Obama Furious at Gen McChrystal

[red states rule]

So the 25 minute meeting between Obama and Gen McChrystal was not about the war - it was held because Obama was pissed off his General for speaking out



Barack Obama furious at General Stanley McChrystal speech on Afghanistan

The relationship between President Barack Obama and the commander of Nato forces in Afghanistan has been put under severe strain by Gen Stanley McChrystal's comments on strategy for the war.



According to sources close to the administration, Gen McChrystal shocked and angered presidential advisers with the bluntness of a speech given in London last week.

The next day he was summoned to an awkward 25-minute face-to-face meeting on board Air Force One on the tarmac in Copenhagen, where the president had arrived to tout Chicago's unsuccessful Olympic bid.

Gen James Jones, the national security adviser, yesterday did little to allay the impression the meeting had been awkward.

Asked if the president had told the general to tone down his remarks, he told CBS: "I wasn't there so I can't answer that question. But it was an opportunity for them to get to know each other a little bit better. I am sure they exchanged direct views."

An adviser to the administration said: "People aren't sure whether McChrystal is being naïve or an upstart. To my mind he doesn't seem ready for this Washington hard-ball and is just speaking his mind too plainly."

In London, Gen McChrystal, who heads the 68,000 US troops in Afghanistan as well as the 100,000 Nato forces, flatly rejected proposals to switch to a strategy more reliant on drone missile strikes and special forces operations against al-Qaeda.

He told the Institute of International and Strategic Studies that the formula, which is favoured by Vice-President Joe Biden, would lead to "Chaos-istan".

When asked whether he would support it, he said: "The short answer is: No."

He went on to say: "Waiting does not prolong a favorable outcome. This effort will not remain winnable indefinitely, and nor will public support."

The remarks have been seen by some in the Obama administration as a barbed reference to the slow pace of debate within the White House.

Gen McChrystal delivered a report on Afghanistan requested by the president on Aug 31, but Mr Obama held only his second "principals meeting" on the issue last week.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/6259582/Barack-Obama-furious-at-General-Stanley-McChrystal-speech-on-Afghanistan.html#

[CSM]

So either we have a Commander in Chief who wants only "yes men" advising him on military matters (hmmm...I wonder how much experience one can get on military matters while being a community organizer) or we have a general who ("... To my mind he doesn't seem ready for this Washington hard-ball and is just speaking his mind too plainly.") is not politically astute (hmmm...I wonder how much political experience a general gets being in the military all his life.)

Methinks Obama's inexperience is really beginning to show. Maybe he should defer to Pelosi....

[red states rule]

So either we have a Commander in Chief who wants only "yes men" advising him on military matters (hmmm...I wonder how much experience one can get on military matters while being a community organizer) or we have a general who ("... To my mind he doesn't seem ready for this Washington hard-ball and is just speaking his mind too plainly.") is not politically astute (hmmm...I wonder how much political experience a general gets being in the militarty all his life.)

Methinks Obama's inexperience is really beginning to show. Maybe he should defer to Pelosi....

I suspect Obama is furious the truth leaked out.

Maybe next time voters will actually demand expierence and accomplishments when they go the polls to vote in the next election

[theHawk]

An adviser to the administration said: "People aren't sure whether McChrystal is being naïve or an upstart. To my mind he doesn't seem ready for this Washington hard-ball and is just speaking his mind too plainly."



Umm yea, God forbid people actually speak their minds. Not everyone plays the deceitful game of Chicago thug politics Obama, especially the military. :lame2:

[Jeff]

I suspect Obama is furious the truth leaked out.

Maybe next time voters will actually demand expierence and accomplishments when they go the polls to vote in the next election

This is what happens when ya elect a Jr. Senator :eek:

[red states rule]

Umm yea, God forbid people actually speak their minds. Not everyone plays the deceitful game of Chicago thug politics Obama, especially the military. :lame2:

The nerve of Gen McChrystal caring more about the men and women serving then caring about the feeling of his CIC

Obama has to learn it is not all about him

[maineman]

In the military, no professional career officer EVER publicly badmouths the boss. If McChrystal had a problem with the guidance from the white house, he should have taken it up with Casey and Gates or asked them to arrange a private meeting with the President so that he could air his concerns behind closed doors. Nobody wants generals who are "yes men". But nobody OUGHT to want generals who cannot publicly support the chain of command.

[CSM]

In the military, no professional career officer EVER publicly badmouths the boss. If McChrystal had a problem with the guidance from the white house, he should have taken it up with Casey and Gates or asked them to arrange a private meeting with the President so that he could air his concerns behind closed doors. Nobody wants generals who are "yes men". But nobody OUGHT to want generals who cannot publicly support the chain of command.

I saw nothing where the general "badmouthed the boss"

[maineman]

I saw nothing where the general "badmouthed the boss"

If you contradict the president's policy in public, that is unprofessional. period.

[Gaffer]

Just a little Truman MacAuther glitch folks, nothing to see, move along.

McChrystal will be resigning in the next three months. Watch for that announcement.

[CSM]

If you contradict the president's policy in public, that is unprofessional. period.

I'll buy that.

Can you quote where the general contradicted Obama's policy? Which raises the question: What the heck IS Obama's policy?

All we have seen is a bunch of news (and I use that term loosely whenever the media is involved) reports offering a bunch of speculation. Have you seen the request the general sent to the CinC? Has Obama stated a policy for Afghanistan?

It seems to me that if the current general doesn't fit Obama's scheme (whatever that is) then he should be relieved.

It sure looks to me like the CinC doesn't have a plan, has no clue how to get one and would rather not deal with the whole thing. He appointed this particular general and now it sure looks like he has lost confidence in him. So relieve that particular SoB and put someone in place that will do whatever it is Obama has in mind (which up to this point appears to be "nothing")!

[CSM]

Just a little Truman MacAuther glitch folks, nothing to see, move along.

McChrystal will be resigning in the next three months. Watch for that announcement.

I agree, though I would hesitate to put either of Obama or the general on the same par as Truman/McArthur.

[crin63]

Maybe Obama can appoint another Czar, this one to run the war in Afghanistan instead of a General. Someone with the qualifications like his other czars, say maybe Cindy Sheehan. That sounds about par for this president.

[CSM]

Here is a link to the unclassified report that was leaked to the Washington Post:

http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/Assessment_Redacted_092109.pdf?hpid=topnews

I know most of you wont read it but at least it gives a reference point.

[Kathianne]

Maybe Obama can appoint another Czar, this one to run the war in Afghanistan instead of a General. Someone with the qualifications like his other czars, say maybe Cindy Sheehan. That sounds about par for this president.

That would be Joe Biden.

[crin63]

That would be Joe Biden.

Cant use Biden, he talks too much.

[Jeff]

I'll buy that.

Can you quote where the general contradicted Obama's policy? Which raises the question: What the heck IS Obama's policy?

All we have seen is a bunch of news (and I use that term loosely whenever the media is involved) reports offering a bunch of speculation. Have you seen the request the general sent to the CinC? Has Obama stated a policy for Afghanistan?

It seems to me that if the current general doesn't fit Obama's scheme (whatever that is) then he should be relieved.

It sure looks to me like the CinC doesn't have a plan, has no clue how to get one and would rather not deal with the whole thing. He appointed this particular general and now it sure looks like he has lost confidence in him. So relieve that particular SoB and put someone in place that will do whatever it is Obama has in mind (which up to this point appears to be "nothing")!

While campaigning Obama said he would take the Generals advice

So are we now to believe that if the he meant only if the General feels like he does, and since when is giving your advice when asked contradicting anyone?

[glockmail]

If you contradict the president's policy in public, that is unprofessional. period.Which policy did he contradict?

[theHawk]

Well maybe if McChimpy wasn't taking his sweet time to come up with a policy Gen McChrystal wouldn't had to make a speech in London about it. I mean really, how much time does McChimpy need to "focus" on this decision? How many more hours, days, weeks, does McChimpy need for "critical thinking" about the issue? How many more meetings with advisors and staff does he need? The more and more he procrastinates, the more it becomes obvious he is utterly incapable of being the Commander in Chief. This community organizer who has no executive experience is so ill-qualified to make a decision, the only thing he can do is measure the political winds.

[Noir]

This is surly to be expected, afterall you guys have a very weird setup when it comes to the chain of command in the Army,

[theHawk]

This is surly to be expected, afterall you guys have a very weird setup when it comes to the chain of command in the Army,

Yea no shit, we elected a fucking bafoon to lead it.

[crin63]

Well maybe if McChimpy wasn't taking his sweet time to come up with a policy Gen McChrystal wouldn't had to make a speech in London about it. I mean really, how much time does McChimpy need to "focus" on this decision? How many more hours, days, weeks, does McChimpy need for "critical thinking" about the issue? How many more meetings with advisors and staff does he need? The more and more he procrastinates, the more it becomes obvious he is utterly incapable of being the Commander in Chief. This community organizer who has no executive experience is so ill-qualified to make a decision, the only thing he can do is measure the political winds.

He needs as much time as it takes to lose the war, so he has something new to blame on Bush.

[Noir]

Yea no shit, we elected a fucking bafoon to lead it.

Thats democracy for you.

[theHawk]

Thats democracy for you.

Its not perfect but its the best system. A democracy with a responsible, sensible, deciplined citizenry works best. A democracy with an ignorant population that doesn't take responsibility of their own lives will become defunct.

[Noir]

Its not perfect but its the best system. A democracy with a responsible, sensible, deciplined citizenry works best. A democracy with an ignorant population that doesn't take responsibility of their own lives will become defunct.

