arguements to light? Of course not. Even if they disagree they still have to stay solid in the face of their enemies. The general betrayed that trust, which is totally unacceptable. It seems virtually as though he had forgotten his place.
Also, if you hadn't noticed, a politician's job is to be political. Obama wages a war on the homefront of probably greater importance than any oversees.
From the moment I saw the article the other night I knew McChrystal was going to be "resignation-fired" by Obama. Certainly an interesting turn in the political infighting between the military and the administration over the Afghan war. McChrystal and his staff almost certainly fed those comments purposefully, at what end is not entirely clear to me. As a general watching your men get chewed up in southern Afghanistan every day in a war the administration (and the entire country) doesn't want to commit the resources required to win in a traditional sense is probably quite frustrating... I think McChrystal is a pure-breed hawk who wanted a lot more troops, resources, time, and leeway to really batter the Taliban down but Obama and Democrats want to end the war has fast as domestically politically possible which is why McChrystal with Eikenberry-Holbrooke (dovish negotiators) was always going to be contentious and why McChrystal and Karzai (who is having his legs cut out from under him by the White House) have been so buddy-buddy recently.
The appointment (and technical demotion) of Petraeus from CENTCOM to ISAF is really interesting, certainly an interim move to show stability and continuality in the Afghan strategy as the summer fighting season hits a fever pitch and the Kandahar campaign finally......gets underway. I think Obama and Petreaus just made a deal for Petreaus to be the next CJCS if he took the Afghan job for a few months since Mullen's term as CJCS is up in 2011. I was at the Senate hearing last week when Petraeus fainted in the middle of his testimony, he said it was dehydration and he missed breakfast but I think it was related to his prostate cancer which he is still recovering from which makes me think its definitely a short-term appointment until they can find someone else. It was a good move by Obama since he also knocked off a potential Republican threat in 2012 and put the Republican's favorite general from Iraq in charge of "his" war which will neutralize some criticism from Republican hawks as the administration moves towards giving the green light on peace negotiations between the Taliban QS and Karzai (probably after midterms) and maybe turn around this horrendous news-cycle coming out of Kabul.
On June 24 2010 09:15 mmp wrote: Things have been happening behind the scenes that we do not hear about, and you can be certain that private criticisms have already been expressed.
Firing a very competent general for his 0 tolerance for political bullshit is a cowardly move, and 100% political.
Grats on contradicting yourself. I highly doubt it's 0 tolerance... do you really think that obama would bring previous arguements to light? Of course not. Even if they disagree they still have to stay solid in the face of their enemies. The general betrayed that trust, which is totally unacceptable. It seems virtually as though he had forgotten his place.
Also, if you hadn't noticed, a politician's job is to be political. Obama wages a war on the homefront of probably greater importance than any oversees.
Would you care to spell out my contradiction?
No this is political cowardice from Obama. Internal politics, but covering his team's asses nonetheless at the cost of leadership on the ground. It's nothing more than a dick-waving contest and Obama, threatened by McChrystal's claims that he lacks manliness, is backed into a corner and forced to assert his presidential endowment.
This only confirms the insecurity of the administration on the subject of Afghanistan. They know they're not getting results, but they aren't interested in critiques either. It doesn't take strong leadership to be vague and wishy-washy, nor does obstinateness beget strong leaders (some pundits are praising the firing, although this is in part motivated by the controversial wartime deeds on the general's record).
Obama can demonstrate awesome leadership by clearly stating the objective for Afghanistan. Right now we're middle of the road, not sure if we're leaving and not sure how (or if) we should even be going after the Taliban. The general's job is to develop a strategy for the latter, but it takes leadership from the CC to execute any strategy and we have yet to see such leadership from the Obama administration.
On June 24 2010 10:24 theron[wdt] wrote: talking back to a superior officer at my level is an Article 15 (non-judicial punishment) on record depending on how high the superior officer is. Talking shit about the commander in chief to the press, especially that high up in the brass, would be suicide to any service member's career. I think MacArthur got shitcanned in a similar way.
MacArthur wanted nukes so he could take on China...
