@krellin I understand you just fine. To me an election is not a revolution, it's standard practice. I was talking about the use and tone of symbols from 1776-1783 by tea partiers. Back then they stood for armed resistance to oppression. Today the same calls of oppression are being made. I just find it interesting which pieces of history people latch onto. You can make the same thing with the left and civil rights. MLK was a pretty conservative man compared to those who carry the civil rights banner today.

Bringing a gun to a town hall meeting is practicing a constitutional right. It's also bad form. If I am going to negotiate a mortgage or attend an elders meeting at church, what does bringing a gun to the meeting convey? It's not that different from civic exercises. It is an exageration of the facts, but at the same time what would have happened if anti-war protestors decided to carry their piece to there peace marches? (Beside irony)

Also, the notion that either A) Tea Partiers or B) American elections represent genuine revolutionary movements is hilarious. :)

Almost as hilarious as the idea that the US has a real left wing with a chance of exerting more power than occasionally electing a city councilperson in Eugene, OR.

You guys still aren't listening. The chain-of-command doesn't end at the Oval Office. It ends at the polls. You can't talk to the American people in private. You can talk to the American people in public. That's my point. When I was in the USAF, I wouldn't go public because I would get demoted and reprimanded, and it wouldn't do any good because that's skipping too many rungs on the ladder. My majors always listened to me, but if they hadn't, I would have taken it to the bird.

It seems TMW you are the only person with an alleged military back ground who thinks that McCrystal was correct in his actions. This to me speaks volumes of your view. As a person who has had sometime in the military, I'm mystified by a such view coming from a military person.

McChrystal absolutely can go public with his opinions. All he has to do is resign first.

Actually, he has the *legal* right to go public before he resigns...and then, as happened...he gets canned.

@Friendly - I totally admit I have a bias - I never claimed not to. I'm just not so ridiculously stupid to suggest that there is some impending violent right-wing revolution waiting it he wings for someone to fire the first shot. THAT sort of jackassery is currently reserved for the hysterical left.

@yayagar -- I understand bringing a gun to a town hall meeting is bad form...and, AS I POINT OUT...it is a ridiculously small minorty of people doing it. It is such a small minority of occurrences that it is big news when it happens! As with Friendly, you are participating in a high form of jackassery by looking at some ridiculous, foolish occurrence and trying to paint the whole fucking GOP as violent revolutionaries.

Come on - you numbnutts need to get your head out of your asses and start playing with a full deck of cards. Since Obama has been elected, the Democrats, on a regular basis, go on the air with these ridiculous claims of threats of violence, questioning the loyalty of returning soldiers, doing their best to scare people into thinking violence is right around the corner. But...funny thing...I have YET to see this widespread violence errupt, and we are a year and a half into Obama's Presidency. It seems like the ONLY people that are aware of all these evil, violent plots are people like you two on the Never-Saw-a-GOP-Conspiracy-I-Didn't-Believe-In Left-wing. You make all these accusations of impending violence...and yet you can't provide any evidence that it is happening, being planned, etc. You guys are really quite pathetic...

Well, yes, that's an option, too. But publicly critizing POTUS and keeping a job is not an option for anyone on active duty.

@Friendly Sword -- maybe you don't quite grasp the idea of "Revolution". It does NOT, by necessity, involve gunshots and death. Maybe that is just the Hollywood romanitc in you. Maybe you just don't appreciate the brilliance of the US Constitution. But a revolution -- a fundamental change in power -- can occur OVER NIGHT in the US. On November day we go to the polls with Obama in Power and the Democrats holding full control over the House and the Senate. It affect war policy, tax policy, social policy...it touches almost every facet of life. A couple months later a Republican (or even a Libertarian) may be sworn into the Presidency along with a GOP Congress and Senate....radically changing the military, tax and social policy of the nation. If a strong enough new congress is seated, they can overthrow previous legislation, and even change the Constitution itself with the will of enough of the people.

If that isn't a revolution, then you are just flat out ignorant and/or stupid. It's sad that you can only believe a revolution involves death. but...again...I suppose it's the disservice of Hollywood that leaves you so ill-informed...

Hey guys....I think that's it for me...da wife n kids require my attention for movie time! have a great night - no hard feelings if I said anything exceptionally dickish or offensive (unless I truly meant it! lol)

If your in college looking forward to a wild weekend....have a beer for me...<sigh...>

Technically I'm in the UK military, so I'll add my view on those grounds: he was wrong. Part of joining the forces is to accept your orders and do as commanded. You may contribute yes, but your line of comment is to your superior not otherwise. If you have a problem *with* your superior, there is a way to express these as well, but it is not to the press.