Give me an example of a democracy were the citizenry were responsible, sensible and not ignorant.
The only examples i can think of are athenian and spartan democracy, and they had a very specific guidelines as to who their citizenry were.

[crin63]

I'm actually opposed to democracy wherein the mob rules. A representative republic with the sovereign right of the individual is what we are supposed to be.

[Noir]

I'm actually opposed to democracy wherein the mob rules. A representative republic with the sovereign right of the individual is what we are supposed to be.

So you're only in favour of democracy when its going your way?
I-ron-ick no?

[theHawk]

Give me an example of a democracy were the citizenry were responsible, sensible and not ignorant.
The only examples i can think of are athenian and spartan democracy, and they had a very specific guidelines as to who their citizenry were.

Well first of all I am really talking about a republic.

America up until rampant liberalism was injected into our society in the 1960's is the best example.

[theHawk]

So you're only in favour of democracy when its going your way?
I-ron-ick no?

We are in favor of a republican democracy at all times, especially when its threatened. Such as when socialists are elected to power on false promises and start changing laws which threaten the rights of its citizens. Democracy is more than just a means of choosing elected officials, its a way of governing that balances the security of its people with their rights.

Its also a threat to our entire country when a weak President is elected, our enemies will always be emboldened to step up their attacks on us.

[crin63]

So you're only in favour of democracy when its going your way?
I-ron-ick no?

No, I'm never in favor of democracy. Democracy is mob rule: control the mob, control the rule. Democracy is just watered down socialism.

A representative republic with individual sovereign rights (where your God given rights can never be trampled by others) is what our Founding Fathers envisioned.

[red states rule]

Which policy did he contradict?

None. Gen McChrystal put his men andwomen ahead of Obama. Something MM would never do

Gen McChrystal is fed up being ignored and having the troops on the ground paying the price with their lives

[red states rule]

He needs as much time as it takes to lose the war, so he has something new to blame on Bush.

If Obama does not want to win this war, wants to appease his kook left peacenik base - he should remove gen McChrystal and replace him with someone who obeys orders and does not put victory at the top of his priority list

Maybe someone like Virgil, Biden, or Harry "the war is lost" Reid

[Mr. P]

It's the 21st century Vietnam guys...why ARE we there? IMO being there is a no win deal. Sure, with enough force we can drive em out of Afghanistan but....they will survive somewhere else..and like fire ants..they'll be back..what to do..war in every Country that has these groups? That would be an endless war. You can't stop an ideology with bullets or bombs, it's like pissing into the wind.


I think another strategy should be considered. The Libs will hate it...but the CIA can do some pretty cool covert stuff. A good start, maybe.

[Noir]

It's the 21st century Vietnam guys...why ARE we there? IMO being there is a no win deal. Sure, with enough force we can drive em out of Afghanistan but....they will survive somewhere else..and like fire ants..they'll be back..what to do..war in every Country that has these groups? That would be an endless war. You can't stop an ideology with bullets or bombs, it's like pissing into the wind.


I think another strategy should be considered. The Libs will hate it...but the CIA can do some pretty cool covert stuff. A good start, maybe.


Well said,
You can not fight idological bullets with idological bullets and expect to win, tis like trying to put a fire out with a flamethrower rather than a waterhose,
the British goverment spent years fighting fire with fire in my country, during which time over 3000 people were murdered, shot and blown up, only when they started talking to the terrorists (which I know is a bitter pill to swallow) did we get a cease fire, and have now had 12 years of peace.

[red states rule]

It's the 21st century Vietnam guys...why ARE we there? IMO being there is a no win deal. Sure, with enough force we can drive em out of Afghanistan but....they will survive somewhere else..and like fire ants..they'll be back..what to do..war in every Country that has these groups? That would be an endless war. You can't stop an ideology with bullets or bombs, it's like pissing into the wind.


I think another strategy should be considered. The Libs will hate it...but the CIA can do some pretty cool covert stuff. A good start, maybe.

It would work, but the CIA is to busy defending themselves in court and from Obama's Justice Depatrment

Meanwhile the troops watch their "leader" beg for the Olympics and pitch his Obamacare plan to a bunch of Doctors - while they try to win a war as their real leader (Gen McChrystal) repeatedly the CIC for help

[maineman]

It's the 21st century Vietnam guys...why ARE we there? IMO being there is a no win deal. Sure, with enough force we can drive em out of Afghanistan but....they will survive somewhere else..and like fire ants..they'll be back..what to do..war in every Country that has these groups? That would be an endless war. You can't stop an ideology with bullets or bombs, it's like pissing into the wind.


I think another strategy should be considered. The Libs will hate it...but the CIA can do some pretty cool covert stuff. A good start, maybe.

Agreed. I think that Vietnam is a good analogy.... especially now that it seems as if the Karzai government lacks both legitimacy and the support of the people. If we do not have an effective partnership with an effective Afghan government, we certainly will not be able to prevail against the Taliban who seem to have more support in the countryside than Karzai does.

[red states rule]

Agreed. I think that Vietnam is a good analogy.... especially now that it seems as if the Karzai government lacks both legitimacy and the support of the people. If we do not have an effective partnership with an effective Afghan government, we certainly will not be able to prevail against the Taliban who seem to have more support in the countryside than Karzai does.

Yea, libs were saying Iraq was like Vietman. Libs said the surge there was a waste of time, lives, and resources. Some libs even called our troops there infidals

Amazing how libs never learn from their mistakes and keep repeating them over and over

Now as Obama blows it, the left wil try and blame Pres Bush for his failures - as they are doing on the economy and the Olympics

[maineman]

Yea, libs were saying Iraq was like Vietman. Libs said the surge there was a waste of time, lives, and resources. Some libs even called our troops there infidals

Amazing how libs never learn from their mistakes and keep repeating them over and over

Now as Obama blows it, the left wil try and blame Pres Bush for his failures - as they are doing on the economy and the Olympics

can you address my point about the Karzai government?

Do you think that we should continue to try to fix Afghanistan all by ourselves if it does decome clear that Karzai does not enjoy the trust or support of the people there?

[red states rule]

It is clear to me Obama is pissed his top General is not a lapdog like his staff, and allies in the liberal media

Obama does not like people making decisions on facts, and not is what is in the best interest of The One

[red states rule]

Libs are out to win the war in Afghanistan as they were with Iraq


House liberals float bill to bar troop 'surge'
By Michael O'Brien - 10/04/09 02:03 PM ET

Nearly two dozen House liberals have signed onto a bill introduced this past week that would prohibit an increase of troops in Afghanistan.

A bill introduced by Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) on Thursday would bar funding to increase the troop level in Afghanistan beyond its current level.

Lee and 21 lawmakers -- largely from the liberal Congressional Progressive Caucus -- introduced the bill, H.R. 3699 on Thursday.

The legislation comes as President Barack Obama and leaders in Congress weigh a request from Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the commander of troops in Afghanistan, for as many as 40,000 new troops to bolster the eight-year-long military engagement in the region.

“History tells us that there will not be a military-first solution to the situation in Afghanistan," Lee told the Redding News Review. “Open-ended military intervention in Afghanistan is not in our national security interest and will only continue to give resonance to insurgent recruiters painting pictures of foreign occupation to a new generation."

The Obama administration is expected to make a decision on McChrystal's request for more troops "in a matter of weeks," National Security Advisor James L. Jones said Sunday.


http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/61543-house-liberals-float-bill-to-bar-surge-for-afghanistan

[maineman]

can you address post #38?

[glockmail]

Well said,
You can not fight idological bullets with idological bullets and expect to win, tis like trying to put a fire out with a flamethrower rather than a waterhose,
the British goverment spent years fighting fire with fire in my country, during which time over 3000 people were murdered, shot and blown up, only when they started talking to the terrorists (which I know is a bitter pill to swallow) did we get a cease fire, and have now had 12 years of peace. Its only the threat of complete annihilation that keeps the Catholics in Northern Ireland in check.

[red states rule]

Another Obama flip flop in the works folks?


"His plan comes up short. There's not enough troops, not enough resources and not enough urgency. What President Bush and Senator McCain don't understand is that the central front in the War on Terror is not in Iraq and never was. The central front is in Afghanistan and Pakistan where the terrorists who hit us on 9-11 are still plotting attacks seven years later."

Senator Barack Obama
On the Bush war strategy
September 9, 2008

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/10/state-run-media-prepares-country-for.html



<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/mpLLFQ8fGek&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/mpLLFQ8fGek&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[theHawk]

Agreed. I think that Vietnam is a good analogy.... especially now that it seems as if the Karzai government lacks both legitimacy and the support of the people. If we do not have an effective partnership with an effective Afghan government, we certainly will not be able to prevail against the Taliban who seem to have more support in the countryside than Karzai does.

Execpt Vietnam didn't attack us on US soil to start the war. No one wants to stay in Afghanistan, but the reality is if we leave the Taliban will just resurface and grow, possibly taking over the country again. Then we'd just have to go back in.

I'm not saying that all Afghans can be "won over", most certainly they all cannot be. But that doesn't mean we should just leave and let them start up more AQ training camps.

We're not going to win this war with a big dramatic battlefield win. Its going to be a slow and methodical elemination of our enemies. Its not pretty, but its necessary. Obama has now commited to staying in Afghanistan, so now its just a question of how we fight the enemy there and what political goals we want to see achieved by the new government.

