Petraeus/Mcchrystal...Question Of Command

[mustafabey]

I left the Marine Corps in 1969, so maybe I'm not quite aware as I used to be, and some of you are active military, so help me understand this. Gen. Petraeus was CG CentCom, Gen. McChyrstals superior in the chain of command, so by taking ground command in Afghanistan, is'nt this a step down? A new commander will be appointed to Centcom, who will be his superior. I realize 3 and 4 star ranks are considered temporary and only for the command. For instance, if McChyrstal doesn't retire and they don't give him another 4 star command, he reverts back to MajGen. Now Petraeus keeps his rank, and would imagine his seniority, so they would have to appoint a senior 4 star to Centcom. Did they promise Petraeus Chairman JCS? I've heard he has presidential ambitions. I've heard he is a cancer survivor and the fainting episode leads me to believe he is stressed out. McChrystal seemed like a tough SOB, one meal a day, run ebery morning, 4 hours sleep, the Afghanis liked him,but like many a combat general(George Patton and "Chesty" Puller come to mind), he wasn't a great politician. Anyway, I'd appreciate soem of you military men to sound off this one. Thanks

[Rani]

[quote name='mustafabey' date='25 June 2010 - 07:46 AM' timestamp='1277477209' post='472787']
I left the Marine Corps in 1969, so maybe I'm not quite aware as I used to be, and some of you are active military, so help me understand this. Gen. Petraeus was CG CentCom, Gen. McChyrstals superior in the chain of command, so by taking ground command in Afghanistan, is'nt this a step down? A new commander will be appointed to Centcom, who will be his superior. I realize 3 and 4 star ranks are considered temporary and only for the command. For instance, if McChyrstal doesn't retire and they don't give him another 4 star command, he reverts back to MajGen. Now Petraeus keeps his rank, and would imagine his seniority, so they would have to appoint a senior 4 star to Centcom. Did they promise Petraeus Chairman JCS? I've heard he has presidential ambitions. I've heard he is a cancer survivor and the fainting episode leads me to believe he is stressed out. McChrystal seemed like a tough SOB, one meal a day, run ebery morning, 4 hours sleep, the Afghanis liked him,but like many a combat general(George Patton and "Chesty" Puller come to mind), he wasn't a great politician. Anyway, I'd appreciate soem of you military men to sound off this one. Thanks
[/quote]

I have zero input on the ranking issues, but, what I've heard is that his taking the post was a personal favor to the President and the Afghan contingent who approve of him. Under those circumstances, it's unlikely his career path will in any way suffer.

I'm just surprised at the few who don't believe McChrystal necessarily should have been removed from his post, but I read the article online before it hit the newsstands today, and it was really completely out of line. Between he and his staff, they managed to insult not only his superiors in the administration but our allies as well. I mean, referring to the French as gay? Oh, yeah, that was going to do well for our diplomatic mission among our allies. McChrystal's equivalents were across the board outraged at the lack of control over himself and his staff. More than one reported they literally became physically ill over it. And with a magazine writer who has boasted his method of getting information on his subjects is to get them drunk for a few days and then just listen to them spill their guts. Way to go, General..... An amazing embarrassment. I hope he enjoys his retirement because I have no doubt that's all he has left.

Generally speaking military personnel don't ever think much good about politicians. The morality of politicians is always in flux. And for sale to the highest bidder. I can't disagree with them. I never served, but I've dated more than one Special Forces alumni, and the general attitude is one of "our job is to protect and serve the country, period". No waffling and certainly no morality up for sale.

'Rani

[mustafabey]

McChrystal came from the Special Ops community. One commentator said that special ops people are not usually involved with the press and that the reporter was an embed, and as such was almost a member of his staff. Its not unusual for military men to talk amongst themselves about orders, superiors etc. Usually its pretty rank specific. Generals don't bullshit with captains, captains don't bullshit with sergeants, and sergeants major only bullshit with colonels and above. Apparently, though, McChyrstal had whined to the media, over the chain of command, before, regarding the size of the surge. He was reprimanded once, a second time could not be condoned. But again, it must be frustrating to fight a war where major decisions are being made by people without military and combat experience. Its also interesting that Gen Petraeus' first combat experience came during the second Iraqi war, when he was a major general.
Back in my day, we had WW2 vets and korean vets, but that still didn't help with the civilian idiots running the Vietnam war.

