Obama's purge of top military brass...

[Tchocky]

Back on the GT merry go round.

Didn't we used to have a better class of argument around here? Or do I misremember..

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

There you go with the condescending tone, I am aware of the official explanations and them using the rules, which are honestly absolute bs.Obama should have been a man about it, took it as hey, the guy who actually knows about military operations is saying our plans are junk but instead, he just booted him out.McCrystal was purged out because obama did not like him, he used the "rules" as an excuse.

Only condescending because in my estimation this time you truly deserve it. The UCMJ is the law the military lives by. It's not a suggestion, or a helpful hint. It is the law. I would think you of all people would know this, if your claims of legal education are true. No, an officer does not fault his Commander-In-Chief, especially not in public. If you don't understand that then you need more than just condescension. You need an education.

Resigning may have saved Petraeus's future but to me, it sounds like he was purged out, most likely for disagreeing with obama and company.There is a very obvious pattern with this admin.

Possibly. It's also possible that you're seeing exactly what you want to see, based on your pre-existing bias.

I had read it was for gambling.Hmm well if that is actually true, his mistake.However, the timing just seems to coincidental.Perhaps the Admiral was not a "team" player and they used this to try and purge him.I mean, he is out of his post.Wonder what yes man they are replacing him with.

Again what you believe is possible. It's possible the man was even framed. It's also possible he was playing with the wrong crowd. It's also possible he's guilty as charged. An investigation should bring it out. From your remaining words it's obvious that you are having trouble looking at any of this from an unbiased standpoint, which is something you need when dealing with the law or with debate.

Just something obviously is going on for them to be throwing out high ranking military people left and right like this.

Not necessarily. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

They are smart enough to at least try to give the appearance of a "legitimate" reason. I could be wrong but that is the unfortunate part, this admin has been so dishonest from day 1, it is difficult to ever trust them on anything.I want to sometimes, I don't want to believe some things that are pretty obvious but can not turn away from the truth.

Maybe this belongs in the new 'Advice' thread, but I'll give it here anyway: Try to find out the truth. Never assume you already know it.

[em2nought]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Not necessarily. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

Can't we just blame the "gay" enlisted guy in turret number two?

[eddie]

Steve, this is where Bubbles gets his unbiased truth from, just another goofy blogger!

http://john-gaultier.blogspot.com/20...vent-coup.html

[Ducimus]

Ok, I know I'm not exactly the most stellar poster on the forum, but I just have to point out how this thread was doomed from the get go.

To bubblehead, lets go through this by the numbers:

Problem 1.
No citation, or supporting links from a recognized and credible news source. examples being nytimes, cnn, foxnews, bbc, huffington post, latimes, etc etc. I think everyone knows that all media has a spin, but unless the major news networks have picked up on it, it's probably not a credible story. If your source is not both recognized and credible, expect mockery and funny pictures. Additionally, a second supporting link that is also both recognizeable and credible bolsters your post.

There is a case for 3rd party news outlets that provide official links and cites official sources. However, if it plays "connect the dots" too much, and is not articulate, clear, and rational, it will also be dismissed.

Shock jocks like Rush Limbaugh, Alex Jones, are right out. Never use them for sources. If your trying to convince anyone of anything, don't use them.


problem 2.
Post title. " Obama's purge of top military brass.".
Use something less accusatory. A good tactic if accusatory language must be used, is to craft the post title as a question. Example: Is Obama trying to purge the top military brass? This does two things:
a.) You are avoiding stating something as fact.
b.) You reserve for yourself plausible deniability.

Problem 3.
Never state anything as fact. Rather, give the supporting evidence, and ask a question instead. Choose your words carefully and let the reader draw their own conclusions. Once you state something as fact, you claim ownership of any rhetoric or falsities in your supporting evidence - real or perceived. This discredits you for the entire duration of the thread. Too many threads, and well......

Problem 4.
Be very careful when stating your opinion or take on something. Only do so when the supporting evidence is overwhelming.

Problem 5.
Avoid rhetoric or rhetorical language as much as possible. Using jingoistic buzzwords only removes you from a position of neutrality, which in turn only discredits you if your trying convince people of something. If of course your not trying to convince anyone of anything, then vent away.

