The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

Not At My Table - Political Discussions => National & International Politics => Topic started by: Gaspar on June 23, 2010, 02:52:07 PM

Title: Soldiers Branded Mercenaries
Post by: Gaspar on June 23, 2010, 02:52:07 PM
Anticipating the natural progression of such things.  How long do you think it will be until the left and the administration begin to brand our soldiers as uncontrolled mercenaries with no regard for civilian control?

McChristal was ousted for good reason, but if he has such sentiments as a general, you know that the same is shared by those under his command and lateral to him. 

Reporter Michael Hastings has cemented a name for himself with this Rolling Stone story, and I am certain that he is not the only reporter privy to such commentary from military personnel.  Other reporters will scramble to stir up the scorpions.

This unfortunate incident is far from over.  It's a symptom of a greater illness.
Title: Re: Soldiers Branded Mercenaries
Post by: Townsend on June 23, 2010, 02:54:04 PM
You lost me on this one.

Is there a story that they're working for the highest bidder?
Title: Re: Soldiers Branded Mercenaries
Post by: Gaspar on June 23, 2010, 03:00:15 PM
Quote from: Townsend on June 23, 2010, 02:54:04 PM
You lost me on this one.


I'll find you later.  ;)
Title: Re: Soldiers Branded Mercenaries
Post by: Townsend on June 23, 2010, 03:08:14 PM
Quote from: Gaspar on June 23, 2010, 03:00:15 PM
I'll find you later.  ;)

unlike unlike unlike
Title: Re: Soldiers Branded Mercenaries
Post by: we vs us on June 23, 2010, 03:23:20 PM
What's funny is that one of my cubemates -- who's a HUGE Tea Partier/talk radio-head -- just regaled me with the same exact thought.  That 1) McChrystal's sentiments were indicative of the military's sentiments at large and 2) if this is true, then it's an indictment of Obama's quality of leadership, not McChrystal's or the military leadership's.  You successfully tacked on the corollary, 3) liberals will use it as another reason to vilify the military, whereas her extrapolation was obviously subpar.  She just asked what it might do to Obama's approval rating. 

She never said, though, whether this came from Hannity, Rush, or Savage.  Care to comment?
Title: Re: Soldiers Branded Mercenaries
Post by: Hoss on June 23, 2010, 03:25:21 PM
Quote from: we vs us on June 23, 2010, 03:23:20 PM
What's funny is that one of my cubemates -- who's a HUGE Tea Partier/talk radio-head -- just regaled me with the same exact thought.  That 1) McChrystal's sentiments were indicative of the military's sentiments at large and 2) if this is true, then it's an indictment of Obama's quality of leadership, not McChrystal's or the military leadership's.  You successfully tacked on the corollary, 3) liberals will use it as another reason to vilify the military, whereas her extrapolation was obviously subpar.  She just asked what it might do to Obama's approval rating. 

She never said, though, whether this came from Hannity, Rush, or Savage.  Care to comment?

Gotta love livin' in Oklahoma, where the backwardsness reigns supreme!  I've just gotten to where I ignore them.
Title: Re: Soldiers Branded Mercenaries
Post by: Gaspar on June 23, 2010, 03:41:31 PM
Just using logic.

1. I think McChristal was wrong.  He was subordinate, and he deserved to get canned. 

2. His sentiment is guaranteed to exist with other commanders and soldiers (perhaps even a small minority). 

3. Media will attempt to root this out.  No doubt.  Blood is in the water.

4. Administration will be forced to react.

5. Liberals will, rather than place the blame on Obama's leadership, place blame on a "culture" within the military.

6. This will create an image of a military outside of civilian control.  A mercenary military.

That's the logic.  I am willing to bet we have more reports within a week or so.  There will probably be the formation of a "blue-ribbon panel" to investigate allegations of subordination.
Title: Re: Soldiers Branded Mercenaries
Post by: Townsend on June 23, 2010, 03:47:05 PM
Wait, this?

QuoteA group of renegade marine commandos seizes a stockpile of chemical weapons and takes over Alcatraz, with 81 tourists as hostages. Their leader, a former highly-decorated U.S. general, demands $100 million to be paid in ransom, as restitution to families of Marines who died in covert operations and were thereby denied compensation. Otherwise, he is threatening to launch 15 rockets carrying deadly VX nerve gas into the San Francisco Bay area.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0117500/plotsummary (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0117500/plotsummary)

OK, it's feasible.
Title: Re: Soldiers Branded Mercenaries
Post by: swake on June 23, 2010, 03:51:48 PM
Quote from: Townsend on June 23, 2010, 03:47:05 PM
Wait, this?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0117500/plotsummary (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0117500/plotsummary)

OK, it's feasible.