[red states rule]

Execpt Vietnam didn't attack us on US soil to start the war. No one wants to stay in Afghanistan, but the reality is if we leave the Taliban will just resurface and grow, possibly taking over the country again. Then we'd just have to go back in.

I'm not saying that all Afghans can be "won over", most certainly they all cannot be. But that doesn't mean we should just leave and let them start up more AQ training camps.

We're not going to win this war with a big dramatic battlefield win. Its going to be a slow and methodical elemination of our enemies. Its not pretty, but its necessary. Obama has now commited to staying in Afghanistan, so now its just a question of how we fight the enemy there and what political goals we want to see achieved by the new government.

Damn, I thought the terrorists would love us once Obama was elected. At least that is what MSNBC "reported"

<object width="518" height="419"><param name="movie" value="http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=ydprDkpr8z" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><embed src="http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=ydprDkpr8z" allowfullscreen="true" width="518" height="419" /></object>

[maineman]

Execpt Vietnam didn't attack us on US soil to start the war. No one wants to stay in Afghanistan, but the reality is if we leave the Taliban will just resurface and grow, possibly taking over the country again. Then we'd just have to go back in.

I'm not saying that all Afghans can be "won over", most certainly they all cannot be. But that doesn't mean we should just leave and let them start up more AQ training camps.

We're not going to win this war with a big dramatic battlefield win. Its going to be a slow and methodical elemination of our enemies. Its not pretty, but its necessary. Obama has now commited to staying in Afghanistan, so now its just a question of how we fight the enemy there and what political goals we want to see achieved by the new government.Afghanistan didn't attack us either. If we do not have an effective partner in the government of Afghanistan... if that government does not enjoy the trust of its own people, what exactly will we be able to accomplish?

[red states rule]

In Obama's Oval Office what the hell does a General who has been on the front know about the war and what is needed for victory?

Has he been to Obama's Beer Summits, or BBQ's? That is where the real world is and the people there know what is going on

[theHawk]

Afghanistan didn't attack us either. If we do not have an effective partner in the government of Afghanistan... if that government does not enjoy the trust of its own people, what exactly will we be able to accomplish?

Afghanistan gave safe haven to AQ prior to 9/11, they must bare responsibility for that.

Personally I am not that concerned with the Afghan government and whether or not it enjoys the "trust of its own people" - its up to them to make it work. I'm more concerned about killing off whatever little anti-American terrorist circles that pop up, because they have already demonstrated they can attack us if left unchecked. Knocking them down before they can built back up is certainly something we can accomplish. If "the people" of Afghanistan start/still support AQ and the Taliban, then we should start carpet-bombing them. I am not a fan of this nation-building shit Bush believed in because I don't believe Muslims in that part of the world can be reasoned with, but I am all for killing our enemies on their home turf.

[red states rule]

McChrystal committed an unforgivable sin as far as Obama is concerned

He did not keep his mouth shut, and dared to speak his mind in public

He showed he knows much more about the conditions on the ground then our man child CIC

[Noir]

Its only the threat of complete annihilation that keeps the Catholics in Northern Ireland in check.

What utter bunkum.

[jimnyc]

If I recall correctly, there were several Generals/Commanders during the Bush administration who disagreed and spoke up, and/or retired. The dems, and I believe MM, referred to those who spoke up to be true patriots. While I acknowledge that there is a difference between an active servicemen and a retired one - my point is that the left saw them as patriots for speaking up against what they thought was wrong with Bush's direction. Now many are stating this guys is wrong, and some went as far as to call him traitorous. My how attitudes change over a few years, and what party is taking the heat.

If it makes someone a "patriot" for speaking out on such a major issue, retired or not, then the left is now complaining about something they consider patriotic. Going outside the chain of command while on duty may be wrong, but it does nothing to change the patriotic intent. Nonetheless, dems will still claim he his wrong, traitorous and do anything to absolve Obama's responsibilities. How many soldiers have died since Obama was made aware of the request for additional troops? How many need die before he finally makes a decision. If extra time is needed, why isn't Obama making changes to support the troops in the interim?

[CSM]

If I recall correctly, there were several Generals/Commanders during the Bush administration who disagreed and spoke up, and/or retired. The dems, and I believe MM, referred to those who spoke up to be true patriots. While I acknowledge that there is a difference between an active servicemen and a retired one - my point is that the left saw them as patriots for speaking up against what they thought was wrong with Bush's direction. Now many are stating this guys is wrong, and some went as far as to call him traitorous. My how attitudes change over a few years, and what party is taking the heat.

If it makes someone a "patriot" for speaking out on such a major issue, retired or not, then the left is now complaining about something they consider patriotic. Going outside the chain of command while on duty may be wrong, but it does nothing to change the patriotic intent. Nonetheless, dems will still claim he his wrong, traitorous and do anything to absolve Obama's responsibilities. How many soldiers have died since Obama was made aware of the request for additional troops? How many need die before he finally makes a decision. If extra time is needed, why isn't Obama making changes to support the troops in the interim?

Perhaps Obama will adopt Murtha's plan and redeploy all the troops to Okinawa.

[maineman]

If I recall correctly, there were several Generals/Commanders during the Bush administration who disagreed and spoke up, and/or retired. The dems, and I believe MM, referred to those who spoke up to be true patriots. While I acknowledge that there is a difference between an active servicemen and a retired one - my point is that the left saw them as patriots for speaking up against what they thought was wrong with Bush's direction. Now many are stating this guys is wrong, and some went as far as to call him traitorous. My how attitudes change over a few years, and what party is taking the heat.

If it makes someone a "patriot" for speaking out on such a major issue, retired or not, then the left is now complaining about something they consider patriotic. Going outside the chain of command while on duty may be wrong, but it does nothing to change the patriotic intent. Nonetheless, dems will still claim he his wrong, traitorous and do anything to absolve Obama's responsibilities. How many soldiers have died since Obama was made aware of the request for additional troops? How many need die before he finally makes a decision. If extra time is needed, why isn't Obama making changes to support the troops in the interim?

there is a HUGE difference between being a part of the chain of command and being retired. I applauded those generals who spoke up precisely because they held their tongues UNTIL they had retired, and then, and only then, did they criticize the administration. They were true professionals, IMO.

[maineman]

Afghanistan gave safe haven to AQ prior to 9/11, they must bare responsibility for that.

Personally I am not that concerned with the Afghan government and whether or not it enjoys the "trust of its own people" - its up to them to make it work. I'm more concerned about killing off whatever little anti-American terrorist circles that pop up, because they have already demonstrated they can attack us if left unchecked. Knocking them down before they can built back up is certainly something we can accomplish. If "the people" of Afghanistan start/still support AQ and the Taliban, then we should start carpet-bombing them. I am not a fan of this nation-building shit Bush believed in because I don't believe Muslims in that part of the world can be reasoned with, but I am all for killing our enemies on their home turf.
and their mothers and fathers and wives and sisters and children too, it would seem.

The government of Afghanistan bears NO responsibility for AQ havens in their country in 2001. That government did not exist at that time... their country was led by the Taliban... who we drove from power. remember?

[crin63]

If Obama does not want to win this war, wants to appease his kook left peacenik base - he should remove gen McChrystal and replace him with someone who obeys orders and does not put victory at the top of his priority list

Maybe someone like Virgil, Biden, or Harry "the war is lost" Reid

If I were in McChrystals position I would not resign. I would wait to be removed, and try to preserve the lives of those who serve under his command.

I thought the liberal position was that we needed to be in Afghanistan and not Iraq. Now that the focus is on Afghanistan they want to sit on their hands and let our troops die.

Either fight to win or get out, don't let our people die because their hands have been tied.

[theHawk]

The government of Afghanistan bears NO responsibility for AQ havens in their country in 2001. That government did not exist at that time... their country was led by the Taliban... who we drove from power. remember?

I NEVER said the new government of Afghanistan was responsible for it. The people sure as hell were responsible since they accepted the Taliban. Which is exactly why they should still be responsible for their actions. And if they are turning back to the Taliban ways then we have every right to stay and kill them.

[CSM]

there is a HUGE difference between being a part of the chain of command and being retired. I applauded those generals who spoke up precisely because they held their tongues UNTIL they had retired, and then, and only then, did they criticize the administration. They were true professionals, IMO.

This discussion raises an interesting dilemma. When SHOULD a military leader speak out publicly if he really believes that orders given will result in catastrophic and deadly results for his command? I can't help but think of Hitler's orders to the German High Command during WWII (no I am not equating Obama to Hitler!). Does the CinC have the right to order McChrystal to "stand and fight to the last man" with the expectation that if McChrystal disagrees he will keep his mouth shut at least until he resigns? There is something awfully disturbing about that.

[maineman]

This discussion raises an interesting dilemma. When SHOULD a military leader speak out publicly if he really believes that orders given will result in catastrophic and deadly results for his command? I can't help but think of Hitler's orders to the German High Command during WWII (no I am not equating Obama to Hitler!). Does the CinC have the right to order McChrystal to "stand and fight to the last man" with the expectation that if McChrystal disagrees he will keep his mouth shut at least until he resigns? There is something awfully disturbing about that.

Tough question. I think, however, that even though your example is extreme and totally unlikely, the CinC SHOULD have that expectation of any officer. The Charge of the Light Brigade comes to mind.

edit: and actually, I am of the opinion that allowing officers to think they have a built in right to reject lawful orders from their superiors whenever they personally don't think they are good ideas is what ought to be AWFULLY disturbing.

[maineman]

If I were in McChrystals position I would not resign. I would wait to be removed, and try to preserve the lives of those who serve under his command.