[F16WarBird]

[quote name='Rani' date='25 June 2010 - 11:47 PM' timestamp='1277498829' post='472843']
"our job is to protect and serve the country, period". No waffling and certainly no morality up for sale.[/quote]

Amen.

[TheScotsman]

[quote name='mustafabey' date='25 June 2010 - 09:46 AM' timestamp='1277477209' post='472787']
I left the Marine Corps in 1969, so maybe I'm not quite aware as I used to be, and some of you are active military, so help me understand this. Gen. Petraeus was CG CentCom, Gen. McChyrstals superior in the chain of command, so by taking ground command in Afghanistan, is'nt this a step down? A new commander will be appointed to Centcom, who will be his superior. I realize 3 and 4 star ranks are considered temporary and only for the command. For instance, if McChyrstal doesn't retire and they don't give him another 4 star command, he reverts back to MajGen. Now Petraeus keeps his rank, and would imagine his seniority, so they would have to appoint a senior 4 star to Centcom. Did they promise Petraeus Chairman JCS? I've heard he has presidential ambitions. I've heard he is a cancer survivor and the fainting episode leads me to believe he is stressed out. McChrystal seemed like a tough SOB, one meal a day, run ebery morning, 4 hours sleep, the Afghanis liked him,but like many a combat general(George Patton and "Chesty" Puller come to mind), he wasn't a great politician. Anyway, I'd appreciate soem of you military men to sound off this one. Thanks
[/quote]

IMNHO, you are right on the demotion. I think it's a slap-on-the-wrist for the fact "progress" is going backwards at an alarming rate. I can't figure out if McCrystal was told to do what he did, a bit of a controled info leak, if you will, or if he decided it was time to let the public know just what he thought of a loosing situation. Make no mistake, we are loosing that conflict. McCrystal isn't an idiot, he knew exactly what he was saying, and knew exactly how it would be used. He choreographed the entire event from the beginning. The only thing we are left wondering is what the motivation was.

It is evident he set those insane ROE at the direction if the white house. As an old war-dog you know the rules of engagement can make, or break the success, or even the survivability of an enemy contact. McCrystal is the nations finest combat general, I believe he is a better combat commander than Petraeus, but fails on the political side when compared. Any good officer is not going to stand around and let his troops be used as bullet-sponges while they are forbidden to engage the enemy. I think McCrystal had just put up with enough of it.

It is obvious McCrystal was frustrated/disappointed by our commander-in-chief's complete inability to properly prosecute a war, his cabinet/advisor's all seemingly taking up the cause of the enemy. I think McCrystal saw an end to his career coming, either as he chose to do, or when the incompetents in the executive branch needed a scapegoat to blame the unavoidable failure on.

Can't say I blame him at all. If only the rest of the gov't would man-up, and say what they mean, then have the honour to stand by what they said. I salute him.



I find it somewhat un-nerving to think several intel agencies are chasing wikileaks around the world just a couple of days before the McCrystal interview is made public. Any connection may be coincidental, but then...


Rani, you are reading to many logos off police cars. The duty of any military officer is not to "protect and serve the country", that is some CNN hogwash.

The oath taken by any officer, upon receiving commission: (typed from memory, go find your own source if you question it.)
[i]"I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the [u]Constitution of the United States against all enemies,
foreign and domestic[/u]; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;
that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion;
and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.[/i]"

Questions would better be:
What enemy is he taking action against, and why?

[Rani]

[quote name='TheScotsman' date='26 June 2010 - 12:54 PM' timestamp='1277582089' post='472961']
[quote name='mustafabey' date='25 June 2010 - 09:46 AM' timestamp='1277477209' post='472787']
I left the Marine Corps in 1969, so maybe I'm not quite aware as I used to be, and some of you are active military, so help me understand this. Gen. Petraeus was CG CentCom, Gen. McChyrstals superior in the chain of command, so by taking ground command in Afghanistan, is'nt this a step down? A new commander will be appointed to Centcom, who will be his superior. I realize 3 and 4 star ranks are considered temporary and only for the command. For instance, if McChyrstal doesn't retire and they don't give him another 4 star command, he reverts back to MajGen. Now Petraeus keeps his rank, and would imagine his seniority, so they would have to appoint a senior 4 star to Centcom. Did they promise Petraeus Chairman JCS? I've heard he has presidential ambitions. I've heard he is a cancer survivor and the fainting episode leads me to believe he is stressed out. McChrystal seemed like a tough SOB, one meal a day, run ebery morning, 4 hours sleep, the Afghanis liked him,but like many a combat general(George Patton and "Chesty" Puller come to mind), he wasn't a great politician. Anyway, I'd appreciate soem of you military men to sound off this one. Thanks
[/quote]

