Should Obama fire McChrystal


Definitely so, McChrystal is a Four Star General and he should have known better and if one of his troops made the same or similar comment (s), he should have fired them.

Disrespecting the Commander in Chief is a no-no, basic military 101. If he was an employee at General Motors, IBM, Ford, Nisan, Toyota or any of the major corporation he would have been fired “no questions askedâ€￾
 



I knew this was going to happen to Obama.....it was just a matter of time. Think about it, Obama's AG is trying to throw our troops under the bus over a terroist. That don't look good to the troops.
 
GENERAL McCHRYSTAL

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/AoXdF_lyQUY&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/AoXdF_lyQUY&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/wEdeDAe14ko&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/wEdeDAe14ko&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>
 
As a Officer in the Air Force, if I had said this, I would been relieved of command, brought up on charges, and courtial martial.

General McChrystal viloated Article 88, Comtempt towards Officials.

If you want more infomation including what kind of punishment can be handed down, look here http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/mcm88.htm.

FYI.. I know alot of officers who have violated this Article.
 
He should, but Obama does not have the balls - he is consistently weak in dealing with issues, especially dealing with conservatives.
 
Olde Hornet said:
He should, but Obama does not have the balls - he is consistently weak in dealing with issues, especially dealing with conservatives.
Click to expand...
bARAK has balls. More importantly he has smarts.
I just read the Yahoo report. His butt has to go. If Barak does not fire his but then I have to question his judgement...Not his courage. If Chris stays, barak loses all respect in the military. This sort of thing is done at all ranks in the military. I did. Officers especially do it. Each persons does it and knows the consequences of dooing it.
 
JSU2000 said:
As a Officer in the Air Force, if I had said this, I would been relieved of command, brought up on charges, and courtial martial.

General McChrystal viloated Article 88, Comtempt towards Officials.

If you want more infomation including what kind of punishment can be handed down, look here http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/mcm88.htm.

FYI.. I know alot of officers who have violated this Article.
Click to expand...
I read article 89 of the UCMJ. It specifies 'superior commissioned officer'. That is interesting. The commander in chief is not a commissioned officer. Of course only with this president would anyone try to make a point of that...I am not saying that it has happened.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/06/obama-has-to-fire-mcchrystal/58509/?pid=ynews
 
Last edited:
I think most people are complicating the issue and reading too much into it. The General admitted that he voted for Obama, so we know it's not a race issue. Also, people have been constantly reporting that Genral MAC is a different breed of a soldier, nd he doesn't shy away from telling it like it is.... My point is the General was letting folks know he doesn't approve of Obama's administration. Was it out of line? Yes! Was there truth to his statements about the weakness of the Obama administration? Yes! Let us not forget, that it was Obama who appointed him. General MAC's actions let's me know the Pentagon is not behind the Obama administration.....at all.
 
Bottom line is, wether he voted for Obama is not the issue, a freaking GENERAL that has stomped as much dirt flat around the world as he has, damm well know that it is suicide to make comment's like those in a freeaking interview that he know will become public reading.

His arse is toast and he better get used to the idea of a back room base job somewhere in the states if he wants to stay in the armed forces cause his front line duties are OVA. Retirement would be best for him..
 
Last edited:



Here is my non-military take.

We have been in Afghanistan for 9 years now and until that last year or so, things were looking bleak. McChrystal has put his system into place (COIN) and basically has all his marbles in that one bag. In order to replace him at this point, either one of three things will have to happen. 1)Obama replaces him with someone who understands the system and probably a McChrystal mentee (which would simply be a PR move) or 2) Obama fires him, goes in a different direction and accept the fact that this may put us back a few years in Afghan. 3) Obama takes the hit, keeps McChrystal and basically gives the general more power...
 
McChrystal relieved of his command, source says
By the CNN Wire Staff
June 23, 2010 1:31 p.m. EDT

Washington (CNN) -- Gen. Stanley McChrystal has been relieved of his position as the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, according to a top national security source.

President Obama will make a statement at 1:30 p.m. ET, the White House said. That's only a few hours after he met with McChrystal after politically explosive remarks the general and his aides made about key administration officials in Rolling Stone magazine.

The White House has asked the Pentagon to make a list of possible replacements for McChrystal, a senior administration official told CNN Wednesday. Obama will speak on camera about the issue, senior administration officials noted.

A Pentagon source who has ongoing contact with the general told CNN earlier that McChrystal was unlikely to survive the fallout from the Rolling Stone story,

Obama was "angry" after reading the general's remarks, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Tuesday.

McChrystal met Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, before going to the White House Wednesday morning, Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said.

Read Story...
 
bilde

Clarion Ledger Editorial-----McChrystal: Lessons via MacArther

In 1951, Truman and his advisers were trying to engage North Korea and China in peace negotiations, in an attempt to resolve the ongoing conflict. MacArthur issued an unauthorized statement containing a veiled threat to expand the war into China if the Communist side refused to come to surrender.

When MacArthur continued to support an expansion of the war - communicating directly with a like-minded Republican congressman - Truman replaced the legendary MacArthur with a general who would act in concert with the administration's foreign policy.

Years later, an aged Truman was quoted more plainly on the subject in Time magazine in 1973: "I fired him (MacArthur) because he wouldn't respect the authority of the President. I didn't fire him because he was a dumb SOB, although he was, but that's not against the law for generals."
 
Last edited:
Dude was fired when he got the call to come to Washington.

You don't pull the commander out of battle to come for tea and biscuits.
 
Olde Hornet said:
He should, but Obama does not have the balls - he is consistently weak in dealing with issues, especially dealing with conservatives.
Click to expand...

:lol: Aren't you the one that said he wasn't strong enough to beat Hillary and after he did he wouldn't beat McCain becaue he wasn't tough enough and after he did some big scandel was going to araise to bring him down?

Still haven't figured out you don't know what you're talking about huh?
:lol::lol::lol:
 
.......and look at who Obama appoints to take General MACS place. Was it not long ago that Obama, Hillary, and d@mn near the entire Democratic party that called General Petraues a liar, a murderer, and etc.? Was it not these same folks who stated General Patraeus is a failure, and we were losing the war on terror? Why is Obama embracing Bush's right hand General? If this aint hypocritical and embarrasing to the Obama administration/Dems........Now they have to kiss Petraeus azz.:lmao:
 
ROYAL BLUE said:
.......and look at who Obama appoints to take General MACS place. Was it not long ago that Obama, Hillary, and d@mn near the entire Democratic party that called General Petraues a liar, a murderer, and etc.? Was it not these same folks who stated General Patraeus is a failure, and we were losing the war on terror? Why is Obama embracing Bush's right hand General? If this aint hypocritical and embarrasing to the Obama administration/Dems........Now they have to kiss Petraeus azz.:lmao:
Click to expand...

It is called being smart.. Come on RB, you can give your prez a little credit.
 
jsupop33 said:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/22/AR2010062200813.html?hpid=topnews
Click to expand...

Man....it really makes me wonder when your top commander gets the case of "insubordnation!" It makes me think that others will fall into his footsteps and also if the Taliban was thinking they would use that as propaganda to say that 'they are fighting for a war and their superiors can't even agree with each other.' And then you have a other seargents who are accusing him of not being a "national" and it just keeps going... It makes things difficult in terms of the communication factor so go figure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top