General butts head publicly with the White House

[BostonPirate]

the sauce of religious virus.... does that go with the rice of the many?

 

[Apollo]

Finally something ends cut and dry.

Really no sympathy for the man to be honest.

 

[bankside]

Of course it is a religious war! Any war with the Taleban is a religious war, because they see everything as religious.

If we're clever though, we'd be fighting on the side of the enlightenment rather than aping the religious overtones used by the Taleban. Like maybe not buying guns for soldiers that have christian inscriptions on the sights.

 

[laikaNYC]

That's not what I asked you.

If you think this is a religious war, which nation do you believe this puts us at war with?

It puts us at war with groups such as Al Qaeda and the Taliban who kill in the name of Islam, not a specific nation persay.

 

[MercuryJones]

It puts us at war with groups such as Al Qaeda and the Taliban who kill in the name of Islam, not a specific nation persay.

So the United States is at war with a group, not a nation?

(Also, I think you mean "per se".)

 

[NickCole]

Except he didn't question the strategy, he just badmouthed people. Based on his comments, I have no better idea of any supposed weaknesses of the military strategy for Afghanistan.

If he felt that his advice for a better strategy (does he even have any?) was being ignored by leadership that was either inept or uncaring, then rather than letting slip a bunch of invective in an entertainment magazine, he would have called a press conference a month ago, resigned, and stated his reasons for doing so in detail. OH! And he might not have reiterated his support for the strategy today.

This doesn't seem smart enough or orchestrated enough to be "doing something radical." It seems like buffoonery. At best it was the private frustration of someone just venting, and a General should obviously know you don't vent about things you don't seriously believe in front of a reporter.

That's the point: a General knows not to merely vent and badmouth the Commander in Chief and Vice President to a reporter.

And of course he didn't question the strategy: it's HIS strategy.

When I say listen to someone, that means figure out what he's saying.

To understand what he and others are saying in that piece the first thing you need is information and context.

 

[laikaNYC]

So the United States is at war with a group, not a nation?

(Also, I think you mean "per se".)

Well, last time I checked Al Qaeda and the Taliban weren't a nation.

(Getting a little petty are we?)

 

[Telstra]

That's not what I asked you.

If you think this is a religious war, which nation do you believe this puts us at war with?

ok the USA of course.
But its not black and white. A fist fight does not involve in only 1 person or 1 country.

 

[NickCole]

He showed exceptionally poor judgment. Someone like that should not be in charge of the prosecution of a war.

The few excerpts I read did not seem to indicate any substantive disagreements. It read more like gossipy people carping about their co-workers and bosses.

Said the man who bases his conclusion on the Reader's Digest condensed version.

 

[Lefty]

Show me the tpaes and the exact moments everything was said...Don't try

to sell me some third rate journelist stirring the fucking pot to make a name

and a public that sucks it up like free draft beer. Does the General have to get

permission from the white house to jack off too? Context not fucking he said she

said interpretations please. We the people of the United States need to start

being WE the people of the United States. Our titular head is selected by (oh my

god, i might vomit here) a jury of his peers...wallets determine peer groups of

course...Neither all seeing or all infallible. some dude a few thousand years ago

said with diversity there is growth...with complacency..there are sheep....

Ok, I lied,,,it wasnt a few thousand years ago, it was me 45 seconds ago.

Fuck this lay the blame shit......like the mess in the Gulf of Mexico...

FIX WHAT THE FUCK NEEDS FIXING....then fix your bayonets and jab baby jab.


Oh shit, my nickles worth ran out and I've proved I am an asshole again.

 

[MercuryJones]

Well, last time I checked Al Qaeda and the Taliban weren't a nation.

(Getting a little petty are we?)

I know facts can be tedious, but I'm rather committed to accuracy.

I'm aware of a declaration of war against Afghanistan, and against Iraq.

I'm rather wondering about a declaration of war on a group, and if such a thing is possible.

 

[MercuryJones]

ok the USA of course.
But its not black and white. A fist fight does not involve in only 1 person or 1 country.

