PDA

View Full Version : The Wrong Man...



M&K's Retrievers
06-23-2010, 02:55 PM
Got Fired Today....:(

huntinman
06-23-2010, 03:09 PM
The the boy wonder president put Petraeus in charge. Back when he was a senator, he bad mouthed Petraeus like all the other libs did. Now he wants Petraeus to save his butt.

troy schwab
06-23-2010, 03:12 PM
I just hope Petraeus (sp) gets done what need done over there, especially in respects to Kandahaar........ Keep Obama's freakin nose out of it...... Take care of business like McChrystal (sp) wanted to.

Franco
06-23-2010, 03:16 PM
The the boy wonder president put Petraeus in charge. Back when he was a senator, he bad mouthed Petraeus like all the other libs did. Now he wants Petraeus to save his butt.

I find it interesting that not too long ago the left was refering to him as Gen Betrayus. Now, he is the knight in shining armour and savoir of the current administration.

Maybe someone can pull up Obama's quotes regarding Gen Petraeus from two years ago. ;-)

huntinman
06-23-2010, 03:19 PM
Hopefully McCrystal will write a book laying out what an incompetent CiC Obambi really is.

troy schwab
06-23-2010, 03:25 PM
I smell a NY Times best-seller!!!!!! LOL

huntinman
06-23-2010, 03:32 PM
Here is Obama rambling on while taking his turn to question Petraeus on the surge in Iraq. He spent all of his time babbling and finally asked a question aftyer 7 minutes and 30 seconds of hot air. What a complete boob.

Don't watch it unless you have insomnia!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9wtAqXq7Sg

gman0046
06-23-2010, 07:06 PM
The fact is, those who watched the Kenyan Clown read from his teleprompter knew McCrystal is by far more qualified then he is. Obongo is a disgrace for this country. The good news is the cats been out of the bag for quite some time now. He's not fooling anybody.

dnf777
06-23-2010, 07:26 PM
So I hear lots of bad-mouthing, and that's fine, but it doesn't solve any problems!

What do we do to win Afghanistan, not spend money we don't have, and keep terrorists from just fleeing to their next safe haven?

Come on, lets hear what the republicans will do the day the retake control!! I hear lots of negative talk, but nothing in the solution department!

Starting to make me laugh.

Randall
06-23-2010, 07:42 PM
Yeah!

Democrats are saints. They have never taken advantage of their rivals mistakes!

They supported Bush and offered constructive solutions for 8 years!

How dare the republicans.

Le Bastards!

huntinman
06-23-2010, 07:48 PM
So I hear lots of bad-mouthing, and that's fine, but it doesn't solve any problems!

What do we do to win Afghanistan, not spend money we don't have, and keep terrorists from just fleeing to their next safe haven?

Come on, lets hear what the republicans will do the day the retake control!! I hear lots of negative talk, but nothing in the solution department!

Starting to make me laugh.

Get the politicians the hell out of the way and let our military kick the living crap out of the enemy. We have the best fighting force in the world, but when they have to send a letter to the president asking if they can shoot back, it's too damn late. It really is not rocket science. Let the experts handle the war and get Bambi and VP bite-me out of the way.

Franco
06-23-2010, 08:08 PM
So I hear lots of bad-mouthing, and that's fine, but it doesn't solve any problems!

What do we do to win Afghanistan, not spend money we don't have, and keep terrorists from just fleeing to their next safe haven?

Come on, lets hear what the republicans will do the day the retake control!! I hear lots of negative talk, but nothing in the solution department!

Starting to make me laugh.

I would have pulled our troops out a long time ago.

Only a fool would think we could change those people.

No matter how much they hate us, I would continue to fly drones here as well as Pakistan. Fire when we have clear indentifiable targets and keep Obama hiding in his cave.

Ditto for Iraq.

M&K's Retrievers
06-23-2010, 08:44 PM
.....

Starting to make me laugh.

Yuk it up, Dave. You have another post to answer.

david gibson
06-23-2010, 09:05 PM
So I hear lots of bad-mouthing, and that's fine, but it doesn't solve any problems!

What do we do to win Afghanistan, not spend money we don't have, and keep terrorists from just fleeing to their next safe haven?

Come on, lets hear what the republicans will do the day the retake control!! I hear lots of negative talk, but nothing in the solution department!

