Page 17 of 23 FirstFirst ... 71516171819 ... LastLast
Results 161 to 170 of 226

Thread: McChrystal relieved of his command.

  1. #161
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,717

    Re: McChrystal relieved of his command.

    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    Actually see my latest thread, I list 4+ big things I think he is doing right. I have also in the past have defended him against some of the more right winged mouth foamers as well. I don't believe him to be a kenyan muslim who smokes crack and does the gay sex.... though I do admit to being biased against some of his management style, and choices. He seems like a likable enough fella.

    I don't think it was "dissrespectful" enough for an article 88 charge and the evidence is supported by your point that only what 1 person has been charged with an 88 violation?
    "I don't believe him to be a kenyan muslim who smokes crack and does the gay sex"

    At least not anymore...

  2. #162
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 06:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,740

    Re: McChrystal relieved of his command.

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Incognito View Post
    I gotcha. Perhaps I am being unfair of accusing you of bias, so I am sorry about that. But I think your arguments that McChrystal's words weren't contemptuous are very weak.


    I get that often, my advice is to listen to what I say and not listen to what the mouth foamers try to say....



    You might not think "disrespectful" is enough for an article 88 violation, but the United States Military Court of Appeals in USA v. Howe would disagree with you, and it is their opinion that matters here, not mine or yours. If you admit the comments he made were disrespectful then rationally you admit that they were "contemptuous," since the two words are synonyms and the court regards them as such. The fact that prosecutions on article 88 violations are rare means only that in practice they are seldom followed up on, due to real-world concerns. I would venture to speculate that they usually aren't pursued because they would normally be hard to prove, most disrespectful comments by officers being made in private to people who won't rat them out. Here, proof isn't the issue, but since McChrystal is a political football, it is politically unwise for Obama to pursue 88 charges. But in an ideal world where all laws on the books are followed McChrystal would be looking at a court martial over this.


    do you have a link to that decision? I would like to see what this howe guy said,.



    And no, in an ideal world he would not be tried and convicted for stating obama looked "intimidated".
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  3. #163
    Sage
    Guy Incognito's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    12-02-17 @ 07:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    11,216

    Re: McChrystal relieved of his command.

    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    do you have a link to that decision? I would like to see what this howe guy said,.
    Haven't got a link handy but I'll look for one. IIRC he held up a sign at a Vietnam protest implying that LBJ was a "facist" [sic]. Clearly contemptuous/disrespectful there. (That's just an observation, isn't it? and could even arguably be a true one.) The significance of US v. Howe to the present discussion is not that it presents a direct parallel, but that it is a guiding principle for interpretation of the word "contemptuous" in Article 88. I quoted the case earlier in this thread, and the court defines contemptuous according to the Webster's dictionary definition, i.e. "disrespectful." Ergo, disrespect = contempt for purposes of Article 88. So logically if you think that the words McChrystal used were disrespectful, then you are committed to the position that he violated 88. At least, if you want to be reasonable about it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    And no, in an ideal world he would not be tried and convicted for stating obama looked "intimidated".
    If that was the only thing he said, then I'd agree with you. But you conveniently neglect to mention his comments about Biden, and the VP is also covered by 88. Not to mention that 88 looks at the totality of the circumstance, not just the isolated remarks, and McChrystal has been engaging in a pattern of disrespect towards the administration even before the Rolling Stone article. Had he said, "he looks intimidated, but that's understandable for a new president, I'll still follow him to hell and back" then there'd be no problem. But you have to look at everything he said in context, not just narrowly at the isolated remarks. Let me just pin you down here, you do agree McChrystal was disrespectful towards Obama and Biden, right?
    Last edited by Guy Incognito; 06-24-10 at 01:27 PM.

  4. #164
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:44 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,348
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: McChrystal relieved of his command.

    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    One is not supposed to critisize the government or the CiC while in uniform.
    A group of folks siting around bull****ting about politics and clueless command is possibly technically not allowed, but every one does it. I don't think it would be possible to get people in the military to not bitch about every single superior they have all the way up the chain of command. Bitching was part of being in the military.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  5. #165
    Sage
    Guy Incognito's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    12-02-17 @ 07:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    11,216

    Re: McChrystal relieved of his command.

