Gen. McChrystal fired; General Petraeus taking his place - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Lambeth;22830028]He isn't doing that. Pretty sure he's only firing this guy.[/QUOTE] What's going to happen to the next one who disagrees with the President? I'm pretty sure the generals, who actually have combat experience, are more qualified to decide which way is the right course for the war, as opposed to Obama, the President, who has never served.

[QUOTE=Jenkem;22829943]Yeah, but you don't just fire random people (who may be very useful in their position) just over disagreeing with you. That's called a dictatorship.[/QUOTE] No, it's called the military, that's how the military has always worked.

[QUOTE=Lambeth;22830028]He isn't doing that. Pretty sure he's only firing this guy.[/QUOTE] Firing is basically removing, in my point of view, and more importantly, in his soldier's point of view. I really think he needed to go though, comments mocking biden and the presidency are just plain stupid and arrogant. They weren't even criticising things in particular, just pointless jabs at the administration. We don't need stupid and arrogant generals. I mean, if he said "Hey, president, you are doing things wrong and here's the why and how" I wouldn't have a problem with it. But instead he is stupidly insulting his superiors for no reason.

[QUOTE=Jenkem;22829943]Yeah, but you don't just fire random people (who may be very useful in their position) just over disagreeing with you. That's called a dictatorship. The President didn't even try to correct the guy. He just replaced him with another general who may or may not be nearly as useful in that capacity. Obama obviously isn't even thinking about the repercussions of what he's doing.[/QUOTE] It isn't just a random firing though! On the most basic level, this is no different than what would happen if a Lt. was caught saying nasty things about his Captain. Also, General Petraeus is a fine replacement, and may even be a better man for the role.

[QUOTE=CharadesV2;22827366]General Betrayus is how you pronounce his name?[/QUOTE] Pat-tray-ess.

[QUOTE=Sigma-Lambda;22830135]No, it's called the military, that's how the military has always worked.[/QUOTE] Politics should not interfere with war.

Hannity is talking about this right now on his radio show. He's asking liberals "What specifically did McChrystal say that warranted him being fired?"

[QUOTE=Led Zeppelin;22830144]It isn't just a random firing though! On the most basic level, this is no different than what would happen if a Lt. was caught saying nasty things about his Captain. Also, General Petraeus is a fine replacement, and may even be a better man for the role.[/QUOTE] I doubt a Lt would be fired for saying something about his Captain

Article 88, UCMJ: "“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." Sorry Hannity.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;22830221]Politics should not interfere with war.[/QUOTE] But he's not being removed because of politics. He's being removed for insubordination. It's not hard to understand. [QUOTE=carcarcargo;22830240]I doubt a Lt would be fired for saying something about his Captain[/QUOTE] Then you don't know how the military works. While he may not necessarily be removed, there would undoubtedly be some sort of consequences for his actions.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;22830221]Politics should not interfere with war.[/QUOTE] Sadly they always have and always will, it's the entire reason we are in the middle east in the first place. America hasn't fought a somewhat "Just" war since world war 2.

yeah this: [QUOTE=RBM11;22830307]Article 88, UCMJ: "“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."[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Bepo5;22830344]Sadly they always have and always will, it's the entire reason we are in the middle east in the first place. America hasn't fought a somewhat "Just" war since world war 2.[/QUOTE] The Korean war and the First Gulf War were both just.

Some other quotes from the Rolling Stone article: [QUOTE]Being told to hold their fire, soldiers complain, puts them in greater danger. "Bottom line?" says a former Special Forces operator who has spent years in Iraq and Afghanistan. "I would love to kick McChrystal in the nuts. His rules of engagement put soldiers' lives in even greater danger. Every real soldier will tell you the same thing."[/QUOTE] On his rules of engagement set to prevent civilian deaths. Hell, he's doing what half of you are all rabid about. Rolling Stone: Not so great at math. [QUOTE]In the first four months of this year, NATO forces killed some 90 civilians, up 76 percent from the same period in 2009 [/QUOTE] Sounds catastrophic. Of course, they fail to connect it to the actual cause: [QUOTE]To put pressure on the Taliban, he has upped the number of Special Forces units in Afghanistan from four to 19.[/QUOTE] I seriously hate selective reporters. The entire rolling stone article is structured in an incredibly idiotic manner. They put in all the facts, to make themselves seem credible, but completely fail to connect the facts to push an agenda. That's not what reporting is about.