I thought the liberal position was that we needed to be in Afghanistan and not Iraq. Now that the focus is on Afghanistan they want to sit on their hands and let our troops die.


you do understand that, when situation's change, smart people adjust their strategies and plans accordingly, don't you?

and nobody wants to sit on anyone's hands and let our troops die. that is both ridiculous and insulting all at once.

[CSM]

Tough question. I think, however, that even though your example is extreme and totally unlikely, the CinC SHOULD have that expectation of any officer. The Charge of the Light Brigade comes to mind.

edit: and actually, I am of the opinion that allowing officers to think they have a built in right to reject lawful orders from their superiors whenever they personally don't think they are good ideas is what ought to be AWFULLY disturbing.

Interesting.

[theHawk]

you do understand that, when situation's change, smart people adjust their strategies and plans accordingly, don't you?


How many weeks is it going to take for McChimpy to "adjust" his strategies?




and nobody wants to sit on anyone's hands and let our troops die. that is both ridiculous and insulting all at once.

It would appear McChimpy wants exactly that. The man doesn't care about the military one bit, he has never had any attachment to it before. He only cares about himself. We all hear it in his speeches, we see it in his policy decision making. Marxist left-wing loons are always more happy to attack the military than support it, and McChimpy is most certainly the most left-wing CinC we've ever had.

[Kathianne]

you do understand that, when situation's change, smart people adjust their strategies and plans accordingly, don't you?

and nobody wants to sit on anyone's hands and let our troops die. that is both ridiculous and insulting all at once.

The situation has not changed since Obama's been in office. While the violence has escalated, that's due to his new strategy announced in March, you know, when he appointed McChrystal. That it would occur was understood, as the fight was being taken to the terrorists.

Does Obama want our soldiers killed? No, I don't think so. Are his actions or rather inactions contributing to the occurrences? Yes. He's got those folks that left Iraq and are joining up with their Afghani/Pakistani brethren. Again, this was something was easily foreseen. I bet you even knew it would happen and you claim to be only an E-5.

[jimnyc]

edit: and actually, I am of the opinion that allowing officers to think they have a built in right to reject lawful orders from their superiors whenever they personally don't think they are good ideas is what ought to be AWFULLY disturbing.

I would like to once again refer back to history, and those who served under GW. There were quite a few soldiers who refused duty or bailed the country, and stating that they had done so as they believed the war and commands given to them were all illegal. The left praised these men as patriots and heroes. And again, my how things change over the course of a few years and a new leader with a different letter in brackets before his name.

[theHawk]

I would like to once again refer back to history, and those who served under GW. There were quite a few soldiers who refused duty or bailed the country, and stating that they had done so as they believed the war and commands given to them were all illegal. The left praised these men as patriots and heroes. And again, my how things change over the course of a few years and a new leader with a different letter in brackets before his name.

Another big difference is those soldiers under Bush that got praise from the left were trying to get out of fighting in the war.

This guy is simply requesting the proper resources to fight and win that war.

[Kathianne]

Another big difference is those soldiers under Bush that got praise from the left were trying to get out of fighting in the war.

This guy is simply requesting the proper resources to fight and win that war.

Hell, suggestions for fragging gained kudos from the left, under Bush.

[maineman]

I would like to once again refer back to history, and those who served under GW. There were quite a few soldiers who refused duty or bailed the country, and stating that they had done so as they believed the war and commands given to them were all illegal. The left praised these men as patriots and heroes. And again, my how things change over the course of a few years and a new leader with a different letter in brackets before his name.

I have never waivered in my position here. If an officer believes he or she has been given a lawful order, he or she has NO basis to question it. Either carry out your orders or take off your insignia...walk away and hope that history and/or a court martial will vindicate your decision. I myself would never and never did fail to carry out every single lawful order given to me, whether I thought the order was prudent or otherwise.

[theHawk]

I have never waivered in my position here. If an officer believes he or she has been given a lawful order, he or she has NO basis to question it. Either carry out your orders or take off your insignia...walk away and hope that history and/or a court martial will vindicate your decision. I myself would never and never did fail to carry out every single lawful order given to me, whether I thought the order was prudent or otherwise.

What order did McChrysal disobey?

[red states rule]

I would like to once again refer back to history, and those who served under GW. There were quite a few soldiers who refused duty or bailed the country, and stating that they had done so as they believed the war and commands given to them were all illegal. The left praised these men as patriots and heroes. And again, my how things change over the course of a few years and a new leader with a different letter in brackets before his name.

Here is one example Jim


General Opposes Adding to U.S. Forces in Iraq, Emphasizing International Solutions for Region


Published: December 20, 2006
WASHINGTON, Dec. 19 — As the new secretary of defense, Robert M. Gates, takes stock of the war in Iraq this week, he will find Gen. John P. Abizaid, the senior commander in the Middle East, resistant to increasing the American fighting force there.

General Abizaid, who is completing the final months of a highly decorated military career, acknowledges that additional American forces, favored by some of President Bush’s top advisers, might provide a short-term boost in security. But he argues that foreign troops are a toxin bound to be rejected by Iraqis, and that expanding the number of American troops merely puts off the day when Iraqis are forced to take responsibility for their own security.

While American forces may be repositioned within Iraq to meet growing security challenges, especially in Baghdad, the answer is not solely military, and even the leading role in combat cannot long rest on American forces, General Abizaid says.

“The Baghdad security situation requires more Iraqi troops,” he said in a recent interview as he traveled around Iraq, meeting with American commanders.

His assessment, which includes plans to increase the number of American trainers embedded with Iraqi units, is supported by Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the senior American commander in Iraq, as well as by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who must provide the forces and have resisted an increase without first clearly defining the goals it would try to achieve on the ground.

But the generals are facing a different assessment from a growing number of civilian officials in the Bush administration, who see a sharp increase in troop strength as an effective means to stabilize Baghdad and as a dramatic initiative for the president to announce in January.

General Abizaid argues for a broader approach to Iraq than that of looking solely to putting out the fires in Baghdad.

“You have to internationalize the problem,” General Abizaid said. “You have to attack it diplomatically, geo-strategically. You just can’t apply a microscope on a particular problem in downtown Baghdad and a particular problem in downtown Kabul and say that somehow or another, if you throw enough military forces at it, that you are going to solve the broader issues in the region of extremism.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/20/world/middleeast/20abizaid.html?_r=1

[red states rule]

Now the Dems are attacking Gen McChrystal for speaking out. If only Dems were this determined to attack the terrorists as their those who openly disagree with them on policy



Lawmakers Lash Out at McChrystal for Stepping Outside 'Chain of Command'

The 55-year-old top commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan made an open appeal in London last week for increased military presence in Afghanistan and took aim at an alternative plan proposed by Vice President Biden -- one that called for troop withdrawal and airstrikes against Al Qaeda targets.



Administration officials and top Democrats on Capitol Hill are suggesting that President Obama's top commander in Afghanistan stepped "outside the chain of command" when he made a public plea last week for more troops.

Gen. Stanley McChrystal made an open appeal in London last week for increased military presence in Afghanistan and took aim at an alternative plan proposed by Vice President Biden -- one that called for troop withdrawal and airstrikes against Al Qaeda targets.

"The short answer is no," McChrystal said last week in London when asked if Biden's approach was feasible. "A strategy that does not leave Afghanistan in a stable position is probably a short-sighted strategy."

"I think any decision to go forward will not just be based on resources. It will be based on what are our goals. And I know people are re-looking at what our goals and objectives are, and redefining and clarifying those," said McChrystal.

In a subsequent 66-page confidential report leaked to the Washington Post, McChrystal wrote that tens of thousands more troops are needed in Afghanistan to address a "deteriorating" security situation and maintain stability in the region. Military experts have placed that number at 40,000.

As Obama prepared to meet Tuesday with 31 members of Congress to discuss war strategy in Afghanistan, several Democratic lawmakers had lashed out at the president's hand-picked commander for voicing his appeal so publicly.

In an interview Monday with PBS, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said McChrystal's "recommendations to the president should go up the line of command. They shouldn't be in press conferences."

On Sunday, alluding to McChrystal's remarks, National Security Adviser Gen. James Jones said "it's better for military advice to come up through the chain of command." Jones said McChrystal's assessment was his "opinion," and he said the president should be presented with options, "not just one fait accompli."

On Monday, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said "it is imperative that all of us taking part in these deliberations -- civilian and military alike -- provide our best advice to the president candidly but privately." He did not mention McChrystal's name.

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman told FOX News on Tuesday that he's "disappointed" at the overall lack of confidentiality within the Pentagon over the Afghanistan war strategy.

"It was always the secretary's intent to try to have these discussions to review the assessment within the chain of command and that was the design of it," Whitman said. "That's not how it unfolded, so I would be disingenuous if I didn't say that it is disappointing at times as an institution that prides itself on discipline when there are individuals that violate that trust that's placed on them."

After his speech in London, McChrystal met privately with Obama on Friday during the president's quick trip to Copenhagen -- a meeting that White House press secretary Robert Gibbs described as constructive. Obama, who has called conflict in Afghanistan a "war of necessity," has not committed to a troop surge.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/06/lawmakers-lash-mcchrystal-stepping-outside-chain-command/

[maineman]

What order did McChrysal disobey?

who said he did?

[red states rule]

who said he did?

You implied as much


I have never waivered in my position here. If an officer believes he or she has been given a lawful order, he or she has NO basis to question it. Either carry out your orders or take off your insignia...walk away and hope that history and/or a court martial will vindicate your decision. I myself would never and never did fail to carry out every single lawful order given to me, whether I thought the order was prudent or otherwise.

