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.

 

Gen. McChrystal Called In to Explain His Anti-Administration Comments

page: 7
75
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 11:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by OldDragger



Obama did the right thing, despite the knee jerkers blubbering here.
Why did Truma fire Gen. MacArthur?
Here's why!

''I fired him because he wouldn't respect the authority of the President. I didn't fire him because he was a dumb son of a bitch, although he was, but that's not against the law for generals. If it was, half to three-quarters of them would be in jail.''

The same applies to this clown, no matter who is President, the chain of command is to be respected.


Truman was a fool and Mac said so.

Korea was a total Charlie Foxtrot!

We had men going into combat with LESS equipment than they had in the previous war (even rifles were scarce at first).

They were moved around on hills with no value only to let them go back to the enemy after 100's of our GI's were slaughtered.

They were beset by human waves of people with sticks (if they were lucky) and fought till they were out of ammo at which point the guys at the back would slaughter the gun emplacemtents.

They were given stupid rules of engagement (sound familiar?) that guaranteed a loss.

Truman was a fool of the first order and like his predecessor, a freakin socialist.

You cant respect the chain of command if its rusty and broken. ANY leader worth a damn will respect the lives of his men. Having them die for a clear cut objective that will shorten or win the war is one thing. Having them die just to die? Thats another.

Patton, Mac, and McCrystal were men that realized what the score was.




posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 11:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Helmkat
We entered into these conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan based on lies, we all know it...

No, we entered these conflicts based on the best military intelligence available, which the Congress upheld when voting to invade Afghanistan and Iraq. The only LIES told were those by Congressional Democrats who at first campaigned for war and then later reversed themselves, claiming the intelligence was flawed. Which was a lie.

We entered these conflicts based on the fact that the Afghan Taliban supported and gave safehaven to international terrorists such as Al Qaeda. In the days following 911, you couldn't find anyone in America or in the world who objected to the USA storming into Afghanistan.

Today, we're still in Afghanistan because our Democrat-controlled Congress underfunded and undermined the American troops, resulting in a downward spiral of failure on the ground AFTER years of success.

We entered Iraq because Iraq had a proven history of hostility and threats toward America, not the least of which was Saddam Hussein placing a bounty on the head of George H.W. Bush in the early 1990s. Hussein consistently boasted of possessing WMD — which he used liberally against Iran and the Kurds in Iraq — and the United Nations repeatedly passed resolutions against Iraq (17 resolutions warning of dire consequences) if Saddam did not dismantle and destroy his WMD stockpiles.

Additionally, Saddam Hussein threatened Israel every chance he got, even raining down SCUD missiles on Israel during the Desert Storm conflict.

Yes, Iraq was a threat to the USA, to our interests in the Middle East (namely Israel), and to stability in the region. The Iraqi people CHEERED when Saddam finally did his little dance at the end of a rope.

So GIVE UP the America-bashing propaganda that our operations in Afghanistan and Iraq were based on lies.

You want to blame somebody, go blame Hillary and Bill Clinton, who preached long and hard throughout the 1990s about the threat that Iraq posed to the world, and again after 911.

— Doc Velocity



[edit on 6/22/2010 by Doc Velocity]



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 11:41 PM
link   
Since the general is known for propaganda. Is there a chance this event is being staged. Could this be a way for Obama to make the military fall in line and stop the birthers, right wingers and the racist that don't like a black president quite themselves and do there duty. If the general comes out of the white house and starts firing his staff and tightens up on the outspoken and disrespectful underlings. You would have to wonder if the general said I can't tighten up the military on my own they would just shun me, But if you scolded me and I did it they would still have respect for me and follow my command.

Just a thought?



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 12:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by OldDragger

Well now!
Who is General McChrystal to be calling anyone anything?
HEY REMEMBER PAT TILLMAN?
Who covered up his death by friendly fire?
who orchestrated the lies?
Why the good General!

Tillman family accuses Gen. McChrystal of cover up.

Hmm, this from 2009 so save your right wing accusations of spin!
Seems the General ain't such a patriot after all! He's a lying clown himself!


Great point!



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 12:17 AM
link   
reply to post by gem_man
 


Well he's offered his resignation now!!!!
telegraph U.K.



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 12:47 AM
link   
Hrm. Not too sure what to think on this one. So, sorry for not really contributing, but I do have an opinion:

I think America should worry about and tend to its own democracy first before worrying and tending to someone else's.

If three quarters of my house is on fire, it makes no sense to help you put out the one quarter fire in your house. Because...soon...I won't be able to help put out my own fires, let alone yours.

Not much of a contribution, but there it is.



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 01:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal.

this man owes no one any apology.

if you dissagree with my assesment, you are ignorant of what happens in warzones.

words have failed. anybody who is going to tell me this man does not have the right to say what this man feels ... then freedom of speech is dead.

how much does Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal have to do, before he has earned the GOD (Government Of Dollars) GIVEN right to say how he feels?


You are ignorant of what happens in warzones!

Has he retired from the military yet? Has he been fired yet? As of this moment (when I post this) the answer is no. When you are in the military you lose the freedom of speech! You lose the freedom to do whatever you want, whenever you want. In fact, officers have less freedom than enlisted soldiers.



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 01:28 AM
link   
I'm not sure of what Obama should do to McChrystal.

Obama is not weak if he chooses to let things be. There are a few things which everyone who chooses to speak on the matter must take into account.

First, if Obama was to fire McChrystal then that would require a change of command. For anybody who has never served in the military, this is huge. I can't even begin to understand all the impacts that something like this would have, but I think I have a better understanding than most.