IMNHO, you are right on the demotion. I think it's a slap-on-the-wrist for the fact "progress" is going backwards at an alarming rate. I can't figure out if McCrystal was told to do what he did, a bit of a controled info leak, if you will, or if he decided it was time to let the public know just what he thought of a loosing situation. Make no mistake, we are loosing that conflict. McCrystal isn't an idiot, he knew exactly what he was saying, and knew exactly how it would be used. He choreographed the entire event from the beginning. The only thing we are left wondering is what the motivation was.

It is evident he set those insane ROE at the direction if the white house. As an old war-dog you know the rules of engagement can make, or break the success, or even the survivability of an enemy contact. McCrystal is the nations finest combat general, I believe he is a better combat commander than Petraeus, but fails on the political side when compared. Any good officer is not going to stand around and let his troops be used as bullet-sponges while they are forbidden to engage the enemy. I think McCrystal had just put up with enough of it.

It is obvious McCrystal was frustrated/disappointed by our commander-in-chief's complete inability to properly prosecute a war, his cabinet/advisor's all seemingly taking up the cause of the enemy. I think McCrystal saw an end to his career coming, either as he chose to do, or when the incompetents in the executive branch needed a scapegoat to blame the unavoidable failure on.

Can't say I blame him at all. If only the rest of the gov't would man-up, and say what they mean, then have the honour to stand by what they said. I salute him.



I find it somewhat un-nerving to think several intel agencies are chasing wikileaks around the world just a couple of days before the McCrystal interview is made public. Any connection may be coincidental, but then...


Rani, you are reading to many logos off police cars. The duty of any military officer is not to "protect and serve the country", that is some CNN hogwash.

The oath taken by any officer, upon receiving commission: (typed from memory, go find your own source if you question it.)
[i]"I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the [u]Constitution of the United States against all enemies,
foreign and domestic[/u]; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;
that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion;
and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.[/i]"

Questions would better be:
What enemy is he taking action against, and why?
[/quote]

Scotsman, did you skip the part where I said "general attitude"? You're still picking things out of context.

In some ways the military is no different from any other organization, private or public. Go around badmouthing your CEO and you're going to find yourself booted to the top of the lay-off list. That's just the way it is, and in the case of the military, it has the potential to become insubordinate on a huge scale. Yeah, just what you want to encourage in several hundred thousand armed and combat trained troops. If all branches of the military joined forces with the intent to take over the country, don't even argue, just give 'em the keys, because there's no possible way they'd lose and you might as well keep the civilians alive to pay taxes.

I don't disagree about his being fed up though. He was on the backward side of his career and undoubtedly that was a factor in being fed up with this particular conflict which is most definitely strictly a political one - since most Americans interviewed seem to think we should get the hell out altogether. (I'm more of a level the place so we don't have to worry about it anymore and call it a day kind of girl myself.) But people who show bad judgement in one area of their career, can't be trusted to show only good judgement in others. It will blow over and be forgotten eventually. Especially since both the President and McChrystal mouthed all the niceties about the unfortunate outcome.

'Rani

[TheScotsman]

[quote name='Rani' date='26 June 2010 - 06:29 PM' timestamp='1277594959' post='472978']
[quote name='TheScotsman' date='26 June 2010 - 12:54 PM' timestamp='1277582089' post='472961']
[quote name='mustafabey' date='25 June 2010 - 09:46 AM' timestamp='1277477209' post='472787']
I left the Marine Corps in 1969, so maybe I'm not quite aware as I used to be, and some of you are active military, so help me understand this. Gen. Petraeus was CG CentCom, Gen. McChyrstals superior in the chain of command, so by taking ground command in Afghanistan, is'nt this a step down? A new commander will be appointed to Centcom, who will be his superior. I realize 3 and 4 star ranks are considered temporary and only for the command. For instance, if McChyrstal doesn't retire and they don't give him another 4 star command, he reverts back to MajGen. Now Petraeus keeps his rank, and would imagine his seniority, so they would have to appoint a senior 4 star to Centcom. Did they promise Petraeus Chairman JCS? I've heard he has presidential ambitions. I've heard he is a cancer survivor and the fainting episode leads me to believe he is stressed out. McChrystal seemed like a tough SOB, one meal a day, run ebery morning, 4 hours sleep, the Afghanis liked him,but like many a combat general(George Patton and "Chesty" Puller come to mind), he wasn't a great politician. Anyway, I'd appreciate soem of you military men to sound off this one. Thanks
[/quote]