[maineman]

I implied nothing of the kind. my post was in reply to jim's post that was not about McChrystal.

Learn to read.

[red states rule]

I implied nothing of the kind. my post was in reply to jim's post that was not about McChrystal.

Learn to read.

So the topic is Gen McChrystal and you talk about officers disobeying orders

You made your point. Since Gen McChrystal puts his men ahead of Obama he is now on your hit list, and you took your shot at him

[maineman]

like I said, if you followed the conversation by actually reading and comprehending the content of the posts, you would see that my comments had ZERO to do with McChrystal.

but I realize that expecting such behavior from you is - alas - unreasonable.

[red states rule]

like I said, if you followed the conversation by actually reading and comprehending the content of the posts, you would see that my comments had ZERO to do with McChrystal.

but I realize that expecting such behavior from you is - alas - unreasonable.

If you by pointing out that once again, as always, you put your party ahead of your country - as well as our men and women in the US militray - you are correct

[maineman]

If you by pointing out that once again, as always, you put your party ahead of your country - as well as our men and women in the US militray - you are correct

clearly, you cannot read. Nothing I have said has anything to do with my party. I am speaking here as a retired military officer and suggesting that, when I was on active duty, I NEVER once failed to obey a lawful order of my superiors, even if I felt that order imprudent. And if there had ever BEEN such a lawful order that I had felt morally obligated to disobey, I would have immediately resigned my commission rather than do so.

[red states rule]

clearly, you cannot read. Nothing I have said has anything to do with my party. I am speaking here as a retired military officer and suggesting that, when I was on active duty, I NEVER once failed to obey a lawful order of my superiors, even if I felt that order imprudent. And if there had ever BEEN such a lawful order that I had felt morally obligated to disobey, I would have immediately resigned my commission rather than do so.

The only orders you ever to carried out was when you piled the food on the plates as the men and women passed thru the serving line

That is if you actually did serve in the US military

Even then, it took all your intelligence and determination to carry out the orders

[maineman]

typoical baseless insults from RSR.... we're done here.

[red states rule]

typoical baseless insults from RSR.... we're done here.

Promise? :laugh2:

The bottom line is, Obama has to make a decision. He can't vote present. he can't pass the buck to Congress. He can't have his talking heads make the rounds on the Sunday talk shows and toss out more bumber sticker slogans

Dems own this war, like they own the US economy

[glockmail]

...I am speaking here as a retired military officer and suggesting that, when I was on active duty, I NEVER once failed to obey a lawful order of my superiors, even if I felt that order imprudent. .... I can see that, you being a mindless Yellow Dog Democrat and all....:lol:

[maineman]

I can see that, you being a mindless Yellow Dog Democrat and all...


and you being a coward who refused to serve, it is understandable why you would not understand professional military ethics.:laugh2:

[red states rule]

and you being a coward who refused to serve, it is understandable why you would not understand professional military ethics.:laugh2:

What would you know about being professional or ethics. let alone talking about them?

That is like John Gotti speaking at a Neighborhood Watch meeting :laugh2:

[maineman]

as a career military officer, I lived by a very demanding code of professional ethics. I am well versed in the subject.

Now... do you personally have something to add to the discussion or are you going to focus entirely on either cutting and pasting other people's words... or gratuitously insulting me?

[theHawk]

and you being a coward who refused to serve, it is understandable why you would not understand professional military ethics.:laugh2:

I take it you believe anyone who "refused to serve" is a coward?
Do you feel the same way about Obama? Since as you know, he never served.

I find it a bit strange whenever you are attacked you like to bring up your military background. Yet you have no problems attacking and insulting others on this board, many of whom seem to be vets themselves.

[stephanie]

my take on the Little Marxist is...

who isn't he angry with?

he is certainly angry with us American people who are not bowing down and kissing his ass..

I can't stand the guy..he gives me the creeps..

[maineman]

I take it you believe anyone who "refused to serve" is a coward?
Do you feel the same way about Obama? Since as you know, he never served.

I find it a bit strange whenever you are attacked you like to bring up your military background. Yet you have no problems attacking and insulting others on this board, many of whom seem to be vets themselves.

when I am attacked about MY military service, it seems fair that I can mention someone's LACK of service in my reply. Do you disagree?

I don't think that I have ever insulted any veteran on here about their service.

[glockmail]

and you being a coward who refused to serve, it is understandable why you would not understand professional military ethics.:laugh2: I didn't refuse to serve I simply chose not to. Along with 90% of Americans that doesn't make me a coward. Instead, I would say that not standing up to your superiors when they are wrong makes you a coward, and I, having quit several lucrative positions after confronting my superiors when they have been wrong, have proven myself not to be a coward.

Tell us that story again about how you and the Arab guy were french kissing. :poke:

[maineman]

I didn't refuse to serve I simply chose not to. Along with 90% of Americans that doesn't make me a coward. Instead, I would say that not standing up to your superiors when they are wrong makes you a coward, and I, having quit several lucrative positions after confronting my superiors when they have been wrong, have proven myself not to be a coward.



who said I didn't stand up to my superiors when they were wrong?

I never said that. I have certainly had my share of heated discussions with senior officers about policy or direction but ALWAYS behind closed doors, and after I made my best case, if they chose to go in a different direction, I walked out of their office and carried out their orders as if I had made the decision myself.

That is what professional military officers do. Clearly, you would know nothing about that.

and clearly, if every middle/senior grade military officer resigned their commission every time their seniors made decisions that were less than optimal, we wouldn't have much of a military. I am glad that the VAST majority of military professionals - unlike you - care more for the long range readiness of their organization and less about feeding their weak egos.

[Jeff]

who said I didn't stand up to my superiors when they were wrong?

I never said that. I have certainly had my share of heated discussions with senior officers about policy or direction but ALWAYS behind closed doors, and after I made my best case, if they chose to go in a different direction, I walked out of their office and carried out their orders as if I had made the decision myself.

That is what professional military officers do. Clearly, you would know nothing about that.

and clearly, if every middle/senior grade military officer resigned their commission every time their seniors made decisions that were less than optimal, we wouldn't have much of a military. I am glad that the VAST majority of military professionals - unlike you - care more for the long range readiness of their organization and less about feeding their weak egos.

Hmmmm just wondering, you have recently posted homo sex is wrong and you have posted before that if your church allows homo sex you will marry them, how is that standing up to your superiors ? As a man of God wouldn't you have to go with your heart ?

[maineman]

Hmmmm just wondering, you have recently posted homo sex is wrong and you have posted before that if your church allows homo sex you will marry them, how is that standing up to your superiors ? As a man of God wouldn't you have to go with your heart ?

for you to attempt to compare the code of ethics of a military office with the code of conscience that clergymen licensed with the state must assume merely confirms to my thinking that you really have no desire to discuss this, or any other issue with me with any sort of sense of intellectual honesty, but only want to figure out some way to shit on maineman.... in that same regard, please go F**K yourself.

I have never posted that homo sex was "wrong". I have stated that, as a licensed minister in the UCC, I will joyfully abide by the attitude of my denomination and the wishes of my congregation, and gladly marry two people of the same gender who truly love one another and who truly want their union to be blessed by God and by the church.

and what the F**K does gay marriage have to do with military officers and their code of ethics, MORON?

[Jeff]

for you to attempt to compare the code of ethics of a military office with the code of conscience that clergymen licensed with the state must assume merely confirms to my thinking that you really have no desire to discuss this, or any other issue with me with any sort of sense of intellectual honesty, but only want to figure out some way to shit on maineman.... in that same regard, please go F**K yourself.

I have never posted that homo sex was "wrong". I have stated that, as a licensed minister in the UCC, I will joyfully abide by the attitude of my denomination and the wishes of my congregation, and gladly marry two people of the same gender who truly love one another and who truly want their union to be blessed by God and by the church.

and what the F**K does gay marriage have to do with military officers and their code of ethics, MORON?

Why would I compare the 2, simple as a man of god I would think you would stand to your beliefs even more so, and you did say you thought gay sex was wrong , but I must apologies , I can't find the post so it must of been in pm,s and god knows you won't tell the truth, So with no proof I will admit I can't prove what I have said, ooo and by the way Commander, I am in New Haven CT, here is your chance to show everyone how honest you are, you challenged me I excepted and am here, Guess we will be having coffee in the am

[Jeff]

**crickets chirping**


ONCE AGAIN VIRGIL GETS PUNKED :cool:

[maineman]

when you get to central maine, let me know. I know plenty of great places to grab a cup of coffee. Did you bring the money?

[Jeff]

Post #44 in welcome back Maineman thread
Originally Posted by Jeff View Post
There ya go thinking all are beneath you and to stupid to read, One more time, met me some place and we will work out the bet, oooo and NightTrain I got ya covered on this one

Mainemans response
one more time.... I ain't going anywhere to meet anyone unless it will be lucrative for me to do so

Are we on for $5K??? Will you bet me that much? If so, I will gladly meet you half way to provide you with the documentation that will make the trip worth my while. If not, why should I bother?