Problem 6.
Learn to wordsmith. Always maintain plausible deniablity and a way out if possible.



I should be a politician when i grow up.
And yes, I know I do not always do these things myself.

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

Support him or not, anyone looking at this fairly has to find it mighty suspicious that obama has "fired" 9 Generals and Admirals now.Why? No real explanations aside from some vague accusations that sound like nothing more than arbitrary reasons to rid the military of those who do not support him.Dismissing the Admiral who refused to stand down when they gave the idiotic order not to defend Benghazi ? I hear North Korea's "leader" has been purging his military as well. Should be outrage over this, of course our half braindead population remains silent.Close national parks or have food stamps threatened, oh plenty of uproar.SMH

Originally Posted by eddie

Steve, this is where Bubbles gets his unbiased truth from, just another goofy blogger!

http://john-gaultier.blogspot.com/20...vent-coup.html

that sites big on the CAPSLOCK.
I do like.........


OBAMA IS A MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD UNDERCOVER AGENT. THE FACTS EXPOSE HIM

Obama has Never been a Democrat: He is a Undercover MUSLIM MOLE

[mapuc]

Here's another Thought I have

If we had Internet, when Abraham Lincoln was the President what would be the conspirators accusations on him.

That he was some undercover....

Markus

[Tchocky]

Ducimus, good points all.

[TarJak]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

Ducimus, good points all.

+1.

One other piece of advice is to not abandon your threads when your arguments are proven to be false. At least man up and admit you can be wrong mistaken or otherwise incorrect. Unless of course that was your intent from the start. But that would be trolling wouldn't it?

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

Nice semi veiled insult.Why don't you offer a response instead of an insult? I just explained in response to Steve's post.I would appreciate it if you stop insulting me.

I'm not so sure this is the case actually.

Not one to take sides but you really need to post some sources/links to back up what you are posting.......'put up or shut up' one might say.

Take another read of my PM....I consider my time to be of some value to myself at least.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by mapuc

Here's another Thought I have

If we had Internet, when Abraham Lincoln was the President what would be the conspirators accusations on him.

That he was some undercover....

Markus

Undercover British agent.

[Mr Quatro]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Oh, I dare say that the gentlemen involved have most likely have been either relieved of command or have stood down, but the reasoning behind it is what lumps this thread into the conspiracy basket.

For example,Vice-Admiral Giardina was due to a criminal investigation into gambling.

Furthermore, the extremely subtle (!) comparison between the President and Kim Jong-un is a grasp worthy of Alex Jones and the FEMA death camp crowd.

So, into the conspiracy bin I say.

That was my first thought on what this was all about ... plus another one just mentioned for undisclosed reasons and relieved of his nuclear weapons decisions ... I think he was US Airforce and of course the first one was USN.

Bubblehead 1980 we do have a life ... look what you have generated three pages of nonsense, because of your prejudices against President Obama.

A better subject would've been about all of the commanders relieved this year of duty and that was in just the USN from all kinds of reason
that President Obama didn't have anything to do with.

Link:
25 Navy commanders dismissed - Stripes - Independent U.S. …

www.stripes.com/25-navy-commanders-dismissed-1.202123

It was a brutal year for U.S. Navy commanding officers,
who saw 25 of their own get pink slips in 2012. Many of the commanders were fired for personal misconduct ...

[Oberon]

Personally I'd say it has more to do with this:



Than this:

[mapuc]

Do understand that not every opponent to Obama drag some weird conspiracy page to their help.

I have some American friends and they don't like obama, but they use mainstream media and stuff from the .gov when they are arguing something about Obama and his politics

I have never seen these using redflagnews or other suspicious Internet pages

Markus

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Personally I'd say it has more to do with this:

Than this:

I'd say neither one. The US military, the navy in particular, is very conscious of how it looks to the outside world, and willing to relieve any officer who does not perform to the highest standards. If a ship is involved in a collision, it is the Commander's fault, even if he was asleep in his bunk at the time. In this tradition we follow the Royal Navy as a long-standing example.