Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Kraznyi.
Look at the pile of cases in your provided links(OK avoid the real crazy link as people are getting the same treatment because of who they are and who thay are not and what they did and what they didn't and because the people are this that and the other or all three at once while being neither while the other people are this that and the other too  )...which means you have already provided all the "business as usual" evidence you could possibly require. |
Tribesman, that site's name is MilitaryCorruption.com not reasonsforreliefofcommand.com. It talks about cases which, at least in their opinion, are unjust not every single case of relief of command in United States Armed Forces.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
As I said check out any of the others, or as you "check below" provide one that is even more drawn out and goes on for decades then I must ask how you can possibly say "Otherwise, no" at all?
Look at your examples, he was never able to perform satisfactorily in the job he was assigned as he never fitted the bill so he goes out with the same rank he had when he got the job he couldn't perform,
|
True.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
she however was able to perform satisfactorily on every occasion when she wasn't screwing up.
|
So we should be nice and just dismiss every screw up? Choking, violence, insults (one resulting order to write formal apology), running ship a ground... should we dismiss all these and just say that "she was able to perform satisfactorily on every occasion when she wasn't screwing up"?
Sorry but I think this is matter where we strongly disagree.
EDIT: Rewrote latter part of response as I somehow managed to miss important part of Tribesman response.