Seems you ought to go back and read what ya typed, that's why it isn't good to get drunk then come on here, ya can't remember what your bull dog mouth got your puppy dog ass into

You started with the bet, I agreed if ya would meet me somewhere you agreed to 1/2 way , I am way more than 1/2 way and am ready but just as we all knew you would, you punked out!!! again might I add

Spin it anyway you like , but the thread is still there WELCOME BACK MAINEMAN, in the cage

[maineman]

Post #44 in welcome back Maineman thread
Originally Posted by Jeff View Post
There ya go thinking all are beneath you and to stupid to read, One more time, met me some place and we will work out the bet, oooo and NightTrain I got ya covered on this one
one more time.... I ain't going anywhere to meet anyone unless it will be lucrative for me to do so.
Mainemans response
Are we on for $5K??? Will you bet me that much? If so, I will gladly meet you half way to provide you with the documentation that will make the trip worth my while. If not, why should I bother?


Seems you ought to go back and read what ya typed, that's why it isn't good to get drunk then come on here, ya can't remember what your bull dog mouth got your puppy dog ass into

You started with the bet, I agreed if ya would meet me somewhere you agreed to 1/2 way , I am way more than 1/2 way and am ready but just as we all knew you would, you punked out!!! again might I add

Spin it anyway you like , but the thread is still there WELCOME BACK MAINEMAN, in the cage


If you'll recall, later in that thread, I expressed my reservations and reconsidered. I did not, and do not believe that you will pull fifty Benjamins out of your wallet after you look at my ID card. And you'll also note in that same thread after you threatened to enter my church during a worship service, I said that if you came to worship here in good faith, that I would show you my ID card free of charge. That offer still stands.

[Jeff]

If you'll recall, later in that thread, I expressed my reservations and reconsidered. I did not, and do not believe that you will pull fifty Benjamins out of your wallet after you look at my ID card. And you'll also note in that same thread after you threatened to enter my church during a worship service, I said that if you came to worship here in good faith, that I would show you my ID card free of charge. That offer still stands.

Yes I do remember you were sobering up by then, but the fact remains you ran that bull dog mouth, time for the puppy dog ass to back it up

Or simple admit that yes I was in the navy, BUT I am now a punk from Maine that gets drunk and says things I don't mean, and I will leave it alone, in my world ya don't run that mouth make promises or threats then just think everyone will forget, I have told you I don't forget nor do I forgive, so here is your chance to wipe the slate clean with me, you have been pawned beyond any doubt, you have been called on your deals , so be a man and admit like I said and the slate is clean

[Kathianne]

Seems thread has run its course, moved for fun times for those involved.

[Jeff]

Seems thread has run its course, moved for fun times for those involved.

I apologies Kat for derailing, but we know have a way for mm and myself to wipe the slate clean and go about our separate ways

[Kathianne]

I apologies Kat for derailing, but we know have a way for mm and myself to wipe the slate clean and go about our separate ways

You weren't alone. ;) I thought it might go back OT, but seems it wasn't meant to. No harm, there is always a place.

[maineman]

Yes I do remember you were sobering up by then, but the fact remains you ran that bull dog mouth, time for the puppy dog ass to back it up

Or simple admit that yes I was in the navy, BUT I am now a punk from Maine that gets drunk and says things I don't mean, and I will leave it alone, in my world ya don't run that mouth make promises or threats then just think everyone will forget, I have told you I don't forget nor do I forgive, so here is your chance to wipe the slate clean with me, you have been pawned beyond any doubt, you have been called on your deals , so be a man and admit like I said and the slate is clean


I was in the Navy. I am retired from the Navy. I was not drunk when I proposed our $5K wager. I was not drunk when I later gave you enough credit to realize that there was no way that you would be so stupid or bullheaded as to actually give me that amount of money upon viewing my Retired ID card. Realizing that, a trip to Pennsylvania or Connecticut or even New Hampshire seems a waste of time.

The offer to share a cup of coffee somewhere in central Maine still stands. I would love to clear the air with you and start over with a clean slate.

[Jeff]

I was in the Navy. I am retired from the Navy. I was not drunk when I proposed our $5K wager. I was not drunk when I later gave you enough credit to realize that there was no way that you would be so stupid or bullheaded as to actually give me that amount of money upon viewing my Retired ID card. Realizing that, a trip to Pennsylvania or Connecticut or even New Hampshire seems a waste of time.

The offer to share a cup of coffee somewhere in central Maine still stands. I would love to clear the air with you and start over with a clean slate.

YOU HAVE BEEN PUNKED FOR ALL TO SEE!!!!!!

Run that bull dog mouth and then squirm with that puppy dog ass, I gave you a out you refused to take it

There will be no doubt to all who read this exactly what you are, as if they didn't know already, sad fellow you are

I am done with this thread and where it is going, until you admit what you are, then live with the consequences

[maineman]

YOU HAVE BEEN PUNKED FOR ALL TO SEE!!!!!!

Run that bull dog mouth and then squirm with that puppy dog ass, I gave you a out you refused to take it

There will be no doubt to all who read this exactly what you are, as if they didn't know already, sad fellow you are

I am done with this thread and where it is going, until you admit what you are, then live with the consequences
I am a retired naval officer. I am proud of my Navy career and get really angry when people denigrate it. I am a unrepentant liberal. I am an interim minister. I am a husband and a father. That is who I am. I have said that I am willing and anxious to bury the hatchet with you.

I don't honestly believe that you would give me five thousand dollars upon viewing my retired ID card, which was the sole purpose of any meeting we might have.... other than a cordial meeting here in Maine to get to know one another and to move forward. If you wish to pursue that, I am certainly open to it.

that's where this stands. It's up to you Jeff.

[trobinett]

I am a retired naval officer. I am proud of my Navy career and get really angry when people denigrate it. I am a unrepentant liberal. I am an interim minister. I am a husband and a father. That is who I am. I have said that I am willing and anxious to bury the hatchet with you.

I don't honestly believe that you would give me five thousand dollars upon viewing my retired ID card, which was the sole purpose of any meeting we might have.... other than a cordial meeting here in Maine to get to know one another and to move forward. If you wish to pursue that, I am certainly open to it.

that's where this stands. It's up to you Jeff.

I've been "away" for quite a while, but YOU maineman, NEVER change, always whining, always, pissing, and moaning..............:poke:

[maineman]

welcome back...it's good to see you.:beer:

[actsnoblemartin]

For whats its worth, I believe u. I dont think someone would lie about that.


welcome back...it's good to see you.:beer:

[Kathianne]

For whats its worth, I believe u. I dont think someone would lie about that.

Uh huh.

[maineman]

Uh huh.

uh huh uh huh uh huh...that's the way, uh huh uh huh I like it, uh huh uh huh uh huh:poke:

[Noir]

Oh well this threads in the steel cage, but I'll throw this in anyway, have heard mumblings that obama is likly to support McChrystals request for more troops, with up to 40,000 being posted, seems a huge commitment if this is true,

[red states rule]

I am a retired naval officer. I am proud of my Navy career and get really angry when people denigrate it. I am a unrepentant liberal. I am an interim minister. I am a husband and a father. That is who I am. I have said that I am willing and anxious to bury the hatchet with you.

I don't honestly believe that you would give me five thousand dollars upon viewing my retired ID card, which was the sole purpose of any meeting we might have.... other than a cordial meeting here in Maine to get to know one another and to move forward. If you wish to pursue that, I am certainly open to it.

that's where this stands. It's up to you Jeff.

No, you are a piece of human garbage. You are a serial liar who leads a double life. You are a fake and a fraud who depends on the crutch of alleged servie to protect and provide cover. You are a hate filled political hack who will stop at nothing to smear and attack anyone who disagrees with you, and you increase the hate when they continue to provide facts and will not back down. You care nothing about people, society, or the country. You would willingly sacrifice our troops if it would mean more power for your party and a political win for Obama. I suspect you would even sacrifice your own family if you could get on TV and blame Republicans for it Virgil - and gain some political polints for the Dems. You would tell yourself their sacrifce was not in vain - you will make sure the Repub,icans pay dearly

This has always been your mission in loife anyway - so nothing new

[maineman]

No, you are a piece of human garbage. You are a serial liar who leads a double life. You are a fake and a fraud who depends on the crutch of alleged servie to protect and provide cover. You are a hate filled political hack who will stop at nothing to smear and attack anyone who disagrees with you, and you increase the hate when they continue to provide facts and will not back down. You care nothing about people, society, or the country. You would willingly sacrifice our troops if it would mean more power for your party and a political win for Obama. I suspect you would even sacrifice your own family if you could get on TV and blame Republicans for it Virgil - and gain some political polints for the Dems. You would tell yourself their sacrifce was not in vain - you will make sure the Repub,icans pay dearly

This has always been your mission in loife anyway - so nothing new

wow.... and you can spew that sort of tired old bullshit like clockwork at six in the morning! that's amazing!:poke:

[red states rule]

wow.... and you can spew that sort of tired old bullshit like clockwork at six in the morning! that's amazing!:poke:

I have alot of catching up to match you Viorgil. You sprew it 24/7 and have the ability to live a double life away from the keyboard

One day you will have to answer for all your lies, and hate filled posts - and this time all your role playing as the victim will not help you

[maineman]

I have alot of catching up to match you Viorgil. You sprew it 24/7 and have the ability to live a double life away from the keyboard

One day you will have to answer for all your lies, and hate filled posts - and this time all your role playing as the victim will not help you

I don't live a double life at all....

but is this post some sort of THREAT?

[red states rule]

I don't live a double life at all....

but is this post some sort of THREAT?