Glen Beck is all over it.
Title: Re: Soldiers Branded Mercenaries
Post by: Hoss on June 23, 2010, 03:54:58 PM
Quote from: swake on June 23, 2010, 03:51:48 PM
Glen Beck is all over it.

Quick!  Where's the Kleenex!
Title: Re: Soldiers Branded Mercenaries
Post by: Conan71 on June 23, 2010, 04:36:04 PM
Quote from: we vs us on June 23, 2010, 03:23:20 PM
What's funny is that one of my cubemates -- who's a HUGE Tea Partier/talk radio-head -- just regaled me with the same exact thought.  That 1) McChrystal's sentiments were indicative of the military's sentiments at large and 2) if this is true, then it's an indictment of Obama's quality of leadership, not McChrystal's or the military leadership's.  You successfully tacked on the corollary, 3) liberals will use it as another reason to vilify the military, whereas her extrapolation was obviously subpar.  She just asked what it might do to Obama's approval rating. 

She never said, though, whether this came from Hannity, Rush, or Savage.  Care to comment?

Not that Hannity holds a shred of credibility with me to start with, but he started his show today challenging anyone to legitimately point out why McChrystal should have been fired.  I'm sure they used the mute button a lot today.  He is such a complete moron.  It's people like him who make me seriously consider changing my affiliation to Ind.
Title: Re: Soldiers Branded Mercenaries
Post by: swake on June 23, 2010, 04:42:07 PM
Quote from: Conan71 on June 23, 2010, 04:36:04 PM
Not that Hannity holds a shred of credibility with me to start with, but he started his show today challenging anyone to legitimately point out why McChrystal should have been fired.  I'm sure they used the mute button a lot today.  He is such a complete moron.  It's people like him who make me seriously consider changing my affiliation to Ind.

he's not a real conservative. Look into his "Freedom Concert" scam. He's just a conservative on radio so he can get paid. he and Palin are only there for the $$.

Title: Re: Soldiers Branded Mercenaries
Post by: Gaspar on June 23, 2010, 04:43:13 PM
Quote from: Conan71 on June 23, 2010, 04:36:04 PM
Not that Hannity holds a shred of credibility with me to start with, but he started his show today challenging anyone to legitimately point out why McChrystal should have been fired.  I'm sure they used the mute button a lot today.  He is such a complete moron.  It's people like him who make me seriously consider changing my affiliation to Ind.

How as President could you afford to keep an insubordinate subordinate?  Obama is Commander in Chief.  As a military officer it is your duty to respect the office.  Your personal feelings about having to solute to a Community Organizer, you keep to yourself, or better yet, get over it.

President Obama did the right thing.  Either way it hurts him, but it hurts him less to fire McCrystal.

Hannity is a winy little punk.

Title: Re: Soldiers Branded Mercenaries
Post by: nathanm on June 23, 2010, 05:04:06 PM
Hmm. I think I stepped into the shower from normal world and stepped out into Bizarro World.  :o
Title: Re: Soldiers Branded Mercenaries
Post by: rwarn17588 on June 23, 2010, 06:21:09 PM
If you think the military is strongly against Obama, they sure had a funny way of showing it in 2008. Obama outraised McCain by a 6-to-1 margin in donations from the military.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-08-14-military-donations_N.htm

I'd have to think there's still some strong support there.
Title: Re: Soldiers Branded Mercenaries
Post by: Hoss on June 23, 2010, 06:26:37 PM
Quote from: rwarn17588 on June 23, 2010, 06:21:09 PM
If you think the military is strongly against Obama, they sure had a funny way of showing it in 2008. Obama outraised McCain by a 6-to-1 margin in donations from the military.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-08-14-military-donations_N.htm

I'd have to think there's still some strong support there.

But, to be perfectly honest, had McCain (well, not McCain, but his handlers) not chosen "The Quitter" as his running mate and chosen Liebermann, he might have gotten more donations.  Note I say might...it was awfully late in the game when the Veep hopefuls were disclosed.
Title: Re: Soldiers Branded Mercenaries
Post by: rwarn17588 on June 23, 2010, 06:34:01 PM
Quote from: Gaspar on June 23, 2010, 03:41:31 PM
Just using logic.

1. I think McChristal was wrong.  He was subordinate, and he deserved to get canned. 

2. His sentiment is guaranteed to exist with other commanders and soldiers (perhaps even a small minority). 

3. Media will attempt to root this out.  No doubt.  Blood is in the water.

4. Administration will be forced to react.

5. Liberals will, rather than place the blame on Obama's leadership, place blame on a "culture" within the military.

6. This will create an image of a military outside of civilian control.  A mercenary military.

That's the logic.  I am willing to bet we have more reports within a week or so.  There will probably be the formation of a "blue-ribbon panel" to investigate allegations of subordination.

I think you need to lay off the Bud Light Limes and get some rest.