Whoops..... McChrystal recalled to DC

Status
Not open for further replies.
Just_A_Mom said:
Rolling Stone did contact Gates' office. That is how the administration had a head's up on what was coming. Rolling Stone spent the better part of the last two weeks fact checking with the Obama administration.

BTW - the issue actually comes out in print tomorrow. Tuesday night, Rolling Stone submitted a copy of the article to the Washington Post and gave them a heads up.
Yesterday morning the article appeared online.
Click to expand...

OK great, we all understand that...calm down, they are still headed toward bankruptcy even with this weeks circulation :shake:
 
sweettooth said:
This is an offensive post. Referring to someone restraining themselves from *****slapping the CIC on the Service Academy Forum is wrong.
Click to expand...

Why? He did restrain himself and that is a real proposed award for military members?
 
Most likely it would go through the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs. The ASD is Doug Wilson. There are a number of Deputy Assistant Secretaries (DASDs).

Mr. Wilson is a good guy.

The military constantly has to walk a fine line between security and access for the media. Keep out everyone and people cry foul. Let in everyone and people will cry foul. Embeds usually have a decent relationship with the unit their embedded with. In this case, it sounds like a short period of time, not much "bond".

Press has an obligation to the American public to report the truth. In general, you want to watch what you say around them, no matter how cool or nice they seem.

I don't read Rolling Stone, but I may buy one of these.
 
Maximus said:
Why? He did restrain himself and that is a real proposed award for military members?
Click to expand...
Per the rules of this forum:

The purpose of this site is not to discuss politics. Political discussions should be limited in context and scope, and our nation's elected officials respected at all times.
 
sweettooth said:
Per the rules of this forum:

The purpose of this site is not to discuss politics. Political discussions should be limited in context and scope, and our nation's elected officials respected at all times.
Click to expand...

Actually, we are taught to "Respect the elected OFFICE". e.g. I respect the "Office, of the President of the United States". As such, I would ALWAYS follow the orders of those appointed over me, to include those who held those offices. But just because I was always willing to follow the orders of those appointed over me, and those that held positions in the elected offices, doesn't mean I have to respect them. You may believe it's simply semantics, but it's not. No where does it say I MUST RESPECT any elected official. Just the office. And I'm retired, and as such, have Paid my dues. But for those still serving, you RESPECT the office. You follow the orders of those IN THOSE OFFICES.
 
Christcorp said:
No where does it say I MUST RESPECT any elected official.
Click to expand...

The forum rules explicitly state this: "The purpose of this site is not to discuss politics. Political discussions should be limited in context and scope, and our nation's elected officials respected at all times" (emphasis added).


You are free to respect or not anyone you wish. However, forum rules exist for a purpose.
 
Last edited:
MakeItHappen said:
The forum rules explicitly state this: "The purpose of this site is not to discuss politics. Political discussions should be limited in context and scope, and our nation's elected officials respected at all times" (emphasis added).


You are free to respect or not anyone you wish. However, forum rules exist for a purpose.
Click to expand...

Actually, I was responding to the more broad concern that I wrote about being a military person, that somehow we are suppose to respect "people". No where does it say that military personnel must respect individuals. We respect the office, and we follow the "lawful - you are correct LTS" orders given by those IN those OFFICES.

But yes, if you want to find fine print in the forums, I'll trust you that is says that when writing posts, that we are suppose to be respectful of PEOPLE in certain offices. That's not practical or enforceable. It's a "poor choice of words". However, the fact that politics is not to be discussed makes the "respect" portion a moot point.