Second, this is now a political decision. The conservative media is going to side with McChrystal. We all know that anybody with conservative tendencies will fall in line on that side. This is the first decision that Obama is going to make which truly puts this war in his hands.

Third, if any demotion takes place that would destroy McChrystal's career/life. He is military and has been for most of his life, there are personal factors to take into consideration.

I will say that we can kind of see what's coming by looking at what has already taken place. By acknowledging the situation before the article is released the article is being downplayed a bit. Before this article hit's the shelve we can expect this situation to be resolved.



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 01:39 AM
link   
Obama should be called in to explain crimes to humanity.

I hope general sacks obama from his office.

ALL the killing machines and their instructors should be in prison.



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 01:44 AM
link   
First we are not in a war with Afghanistan, so what do we do? The problem is we need to get Afghanistan up on its feet to handle this all on their own so we can get the hell out. To do that we do not need to kill the populace every chance we get. Our hands are tied so we can continue to pass the responsibility to the Afghan people.

I know this because I spent too much of my life in that country and we are not there to conquer, but to leave.



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 01:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Styki
I'm not sure of what Obama should do to McChrystal.


Coming from a person with 28 years in the military, Obama should fire him on the spot...any military person will understand why.



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 02:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by Styki
I'm not sure of what Obama should do to McChrystal.


Coming from a person with 28 years in the military, Obama should fire him on the spot...any military person will understand why.


agree...

if obama does not fire him he will be perceived as WEAK (i know some of you already think much worse but...)

he is left without a choice now.

the military DOES NOT tolerate insubordination. period.



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 02:04 AM
link   
"There is no such thing as a military genius." Tolstoy



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 02:47 AM
link   
Generals are a dime a dozen.

Soldiers are like dogs in the sense they are always the servant and never the master.

(actually dogs are a lot cooler than soldiers. I love dogs and did not mean to demean them in any way, only trying to make a point. All of the great men who ever lived added together would not amount to a good dog.)

General Whathisname needs to go. The cemetary is full of people who can't be replaced.



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 04:10 AM
link   
As a veteran, the son of a veteran and now father of a veteran, I consider Gen. McChrystal an American Patriot and honest human being whose show Obama is not worthy to shine.

While I am certain NSA and the minions of other Federalist Agencies are here like fleas on a dog, I found myself honor bound to speak up for Gen. McChrystal, knowing full well ATS is a Nat Trap but like many Americans, we have had enough of you traitorous scum.



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 05:04 AM
link   
reply to post by MajorKarma
 


I have to disagree, he was clearly insubordinate in his opinion and that is very demoralizing for the troops to have such a split between a top general and the commander in chief. I would have respected him more if he had kept his comments to himself, resigned out of protest, then, used his freedom of speech to say what he said.



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 05:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Doc Velocity
 


Have you ever been in the military? I have not, but I have heard of a study done in the 70's after the war in Vietnam and it shows most people on their first tour of duty will not shoot to kill. Generals wanted to know why their well trained troops were not as effective as they would have liked. Most will aim high some will be doing 'other things' instead of firing. It was found it is fundamental to human behavior that most people do not have a killer instinct no matter how well trained. I just wonder how much of that plays a part in this situation. I do not think it's fair you call everyone pussies - I mean.. Would you have this killer instinct? Can you honestly say you could have it in every situation these boys face - even if you do not agree with this war?

[edit on 23-6-2010 by JohnPhoenix]



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 06:20 AM
link   
Soldier's shouldn't fight in a war they don't believe in. General McChrystal should be able to say what he wants about Obama and anyone else. Those of you that support blindly following orders as if they were some robot, are idiots. You people that bash this guy for what he's done are a big joke. The U.S.A is being destroyed from within, not by a foreign entity. Anyone that behaves like sheep, following orders just because someone told them to, even though they know it's wrong, is a fool that has betrayed their conscience!

So take your claim of insubordination and shove it. It's just like my signature says.



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 08:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Target Earth
I do think McCrystal should have resigned first. and then talked about the incompetent Commander -in- Chief. I thinks he puts himself at to much risk, talking smack first.
He would have a stronger case, if he would have distanced himself from this administration before turning rouge. Now He leaves himself open to all kinds of trouble.


I'm sure he'll have a job at Fox News lined up before the ink on his resignation is dry.

And Obama can't win in this situation - he either accepts his resignation and we hear the right-wing lose it, saying that "Obama's ego" is going to lose Afghanistan, or he allows him to stay and they say Obama is denigrating the position of Commander-in-Chief by allowing officers to question his judgment.



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 08:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by TruthSeeker8300
Soldier's shouldn't fight in a war they don't believe in. General McChrystal should be able to say what he wants about Obama and anyone else. Those of you that support blindly following orders as if they were some robot, are idiots.


If you don't want to fight in wars you don't believe in, DON'T JOIN THE MILITARY.

It's like a devout Christian Scientist getting a pharmacists job, then announcing he won't fill any prescriptions because it violates his religious beliefs.

Conscientious objector status in a draft? That makes complete sense, because you aren't volunteering. But a volunteer military means you CHOSE to join, and choosing to join means you accept you may get orders you don't like.

Of course, you can refuse to obey unlawful orders - torture and other war crimes. But objecting to a specific war when other wars are OK is ridiculous.

And as for Gen. McChrystal's comments, the regulation he has violated is unambiguous:

From the Uniform Code of Military Justice, section 88:

Contempt Toward Officials


Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”

Elements.

(1) That the accused was a commissioned officer of the United States armed forces;

(2) That the accused used certain words against an official or legislature named in the article;

(3) That by an act of the accused these words came to the knowledge of a person other than the accused; and

(4) That the words used were contemptuous, either in themselves or by virtue of the circumstances under which they were used.




top topics



 
75
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join