Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: soda72 on June 22, 2010, 07:48:10 PM
-
ya gotta love this guy...
And his reaction to being required to attend a dinner in Paris with a French minister seems embarrassingly puerile
"I'd rather have my bellybutton kicked by a roomful of people than attend this dinner," he tells his staff. "Unfortunately, no-one in this room could do it."
:rofl
The article revisits the US military's contempt for the efforts of its Nato allies, helpfully reminding us that ISAF is said to stand for "I Suck At Fighting
:D
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/us_and_canada/10383609.stm
gone by the end of the week?
Any takers?
:)
-
Tomorrow you'll have to edit the title of this thread "Private Stanley McChrystal" :bolt:
I just now read a CCN report that the general has submitted his resignation, according to a Times magazine reporter.
-
Tomorrow you'll have to edit the title of this thread "Private Stanley McChrystal" :bolt:
Or Stanley McChrystal.
-
Just the wrong time and the wrong place for his kind of General IMHO.
-
Or award him a medal. :salute
-
Real warriors and politicians are at totally opposite ends of the spectrum. Always have been, always will be.
-
hes probably stressed out like hell, he has so much pressure on him with everything going on the way it is there. I dont blame him for trying to make a joke or 2
-
I'd be curious to know what the relationship between he, his staff, and the reporter was purported to be originally. The dialogue is so frank between these guys that I have to think that most of those comments were made "off the record". I wonder if this reporter decided to simply piss away the relationship he built because he saw that the potential story would be bigger.
Wouldn't be the first journalist that let the Pulitzer blind them from the previously agreed-upon relationships. I mean, this guy obviously lived with the General and his staff for some time to get the material in the article. I can't believe that the General and his staff thought that the more colorful stuff would be included in an article.
Very odd to me, and couldn't have happened at a worse time. While I'm not usually a conspiracy guy, this one smacks of something larger, in my opinion. A lot like when I was in the Balkans in the late 90's.
I hope he enjoys his retirement--he's earned it.
-
This all stems from article in Rolling Stone. You can read the whole thing on MSNBC too.
-
While I'm not usually a conspiracy guy, this one smacks of something larger, in my opinion. A lot like when I was in the Balkans in the late 90's.
I don't think it's breaking news or surprising at all that a reporter, especially one for Rolling Stone magazine, would want to put juicy information in an article. What's surprising about all this is that a 4-star general thought it was okay to say these things to a reporter from Rolling Stone magazine, really!?
-
Real warriors and politicians are at totally opposite ends of the spectrum. Always have been, always will be.
A modern George Patton.
-
See First Amendment (Bill of Rights). :aok
-
See First Amendment (Bill of Rights). :aok
Does not apply
-
Sad but true
-
See First Amendment (Bill of Rights). :aok
:lol you've never been in the military huh? The good general will be lucky if he's not brought up on charges. Military Code of Conduct apply to service personal not the Bill Of Rights.
-
The President can remove any General at any time, for any reason.
At times it can be a difficult and politically unsuccessful choice (see Truman/MacArthur), but you cannot have a General undermining the CiC in any fashion.
Real warriors and politicians are at totally opposite ends of the spectrum. Always have been, always will be.
Unfortunately, that is true.
-
:lol you've never been in the military huh? The good general will be lucky if he's not brought up on charges. Military Code of Conduct apply to service personal not the Bill Of Rights.
I know enough about the military. :lol
Yeah, sadly.
-
Thank you for your service General...
:salute
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/us_and_canada/10395402.stm
-
The replacement was a foregone conclusion. The capper on the situation was announcing that he had already had his resignation ready for submission. It remains to be seen whether this was a calculated move on the part of the General or a simple lapse of judgement. Given that Rolling Stone confirmed remarks made by the General by asking for him to corroborate them prior to publishing I am not leaning in the lapse of judgement camp. He may have a significant job already lined up and took this method to get out of an untenable situation, working for the clueless on behalf of the hostile (afghans and congress) to benefit no one before it became impossible to leave without a stigma of defeat.
In short, he just simply had to know what effects his remarks would have and the almost certain result of making them for publication.
-
The replacement was a foregone conclusion.
yeah, if they had appointed anyone else they would have been consider a second stringer...
The capper on the situation was announcing that he had already had his resignation ready for submission. It remains to be seen whether this was a calculated move on the part of the General or a simple lapse of judgement. Given that Rolling Stone confirmed remarks made by the General by asking for him to corroborate them prior to publishing I am not leaning in the lapse of judgement camp. He may have a significant job already lined up and took this method to get out of an untenable situation, working for the clueless on behalf of the hostile (afghans and congress) to benefit no one before it became impossible to leave without a stigma of defeat.
In short, he just simply had to know what effects his remarks would have and the almost certain result of making them for publication.
I don't think he did this on purpose to move on to another job, otherwise why bother to apologize. Turning in his resignation was a smart move on his part. Now he can always say I didn't get fired I quit...
-
Thanks General for your service...and speaking what alot think.
-
What makes your all think he didn't know exactly what he was saying and what the consequence would be.
<S>
-
:salute
-
What makes your all think he didn't know exactly what he was saying and what the consequence would be.
<S>
That's what I think too. The man ain't stupid by any means. Maybe he wanted out and this was his way of doing it. The news said the the man hadn't seen his family for no more then 30 days at a time for the last 9 years. That alone would make me want to find a new gig.
-
That's what I think too. The man ain't stupid by any means. Maybe he wanted out and this was his way of doing it. The news said the the man hadn't seen his family for no more then 30 days at a time for the last 9 years. That alone would make me want to find a new gig.
30 days total in 9 years!? I wouldve claimed the cabinet members were raging homo's just on that basis to get out. That's horrible
-
30 days at a time.
Whining Generals... Aren't we supposed to be at war?
-
Apparently only lawyers are allowed to be unhappy?
-
30 days total in 9 years!? I wouldve claimed the cabinet members were raging homo's just on that basis to get out. That's horrible
He had more than enough time to qualify for retirement, There was no reason to go this route just to stack arms.
-
The actual article. (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/119236)
I think the reporter had an agenda and succeeded. I also think the reporter with an agenda didn't care about the "big picture" in Afghanistan vis a vis strategy.
wrongway
-
They replaced him with a man they called a liar not so long ago. Blind leading the blind.
-
Apparently only lawyers are allowed to be unhappy?
Being unhappy, fine. Whining to the media about it, not so much.
-
They replaced him with a man they called a liar not so long ago. Blind leading the blind.
Does this really surprise anyone though. When I saw a newspaper article about it I just kind of rolled my eyes about it.