On June 24 2010 04:20 Sadist wrote: you can criticize all you wan. Just dont do it in public
Pretty much this. It's like if you work at McDonalds and you say how much you hate McDonalds and prefer DQ. So fired. Although i'm surprised no warning was given instead? Any word on this?
Lol.
I used to work at subway, and I constantly told people the breakfast is shit (it is), I told them when they ordered water bottles I could give them free water instead, I told them when the cookies were old, I told them when we didn't have fresh bread, I told them how long the meat has been sitting out etc
I wasn't a great salesman in their eyes, but at least I was honest.
I doubt you had the same power to to make Subway look bad as a general in command of a war has to make the administration look bad. The principle still applies. As a private citizen you can say what you like but in your professional role while speaking to the press you say what your boss says.
On June 24 2010 05:44 GuerrillaRepublik wrote: u call it "war"? i call it genocide of the middle eastern population
I agree.
Calling a war a genocide diminishes the weight of the word and repulsiveness of the concept. If every war is a 'genocide' then how do you distinguish a real genocide from a war? If you want to avoid genocides, diminishing the word to meaninglessness isn't productive.
What else do you call the murder of tens of thousands of innocent people.?
lol america is so fucked. Generals cant even communicate with their president. Presidnts who cant deal with crisis. Ffs he lead spec ops. The only ppl that did shit in the war when the rest of the army sat behind the green line, out of the way so that there would be something good in the new the next day. Less casualties. To all ppl who think the military dont get involved in politics. Thats naive bullshit? The army has its own interests to look after. One is never having another vietnam. They dont want the public to lose confidence in them again. They dont want to be the scapegoat for this wars failures.
On June 24 2010 05:44 GuerrillaRepublik wrote: u call it "war"? i call it genocide of the middle eastern population
I agree.
Calling a war a genocide diminishes the weight of the word and repulsiveness of the concept. If every war is a 'genocide' then how do you distinguish a real genocide from a war? If you want to avoid genocides, diminishing the word to meaninglessness isn't productive.
What else do you call the murder of tens of thousands of innocent people.?
Saddam having a forgiving day.
Or just the murder of tens of thousands of people. We don't have to have a word for every idea and we shouldn't just wrongly use words that mean something different. Genocide has a specific meaning which can be applied to the death of just dozens of people or not relevant to the death of millions.
I admire McChrystal for going out there on the lines to support the troops, he really put his life out there for the men and I feel like he believed in them and wanted their trust. Mishaps or not, he is human, and I couldn't do what he does.
On June 24 2010 05:44 GuerrillaRepublik wrote: u call it "war"? i call it genocide of the middle eastern population
I agree.
Calling a war a genocide diminishes the weight of the word and repulsiveness of the concept. If every war is a 'genocide' then how do you distinguish a real genocide from a war? If you want to avoid genocides, diminishing the word to meaninglessness isn't productive.
What else do you call the murder of tens of thousands of innocent people.?
Saddam having a forgiving day.
Or just the murder of tens of thousands of people. We don't have to have a word for every idea and we shouldn't just wrongly use words that mean something different. Genocide has a specific meaning which can be applied to the death of just dozens of people or not relevant to the death of millions.
Ahh, so you don't know about his efforts to wipe out the Kurds. Which was exactly "deliberate and systematic destruction of an ethnic group"
I don't think this is nearly as bad as some people think. It certainly seems like McChrystal wanted to be let go. He knew the consequences of the interview and he forced Obama's hand. I think this was more McChrystal's decision than anything. He offered to resign before he and Obama even met.
Maybe he didn't want his name on the war, maybe he didn't think he could accomplish their goals, or maybe he was just tired. There could be a lot of reasons, but I don't think we'll know the real reason until he gives another interview several years down the road.
I know this is off-topic, but people arguing Iraq needed to be invaded for humanitarian causes really need to inform themselves on 1. why the war wasn't about humanitarian causes, that was simply a pretext for other reasons (in fact, about all the given reasons were lies). 2. that even if that were the case, it would still fall outside any international law and would be an aggressive war 3. the current Iraqi government is hardly better than Saddam's 4. there were massive amounts of casualties as a result of the war
On June 24 2010 05:44 GuerrillaRepublik wrote: u call it "war"? i call it genocide of the middle eastern population
I agree.
