Stanley McChrystal at risk of losing his job

[Meiac09]

Originally Posted by Viperfreak2

The difference is: question your boss (dissent) in a one on one meeting.

Do not question your boss, to a reporter, from Rolling Stone, for a month, while drinking, in Afganistan.

Meiac, I really do believe that once you join the military, you loose a lot of the freedoms of an average US citizen. You take an oath to obey orders and the commander in chief whether you agree or not.

My company has a similar policy. Employees are encouraged to show frankness and dissent, up until a decision has been made. Once the decision is final, everyone on the team is expected to work towards reaching the target, without exception.

I get your point... I understand the military thing well, believe me, my father was a navy pilot and absolutely hated anything but complete compliance and agreement from me. I still think there is something to think that we are dealing with a career general, who has been running the show for X number of years, then a new (and transient) "CEO" (with no practical experience) moves in and won't take anything but what he wants and its foolish. But I know that its the way of the world. Then again, maybe he was fixin to fire McChrystal and this just gave him an excuse anyway.

I think the context certainly didn't help. Something like what happened with Helen Thomas.

[E61Silver]

I would bomb all of the suspected locations of nuclear production in Iran. I would send out a 1 day notice prior to bombing to give people time to clear the area and then I would flatten the suspected area.

[Meiac09]

Originally Posted by E61Silver

I would bomb all of the suspected locations of nuclear production in Iran. I would send out a 1 day notice prior to bombing to give people time to clear the area and then I would flatten the suspected area.

Wouldn't all the bad guys (and their nukes) disappear in that time period too?

[Viperfreak2]

I have thought that tactical battlefield nukes should be used along the entire mountain region between Pakistan and Afganistan.

But just like your Iran plan, it would only make us a bigger target.

So far, the limited war is working better than the result of a massive counterstrike attack to what happened on 911. Bush and Obama both seem to agree on that one issue.

Besides, Israel will take out Irans nuclear sites. Just watch.

[Dannyell]

Originally Posted by E61Silver

I would bomb all of the suspected locations of nuclear production in Iran. I would send out a 1 day notice prior to bombing to give people time to clear the area and then I would flatten the suspected area.

Iran is of no threat to US...at least till years to come...Even if they manage to make nukes launching them is a different story...and frankly I don't understand your reasoning to bomb them. In today's world any country launching a nuke would equal suicide anyways.

Iran is Israel's problem before it is ours...and Israel has enough nukes to level Iran...so let them deal with their own problems...even tho no matter what Israel does we look just as bad for defending anything they do

[Wagner]

many bases are well within Iran's reach. Israel and the US' biggest fear is the Russian S-300 missile system.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/mid...t/10289554.stm

[Dannyell]

Originally Posted by Wagner

many bases are well within Iran's reach. Israel and the US' biggest fear is the Russian S-300 missile system.

BBC News - Iran sanctions 'will not affect' Russia missile deal

Well id bet if the deal between Russia and Iran would have been affected in these sanctions then Russia would have never agreed on the sanctions...

On the other hand Iran like any other nations...if they feel they are about to get attacked by all means they will improve some of its arsenal to try and send the message back...

Sure hope it won't get to that...

[E61Silver]

It is simple we are the super power and policeman for the world.

To be effective we need to show our power.

Yes some more people may not like us but if we are going to be effective we need to show our strength.

If we deem it important enough to risk the lives of military then we must act with total convectional force and if some civilians get kill as a result, so be it.

[Dannyell]

Originally Posted by E61Silver

It is simple we are the super power and policeman for the world.

To be effective we need to show our power.

Yes some more people may not like us but if we are going to be effective we need to show our strength.

If we deem it important enough to risk the lives of military then we must act with total convectional force and if some civilians get kill as a result, so be it.

I think ur wrong...look what happened when we showed our power in Iraq and Afghanistan...

Simple we use power and we lose authority...

And we may have the power to police the world...but Israel does not...so they should know their place...

[JCL]

Originally Posted by E61Silver

It is simple we are the super power and policeman for the world...... if some civilians get killed as a result, so be it.

Look at the inconsistencies in your statement. Those aren't the words of a police force.

Do you want to be the policeman? Policemen focus more on conflict resolution than killing civilians.

How would you like your local NY beat cop to use phrases like acceptable collateral damage?