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    A group of folks siting around bull****ting about politics and clueless command is possibly technically not allowed, but every one does it. I don't think it would be possible to get people in the military to not bitch about every single superior they have all the way up the chain of command. Bitching was part of being in the military.
    Technically not allowed is still "not allowed."

  6. #166
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 06:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,740

    Re: McChrystal relieved of his command.

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    A group of folks siting around bull****ting about politics and clueless command is possibly technically not allowed, but every one does it. I don't think it would be possible to get people in the military to not bitch about every single superior they have all the way up the chain of command. Bitching was part of being in the military.



    I've seen article 15's over it. In uniform it's a no-no.
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  7. #167
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 06:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,740

    Re: McChrystal relieved of his command.

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Incognito View Post
    Haven't got a link handy but I'll look for one. IIRC he held up a sign at a Vietnam protest implying that LBJ was a "facist" [sic]. Clearly contemptuous/disrespectful there. (That's just an observation, isn't it? and could even arguably be a true one.) The significance of US v. Howe to the present discussion is not that it presents a direct parallel, but that it is a guiding principle for interpretation of the word "contemptuous" in Article 88. I quoted the case earlier in this thread, and the court defines contemptuous according to the Webster's dictionary definition, i.e. "disrespectful." Ergo, disrespect = contempt for purposes of Article 88. So logically if you think that the words McChrystal used were disrespectful, then you are committed to the position that he violated 88. At least, if you want to be reasonable about it.

    wait, you are comparing "fascist" to "looked intimidated"?

    Seriously?





    If that was the only thing he said, then I'd agree with you. But you conveniently neglect to mention his comments about Biden, and the VP is also covered by 88. Not to mention that 88 looks at the totality of the circumstance, not just the isolated remarks, and McChrystal has been engaging in a pattern of disrespect towards the administration even before the Rolling Stone article. Had he said, "he looks intimidated, but that's understandable for a new president, I'll still follow him to hell and back" then there'd be no problem. But you have to look at everything he said in context, not just narrowly at the isolated remarks. Let me just pin you down here, you do agree McChrystal was disrespectful towards Obama and Biden, right?

    What did he say about biden again, specifically?
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  8. #168
    Sage
    Guy Incognito's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    12-02-17 @ 07:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    11,216

    Re: McChrystal relieved of his command.

    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    wait, you are comparing "fascist" to "looked intimidated"?

    Seriously?

    No, I'm not. Like I said, it's not a direct parallel. Do I really have to parse everything I say or can you just give me a fair reading the first time? US v. Howe stated explicitly how to read the word "contemptuous" in article 88. There's no argument that McChrystal's comments were disrespectful, even the Yale professor Tex quoted said so. Do you disagree?
    BTW, I notice you haven't got a lot of substance to your argument, which so far has consisted mostly of laughing smiley faces. If you disagree with my analysis, why not explain why you think so?



    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    What did he say about biden again, specifically?
    He said, "Biden, who's that?" If you can make an argument that his comments about Obama and Biden, taken in their totality, were not disrespectful, then I'd love to hear it. But you can't, you can only make that argument by taking them egregiously out of context.
    Last edited by Guy Incognito; 06-24-10 at 01:37 PM.

  9. #169
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:44 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,348
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: McChrystal relieved of his command.

    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    I've seen article 15's over it. In uniform it's a no-no.
    Really? That seems over the top. I can see it, especially in today's military, but it is stupid.

    I will retract my comment then, apparently I was wrong. Things seem to have changed.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  10. #170
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 06:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,740

    Re: McChrystal relieved of his command.

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Really? That seems over the top. I can see it, especially in today's military, but it is stupid.

    I will retract my comment then, apparently I was wrong. Things seem to have changed.


    I've seen it back in 91. i guess it all has to do with the unit and branch you are in.....
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

Page 17 of 23 FirstFirst ... 71516171819 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •