It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Why are Dozens of High Ranking Officers being purged from the US Military?

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Jan, 18 2014 @ 07:11 AM
reply to post by Cancerwarrior

That is a Long List! And by looking at their Positions, Some were Head of some pretty Important Areas. Looks like a Surgical Dissection of Command.
Ovomit was probably like, 'Let's get rid of him because he won't follow my Totally Unconstitutional and Immoral Orders.
I'll put in my Cousin Goober cause he'll do anything I say.' Syx.

posted on Jan, 18 2014 @ 07:21 AM
reply to post by Cancerwarrior

An army is there to fight a battle which is kinda ugly, terrifying and deadly situation to be in. So does an officer necessarily have to be a technically clever to be a good leader?

In context of a battle field could being crazy and stupid serve as a survival traits compared to a person with logical academic disposition ?(war is no place for pontificators)

Mabey this is a bad analogy im using but point being what does Obama know about the qualities which make a good and effective officer?
edit on 18-1-2014 by AthlonSavage because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 18 2014 @ 07:34 AM

More of these commanders retire than have been "purged" out of the system. And it's about time these crooked commanders were shown the door. People that think this is a purge clearly have no idea just how many of these commanders we have in the military.

i know that even when i served in the Army...that the chain-of-command was top heavy with high ranking Brass...

but that argument is completely disqualified by the Administrations act of immediately replacing the Top Brass who were discharged for trying to aid the Americans under attack in Benghazi... all while the WH watched the live Drone feeds of the several hour long firefight by displeased video watching Arabs (the movie 'the Innocence of Muslims)

no, the chief executive and the Sec of State & a handful of MB insider consultants just dithered the implied stand-down orders in order to have the Top Commanders in an awkward situation & relieved of duty so the loyal yes-men would take over

posted on Jan, 18 2014 @ 07:49 AM
Fascist dictators do this. They purge military. Seems like people need to do something, such as start asking for those who have been replaced to stand with them against the coming regime. People and the ex military need to stand together now. Because for this to be happening means its late stage now for their overt takeover. AND THEY DON'T GET TO HAVE THEIR PIE! WE'RE FREE AND GOING TO TAKE BACK THE WORLD FOR THE CHILDREN!

posted on Jan, 18 2014 @ 08:35 AM
I'm unsure on what to think about these "purges". On one hand, the military has been for a long time extremely top heavy on flag officers. I heard, when i was in the Army in the nineties, from a young officer who had a father and uncle who were generals that there were as many flag officers (Generals or Admirals for you non-military folks) in the mid-late nineties when we had 10-12 Divisions in the Army as at the end of World War II when there were almost 100 Divisions. So there is definitely fat to cut in the flag officer corps. But, on the other hand, everything I've seen from Obama in his administrations handling of various issues and scandals leads me to believe that they would have no problem replacing a competent officer who disagrees (tactfully and privately) with administration apparatchiks with a yes-man.

posted on Jan, 18 2014 @ 04:16 PM
reply to post by Cancerwarrior

These are primarily Naval officers - those who want to somehow link this to "getting rid of officers who won't fire on Americans" is beyond a stretch - if there were martial law, for example, I doubt the Navy would be playing a major part.

What this appears to be is the same thing I've seen in years past - military retirement benefits are pretty lucrative - 50% of pay at 20 years - so very expensive. Someone that retires after 20 years can look forward to many years of benefits - which is expensive for the government to pay.

After the Gulf War, and Cold War drawdown, saw the very same thing happen. Sometimes it's political (the Clinton administration was notably anti-military, so many upper-echelon soldiers who displeased the "Executives" paid the price), and sometimes economic.

Saw the same thing even during the Reagan administration - Reagan increased pay and benefits, and the manpower shortage of the late 70's-early 80's disappeared - so, a lot of guys who were cruising towards their '20' suddenly found that they were too fat, or drank too much, or whatever, and suddenly found they couldn't hang on until retirement - barred from re-enlistment, or sent back to Reserve status. But primarily, it's when troop strength needs to be reduced - and often, the way they do it is disgraceful. And what seems to happen in the officer class is the actual combat leaders are dismissed, and the political climbers and ass-kissers are retained.

It happens, and often, it's very unfair, and often political - but there's no conspiracy afoot.

posted on Jan, 18 2014 @ 05:22 PM
The New World Order doesnt want ''old world order '' attitudes,mentality ,values,Nationalistic loyalty to their home country only to the NWO etc, in the New World Order ,its a bit like where i work there was a meeting and Warehouse Manager stated they wanted to get rid of everyone who had worked there for 15 years or longer and permanent Staff working on the floor, because they didnt want old attitudes and mentality, plus eventually they want casual staff ,temps .contract staff who they can use ,abuse and lose as necessary.

posted on Jan, 20 2014 @ 12:49 AM

Could it be that Dear Leader is replacing all those that won't obey his orders to order troops to open fire on American citizens with officers that wil?

Good point and it is the main one but this has been going on since the 90's at least. Does anyone remember the 29 Palms questionnaire where it was asked at question 45;

"The U.S. government declares a ban on the possession, sale, transportation, and transfer of all non-sporting firearms. A thirty (30) day amnesty period is permitted for these fireamis to be turned over to the local authorities. At the end of this period, a number of citizen groups refuse to tum over their firearms. Consider the following statement:

I would fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the U.S. government

(_____) (____) (_____) (______) (____)
Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree No opinion?"

Truth or Fiction

This is really not a new situation and the government has been in the process of preparation for decades.

Cheers - Dave

posted on Jan, 20 2014 @ 04:27 PM
Because the seasoned commanders know that they are dedicated to supporting and fighting for THE COUNTRY, while the Obama group (and others) want them to support the COMMANDER IN CHIEF. Remember when they were asking soldiers if they would fire on Americans if ordered to? Apparently the leaders said "no". is coming!

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in