McChrystal most likely on the way out..

[August]

Originally Posted by krashkart

Yeah, sums it up pretty well indeed. That little snippet from the article joggled me a bit: pretty good evidence that politicians have no business conducting warfare... as if the conflict in SEA wasn't proof enough already.

Funny you should mention that because I was just thinking of how as the civil war got going Abraham Lincoln spent hours pouring over military texts and studying maps in an attempt to understand the situation as best that he could. Then again he didn't have the heavy fund raiser event schedule that President Obama has.

[krashkart]

Originally Posted by August

Funny you should mention that because I was just thinking of how as the civil war got going Abraham Lincoln spent hours pouring over military texts and studying maps in an attempt to understand the situation as best that he could. Then again he didn't have the heavy fund raiser event schedule that President Obama has.

Heh. I didn't know that about Abe. Or maybe I did and simply forgot. How big of a role did Lincoln play in the Civil War, as far as deciding where and how to employ the military?

Originally Posted by thorn69

It should be law that any presidential nominee has to have served in the US military as an officer to be considered for the presidency. I'm sick of all these bleeding heart hippies running the show.

Isn't it already a requirement that a candidate must have served in the military at some point? Or did that all change?

[August]

Originally Posted by krashkart

Heh. I didn't know that about Abe. Or maybe I did and simply forgot. How big of a role did Lincoln play in the Civil War, as far as deciding where and how to employ the military?

He left most of it to the Generals and his secretary of war just like every other successful wartime president.

[krashkart]

Originally Posted by August

He left most of it to the Generals and his secretary of war just like every other successful wartime president.

Rgr

[Zachstar]

There is a VAST VAST VAST difference between whistleblowing and mocking a superior.

First of all whistle blowing is usually done with name off the record. And evidence slowly provided to blow the cover once and for all. Whistleblowers want the activity stopped and not articles in a paper glorifying them.

Mocking a superior openly is arrogant and serves no real purpose other than to create a firestorm and destroy morale. Well that and try to end up an "adviser" to Fox or MSNBC...

The "Fired for speaking his mind" argument is completely bunk.

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by Zachstar

The "Fired for speaking his mind" argument is completely bunk.

I haven't been following this topic very closely for one simple reason. When you wear the uniform, you are never, at any time, allowed to make political statements in the public, or openly critcise the commander in chief, ragardless of rank. Pretty sure there's an article in the UCMJ on this. They beat you upside the head with this in basic training, a General should know better.

Not to mention another little tidbid.... you don't have to respect the man, but you do have to respect his rank. The president, any president, outranks everyone in every branch of the armed forces. As a General, he should have known to watch his P's and Q's because everything he says is repeated over a wide audience due to his rank.

So.. whatever... the General should have known better than to make a stupid E-1/ E-2 mistake of not knowing when to keep your mouth shut.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by krashkart

Isn't it already a requirement that a candidate must have served in the military at some point? Or did that all change?

There has never been a requirement for a candidate for the office of President to have served in the military. Nothing has changed.

Article II, Section 1, paragraph 5 of the Constitution lists all the qualifications to be President. No mention of any military service.

[krashkart]

Originally Posted by OneToughHerring

The thing is, they still don't think they have to define the goal of the war. The war IS the goal. After a decade of war it is kind of strange that there really is no clear goal outside the war itself, isn't it?

As far as I knew, before I gave up really caring about the war, the goal was to kill Bin Laden. At the time I think that was what a lot of Americans wanted (correct me if I'm wrong here, mates). He managed to slip away and since then there has been absolutely no goal that we can understand. What the Washington boneheads want out of the whole ordeal is certainly not being reported to us, and we are left with little more than to debate the possibilities.

Originally Posted by Platapus

There has never been a requirement for a candidate for the office of President to have served in the military. Nothing has changed.

Article II, Section 1, paragraph 5 of the Constitution lists all the qualifications to be President. No mention of any military service.

Ah great, thank you for clearing that up, Platapus. For some reason I thought there was a requirement. I should read up more.

[Weiss Pinguin]

Now the goal seems to be (from what I gather) mostly cleaning up and trying to get things running before we leave. But that's just from what I know, which is even less than what I know about nuclear reactors. Maybe someone more knowledgeable and with more experience can correct me...

[SteamWake]

Whatever the goal is (which is sad that they dont have a clear cut goal) things are not going well.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100624...20100624111912

[Zachstar]

Time to get more drones in there then...