Oh you do Virgil. I know of no miister that posts death wishes, calls female poster the "C" word, posts personal info about others, or implies females posters are whores

Again, I wonder how your flock would react if they see the man standing in the pulpit - lecturing them on how God wants them to live their lives - treats others simply because they have a different POV on politics and current events

Not a threat. As a man of God you should know your pity party will not work at your final judgement

[maineman]

Oh you do Virgil. I know of no miister that posts death wishes, calls female poster the "C" word, posts personal info about others, or implies females posters are whores

Again, I wonder how your flock would react if they see the man standing in the pulpit - lecturing them on how God wants them to live their lives - treats others simply because they have a different POV on politics and current events

Not a threat. As a man of God you should know your pity party will not work at your final judgement

Who cares what other people you know do or don't do? I lead no double life. This place, to you, IS your life..... for me, it is a brief diversion. My life is filled with other things that suit me just fine.

And I know, that, at MY final judgment, YOU will not be involved in the process....so you probably should stop judging anyone, as it is not yours to do.

[red states rule]

Who cares what other people you know do or don't do? I lead no double life. This place, to you, IS your life..... for me, it is a brief diversion. My life is filled with other things that suit me just fine.

And I know, that, at MY final judgment, YOU will not be involved in the process....so you probably should stop judging anyone, as it is not yours to do.

You are very worried about others finding out what you post here Virgil. You have expressed as much many times

If you have nothing to wory about why are you so upset that people from the baord would attend one of your sermons and provide some interesting input?

I will not judge you Virgil - we both know that. But we both know you will have alot to answer for. And you will not be able to whine about your victim status, or use your service as a crutch with this judge

You will have to answer for the lies, the hate, and venom you have spread over the years

I will pray for you Virgil - you will need all the help you can get to wiggle of this hook

[maineman]

You are very worried about others finding out what you post here Virgil. You have expressed as much many times

If you have nothing to wory about why are you so upset that people from the baord would attend one of your sermons and provide some interesting input?

I will not judge you Virgil - we both know that. But we both know you will have alot to answer for. And you will not be able to whine about your victim status, or use your service as a crutch with this judge

You will have to answer for the lies, the hate, and venom you have spread over the years

I will pray for you Virgil - you will need all the help you can get to wiggle of this hook

If you come to worship, you are welcome. If your purpose is to disrupt worship or disrupt the life of this congregation, then you are not welcome.

It's that simple.

Is that clear?

[red states rule]

If you come to worship, you are welcome. If your purpose is to disrupt worship or disrupt the life of this congregation, then you are not welcome.

It's that simple.

Is that clear?

If disrupt means you do not want your flock to know thre REAL you well that is your problem Virgil

[maineman]

If disrupt means you do not want your flock to know thre REAL you well that is your problem Virgil

why would you want to come to my church to attack me in front of my congregation? what good purpose would that serve for anyone? My congregation DOES know me well. I am the guy who visits them in the hospital and at their homes when they are ill. I am the guy who works at the public suppers with them. I am the guy who teaches their children in confirmation class. THey know me. You clearly do not.

Now... how about you confine your discussions with me to the subjects at hand and leave my personal and professional life out of it?

We are here, after all, to debate policy, not personality.

[red states rule]

why would you want to come to my church to attack me in front of my congregation? what good purpose would that serve for anyone? My congregation DOES know me well. I am the guy who visits them in the hospital and at their homes when they are ill. I am the guy who works at the public suppers with them. I am the guy who teaches their children in confirmation class. THey know me. You clearly do not.

Now... how about you confine your discussions with me to the subjects at hand and leave my personal and professional life out of it?

We are here, after all, to debate policy, not personality.

Are you also the kind of guy who if they disagreew ith your political views you tell them to their face you hope to piss on their graves, or if they are females you call them the "C" word to their face? Or do you tell them to their face you hope to sexualt assualt their wife?

I doubt it Virgil. But you have posted all of those remarks - and alot more. Again, does you flock know the REAL you those hate filled posts here and other sites?

Soner or later the truth always comes out Virgil - no matter how hard to try to cover it up

[maineman]

red.... my congregation knows me and they appreciate all that I do. They are pleased with my efforts here. Why would you want to disrupt that? What purpose would that serve?

and again:

Why don't you confine your discussions with me to the subjects at hand and leave my personal and professional life out of it?

We are here, after all, to debate policy, not personality.

Is that something you are willing to do?

[red states rule]

red.... my congregation knows me and they appreciate all that I do. They are pleased with my efforts here. Why would you want to disrupt that? What purpose would that serve?

and again:

Why don't you confine your discussions with me to the subjects at hand and leave my personal and professional life out of it?

We are here, after all, to debate policy, not personality.

Is that something you are willing to do?

So why the fear of anyone from here showing up at your sermon and providing input? If they know "all about you" as you claim - you should welcome the input? Your flock would defend you from the attacks from the rabid righties, and defend your patriotism

Or is this more lies and BS from the preacher man? Probably is Virgil. YOu have a yellow streak a foot wide running down your back and everyone here knows it. You are a liar and a fruad. Your worst fear is the truth about leaking out and those people in your town knowing the REAL Virgil and how he actuially treats people

[maineman]

So why the fear of anyone from here showing up at your sermon and providing input? If they know "all about you" as you claim - you should welcome the input? Your flock would defend you from the attacks from the rabid righties, and defend your patriotism

Or is this more lies and BS from the preacher man? Probably is Virgil. YOu have a yellow streak a foot wide running down your back and everyone here knows it. You are a liar and a fruad. Your worst fear is the truth about leaking out and those people in your town knowing the REAL Virgil and how he actuially treats people
Worship services are not for "providing input" about anyone's opinion of the worship leader. Worship services are about worshipping God. Your disruptions would be sacrilegious and would not advance the Kingdom of God in any way.

and again... the PEOPLE of my church and my community know how I actually treat them already.

I ask you again to please discuss issues and leave my personal and professional life out of out discussions. Can you or can you not do that?

Simple question. will you answer it?

[maineman]

simple question.

[Jeff]

Damn I missed a lot, :laugh2: Virgil as for you and I it is simple you made a bet threat or whatever you want to call it, you backed out AGAIN, it was you that offered to meet me 1/2 way, I am the same person now that I was then, the only difference is I took you up on it and you pussied out

As for a double life Virgil, come on get with the program, when you were banned here, I watched you lurking, if this isn't a big part of your life why in the hell would ya be here when you can't even post, you have stated many times you only come here to mess with people cause all are beneath you, well if ya can't post ya can't mess with the lower class, see so this board is as much as your life as anyone's, the only difference is you are suppose to be a man of god, lead by example, lol, if your congregation followed your example , ooo dang don't even want to think of it, see so there is a double life there

Now I know this post will be answered with all kinds of cussing and nastiness , :laugh2: just another example of the double life!!!

[maineman]

as I said Jeff....I reconsidered the wisdom of driving out of state to see a guy I had never met before on the off chance that he would be honorable enough to pay me $5000 upon examining my retired military ID card. I honestly don't believe that you would actually fork over that amount of money... and if I don't think you will, why would I want to drive somewhere to meet you? It is simply not worth it.

As I said before, I am perfectly willing to have a cup of coffee with you in central Maine anytime... and I have absolutely no desire to continue this feud with you... perhaps you might consider ending it as well.

[maineman]

crickets chirping


Worship services are not for "providing input" about anyone's opinion of the worship leader. Worship services are about worshipping God. Your disruptions would be sacrilegious and would not advance the Kingdom of God in any way.

and again... the PEOPLE of my church and my community know how I actually treat them already.

I ask you again to please discuss issues and leave my personal and professional life out of out discussions. Can you or can you not do that?

Simple question. will you answer it?

[glockmail]

Damn I missed a lot, :laugh2: Virgil as for you and I it is simple you made a bet threat or whatever you want to call it, you backed out AGAIN, it was you that offered to meet me 1/2 way, I am the same person now that I was then, the only difference is I took you up on it and you pussied out

As for a double life Virgil, come on get with the program, when you were banned here, I watched you lurking, if this isn't a big part of your life why in the hell would ya be here when you can't even post, you have stated many times you only come here to mess with people cause all are beneath you, well if ya can't post ya can't mess with the lower class, see so this board is as much as your life as anyone's, the only difference is you are suppose to be a man of god, lead by example, lol, if your congregation followed your example , ooo dang don't even want to think of it, see so there is a double life there

Now I know this post will be answered with all kinds of cussing and nastiness , :laugh2: just another example of the double life!!!

Maineman's Double Life. LOL

[glockmail]

....I am the guy who teaches their children in confirmation class. ...

I'm sure you do, you sick pedophile. :poke:

[glockmail]

who said I didn't stand up to my superiors when they were wrong?

I never said that. I have certainly had my share of heated discussions with senior officers about policy or direction but ALWAYS behind closed doors, and after I made my best case, if they chose to go in a different direction, I walked out of their office and carried out their orders as if I had made the decision myself.

That is what professional military officers do. Clearly, you would know nothing about that.

and clearly, if every middle/senior grade military officer resigned their commission every time their seniors made decisions that were less than optimal, we wouldn't have much of a military. I am glad that the VAST majority of military professionals - unlike you - care more for the long range readiness of their organization and less about feeding their weak egos.

Arguing with your boss then carrying out his orders when they are clearly wrong anyway is the sign of a true coward. You were clearly more interested in serving yourself by getting your 20 years in to suck off the government retirement teat then serving your country.

