Page 18 of 23 FirstFirst ... 81617181920 ... LastLast
Results 171 to 180 of 226

Thread: McChrystal relieved of his command.

  1. #171
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,571

    Re: McChrystal relieved of his command.

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Incognito View Post
    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?

    So there is nothing to compare here. Noted. thanks for the concession.






    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.

    It was dumb, hardly contemptuous to an article 88 charge.
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  2. #172
    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
    So there is nothing to compare here. Noted. thanks for the concession.

    Incorrect. There was no concession, as much as you like to purposely misread my posts I don't see how even you could have read on into that Howe isn't a direct parallel, but that doesn't mean that there is "nothing to compare." Indeed, I've said repeatedly that what we are comparing is the standard for "contempt" under Article 88 as the court made clear in Howe means "disrespect."

    By the way, just because there was only ever one court martial on 88 doesn't mean that there was only one violation. "Numerous officers have been disciplined for criticizing the president. Two Marine Corps officers were administratively punished for published letters to newspapers that were disrespectful to the president "

    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    It was dumb, hardly contemptuous to an article 88 charge.
    Say it over and over again, perhaps it will come true. Until then, there rest of us follow the law as it is written. Disrespectful comments are identical to contemptuous comments, according to the USCMA, and McChrystal's comments were disrespectful. If you feel this shouldn't be the case, you are free to take it up with them. But really, I don't care about your opinion as to what should constitute contempt for purposes of Article 88, because the law says otherwise.

    I ask you again, do you think McChrystal's comments were disrespectful or not? Try not to dodge the question this time, if you please.

  3. #173
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,571

    Re: McChrystal relieved of his command.

    Dodge?


    Here I'll make it easy for you..


    They were out of line, but not a chargable offense. Non-judicial punishment and/or resigning is fine.
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  4. #174
    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
    Dodge?


    Here I'll make it easy for you..


    They were out of line, but not a chargable offense. Non-judicial punishment and/or resigning is fine.
    Interesting how you still managed to avoid answering my question. So why is it that non-judicial punishment fine and a court-martial is not? Not a chargeable offense? Why not?

  5. #175
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,571

    Re: McChrystal relieved of his command.

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Incognito View Post
    Interesting how you still managed to avoid answering my question. So why is it that non-judicial punishment fine and a court-martial is not? Not a chargeable offense? Why not?



    What part of "they were out of line" is confusing you my friend?


    and why not? simple case precedence.
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  6. #176
    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
    What part of "they were out of line" is confusing you my friend?
    Yes, it is confusing, actually. Considering that the question I asked is "Do you think McChrystal's comments were disrespectful," your answer that they were "out of line" just reads as another dodge. A clever one, but still a dodge.


    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    and why not? simple case precedence.
    Got a citation for me?

  7. #177
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,691

    Re: McChrystal relieved of his command.

    Quote Originally Posted by VanceMack View Post
    Sometimes you guys EPITOMIZE the encyclopedia definition of FACE-PALM in your myopic defense of your ideological leader.
    Several quick things:

    1. Disagreement with General McChrystal's actions is not the same thing as having support for or commitment to President Obama's ideology.
    2. Highlighting what apparently is an indication of a core leadership deficiency in subsequent information has nothing to do with President Obama. Professor Kotter's work on leadership, from which I drew one example (aligning/understanding who is relevant) stands on its academic merits. It is not a superficial political work.
    3. I expressed my position on what is now the current strategy in Afghanistan here at DP prior to its development. I noted what I believed to be its central flaw (Kabul-centric nature) at the time it was announced. One can find two of the relevant links here: http://www.debatepolitics.com/asia-c...post1058819040 . Therefore, it is rather absurd to characterize my positions as expressing support for my "ideological leader," especially as I do not believe the strategy in place is the right one.

    You Just said "The Administration's responsibility is that it approved General McChrystal's strategy". Really? Thats BEING IN CHARGE?
    In any organization, whether it is the CEO, the partner, or in the case of the U.S. Government, the President, the person who approves a strategy (not necessarily the same thing as the one who designs it) is accountable for his/her decisions and choices.

    Is it a GOOD strategy? Is it working?
    As noted earlier, and one can also reference the message to which I provided the hyperlink, I do not believe the current strategy is a good one. It rests on a foundation that undermines prospects for success. Moreover, early indications are that it is not working in a fashion required to meet the objectives set forth from the time it was implemented to July 2011. My argument, unlike that of those who have been describing the events as 'unanticipated,' is that the results are a direct consequence of the strategy's flaws. That General McChrystal said that it was taking longer than expected to gain the support of the tribal leaders is a direct result of the strategy's focusing on the Karzai regime at the expense of the tribal leaders. Delegating control over resource allocation, security decisions, and decision making to a provincial, corrupt, and incompetent regime that is widely viewed as illegitimate and has demonstrated a persistent preference for pursuing self-interest rather than addressing the needs of local areas, much less Afghanistan as a whole, is no way to win the support and trust of the tribal leaders. In short, the result is exactly what should have been expected.