@ warsprite --

You still aren't reading what I'm writing.

No, we read it.

And the general consensus is you're wrong.

I'll say it again: The theater commanders of the military serve at the discretion of the Commander in Chief. He can sack them for any reason he likes, which certainly includes second-guessing the overall strategy with Rolling Stone.

Obama did the right thing. Firing your commander during the heat of battle is usually bad but Patraues is a tank and he literally wrote the strategy we're using. Obama also silences critics who think he's soft by showing his authority here. Win strategically bc Patraues is a better general and this brigns more harmony to the war and win politically

And honestly I think the best way to win would be to completely devastate the opposition since you can't really build up Afghanistan as a successful country but that wouldn't fly in a democracy, like someone said before.

@Champ: Are you genuinely saying we should bomb Afghanistan off the map !?!

@krellin
There are signs of problems with right wing violence. There was a report issued by the government(forget which agency), that said right wing militia groups are on the rise. It was talking about risks of violence and domestic terrorism. At the same time, the Secret Service was being swamped by the death threats to Obama. I believe the report said they were 10 times Bush, jr. They were actually having to hire more agents to keep up. Then, there are the actions of the elected officials and the response to things like Perry saying Texas could secede.

@TMW Dito on what Jack Klien said. Your the one who does not get it, or refuses to reevaluate your position. For the military there is no higher commander than the Pres. What you asking for is nothing less than the military to getting mixed up in political decisions. Consider this quote. "It's never a soldier's business to decide when or where or how - or why - he fights; that belongs to the statesmen and the generals. The statesmen decide why and how much; the generals take it from there and tell us where and when and how." Sgt Zim

YOU GUYS STILL AREN'T READING WHAT I'M WRITING!

I'll say it one more time, and that's it. The president is NOT the end of the chain-of-command! The American people are. I'm not saying McChrystal wasn't insubordinate. I'm saying McChrystal's actions were right. He went over Obama's head by going to Rolling Stone. Rolling Stone told the American people, which, as you just read, IS the end of the chain-of-command.

Not agreeing is not the same thing as not reading, TMW.

Krellin-

I would agree that an election can be a revolution. That doesn't necessarily mean it is, even when there's a nominal transfer of power. For example, I would argue that the election of 2002 was a revolution, when America as a society decided that we were scared of dangerous fanatics living in caves, and the best way to deal with them would be to give some dangerous fanatics here a blank check to auction off the federal kitty to the biggest donors. I would argue that neither 2006 nor 2008 were revolutions, because the change from "crazily far-right government" to "moderately far-right government" really doesn't merit the appelation "revolution". The game is still played the same way, it's just the identities of the auctioneers have changed.

TMW, the shameless way you adapt events to suit your political views is fascinating.

I'm sure that with sufficient work, you could believe that black is white, if that somehow caused President Obama problems. Or that we've always been at war with Eastasia. Eurasia has always been our allies.

"I'm sure that with sufficient work, you could believe that black is white, if that somehow caused President Obama problems"
Well, it would make him white :/

Jack Klein + 772 forum points for the 1984 reference. Totally made reading this thread worth my time.

I give up. You guys can go order Hooked on Phonics. Tell me when you learn how to read.

TMW it was interesting watching you try (unsuccessfully) the 'broken record' method of winning an argument.

TMW you're ridiculous. One of these "the president I didn't vote for can do no right" kind of dipshits.

Clearly Obama did what any president was supposed to do. In fact Obama was supporting McChrystal's strategy. And then he insults him. You can't let a subordinate just insult you. McChrystal knew that. So in that sense the general was in the wrong for doing it all. He does not deserve to be general in light of that.

It's pretty fucking cut and dry dude. Just because it was Obama who did the firing doesn't suddenly make it wrong.

Think things through a bit.... use critical thinking.... don't let things get personal. You may not LIKE Obama.

I didn't LIKE Bush but he did certain things right. I am not afraid to admit those things.

Bank bailout? Right thing to do! PEPFAR? Also right!

The man had presence of mind no matter what anyone says about him. Etc. I'm not a rabid dog like you. Other people on this forum who are normally politically aligned with you are disagreeing with your foolishness because they have a level head. You, have not.

anyway lol i'm in and out of this thread.

imho there's nothing to talk about with the firing of McChrystal, except that Petraeus will certainly do as good or better a job than he, so whatever.