Pussy. :poke:

[maineman]

Arguing with your boss then carrying out his orders when they are clearly wrong anyway is the sign of a true coward. You were clearly more interested in serving yourself by getting your 20 years in to suck off the government retirement teat then serving your country.



again....your complete lack of experience reveals your foolishness. Right and wrong are subjective concepts.... legal and illegal are not. If, for example the commanding officer wants to cancel liberty in Hong Kong and bring the crew back aboard for training at anchor instead of allowing the crew to continue to blow off steam after a extensive at sea optempo period, that is his business. It is his command. It is a legal and lawful order. I may argue with him behind closed doors and tell him that I think that the crew will respond negatively to such a curtailment of their well deserved R&R. If the captain insists, I would carry out that quite lawful order and so would every other military professional that I ever served with. For you to suggest that such support for the chain of command is "cowardice", of all things, just shows what a complete idiot you really are. I know you love to challenge every thing I say, and that is fine. If I were you, I'd pick my battles a little more carefully... stick to areas that you are familiar with. The military clearly isn't such an area. Neither is golf.

[glockmail]

again....your complete lack of experience reveals your foolishness. Right and wrong are subjective concepts.... legal and illegal are not. If, for example the commanding officer wants to cancel liberty in Hong Kong and bring the crew back aboard for training at anchor instead of allowing the crew to continue to blow off steam after a extensive at sea optempo period, that is his business. It is his command. It is a legal and lawful order. I may argue with him behind closed doors and tell him that I think that the crew will respond negatively to such a curtailment of their well deserved R&R. If the captain insists, I would carry out that quite lawful order and so would every other military professional that I ever served with. For you to suggest that such support for the chain of command is "cowardice", of all things, just shows what a complete idiot you really are. I know you love to challenge every thing I say, and that is fine. If I were you, I'd pick my battles a little more carefully... stick to areas that you are familiar with. The military clearly isn't such an area. Neither is golf.

I've already proven that you suck at golf, relative to my chosen sport, and obviously you're a coward for not standing up to your commanders. And I'm not talking about frivolous decisions like your example.

Have you ever been given an unlawful order?

[maineman]

I've already proven that you suck at golf, relative to my chosen sport, and obviously you're a coward for not standing up to your commanders. And I'm not talking about frivolous decisions like your example.

Have you ever been given an unlawful order?

all you have ever proven tis hat you are a stud in your own mind...that's about the extent of your proof, glock.... that and the fact that you like to stare at shorter statured skiier's behinds....

And again... military professionals stand up to their commanders all the time.... behind closed doors.

They vehemently argue their points of view.... they strongly advocate for their positions and for their subordinates... all the time... and in each and every case, when the discussion is concluded and it results in a lawful order on the part of the senior, the professional subordinate ALWAYS leaves that discussion and carries out the order as if it had been his own. ALWAYS. That is PRECISELY the behavior that military professionals are taught from their very first class on military leadership. For you to suggest that such behavior is synonymous with cowardice shows what a fucking moron you are.

The ONLY line in the sand is the line between lawful and unlawful orders.

I myself have never been given an unlawful order, and I know of no other shipmate of mine that has either. If I ever HAD been given an unlawful order, I would have respectfully refused to carry it out.

I have been given some onerous, distasteful orders that I felt certain would harm the morale or the readiness of the command, but if those orders were LAWFUL, and, in my case, they always were, I ALWAYS carried them out as if they were my own idea. THAT is what professional military officers do. As I said... it is quite clear that this is a topic about which you know not one fucking thing.

pick your battles better.... really.

I, for example, would never get in an argument with you about how to install a septic system, or how to talk some young skiier out of his ski pants.... those are your areas of expertise.

[jimnyc]

that and the fact that you like to stare at shorter statured skiier's behinds....

or how to talk some young skiier out of his ski pants.... those are your areas of expertise.


MM, please, I know first hand that you are better than this. Maybe only a few know what you're getting at here, but I am one of them. Please kindly tear one another new assholes without veering into that territory.

Thanks

[maineman]

MM, please, I know first hand that you are better than this. Maybe only a few know what you're getting at here, but I am one of them. Please kindly tear one another new assholes without veering into that territory.

Thanks

I will comply...but I wish you would have been so quick to intervene at post #128.

[jimnyc]

I will comply...but I wish you would have been so quick to intervene at post #128.

Honestly, you are correct, I should have. I don't want it to seem that you are the only one writing things "inappropriate", because others are at fault as well. And honestly, I've seen quite a few attempts by yourself to deflect flaming back into a decent conversation. Props to you for that. Don't let others sway that line of writing from you. It's easy to flame with the best of them, but much harder to take the higher road and ignore someone or reply to their flames with friendly talk. I think you're ALL capable of the latter, and few of you I KNOW are more than capable of the latter.

[maineman]

Honestly, you are correct, I should have. I don't want it to seem that you are the only one writing things "inappropriate", because others are at fault as well. And honestly, I've seen quite a few attempts by yourself to deflect flaming back into a decent conversation. Props to you for that. Don't let others sway that line of writing from you. It's easy to flame with the best of them, but much harder to take the higher road and ignore someone or reply to their flames with friendly talk. I think you're ALL capable of the latter, and few of you I KNOW are more than capable of the latter.

the day that glockmail or redstatesrule complies with the spirit of this post is a day that I will give them a positive rep and you as well.

My guess is that hell will freeze first.

[jimnyc]

the day that glockmail or redstatesrule complies with the spirit of this post is a day that I will give them a positive rep and you as well.

My guess is that hell will freeze first.

I can't speak for reps pertaining to them, but I can almost assure you that quite a few on here would rep you just for your attempts to kill the "never ending feud" if you tried long and hard enough. I'm fully aware that it will take an effort from all parts to finally get back on track, but someone has to be the first...

[Jeff]

SERIOUSLY ???

That's ok I AM done, Virgil you win :laugh2::laugh2:


Well you win in this 1/2 of your life :laugh2::laugh2:


Unfortunately for you I guess you are correct , I may not be the smart one :laugh2::laugh2:

But lets see how smart you are, guess which one I AM, :laugh2::laugh2:


**HINT** I am the one that takes all thing seriously, guess I am not smart enough like you to have a double life, sucks for you :laugh2::laugh2:

[red states rule]

http://www.strangepolitics.com/images/content/156063.jpg

[red states rule]

the day that glockmail or redstatesrule complies with the spirit of this post is a day that I will give them a positive rep and you as well.

My guess is that hell will freeze first.

NMot so fast Virgil -there is a way you could give some positive rep out someday'

You could buy the board, have access to the admin controls, and reset your rep to whatever level you desire

Other then that, well you are right, when Hell freezes over

[maineman]

Honestly, you are correct, I should have. I don't want it to seem that you are the only one writing things "inappropriate", because others are at fault as well. And honestly, I've seen quite a few attempts by yourself to deflect flaming back into a decent conversation. Props to you for that. Don't let others sway that line of writing from you. It's easy to flame with the best of them, but much harder to take the higher road and ignore someone or reply to their flames with friendly talk. I think you're ALL capable of the latter, and few of you I KNOW are more than capable of the latter.

I would assume that you would not consider post #140 to be an example of that capability? ;)

[red states rule]

I would assume that you would not consider post #140 to be an example of that capability? ;)

What are you whining about Virgil? You have posted before how you did not come here to be liked or to win a popularity contest - and damn did you come to the right place :laugh2:

[Jeff]

What are you whining about Virgil? You have posted before how you did not come here to be liked or to win a popularity contest - and damn did you come to the right place :laugh2:

He is on a roll Red, he thinks his ass kissing has gotten him somewhere :laugh2: He will get drunk and remember those that give into him and then he will think he is the messiah and can do anything he wants, and BAM someone will pull the trigger and bye bye Virgil :laugh2::laugh2:

[glockmail]

all you have ever proven tis hat you are a stud in your own mind...that's about the extent of your proof, glock.... that and the fact that you like to stare at shorter statured skiier's behinds....

And again... military professionals stand up to their commanders all the time.... behind closed doors.

They vehemently argue their points of view.... they strongly advocate for their positions and for their subordinates... all the time... and in each and every case, when the discussion is concluded and it results in a lawful order on the part of the senior, the professional subordinate ALWAYS leaves that discussion and carries out the order as if it had been his own. ALWAYS. That is PRECISELY the behavior that military professionals are taught from their very first class on military leadership. For you to suggest that such behavior is synonymous with cowardice shows what a fucking moron you are.

The ONLY line in the sand is the line between lawful and unlawful orders.

I myself have never been given an unlawful order, and I know of no other shipmate of mine that has either. If I ever HAD been given an unlawful order, I would have respectfully refused to carry it out.

I have been given some onerous, distasteful orders that I felt certain would harm the morale or the readiness of the command, but if those orders were LAWFUL, and, in my case, they always were, I ALWAYS carried them out as if they were my own idea. THAT is what professional military officers do. As I said... it is quite clear that this is a topic about which you know not one fucking thing.

pick your battles better.... really.

I, for example, would never get in an argument with you about how to install a septic system, or how to talk some young skiier out of his ski pants.... those are your areas of expertise.

Thanks for reminding us again where your mind wanders when you see a picture of a young boy, proving my assertion of post 138.

If all you have for an example of where you disagreed with a commander was because he didn't grant leave its pretty clear to me that your career was as I suspected- far from any danger and providing you not stance to call others who didn't serve "cowards".

[glockmail]

Thanks for reminding us again where your mind wanders when you see a picture of a young boy, proving my assertion of post 138.

If all you have for an example of where you disagreed with a commander was because he didn't grant leave its pretty clear to me that your career was as I suspected- far from any danger and providing you not stance to call others who didn't serve "cowards".
What's wrong Virgil- no response?

Pussy.