I believe that there should be a "Political section" to the forum. I believe that it's important that especially on a military oriented forum, that our young cadets, enlisted, and officers realize that just because they are willing to die for our constitutional rights, and that because we took an oath that we would follow the lawful orders of those appointed over us, that we have NOT LOST OUR RIGHT to disagree and to express ourselves. The only difference is in HOW we are allowed to express ourselves. But there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with disagreeing with an elected official, and even not respecting him/her. As long as the office that they hold is respected, and by association, their lawful orders are followed. That is a very difficult thing for many people to comprehend. How do you follow orders that you disagree with, and you disagree with the person giving those orders. WELL, that's what makes the military a special breed of individuals, and why not EVERYONE has what it takes to be in the military. If you can't separate the two, then you have no business being in the military. And there are so many complacent people when it comes to politics and our government, and that THEY, the GOVERNMENT, works for us, that I am all for ANYTHING that gets people more involved with our political system.
 
Christcorp said:
Actually, I was responding to the more broad concern that I wrote about being a military person, that somehow we are suppose to respect "people". No where does it say that military personnel must respect individuals. We respect the office, and we follow the "lawful - you are correct LTS" orders given by those IN those OFFICES.

But yes, if you want to find fine print in the forums, I'll trust you that is says that when writing posts, that we are suppose to be respectful of PEOPLE in certain offices. That's not practical or enforceable. It's a "poor choice of words". However, the fact that politics is not to be discussed makes the "respect" portion a moot point.

I believe that there should be a "Political section" to the forum. I believe that it's important that especially on a military oriented forum, that our young cadets, enlisted, and officers realize that just because they are willing to die for our constitutional rights, and that because we took an oath that we would follow the lawful orders of those appointed over us, that we have NOT LOST OUR RIGHT to disagree and to express ourselves. The only difference is in HOW we are allowed to express ourselves. But there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with disagreeing with an elected official, and even not respecting him/her. As long as the office that they hold is respected, and by association, their lawful orders are followed. That is a very difficult thing for many people to comprehend. How do you follow orders that you disagree with, and you disagree with the person giving those orders. WELL, that's what makes the military a special breed of individuals, and why not EVERYONE has what it takes to be in the military. If you can't separate the two, then you have no business being in the military. And there are so many complacent people when it comes to politics and our government, and that THEY, the GOVERNMENT, works for us, that I am all for ANYTHING that gets people more involved with our political system.
Click to expand...
It is entirely possible to have a discussion about policy that is respectful. In fact a respectful discussion is a lot more productive and follows this forums rules.
 
Christcorp said:
But yes, if you want to find fine print in the forums, I'll trust you that is says that when writing posts, that we are suppose to be respectful of PEOPLE in certain offices. That's not practical or enforceable. It's a "poor choice of words". However, the fact that politics is not to be discussed makes the "respect" portion a moot point.
Click to expand...

Not my rules; just playing along.

Christcorp said:
I believe that there should be a "Political section" to the forum.
Click to expand...

I'll agree. Unfortunately, the same 3 or 4 knuckleheads will show up and immediately start parroting some leftist or rightist talking head /blogger and begin name calling or bomb throwing. Doesn't add anything of value or insight.
Christcorp said:
I believe that it's important that especially on a military oriented forum, that our young cadets, enlisted, and officers realize that just because they are willing to die for our constitutional rights, and that because we took an oath that we would follow the lawful orders of those appointed over us, that we have NOT LOST OUR RIGHT to disagree and to express ourselves. The only difference is in HOW we are allowed to express ourselves. But there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with disagreeing with an elected official, and even not respecting him/her. As long as the office that they hold is respected, and by association, their lawful orders are followed. That is a very difficult thing for many people to comprehend. How do you follow orders that you disagree with, and you disagree with the person giving those orders. WELL, that's what makes the military a special breed of individuals, and why not EVERYONE has what it takes to be in the military. If you can't separate the two, then you have no business being in the military. And there are so many complacent people when it comes to politics and our government, and that THEY, the GOVERNMENT, works for us, that I am all for ANYTHING that gets people more involved with our political system.
Click to expand...

Many folks don't understand or comprehend what you say here. That's cause for concern.
 
