The Military (Command) Opposes Trump (Page 2): In addition, these were Retired f**g officers and in many cases they were retired for cause. Obama was accused of stripping out the old...

pafret Loc: Northeast

Wolf counselor wrote:

There are 231 Generals in the Army.

There are 162 generals in the Navy.

There are 198 generals in the
Air Force

There are 61 generals in the
Marines.

Do you get where I'm going...........Goober ?

Two or three disgruntled officers are 'not' representative of the entire military command.

Next time you you open your mouth to speak on this subject, put your foot in it....... Goober !

In addition, these were Retired f**g officers and in many cases they were retired for cause. Obama was accused of stripping out the old guard and installing new officers with loyalty to him. The case was made at that time that these officers in many cases would have become disciplinary problems if they didn't accept retirement.

If I were Trump I would take the challenge at face value and remove all of the clearances. They no longer have need to know.

straightUp Loc: California

Fit2BTied wrote:

Unless you've been living under a rock the past 10... (show quote)

Gotta source, or are you just copying a list from a site that's telling a different story? ;)

Until, I see the actual reason for these names being on a list, I'll just assume that your opinion about Obama's reasons for firing them (if that's actually what happened) are just that... an unsubstantiated opinion, which is not surprising in the least... You folks have made so many claims about Obama without ever proving any of it, it's just another day from my perspective.

Furthermore, let's just say for argument's sake that Obama DID fire these people... That still has no bearing on my generalization about the merits of top-level commanders... It doesn't matter if they were fired or served all the way to retirement. You don't get to that level by being a dumbsh*t.

Fit2BTied Loc: Texas

Fit2BTied wrote:

No great surprise since most of these senior officers were put in place by President Obama.

straightUp wrote:

Aside from being irrelevant, I suspect you really don't have any data to back that up. Besides, most of these retired commanders started rising up through the ranks long before Obama came to Washington D.C and if any of them were appointed to top positions by the president it wasn't without strong recommendations from inside the military.

Irrelevant? Not the officers forced out to be replaced by those strongly recommended by an increasingly pro-Obama cadre.

Fit2BTied wrote:

It's only my opinion here, but the ability of our military to wage war has been disastrously curtailed by the previous administration.

straightUp wrote:

Thank you for sharing your unexplained opinion. Don't be offended if I tell you there isn't much of a track record to compare with. Our military hasn't won a war without significant help from European powers since our fight for imperialism in Cuba and the Philippines... That was over a century ago.

I believe you're taking my comment a little out of context. American warriors are fighting all over the world and have been for generations. Declared wars are still a thing, but most fighting these days is done in undeclared situations and on a smaller though just as deadly scale. The military suffers when it's forced to perform social experimentation while people are actually shooting at them.

moldyoldy

Fit2BTied wrote:

Unless you've been living under a rock the past 10... (show quote)

Fit to be re trained

https://skeptoid.com/blog/2014/03/24/president-obama-purge-military/

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/citizen-pain/

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/rapid-fire/

straightUp Loc: California

pafret wrote:

In addition, these were Retired f**g officers and in many cases they were retired for cause. Obama was accused of stripping out the old guard and installing new officers with loyalty to him.

He was also accused of being born outside the U.S. ;)

pafret wrote:

The case was made at that time that these officers in many cases would have become disciplinary problems if they didn't accept retirement.

I'll ask you the same thing I asked Fit2BTied... provide a source. I make this challenge because when it comes to accusing Obama of... well, all sorts of things, you folks are always really long on accusation and really short on evidence.

pafret wrote:

If I were Trump I would take the challenge at face value and remove all of the clearances. They no longer have need to know.

That should be standard policy anyway. If you don't have a need to know then what do you need clearance for? This is what people are laughing about as Trump threatens to remove clearance from retired personnel. We all know what that amounts to, a symbolic gesture to spite those speak out against him.

woodguru

Richard Rowland wrote:

Not having served, I have no experience with the m... (show quote)

Higher rank takes military connections and political pull

Fit2BTied Loc: Texas

straightUp wrote:

Gotta source, or are you just copying a list from ... (show quote)

Your argument is reasonable. Of course there are "reasons" why the officers were pushed out. Stated grounds range from "leaving blast doors on nukes open" to "loss of confidence in command ability" to "mishandling of funds" to "inappropriate relationships" to "gambling with counterfeit chips" to "inappropriate behavior" to "low morale in troops commanded." If you want to find a reason to remove someone from service, a reason can be found.
And you're certainly allowed to counter my opinion. I did not, however imply anything negative as to the intelligence of those officers appointed by President Obama - merely that, in my opinion, their loyalty was to the President more than it was to the oath they took to protect and defend against all enemies foreign and domestic. And of course this is not a problem if the President isn't trying to undermine the sovereignty of our great Nation.

