The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    PLEASE READ: To register, turn off your VPN (iPhone users- disable iCloud); you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

General butts head publicly with the White House

J

JB3

JUB Addict
Joined
Jun 15, 2008
Posts
7,142
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Chicago suburbs
An interview with General Stanley McChrystal in Rolling Stone Magazine came to light today, igniting a firestorm of controversy in Washington. In the interview the General Attacks nearly every aspect of the Obama administration's handling of the war in Afghanistan, including the US Ambassador, administration officials, VP Biden and the President himself.

WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama said Tuesday that he wants to hear directly from Gen. Stanley McChrystal before deciding whether to fire the Afghanistan war commander over a disparaging magazine story that has enraged the White House and threatened to undermine the administration.

More: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37839756/ns/us_news-military//
Click to expand...


The Rolling Stone Article:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37847841/ns/us_news-military/
 
he is a dishonorable soldier. this is not how the chain of command works in america. its a pity he is going to lose his career in shame.

on the other hand, I'm sure he will catch a job at fox.

The civilian control of the military must be unquestionable, especially in the age of "second ammendment remedy" threats made by teabaggers, militias, and republicans.
 
BostonPirate said:
he is a dishonorable soldier. this is not how the chain of command works in america. its a pity he is going to lose his career in shame.

on the other hand, I'm sure he will catch a job at fox.

The civilian control of the military must be unquestionable, especially in the age of "second ammendment remedy" threats made by teabaggers, militias, and republicans.
Click to expand...

Did you say the same thing about General Eric Shinseki? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Shinseki
 
if this thread was about him I would qualify that. You forget I don't give two good farts about party affiliation.

Crap is crap no matter whose ass it falls out of.
 
The correct thing to do for a person at his level when he has serious misgivings about the direction (or lack thereof) given, is to resign with reasons given publicly, insofar as those reasons are not so specific as to jeopardise lives on the battlefield.

One does not give interviews to magazines in the popular media. Even an interview with a scholarly journal should wait until after a formal resignation. Rolling Stone? What's next, Vogue?
 
It's revealing that nobody has disclaimed what Rolling Stone reported.

McChrystal has offered his resignation. The General's, and everyone else's, choice to speak with the magazine is their concern. The troubling assessments of Obama and his administration revealed in the article is ours.
 
No excuses for this.

Dishonorable soldier? I wouldnt go so far.

He lost situational awareness of who was listening.

I would be a liar to say everyone in the military followed obediently the policy handed down without some vocal dissent. However, you voice that only in confidence among friends... every man has the need to bleed off stress the GEN simply forgot where he was when he was speaking in confidence.

GEN McChrystal gave a recent speech to US forces in Afghanistan to explain his strategy of fighting with both arms tied behind your back and the response was blank stares from the troops. That is military dissent done in a manner consistant with good discipline and order.


In stark contrast, many on this very forum claimed Generals under the command of Bush should have done exactly what McChrystal has done..... Strange how that opinion from the left changes once it is a lefty disagreed with.... whats that hypocrisy?? Yeah thats it....

Obama has no choice but to fire Gen M....and of course give up much of the progress being made in Afghanistan. What a huge setback.
 
Very bad mistake on his part. Very bad.

It's poor form, doesn't help the effort, and sets a bad example.

You have to wonder how he'd react if someone below him in the chain of command did that to him.
 
With all of this uproar about McChrystal, it's hard to believe General Patton survived two slapping incidents.
 
What progress made in Afghanistan? We're just getting deeper into the quagmire. President Obama is the Commander-in Chief. McChrystal should be fired for insubordination.
 
BostonPirate said:
Afghanistan is done.
Click to expand...

You are right, of all the generals out there, McChrystal had the best credentials and most qualified to run the afghan campaign. He was the one, our boy, the special forces general.

I feel disappointment with McChrystal, he was a kickass general. Many soldiers stand by him and McChrystal's resignation must demoralize many of them. If he can't win this war, who can?

However we cant blame him for all the faults in Afghanistan. Obama will own our defeat in a-stan. We know he doesn't have the heart to win and has nothing but contempt for our military.
 
DeeChai said:
You are right, of all the generals out there, McChrystal had the best credentials and most qualified to run the afghan campaign. He was the one, our boy, the special forces general.

However we cant blame him for all the faults in Afghanistan. Obama will own our defeat in a-stan. We know he doesn't have the heart to win and has nothing but contempt for our military.
Click to expand...

McChrystal is the one that convinced the president to do the surge. so he shot his own campaign in the foot through insubordination.

If you can see into the hearts of other men, you must be a very wealthy guy, there.

Bush started the war. Obama wanted it to refocus on al qaeda. The General pressed for a surge and the president agreed with him.

of all three parties, Obama has the least blame here. not that the end of the war really matters.

I can tell you this. American presidents are the comander in cheif and if you consider him an outsider to that institution, you don't get what has protected us all from even a hint of a military coup for our entire history.

saying Obama has contempt for the military is trollish and illogical.

its kinda creepy.
 
The troop surge was the right move by Obama and it worked for awhile. However surges mean nothing when soldiers can't hit the ground and fight. The administration has imposed restrictive rules of engagement which limits our soldiers from closing with the enemy. It's Obama's war now, he can change our fortunes if he'd listen to the Generals. Obama does not have the heart to fight this war, he seems annoyed and uninterested.
 
BostonPirate said:
McChrystal is the one that convinced the president to do the surge. so he shot his own campaign in the foot through insubordination.

(snip)

saying Obama has contempt for the military is trollish and illogical.

its kinda creepy.
Click to expand...

...and yet, if a magazine article would convince a president to drop a military strategy because he's cranky with one of the sources for that article, it wouldn't seem very well-considered, would it?
 
bankside said:
...and yet, if a magazine article would convince a president to drop a military strategy because he's cranky with one of the sources for that article, it wouldn't seem very well-considered, would it?
Click to expand...

He violated the military code of conduct in as public a way as he could. The commander in chief can't just tolerate that - it has to be addressed.
 
JonesHere said:
He violated the military code of conduct in as public a way as he could. The commander in chief can't just tolerate that - it has to be addressed.
Click to expand...

That's not my point though. If the head of NASA came out and said "Obama is a poopoo stinky head," and Obama reacted by firing him or reprimanding him, fine. But if he reacted by cancelling funding for the International Space Station, then people would rightly question his judgement.
 
bankside said:
That's not my point though. If the head of NASA came out and said "Obama is a poopoo stinky head," and Obama reacted by firing him or reprimanding him, fine. But if he reacted by cancelling funding for the International Space Station, then people would rightly question his judgement.
Click to expand...

Understood. And yes, if he canceled a strategy just because of this insubordination it would certainly be questionable judgment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top