Calling a war a genocide diminishes the weight of the word and repulsiveness of the concept. If every war is a 'genocide' then how do you distinguish a real genocide from a war? If you want to avoid genocides, diminishing the word to meaninglessness isn't productive.
What else do you call the murder of tens of thousands of innocent people.?
Saddam having a forgiving day.
If you don't remember, the US put Saddam in power to counterbalance Iran. They also supplied arms and supplies to the Taliban and Al Qaeda during the 1980's to counter the Soviet invasion.
On June 24 2010 12:35 NukeTheStars wrote: I don't think this is nearly as bad as some people think. It certainly seems like McChrystal wanted to be let go. He knew the consequences of the interview and he forced Obama's hand. I think this was more McChrystal's decision than anything. He offered to resign before he and Obama even met.
Maybe he didn't want his name on the war, maybe he didn't think he could accomplish their goals, or maybe he was just tired. There could be a lot of reasons, but I don't think we'll know the real reason until he gives another interview several years down the road.
He could have resigned for phoney baloney health reasons. Would have been less damaging that bad-mouthing those around you. Disgraceful behaviour by a General whatever his motivations, had to go, pure and simple.
EDIT* Now as long as Petraeus doesn't come out moaning about his psuedo-demotion^^
On June 24 2010 04:00 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: No debate, it was insubordination no matter how you look at it.
You are not in the military, don't make judgments like this.
It was not insubordination, he's the damn general in charge. He can speak his mind however he damn well pleases.
Wtf is happening here, our generals overseas are having to be PC? Fuck this administration, I'm having to join up for 4 years following this next year and this is what I have to look forwards to?
When your man in charge has to fear being sacked over disagreements then all you get is a parrot in charge. Fuckin bullshit is what it is...
A ton of other people have already mentioned it, but there's a difference between dissent and public criticism. At that pay grade in the military, they're supposed to question orders or resign if their conscience doesn't meet the task (in practice, not necessarily true) but the commanding general of Afghanistan does not do it to Rolling Stone, nor do his aids. If a similar comment were made by someone in the White House, they'd be gone without question and no one would complain about it.
The firing hurts morale, but his comments did even more. This was being openly talked about in the White House and Pentagon, which is a terrible atmosphere to have. Would there be repercussions? If the President does nothing, then that sets a whole new precedent where dissension could become much more prevalent and damaging. Some joint statement would have just seemed canned. Plus, you don't know what really happened behind the scenes between Obama and McChrystal (I don't mean at the 20 minute meeting, but at other JCS stuff.) What if he had previously overshot his expectations for the war in previous meetings, while secretly harboring those thoughts?
Let's also not lose sight of the fact that his job security rested on the success of the Marja offensive, no matter what. If it had been a wild success, he probably could've said anything he wanted, and still would have a job.
I feel that there is some sort of end game for McChrystal from this whole ordeal. My opinion is that McChrystal had no support from the administration (except I do think to some extent Obama supported him, which could have been because he nominated him to the position). I think it is common knowledge that those in power in Washington were doing whatever they could to make it impossible for McChrystal to win. Biden and Ramm being the main ones.
As I said earlier in this thread, McChrystal is a soldier's general, not a politician's general, and he knew he couldn't get what he wanted for his troops. Petreus has enough support as of right now that, in McChrystal's mind, when he analyzes the situation and goes back to tell the administration what he needs, Petreus may be able to get what McChrystal couldn't.
I really feel that McChrystal fell on the sword, so to speak, to help his troops over there.
Edit - I don't feel generals should not speak out publicly against the president, but it is also very well known that McChrystal basically got zero time with him.
On June 24 2010 05:44 GuerrillaRepublik wrote: u call it "war"? i call it genocide of the middle eastern population
I agree.
Calling a war a genocide diminishes the weight of the word and repulsiveness of the concept. If every war is a 'genocide' then how do you distinguish a real genocide from a war? If you want to avoid genocides, diminishing the word to meaninglessness isn't productive.
What else do you call the murder of tens of thousands of innocent people.?