We're at war with the US? What an odd answer.

But a war is not a fist fight. In the US it requires a declaration, and generally involves action against a nation.

 

[NickCole]

I know facts can be tedious, but I'm rather committed to accuracy.

I'm aware of a declaration of war against Afghanistan, and against Iraq.

I'm rather wondering about a declaration of war on a group, and if such a thing is possible.

Okay that's just funny. This guy gets pissy about how someone spells per se, claims he's committed to accuracy and facts then states he's "aware of a declaration of war against Afghanistan."

In the interest of tedious facts and accuracy I'll point out that although Congress authorized military combat in Afghanistan, there has been no Declaration of War.

 

[opinterph]

I know facts can be tedious, but I'm rather committed to accuracy.

I'm aware of a declaration of war against Afghanistan, and against Iraq.

Can you provide a source link to verify a declaration of war by the United States against Afghanistan, and against Iraq?

 

[MercuryJones]

Can you provide a source link to verify a declaration of war by the United States against Afghanistan, and against Iraq?

Actually, no. I've been looking for a few minutes. And my memory isn't what I'd like it to be. So I was in error.

So I do still wonder about the principle of being at war with a group.

 

[NickCole]

Actually, no. I've been looking for a few minutes. And my memory isn't what I'd like it to be. So I was in error.

So I do still wonder about the principle of being at war with a group.

There is no principle involved in being at war with a group.

Not with Bush and not with Obama.

What's involved is PR.

"While passions and politics can often obscure the hard work before us, let's be clear about what this moment demands," the president said. "We are at war."

Which President said that?

Have to admit it could be Bush or Obama.

No change.

 

[bankside]

That's the point: a General knows not to merely vent and badmouth the Commander in Chief and Vice President to a reporter.

And of course he didn't question the strategy: it's HIS strategy.

When I say listen to someone, that means figure out what he's saying.

To understand what he and others are saying in that piece the first thing you need is information and context.

Ohhhhhhh! You mean "listen" to what he's saying....nudge nudge wink wink....of course he knows what he's doing.....we just have to figure out what he's really saying....you know....about the esidentpray...obayamaway...you know...


Last I heard he was not a general for the Soviet Union, or North Korea, and no one from the politbureau would come for him in the middle of the night if he just resigned and said what was on his mind with a bit of dignity and class.

"Listen" to what I'm saying.

Listening?

Find the secret meaning?

I'll whisper it.

HE HAS NO CLASS.

 

[NickCole]

Ohhhhhhh! You mean "listen" to what he's saying....nudge nudge wink wink....of course he knows what he's doing.....we just have to figure out what he's really saying....you know....about the esidentpray...obayamaway...you know...


Last I heard he was not a general for the Soviet Union, or North Korea, and no one from the politbureau would come for him in the middle of the night if he just resigned and said what was on his mind with a bit of dignity and class.

"Listen" to what I'm saying.

Listening?

Find the secret meaning?

I'll whisper it.

HE HAS NO CLASS.

Class is for debutantes to worry over.

War and killing and a Commander in Chief who's no leader has nothing to do with class, bub.

You're too easily impressed by public relations and too reticent to look forthrightly at an indelicate truth.

 

[bankside]

Class is for debutantes to worry over.

War and killing and a Commander in Chief who's no leader has nothing to do with class, bub.

You're right, it's worse: he has no honour. And if he is too chickenshit to speak his grievances in plain language instead of engineering a smarmy sideswipe in an entertainment magazine, and then publicly retracting and toadying at the President's side, then he has no courage.

And if you don't think honour and courage matter in war; I dunno what to add. The Commander in Chief made the right call.

 

[kallipolis]

I am rather sure that when Stanley McChrystal is pensioned off from the army, we shall be entertained and educated when reading his opinion of President Obama.

McChrystal might also make a suitable presidential candidate for The Republicans. Martyrdom could also demonstrate that there is a more calculated cunning to McChrystal's Rolling Stone interview than its initial revelations might suggest.

Stanley McChrystal has a well established reputation for planning well ahead of the intended mission.