Starting to make me laugh.

what are you talking about? i thought you libs just want to get out of A-stan altogether and form a multi-national cum-ba-ya chorus line.

Bubba
06-23-2010, 09:20 PM
Still not sure why it is that with the most powerful fighting force ever to tread the earth that we not only allow but in some cases encourage the Opium/Heroin trade to flourish. That patch of dry dog squat is responsible for 90% of the worlds supply. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the fuel for the Taliban/Al Queda/terrorist regeime. The best way to end the misery coming from that shisthole is to make sure that not ONE poppy plant matures. With all our drones/sattelites/whatever it seems to me that we could wipe that problem out overnight and strangle the rotten baskirds. Spend whatever it takes to provide ways for the peasants to earn a living without growing dope and the rest of the problems will die of starvation.

The dope gotta go regards

Bubba

mjh345
06-23-2010, 10:32 PM
I would have pulled our troops out a long time ago.

Only a fool would think we could change those people.

No matter how much they hate us, I would continue to fly drones here as well as Pakistan. Fire when we have clear indentifiable targets and keep Obama hiding in his cave.

Ditto for Iraq.
Touche!!!!

Nate_C
06-23-2010, 10:43 PM
Get the politicians the hell out of the way and let our military kick the living crap out of the enemy. We have the best fighting force in the world, but when they have to send a letter to the president asking if they can shoot back, it's too damn late. It really is not rocket science. Let the experts handle the war and get Bambi and VP bite-me out of the way.

Kick the crap out of who? The reality is that "the worlds most powerful army" wasn't built for this. Back in the 70's and 80's Russia who was just as powerful and much more ruthless couldn't do it either. The realities are much more complex then just "Let's kick butt"

By the way please tell me what is so different with Obama's strategy and the bush policies. For the most part he has followed the same course.

M&K's Retrievers
06-24-2010, 12:17 AM
I would have pulled our troops out a long time ago.

Only a fool would think we could change those people.

No matter how much they hate us, I would continue to fly drones here as well as Pakistan. Fire when we have clear indentifiable targets and keep Obama hiding in his cave.

Ditto for Iraq.

Obama?????

Scott Greenwood
06-24-2010, 12:23 AM
Love it! I very much disrespect any member of our armed forces that has the disrespect to bad mouth the person that "they" work for to keep this country free.

I don't care who you vote for, show some respect and represent this country, and the President that runs it, or go to the other side! Why doesn't this mouth, since he will have plenty of down time, write a book, since he won't be doing what he is supposed to be doing.

I.E. I am not in the armed forces, but if I was able I would represent the United States with more respect than General McChrystal has. If someone who has bad mouthed the same Government that gave him this job, I will gladly trade places with him. Show some respect.

david gibson
06-24-2010, 12:38 AM
i am not defending the general, but it really seems to me that a good scolding and "get back to work" would have been more appropriate. how fitting that obama sends in petraeus after the dems "will petraeus betray us" embarrassment.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"In an article by Rolling Stone magazine that came out online today and hits newsstands Friday, General McChrystal had some very Unpolitically Correct things to say about Washington. While he did not criticize President Obama directly, he does mention being disappointed when he first met him after he took office. He said the president did not seem very “engaged.”

Probably his worst comment was about the Vice-President, when he pretended to not recognize the name “Joe Biden.”

The main problem with the whole article is simply that it shows a brutally honest general who always says what he’s thinking and means what he says. Exactly the kind of guy you want fighting for you in a war! But not the kind of guy you want be interviewed by anyone, or standing in for you as a diplomat.

He is supposed to have a diplomatic partner who would be handling all the political and diplomatic sides of the war so he can focus on fighting, and he discusses that fiasco with Rolling Stone as well, which was surely not politically correct. He said he feels betrayed by Ambassador Karl Eikenberry, who was assigned by the White House. He thinks the ambassador has been trying to cover his own rear end, rather than doing his job.

So while General McChrystal did not win any awards for public relations, diplomacy or political correctness, he wins a gold star in honesty, integrity and for doing his job…which is fight insurgents, not mouth the party line."
>>>>>>>>>>>>.

perhaps if we had a president with a lick of class, professionalism, honesty, and a host of other qualities which O clearly lacks we would never have an incident like this......