Saddam having a forgiving day.
Or just the murder of tens of thousands of people. We don't have to have a word for every idea and we shouldn't just wrongly use words that mean something different. Genocide has a specific meaning which can be applied to the death of just dozens of people or not relevant to the death of millions.
Ahh, so you don't know about his efforts to wipe out the Kurds. Which was exactly "deliberate and systematic destruction of an ethnic group"
I believe the word genocide in the root of this discussion was applying to Desert Storm which, as far as I know, wasn't a systematic destruction of the Kurds. So you don't know how to read the topic. Which was exactly what we were talking about.
Saddam attempted genocide. The United States did not and even if it kills 10x the people Saddam did it still won't be genocide.
On June 24 2010 05:44 GuerrillaRepublik wrote: u call it "war"? i call it genocide of the middle eastern population
I agree.
Calling a war a genocide diminishes the weight of the word and repulsiveness of the concept. If every war is a 'genocide' then how do you distinguish a real genocide from a war? If you want to avoid genocides, diminishing the word to meaninglessness isn't productive.
What else do you call the murder of tens of thousands of innocent people.?
Saddam having a forgiving day.
Or just the murder of tens of thousands of people. We don't have to have a word for every idea and we shouldn't just wrongly use words that mean something different. Genocide has a specific meaning which can be applied to the death of just dozens of people or not relevant to the death of millions.
Ahh, so you don't know about his efforts to wipe out the Kurds. Which was exactly "deliberate and systematic destruction of an ethnic group"
I believe the word genocide in the root of this discussion was applying to Desert Storm which, as far as I know, wasn't a systematic destruction of the Kurds. So you don't know how to read the topic. Which was exactly what we were talking about.
Saddam attempted genocide. The United States did not and even if it kills 10x the people Saddam did it still won't be genocide.
OHOHOH *I* don't know how to read the topic? *whoosh*
On June 24 2010 05:44 GuerrillaRepublik wrote: u call it "war"? i call it genocide of the middle eastern population
I agree.
Calling a war a genocide diminishes the weight of the word and repulsiveness of the concept. If every war is a 'genocide' then how do you distinguish a real genocide from a war? If you want to avoid genocides, diminishing the word to meaninglessness isn't productive.
What else do you call the murder of tens of thousands of innocent people.?
Saddam having a forgiving day.
If you don't remember, the US put Saddam in power to counterbalance Iran. They also supplied arms and supplies to the Taliban and Al Qaeda during the 1980's to counter the Soviet invasion.
Just from what we are getting McChrystal bad mouthed his civilian superiors and got the boot(though he will stay in the military under a different role). He is lucky he is a four star general, if he were a lowly private, he probably would've gotten court martialed and discharged. While I disagree with some of Obama's policies and did not vote for him, Obama did the right thing here. The worst stuff was actually said by his aid, but good for McChrystal to man up and do the right thing.
However, the fact that it was leaked to a Rolling stone reporter opens the door to a string of possible behind the scene manipulations. As was state in previous posts and even a perfunctory look at his service record McChrystal is a smart and effective leader. Just the public info we have on him with his black op command shows that he is not someone to be out maneuvered and outsmarted easily. I don't believe he was outsmarted by a Rolling stone reporter following him around.
So if he did do this to save his legacy, maneuver for more troops, or some other motive (plenty theories in this thread and all over the net) we will see how it plays out and if he succeeds. It should not suprise anyone if ultimately it is McChrystal that "wins" this chess game. McChrystal wanted more troops then he was given and different policy with regards to ROE and tactics. So he was not seeing eye to eye with Obama but his job requires him to do what he is ordered. He might see this as his last ditch effort to get out of a job he can't do and hopefully get some changes he sees as required for winning the war.
on a side note, this guy is similar to Maximus in the Gladiator. He has their respect so I find it irresponsible of him to try to pull any of the stunts I'm alleging him in this post. Soldiers from all ranks do see his actions and hear his words, to see him undermine our CIC in public really conflicts them and makes us question what exactly we are doing and who we should be listening to. While Obama is our CIC and ultimately has the final say, a four star General is well regarded and has our respect base on rank alone and to tack on his relationship with his men, I really hope its a lapse in judgment (its supported by his previous run in's with his mouth) because this kind of manipulation really confuses me, as an officer in the US army.