I am not disagreeing with the rules of the forum, however, there is a reason this area is called the OFF TOPIC section (note emphasis). This is a section to discuss things that are off topic, and it sure seems to me that this is off topic, so we can discuss it here.

(Am I right, or do I just have a hard time understanding what the words off topic mean, thinking that it's for stuff that's off topic? I must be going crazy... :rolleyes:)
 
fly boy said:
I am not disagreeing with the rules of the forum, however, there is a reason this area is called the OFF TOPIC section (note emphasis). This is a section to discuss things that are off topic, and it sure seems to me that this is off topic, so we can discuss it here.

(Am I right, or do I just have a hard time understanding what the words off topic mean, thinking that it's for stuff that's off topic? I must be going crazy... :rolleyes:)
Click to expand...
The thread topic is entirely appropriate for the Off Topic section. Violating forum rules is not appropriate.
 
sweettooth said:
Per the rules of this forum:

The purpose of this site is not to discuss politics. Political discussions should be limited in context and scope, and our nation's elected officials respected at all times.
Click to expand...

As you said: the purpose of the site is not to discuss politics. That does not mean that we can not discuss them. The purpose of the site is not to discuss the forum rules, so does that mean that we can't discuss them? Of course not.

By the way, it does not say: thou shalt not discuss politics, therefore, I can not see how it violates the rules.
Anyhow, we are far off topic.
 
fly boy said:
I am not disagreeing with the rules of the forum, however, there is a reason this area is called the OFF TOPIC section (note emphasis).
Click to expand...

This is the ACADEMY/MILITARY NEWS board, not OFF-TOPIC.
Attention to detail, grasshopper. I may be dating myself with that last reference.
 
Christcorp said:
I believe that it's important that especially on a military oriented forum, that our young cadets, enlisted, and officers realize that just because they are willing to die for our constitutional rights, and that because we took an oath that we would follow the lawful orders of those appointed over us, that we have NOT LOST OUR RIGHT to disagree and to express ourselves. The only difference is in HOW we are allowed to express ourselves. But there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with disagreeing with an elected official, and even not respecting him/her. As long as the office that they hold is respected, and by association, their lawful orders are followed. That is a very difficult thing for many people to comprehend. How do you follow orders that you disagree with, and you disagree with the person giving those orders. WELL, that's what makes the military a special breed of individuals, and why not EVERYONE has what it takes to be in the military. If you can't separate the two, then you have no business being in the military. And there are so many complacent people when it comes to politics and our government, and that THEY, the GOVERNMENT, works for us, that I am all for ANYTHING that gets people more involved with our political system.
Click to expand...
I disagree completely. The discussion of politics has absolutely no place in any official on-duty setting and probably also not in any informal setting unless one is perhaps solely with their peers. My roommate from USNA who I have interacted with constantly over the last many years and have sat next to for almost 20 yrs at all football games, traveled to ND with, etc etc. I finally ask him his political views last fall and he seemed surprised that I asked. It just isn't done. One's official military posture should be totally apolitical.
Christcorp said:
president Obama totally SUCKS
Click to expand...
This type of commenct, while respectful of the office (LOL), would most likely cause one to receive some serious counselling.
__________________
 
Last edited:
O.K....everybody quit about the "forum rules" and get back to the real discussion....McChrystal.....
This is the best reading....I'm learning a lot and loving all the different perspective views!!
From a totally Non Military Mom!
Thanks.....
Suzie
 
Suzie said:
O.K....everybody quit about the "forum rules" and get back to the real discussion....McChrystal.....
This is the best reading....I'm learning a lot and loving all the different perspective views!!
From a totally Non Military Mom!
Thanks.....
Suzie
Click to expand...
Actually, what is appropriate for McChrystal is also what is appropriate for the military in general which is also what is appropriate for candidates which is probably the reason for the original "forum rules", so it is all one in the same. Candidates should become well aware now that this is inappropriate behavior and members of the military, active duty, veterans, and retirees alike, should be setting a good example.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top