Scott Greenwood
06-24-2010, 12:59 AM
i am not defending the general, but it really seems to me that a good scolding and "get back to work" would have been more appropriate. how fitting that obama sends in petraeus after the dems "will petraeus betray us" embarrassment.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"In an article by Rolling Stone magazine that came out online today and hits newsstands Friday, General McChrystal had some very Unpolitically Correct things to say about Washington. While he did not criticize President Obama directly, he does mention being disappointed when he first met him after he took office. He said the president did not seem very “engaged.”

Probably his worst comment was about the Vice-President, when he pretended to not recognize the name “Joe Biden.”

The main problem with the whole article is simply that it shows a brutally honest general who always says what he’s thinking and means what he says. Exactly the kind of guy you want fighting for you in a war! But not the kind of guy you want be interviewed by anyone, or standing in for you as a diplomat.

He is supposed to have a diplomatic partner who would be handling all the political and diplomatic sides of the war so he can focus on fighting, and he discusses that fiasco with Rolling Stone as well, which was surely not politically correct. He said he feels betrayed by Ambassador Karl Eikenberry, who was assigned by the White House. He thinks the ambassador has been trying to cover his own rear end, rather than doing his job.

So while General McChrystal did not win any awards for public relations, diplomacy or political correctness, he wins a gold star in honesty, integrity and for doing his job…which is fight insurgents, not mouth the party line."
>>>>>>>>>>>>.
perhaps if we had a president with a lick of class, professionalism, honesty, and a host of other qualities which O clearly lacks we would never have an incident like this......

Not to disrespect maybe he should stick to the task at hand instead of giving interviews to a second class rag.

ducknwork
06-24-2010, 07:32 AM
Why isn't McC's freedom of speech (or lack of) an issue in this situation?

road kill
06-24-2010, 07:37 AM
Why isn't McC's freedom of speech (or lack of) an issue in this situation?

Because you don't have "Freedom of Speech" in the military.
McChrystal violated his oath and was wrong.

The US military is not a democracy.

It's up to civilians to argue politics, the military is an entirely different matter.





rk

ducknwork
06-24-2010, 07:39 AM
Because you don't have "Freedom of Speech" in the military.
McChrystal violated his oath and was wrong.

The US military is not a democracy.

It's up to civilians to argue politics, the military is an entirely different matter.





rk

Not trying to argue...genuinely curious...forgive my ignorance.

What does his oath say and what part did he violate?

blind ambition
06-24-2010, 04:47 PM
I would have pulled our troops out a long time ago.

Only a fool would think we could change those people.

No matter how much they hate us, I would continue to fly drones here as well as Pakistan. Fire when we have clear indentifiable targets and keep Obama hiding in his cave.

Ditto for Iraq.

!?. Now tell us what you really think.

dnf777
06-24-2010, 05:24 PM
Not trying to argue...genuinely curious...forgive my ignorance.

What does his oath say and what part did he violate?

He didn't violate his oath per se, but its an unwritten rule in the military that you don't publicly badmouth your chain of command. It undermines leadership. People in older times on ships would stretch a rope or wear out some leather with their backs for undermining their captain. The military doesn't make policy, it enforces the policy handed to them.

As for the other comment about "letting the military kick butt", what country are you from? Iraq? North Korea? Somalia? Bosnia? Syria? Iran?

Get the picture? That's why we have a chain of command and democratically elected leadership.

road kill
06-24-2010, 06:02 PM
He didn't violate his oath per se, but its an unwritten rule in the military that you don't publicly badmouth your chain of command. It undermines leadership. People in older times on ships would stretch a rope or wear out some leather with their backs for undermining their captain. The military doesn't make policy, it enforces the policy handed to them.

As for the other comment about "letting the military kick butt", what country are you from? Iraq? North Korea? Somalia? Bosnia? Syria? Iran?

Get the picture? That's why we have a chain of command and democratically elected leadership.
It is written Dave, UCMJ!!!
You were an officer, you know this.
The military is not a democracy.



rk

dnf777
06-24-2010, 06:04 PM
It is writtne Dave, UCMJ!!!
You were an officer, you know this.



rk

I don't think he specifically violated the UCMJ. I'm sure lawyers could answer that better than I, but in any case, it was wrong.