On June 24 2010 04:00 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: No debate, it was insubordination no matter how you look at it.
You are not in the military, don't make judgments like this.
It was not insubordination, he's the damn general in charge. He can speak his mind however he damn well pleases.
Wtf is happening here, our generals overseas are having to be PC? Fuck this administration, I'm having to join up for 4 years following this next year and this is what I have to look forwards to?
When your man in charge has to fear being sacked over disagreements then all you get is a parrot in charge. Fuckin bullshit is what it is...
I'm a former Marine Corps sergeant. It was insubordination. Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice it is a crime to disparage a superior officer, even to a peer, in private. That certainly applies when you are disparaging the commander in chief or his closest advisers in the press.
McChrystal wasn't fired because he disagreed. He was fired because he disagreed, was over ruled by his superiors, and then tried to side step them by talking about it to the press. People in the military disagree ALL THE TIME. It's one big perpetual disagreement, but once the highest ranking officer makes the decision, then you shut up and get on board with the decision, whether you like it or not.
If the administration wants to play hard ball they can have him brought up for a court martial, and see if he even gets to keep his pension. I don't think they'll do that, but they certainly could. If it was a non commissioned officer or even a non general, that's exactly what would happen.
On June 24 2010 09:15 mmp wrote: Things have been happening behind the scenes that we do not hear about, and you can be certain that private criticisms have already been expressed.
Firing a very competent general for his 0 tolerance for political bullshit is a cowardly move, and 100% political.
Grats on contradicting yourself. I highly doubt it's 0 tolerance... do you really think that obama would bring previous arguements to light? Of course not. Even if they disagree they still have to stay solid in the face of their enemies. The general betrayed that trust, which is totally unacceptable. It seems virtually as though he had forgotten his place.
Also, if you hadn't noticed, a politician's job is to be political. Obama wages a war on the homefront of probably greater importance than any oversees.
Would you care to spell out my contradiction?
No this is political cowardice from Obama. Internal politics, but covering his team's asses nonetheless at the cost of leadership on the ground. It's nothing more than a dick-waving contest and Obama, threatened by McChrystal's claims that he lacks manliness, is backed into a corner and forced to assert his presidential endowment.
Any commander that doesn't take action against insubordination is a weak commander. What McChrystal did was not merely a faux pas, it was a crime under the UCMJ. He's lucky that he'll be allowed to retire quietly with no loss of pension.
I'm sorry that you don't like Obama, but you don't know shit about shit when it comes to the way that things are done in the military. McChrystal (or his aid or whoever) knew very well that they were committing a crime. If that had been a lower level general or a colonel under McChrystal's command, and they or their aid had gone to Rolling Stone to criticize his leadership, that person or those persons would be getting much worse than he is.
There is zero tolerance at any level for public dissent in the military. There is zero tolerance at any level to bad mouth your superiors. When a private says that about a staff sergeant he might just get thrashed instead of written up, but when a General says it about his Commander in Chief or members of the CIC's administration, that's a choice to get fired or worse.
I think we should put mind control chips into our soldiers and let the worlds best RTS players be the generals and let the worlds best FPS players be the soldiers. lol
On June 24 2010 04:00 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: No debate, it was insubordination no matter how you look at it.
You are not in the military, don't make judgments like this.
It was not insubordination, he's the damn general in charge. He can speak his mind however he damn well pleases.
Wtf is happening here, our generals overseas are having to be PC? Fuck this administration, I'm having to join up for 4 years following this next year and this is what I have to look forwards to?
When your man in charge has to fear being sacked over disagreements then all you get is a parrot in charge. Fuckin bullshit is what it is...
I'm a former Marine Corps sergeant. It was insubordination. Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice it is a crime to disparage a superior officer, even to a peer, in private. That certainly applies when you are disparaging the commander in chief or his closest advisers in the press.