Richard Rowland

straightUp wrote:

It's all relative Richard. I was comparing the mil... (show quote)

I'm not intending to insult or marginalize, anyone. I just feel that the hostility being shown to this president is beyond the pale. As for being a draft dodger, there are a lot of politicians, on both sides of the aisle, who took advantage of the system to get a deferment.

In fact, I think the number of presidents who didn't serve in the military, outnumber, by far, those that did. I also can't understand, if the numbers are correct, why raising incomes, unemployment, lower taxes, (and ya, there's a question of how much the new tax law has helped those in the lower and middle brackets) haven't increased the president's approval ratings.

Reading a column by a conservative pundit, his take on why the poll numbers aren't better is because he (Trump) hasn't forcefully denounced and distanced himself from the far-right groups. I think it's more complicated than that!

straightUp Loc: California

Fit2BTied wrote:

Irrelevant? Not the officers forced out to be replaced by those strongly recommended by an increasingly pro-Obama cadre.

Try to follow the conversation... It was irrelevant to the point I was making.

Fit2BTied wrote:

I believe you're taking my comment a little out of context. American warriors are fighting all over the world and have been for generations. Declared wars are still a thing, but most fighting these days is done in undeclared situations and on a smaller though just as deadly scale. The military suffers when it's forced to perform social experimentation while people are actually shooting at them.

I don't think you have any compelling evidence to support that claim and it seems 56 retired commanders don't agree with you.

moldyoldy

Fit2BTied wrote:

Your argument is reasonable. Of course there are ... (show quote)

I don't think the president gets consulted on these types of personnel decisions involving disciplinary actions.

straightUp Loc: California

Fit2BTied wrote:

Your argument is reasonable. Of course there are ... (show quote)

Well, everyone is entitled to an opinion. In MY opinion, Trump is far more guilty of undermining the sovereignty of our nation than Obama was. A "great" nation can't exist in isolation and Obama's concessions with multilateral agreements did more to advance our position as a global leader than Trump's retractions which are currently leaving room for China to replace us as the great negotiators. Also, Trump has been far more damaging when it comes to opening our republic up to foreign influence through private commerce (although Republicans have been working on this for a while now).

I think people need to start learning that this isn't the 19th century anymore. Imperialism has been almost entirely replaced with private funds playing on global markets. This is why the Russian state is hardly a problem at all, but the Russian oligarchy is.

wise up folks!

oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)

moldyoldy wrote:

We know that most in the military will avoid being political unless they see a national threat to the country like trump.

Would what you say have been the reason Wesley Clark ran for nomination in 2004? Surely he knew that the man he was against was a liar and all and that may have been the reason he ran, but I doubt it.

pafret Loc: Northeast

straightUp wrote:

That should be standard policy anyway. If you don't have a need to know then what do you need clearance for? This is what people are laughing about as Trump threatens to remove clearance from retired personnel. We all know what that amounts to, a symbolic gesture to spite those speak out against him.

The sources were public and I said he was accused, not convicted. I also stated that the rebuttal to these claims indicated the officers were terminated in large part for cause. I have no proof either position was true. The fact that the people speaking out are all retired says there may be something else involved in their disgruntlement.

Wolf counselor Loc: Heart of Texas

straightUp wrote:

No, you totally missed my point... I was very clea... (show quote)

Again your choice to title your thread " The Military Command Opposes Trump ", was a blatant lie.

You followed your lie with a narrow minded opinion that further exemplified your profound ignorance.

You should have titled the thread,
" A Couple Of Retired Officers Oppose Trump "

So your thread was preceded with a lie.

Now tell me Goober, why should anyone lend relevance to a pathological liar ?

oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)

pafret wrote:

In addition, these were Retired f**g officers and in many cases they were retired for cause. Obama was accused of stripping out the old guard and installing new officers with loyalty to him. The case was made at that time that these officers in many cases would have become disciplinary problems if they didn't accept retirement.

If I were Trump I would take the challenge at face value and remove all of the clearances. They no longer have need to know.

I am sure at least one of us in this thread doesn't like what you said about the reason many of those officers were retired but for some reason that was pretty common knowledge back then.

I never thought that my Top Secret clearance was a lifetime one but I did know that it was based on Need to Know and that I didn't need to know after I left the Army. Of course, they don't even spy on the same things we did and surely not for the same reasons. We knew those we watched so closely were doing the same thing to our forces.

I have been against Brennan for a long time now.