BTW, if you enforced the UCMJ to the letter, almost every married couple I know would be in the slammer! You would't believe what's against the law! :cool:

david gibson
06-24-2010, 06:08 PM
It is written Dave, UCMJ!!!
You were an officer, you know this.
The military is not a democracy.

rk

§ 888 88 Contempt toward officials

Contempt towards officials is addressed in the Punitive articles, specifically Article 88 of the U.S. Uniform Code of Military Justice in the 2008 Manual for Courts-Martial of the United States as follows:
“ 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.

Elements

1. That the accused was a commissioned officer of the United States armed forces;
2. That the accused used certain words against an official or legislature named in the article;
3. That by an act of the accused these words came to the knowledge of a person other than the accused; and
4. That the words used were contemptuous, either in themselves or by virtue of the circumstances under which they were used.
(Note: If the words were against a Governor or legislature, add the following element:)
5. That the accused was then present in the State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession of the Governor or legislature concerned.



i would think an officer would remember this....

road kill
06-24-2010, 06:08 PM
I don't think he specifically violated the UCMJ. I'm sure lawyers could answer that better than I, but in any case, it was wrong.

BTW, if you enforced the UCMJ to the letter, almost every married couple I know would be in the slammer! You would't believe what's against the law! :cool:

Yes I would!
I have read it.
As an officer you swear to uphold and support the constitution.
For an unspecified time.

The Commander in Chief is the BOSS of the constitution.
I don't want to debate what opinions are on what Obama is doing to the constitution, that's for another thread.
But as a soldier you don't get to debate, you have taken an oath to follow orders and the chain of command.
There are exceptions, this is not one.


I choke on the words, but this is how it works.
McChrystal could be C/M, but at any rate his career is over!!

Do you want my to post a link to the UCMJ for officers?
It's a quick easy read!!!:D




rk

david gibson
06-24-2010, 06:12 PM
I don't think he specifically violated the UCMJ. I'm sure lawyers could answer that better than I, but in any case, it was wrong.

BTW, if you enforced the UCMJ to the letter, almost every married couple I know would be in the slammer! You would't believe what's against the law! :cool:

§ 925 article 125 Sodomy
Sodomy (pronounced /ˈsɒdəmi/) is a term used in the law to describe the act of "unnatural"[1] sex, which depending on jurisdiction can consist of oral sex or anal sex or any non-genital to genital congress, whether heterosexual, or homosexual, or with human or animal.[2]


so you just skip to or remember this kind of stuff, eh? and you are a doctor?

road kill
06-24-2010, 06:33 PM
§ 888 88 Contempt toward officials

Contempt towards officials is addressed in the Punitive articles, specifically Article 88 of the U.S. Uniform Code of Military Justice in the 2008 Manual for Courts-Martial of the United States as follows:
“ 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.

Elements

1. That the accused was a commissioned officer of the United States armed forces;
2. That the accused used certain words against an official or legislature named in the article;
3. That by an act of the accused these words came to the knowledge of a person other than the accused; and
4. That the words used were contemptuous, either in themselves or by virtue of the circumstances under which they were used.
(Note: If the words were against a Governor or legislature, add the following element:)
5. That the accused was then present in the State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession of the Governor or legislature concerned.



i would think an officer would remember this....
He should, but he was stupid enough to let a reporter from the Rolling Stone hang with him.




stan b

david gibson
06-24-2010, 06:41 PM
He should, but he was stupid enough to let a reporter from the Rolling Stone hang with him.




stan b

dnf gave an interview to RS too??? ;-)

dnf777
06-24-2010, 07:14 PM
§ 925 article 125 Sodomy
Sodomy (pronounced /ˈsɒdəmi/) is a term used in the law to describe the act of "unnatural"[1] sex, which depending on jurisdiction can consist of oral sex or anal sex or any non-genital to genital congress, whether heterosexual, or homosexual, or with human or animal.[2]


so you just skip to or remember this kind of stuff, eh? and you are a doctor?

Has nothing to do with what my profession is, Dave, why do people keep bringing this up? As someone who drills mud-holes for a living, I would think YOU know more about this than me! ;)

I happen to remember because I was called by my commander in SWA to serve as investigative officer for an alleged crime that occurred in theatre. The dummy kept insisting to the prosecuting attorney that the oral $3x was consensual. They said, fine, thankyou, please sign your confession to sodomy, and that was the end of that. That's when the JAG, who was a friend of mine, informed me that the UCMJ could be used to prosecute virtually every married couple in the army.