McChrystal wasn't fired because he disagreed. He was fired because he disagreed, was over ruled by his superiors, and then tried to side step them by talking about it to the press. People in the military disagree ALL THE TIME. It's one big perpetual disagreement, but once the highest ranking officer makes the decision, then you shut up and get on board with the decision, whether you like it or not.
If the administration wants to play hard ball they can have him brought up for a court martial, and see if he even gets to keep his pension. I don't think they'll do that, but they certainly could. If it was a non commissioned officer or even a non general, that's exactly what would happen.
Is Obama considered a member of the military though? It seems like if you tried arguing for this in a court you'd be on shaky ground.
As a Canadian, all I can say is that I'm glad that we're pulling out of Afghanistan soon. This is quite possibly the worst timing ever and I'd rather not have our troops (or anyones for that matter...) jeopardized because of American politicking. What do I care that an American general spoke truthfully about his own President? I couldn't care less what he says, so long as he can ensure that the troop casualties are minimized and that the push is successful; firing him and throwing in Petraeus, who's experience is mostly based out of Iraq and who will now have to rebuild all the contacts that McChrystal had in Afghanistan, does not seem like the correct way of achieving those goals. I'm sure it's been said before, but this will probably put us back months and doesn't inspire confidence in the rest of NATO for our American allies.
McChrystal said that he never actually went against Obama. He went against Biden.
McChrystal gave them a strategy for what he wanted to do in the Middle East to try and win through with numbers, but Biden didn't want to give him the resources because he thought the strategy wouldn't work.
But Obama's the kind of guy who says "You mess with Biden, you mess with me."
EDIT: Also, look at the placement. McCain(that's him, right?) is pretty far away, Petraeus is mid-distance, McChrystal is farther, but Biden's so close he's actually behind the president.
On June 24 2010 04:00 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: No debate, it was insubordination no matter how you look at it.
You are not in the military, don't make judgments like this.
It was not insubordination, he's the damn general in charge. He can speak his mind however he damn well pleases.
Wtf is happening here, our generals overseas are having to be PC? Fuck this administration, I'm having to join up for 4 years following this next year and this is what I have to look forwards to?
When your man in charge has to fear being sacked over disagreements then all you get is a parrot in charge. Fuckin bullshit is what it is...
I'm a former Marine Corps sergeant. It was insubordination. Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice it is a crime to disparage a superior officer, even to a peer, in private. That certainly applies when you are disparaging the commander in chief or his closest advisers in the press.
McChrystal wasn't fired because he disagreed. He was fired because he disagreed, was over ruled by his superiors, and then tried to side step them by talking about it to the press. People in the military disagree ALL THE TIME. It's one big perpetual disagreement, but once the highest ranking officer makes the decision, then you shut up and get on board with the decision, whether you like it or not.
If the administration wants to play hard ball they can have him brought up for a court martial, and see if he even gets to keep his pension. I don't think they'll do that, but they certainly could. If it was a non commissioned officer or even a non general, that's exactly what would happen.
Is Obama considered a member of the military though? It seems like if you tried arguing for this in a court you'd be on shaky ground.
As a Canadian, all I can say is that I'm glad that we're pulling out of Afghanistan soon. This is quite possibly the worst timing ever and I'd rather not have our troops (or anyones for that matter...) jeopardized because of American politicking. What do I care that an American general spoke truthfully about his own President? I couldn't care less what he says, so long as he can ensure that the troop casualties are minimized and that the push is successful; firing him and throwing in Petraeus, who's experience is mostly based out of Iraq and who will now have to rebuild all the contacts that McChrystal had in Afghanistan, does not seem like the correct way of achieving those goals. I'm sure it's been said before, but this will probably put us back months and doesn't inspire confidence in the rest of NATO for our American allies.
The President is the Commander in Chief, and is at the very top of every single military branches chain of command.
In my opinion Obama is the lesser of two evils, which is why I voted for him. I honestly don't think a single politician today could go into office and actually fix our country. We need a fresh perspective, but, short of revolution, that won't happen, at least not in our generation.
I hope as we get older, and our children get older we can weed out the ignorance and greed in politics today.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://us.7digital.com/cms/USReviews/img/cassie-almost-famous.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01064/NYP_280_1064498a.jpg)
.