    Why is there animosity between the Afghan War commanders entire staff and the administration? Could there ACTUALLY be some fault in the administration that needs addressing???
    Of course there is. Effective leaders would directly and privately raise concerns/objections, offer insights, provide suggestions in a proper fashion with the key players. They would not, I repeat not, go complaining through the media, much less in a fashion that puts those players in a negative light. They would not have their staffs making disparaging or worse remarks about the key players who are integral to ensuring that things get done, much less one of the players who had a correct read on the situation from the onset. They would make sure that they have good working relationships with key players, not have an all but non-functional relationship with some of those players. That is not leadership. Unfortunately, that is exactly what happened.

    There is nothing magical or novel about notions that leaders need to be able to work effectively with those who are relevant or that they must inspire and nurture confidence and trust. That General McChrystal apparently lacked such basic insight is not the President's personal shortcoming. The President might have his own shortcomings, and he bears a degree of responsibility for having chosen General McChrystal for a task for which he appears increasingly to have been unprepared, but General McChrystal's lack of adequate leadership ability is the general's own issue.

    In fact, the situation appears to have been a classic case of asking what amounted to an organization's top salesperson (special operations commander in the general's case) to take charge of its marketing operations (military operations in Afghanistan, in this case). The skill sets for success in each area have some overlap, but there are significant differences as well. In the former, one needs to be able to powerfully promote the attributes of a product or service to a customer's needs (address narrow and specific objectives related to special forces missions and work with a relatively small number of highly-trained operatives). In the latter, one needs to be able to relate a much broader range of activities to the organization's mission, goals, and objectives (the overarching strategy in Afghanistan, large numbers of troops, military and civilian leaders, etc.). The general was clearly outstanding with his special operations work. Unfortunately, he was not outstanding when it came to leadership, otherwise there would have been no Rolling Stone piece and his relationships with, among others, Amb. Eikenberry and Richard Holbrooke would have been rock solid.

    Oh...we SEE the pattern. Obama is in charge of the gulf oil spill...has been since DAY ONE...OK...so its in its THIRD ****ING MONTH and its still gushing 60 THOUSAND barrels of oil a DAY...but they are IN CHARGE and giving BP what they want...And they are in charge of the budget. And spending. And unemployment. And the housing crisis.
    That the President may have his own issues, challenges, and problems to address and may not be handling all of the issues in the most effective fashion, is an entirely separate matter from General McChrystal's issues. Addressing the general's apparent deficits does not mean that the President is anything close to perfect or effective.
    Last edited by donsutherland1; 06-24-10 at 02:18 PM.

  8. #178
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,571

    Re: McChrystal relieved of his command.

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Incognito View Post
    Yes, it is confusing, actually. Considering that the question I asked is "Do you think McChrystal's comments were disrespectful," your answer that they were "out of line" just reads as another dodge. A clever one, but still a dodge.



    I can't help you then, its not a yes or no question. for example here at dp, calling you a partisan hack (i'm not currently) is not dissrespectful enought to get you gigged. calling you an incompetent asshole (I'm not) is.... It's a matter of degrees.

    I don't think that the generals comments are "Dissrespectful" enough to merit charges. Obama agrees.






    Got a citation for me?


    your own posts.
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  9. #179
    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
    your own posts.
    Very good, I accept your concession.

  10. #180
    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
    I can't help you then, its not a yes or no question. for example here at dp, calling you a partisan hack (i'm not currently) is not dissrespectful enought to get you gigged. calling you an incompetent asshole (I'm not) is.... It's a matter of degrees.

    I don't think that the generals comments are "Dissrespectful" enough to merit charges. Obama agrees.
    Heres's a good quote I found that might shed some more light on it:

    Quote Originally Posted by Contemptuous Speech Against the President
    During World War I, a soldier was convicted of using contemptuous words against Congress merely because he stated that “the United States had no business to enter this war . . . .” Aldrich, supra note 6, at 1200 (citing Flentje, CM 114159 (1918), and noting that the legal commentator found this conviction to be shocking).
    [...]
    Aldrich, supra note 6, at 1199. The referenced definition defined contemptuous as “manifesting, feeling or expressing contempt or disdain,” and further defined
    contempt as “the act of despising or the state of mind of one who despises . . . the condition of having no respect, concern, or regard for something . . . the state of
    being despised.” Id. (citing WEBSTER’S THIRD NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY 491 (1981)). Under this definition, the Article would be limited to instances when a
    service member exhibited no respect, but in prior courts-martial the military has applied a considerably more liberal standard of what constituted contemptuous words.
    Id. at 1199-1200 (citations omitted).
    That's from a law review article written by an army JAG lawyer that you can read here.

Page 18 of 23 FirstFirst ... 81617181920 ... 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
  •