It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

This man, is going to decide your fate.

page: 2
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by traderjack
What would seem to be needed would be someone with a heavy ground combat background, an infantry soldier with a strong knowledge of COIN. But, I'm no expert.


I agree 100%, COIN experiance these days is a MUST for ANY officer leading troops or deciding troop movements....and nice stab...I'll take it..lol.




posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 01:50 PM
link   
This is EXACTLY why I think anyone who joins TODAY'S military is crazy. You are handing your fate over to someone you don't know. That someone more than likely has motives of which would make you sick.

And yet, you sign on the dotted line?

It's reality and don't try to blame anybody but yourself if you find yourself in a foxhole carrying out some insane mission dreamed up by some politician disguised as a military leader that will probably get you killed.

Welcome to the real world.



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 01:51 PM
link   
I was a gropo long before some of you were probably, 11B, 11H10 and 11O9 to be exact. He is Navy and that is what you get with a Naval officer, sea experience. He is not a gropo.

During Vietnam he was a junior officer and probably did see combat. While officers can put themselves in for ribbons, he was junior enough during that time where he probably didn't and it was his CO that put him in for it. Also, just because an officer does put himself in for a medal does not mean he does not deserve it. Case in point: On Mullen's wikipedia page an Army Captain is getting the Silver Star. Does it mean because he could reccomend himself for it he doesn't deserve it?

Let's say because he has no ground experience he is removed as Chief. Then you appoint a Chief that is a RA 4 star who does have the ground experience. Would it be better then? The Navy could complain that he has no sea experience and not qualified as Chief.

If the argument is he doesn't have combat experience we should do well to remember that a lot of our own President's didn't have combat or military experience but did well leading the nation as commander in chief. I think more of what we see here is that Army/Marines don't like Naval officers having the Chief position because Iraq has been mainly on their shoulders. My opinion is it should be a 5 star army general. I was Army so I am biased.



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by GTORick
 





During Vietnam he was a junior officer and probably did see combat. While officers can put themselves in for ribbons, he was junior enough during that time where he probably didn't and it was his CO that put him in for it. Also, just because an officer does put himself in for a medal does not mean he does not deserve it. Case in point: On Mullen's wikipedia page an Army Captain is getting the Silver Star. Does it mean because he could reccomend himself for it he doesn't deserve it?

It's amazing how members keep posting without reading the FACTS.
As I posted above, the award was given by the former Republic of Vietnam to ANY UNIT that served in the Vietnam war.

IT IS NOT AN INDIVIDUAL AWARD. EVEN THE COOKS ON SHIPS GOT THE AWARD.



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by rcwj75
 


You are missing the point.
The CJCS, should be a huge bastard.
Who could kick the feck out of anyone.
Think about it for a moment before you "Ugh"
This pansy, is going to launch the nukes.
He shouldn't get to do that, for just showing up.
He more than likely does gay Bill Gates funny hand dancing.



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by BorgHoffen
 


Sorry but size has NOTHING to do with it...this position needs to be filled by someone with the experiance of soldiering and most importanly an understanding of what ground soldiers and CP units go through and deal with DAILY during a deployment.



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfEmeritus
 


Actually, you need to reread your own quote. Aside from the fact I was typing when you posted that it says it was given to units who showed the SAME gallantry as the individual award. I didn't read anywhere in the quote that is was given to ALL units in Vietnam.



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 02:08 PM
link   
My choice for such a position would be a Marine enlisted grunt that moved up the chain of command to officer or even better Senior Staff N.C.O. status... The Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry is a unit citation that is even worn by REMFs and pogues that lived in hardbacks in the rear, ate hot chow and drank beer every night at the E.M. or Officers clubs..... Medals don't mean anything, I had over a half dozen of them 40 years ago when I was 19 years old.... A lot of officers were awarded medals and commendations because some 18 or 19 year old kids took it upon themselves to perform some outrageously insane acts of bravery out of desperation due to situations that occurred because of the mistakes made by those in command....It don't mean nothing.



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 02:13 PM
link   
I agree with previous posts that they would not let a man with real war experience be involved in any actual decision making process.

They want a groomed persuaded brainwashed corrupt individual to do the job that they are asked to do without any questions being asked.

Good thread.



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 02:15 PM
link   
So i guess people who serve in the Navy arnt American enough? Nor people who have the intelligence and education to become officers?



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by hypervigilant
 


That's really the crux of the argument isn't it? Those in command making mistakes. You make a good point. That reminds me of military history. Case in point during the Civil War there was a combat veteran general who made every mistake possible and there was a non combat veteran general who got it right (almost) every time.

Regardless of experience, who would you rather have in command? Someone who makes the right decisions or wrong decisions regardless of where they came from.



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by benrl
So i guess people who serve in the Navy arnt American enough? Nor people who have the intelligence and education to become officers?


Noone is saying that...but its common knowledge that navy officers DO NOT have the combat experiance or general experiance of WAR anymore...whens the last time there has been a WAR at sea? This many is a great american with a great service to his country but again IMO not experianced enough to run units on the ground.



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by GTORick
 

I repeat, the medal was awarded to ALL UNITS that served in Vietnam.


U.S. Military units were individually cited for award of the Republic of Vietnam (RVN) Gallantry Cross; however, the Vietnamese Government issued the award to all units subordinate to Military Assistance Command (MACV) during the period 8 February 1962 and 28 March 1973


militaryveteranspx.com...



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 03:34 PM
link   
Forgive me but I must chime in here with my 2 cents, The chairman of the Joint Chiefs is just the face man for the President, he will not override the day to operations of the Commandant of the Marine Corps or the chief of staff of the Army, the President will set policy he will pass the policy onto the joint chiefs, he does not need in the "trenches" combat experience because he will be surrounded by that kind of talent advising him. To label him as "unqualified" is a serious injustice to the man. Walk a mile in a mans shoes before you judge him.


Sailor



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by BorgHoffen
reply to post by rcwj75
 


You are missing the point.
The CJCS, should be a huge bastard.
Who could kick the feck out of anyone.
Think about it for a moment before you "Ugh"
This pansy, is going to launch the nukes.
He shouldn't get to do that, for just showing up.
He more than likely does gay Bill Gates funny hand dancing.


Have you served in the military or do you currently?



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 04:02 PM
link   
any one who thinks he is " unqualified " please review Eisehowers record prior to being appointed supreme allied commander . europe



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 04:43 PM
link   
Okay... what are we missing, here?

The guy has been the CHAIRMAN of the JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF SINCE OCTOBER, 2007.

Why is the OP getting fussed about something that happened almost 2 years ago, over a man appointed by Bush The Last?

Furthermore, the office of the Chairman of the JCOS rotates among the services as anyone can see by running to Wikipedia:
en.wikipedia.org...

So... where's the beef?







[edit on 1-3-2009 by Byrd]



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by rcwj75
 

This reminds me of a conversation I had yesterday with a man who served as a medic in Vietnam in the late 60s. No one told him to log his flight hours to qualify for a medal. Lo and behold-others had recorded his hours as THEIRS-and got his service medal. Whoever pointed out that a medal doesn't neccessarily mean combat experience is correct.

My uncle who did serve with the 10th Mountain in the second Gulf War got several and never wore them-he said they "were a load of crap." Ouch!



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 11:25 PM
link   
Look folks, this guy has a very impressive resume and he has put in over 40 years of service. I don't question any military officer's service and certainly not a man who has dedicated his whole life to the service. I am sure that he is more than capable, otherwise he would never have made Admiral and he would not have remained an Admiral if he was an empty suit.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 05:38 AM
link   
Officers are just managers,like politicians are.They don't like sweating or getting their hands dirty,they tell others to do the work.

I have been in the military,and been deployed,and have no respect for any of it anymore.

BS brainwashing,un-necessary death and destruction,to profit the businesses that produce the materials destroyed in conflict,and steal from the people whose country they destroy,aside from all of the not-so-necessary death and suffering.

The military simply takes advantage of young unestablished people who don't know any better,and puts them in harms way.

Patriotism is a dangerous thing that will blind you to the truth.

It all seems a bit silly when you find yourself leaking your fluids into the dirt of a foreign land,wondering why the fk you are there.....

Death is pretty final, why rush it?,everybody has to make the trip anyway.

America is way too militaristic.

Sorry,I wander a bit...............



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join