[QUOTE=Morcam;22830504]Some other quotes from the Rolling Stone article: [QUOTE]Being told to hold their fire, soldiers complain, puts them in greater danger. "Bottom line?" says a former Special Forces operator who has spent years in Iraq and Afghanistan. "I would love to kick McChrystal in the nuts. His rules of engagement put soldiers' lives in even greater danger. Every real soldier will tell you the same thing."[/QUOTE] On his rules of engagement set to prevent civilian deaths. Hell, he's doing what half of you are all rabid about. Rolling Stone: Not so great at math. [QUOTE]In the first four months of this year, NATO forces killed some 90 civilians, up 76 percent from the same period in 2009 [/QUOTE] Sounds catastrophic. Of course, they fail to connect it to the actual cause: [QUOTE]To put pressure on the Taliban, he has upped the number of Special Forces units in Afghanistan from four to 19.[/QUOTE] I seriously hate selective reporters. The entire rolling stone article is structured in an incredibly idiotic manner. They put in all the facts, to make themselves seem credible, but completely fail to connect the facts to push an agenda. That's not what reporting is about.[/QUOTE] Matt Taibbi is a smug, insufferable twat.

McChrystal honestly isn't a bad general, it's just that he answers to the president. The reason the President is the commander in chief is because he is elected, generals are not. In any other profession if you talk shit about your boss and company you are fired(I know it was a resignation, but it was pretty much forced), how is this any different?

Who the fuck let this man write articles? He somehow manages to state that civillian deaths are tragedies and are McChrystal's fault, then he turns around and says that McChrystal is a terrible person for taking extreme measures to prevent civilian deaths that are costing soldier's lives. What's next, he's killing babies? [QUOTE] In February, a Special Forces night raid ended in the deaths of two pregnant Afghan women and allegations of a cover-up...[/QUOTE] I give up.

I heard on MSNBC they basically told him he had to be able to bullshit the public or lose his job.

[QUOTE=Lambeth;22830581]Matt Taibbi is a smug, insufferable twat.[/QUOTE] Yes 100% agree he's on Maher all the time and he's rude and annoying.

Clearly some of you have never had a job before. If I go out and talk shit about my boss, chances are, I'm going to get fired. Especially when my job, and the comments I make, directly impact the morale of tons of ground troops fighting a brutal unconventional war.

And we just bought ourselves another year in Afghanistan, because that's at least how long it will take for Petraeus to get his shit together. The two wars have extreme differences and the strategy you use for a developed, literate country is very different from the strategy you use in a shithole with no commerce, communication, or literacy. Should have given McChrystal a quick scolding and sent him back to Afghanistan to keep doing his job, because he's the only one with enough experience in that war and that country to know how to finally bring this shit to an end.

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;22833629]And we just bought ourselves another year in Afghanistan, because that's at least how long it will take for Petraeus to get his shit together. The two wars have extreme differences and the strategy you use for a developed, literate country is very different from the strategy you use in a shithole with no commerce, communication, or literacy. Should have given McChrystal a quick scolding and sent him back to Afghanistan to keep doing his job, because he's the only one with enough experience in that war and that country to know how to finally bring this shit to an end.[/QUOTE] Petraeus did a good job in Iraq and I'm confident he'll do a good job again in Afghanistan.

They should have given McChrystal another chance, but I bet Petaeus will do a good job. His name is extremely badass.

An so the massive American military machine rolls on.

Good, MAYBE we'll actually accomplish something worthwhile in Afghanistan.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;22829258]But in kicking this guy out they're losing his experience, all they should have done is talked to him about it, and maybe even convicned him other wise, firing him just makes it seem like the government is trying to hide their weakness.[/QUOTE] If they kept him the Republicans would accuse him of being weak and Fox news would have a field day.

YES! Back in Black. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXbYj9WOBHY[/media] [editline]06:28PM[/editline] [QUOTE=carcarcargo;22829258]But in kicking this guy out they're losing his experience, all they should have done is talked to him about it, and maybe even convicned him other wise, firing him just makes it seem like the government is trying to hide their weakness.[/QUOTE] General Petraeus was the former General in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[QUOTE=RBM11;22830307]Article 88, UCMJ: "“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." Sorry Hannity.[/QUOTE] However, was there a court martial involved? :eng101:

[QUOTE=Gordy H.;22833748]Petraeus did a good job in Iraq and I'm confident he'll do a good job again in Afghanistan.[/QUOTE] Iraq is a centralized, developed, moderately educated and civilized country. It couldn't be further from Afghanistan, which is an undeveloped tribal shithole that hasn't changed significantly in 2000 years. Nothing that worked in Iraq is going to transfer.

Obama needs to stop being a woman.