IMNHO, you are right on the demotion. I think it's a slap-on-the-wrist for the fact "progress" is going backwards at an alarming rate. I can't figure out if McCrystal was told to do what he did, a bit of a controled info leak, if you will, or if he decided it was time to let the public know just what he thought of a loosing situation. Make no mistake, we are loosing that conflict. McCrystal isn't an idiot, he knew exactly what he was saying, and knew exactly how it would be used. He choreographed the entire event from the beginning. The only thing we are left wondering is what the motivation was.

It is evident he set those insane ROE at the direction if the white house. As an old war-dog you know the rules of engagement can make, or break the success, or even the survivability of an enemy contact. McCrystal is the nations finest combat general, I believe he is a better combat commander than Petraeus, but fails on the political side when compared. Any good officer is not going to stand around and let his troops be used as bullet-sponges while they are forbidden to engage the enemy. I think McCrystal had just put up with enough of it.

It is obvious McCrystal was frustrated/disappointed by our commander-in-chief's complete inability to properly prosecute a war, his cabinet/advisor's all seemingly taking up the cause of the enemy. I think McCrystal saw an end to his career coming, either as he chose to do, or when the incompetents in the executive branch needed a scapegoat to blame the unavoidable failure on.

Can't say I blame him at all. If only the rest of the gov't would man-up, and say what they mean, then have the honour to stand by what they said. I salute him.



I find it somewhat un-nerving to think several intel agencies are chasing wikileaks around the world just a couple of days before the McCrystal interview is made public. Any connection may be coincidental, but then...


Rani, you are reading to many logos off police cars. The duty of any military officer is not to "protect and serve the country", that is some CNN hogwash.

The oath taken by any officer, upon receiving commission: (typed from memory, go find your own source if you question it.)
[i]"I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the [u]Constitution of the United States against all enemies,
foreign and domestic[/u]; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;
that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion;
and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.[/i]"

Questions would better be:
What enemy is he taking action against, and why?
[/quote]

Scotsman, did you skip the part where I said "general attitude"? You're still picking things out of context.

In some ways the military is no different from any other organization, private or public. Go around badmouthing your CEO and you're going to find yourself booted to the top of the lay-off list. That's just the way it is, and in the case of the military, it has the potential to become insubordinate on a huge scale. Yeah, just what you want to encourage in several hundred thousand armed and combat trained troops. If all branches of the military joined forces with the intent to take over the country, don't even argue, just give 'em the keys, because there's no possible way they'd lose and you might as well keep the civilians alive to pay taxes.

I don't disagree about his being fed up though. He was on the backward side of his career and undoubtedly that was a factor in being fed up with this particular conflict which is most definitely strictly a political one - since most Americans interviewed seem to think we should get the hell out altogether. (I'm more of a level the place so we don't have to worry about it anymore and call it a day kind of girl myself.) But people who show bad judgement in one area of their career, can't be trusted to show only good judgement in others. It will blow over and be forgotten eventually. Especially since both the President and McChrystal mouthed all the niceties about the unfortunate outcome.

'Rani
[/quote]

I wasn't sure of what you meant with "general attitude". Any out of context interpretation was unintentional-sorry if it sounded such.

I can tell you that every SF member is asked if they would fire upon a US citizen, including their own friends, if ordered to under a declaration of martial law. A disconcerting thought, isn't it? Originally it was called the "combat arms survey" and was really played down when it was first public. They called it a limited survey, later a mental evaluation for vets of DS/DS. There isn't a service officer that hasn't taken this er, "limited" survey in one form, or another.

I am not so sure McCrystal's comments were bad judgement. You don't get to the rank of MG if you can't control your mouth. I still believe it was a calculated event. Nothing in his publicly available past would even hint at him being a loose canon. But who knows, everyone reacts differently than their norm sometimes. I can't help but to think with a few of his staff members there, no one pointed out that running their mouths would be a bad career move. Maybe it's just me being suspicious of everything that happens, and looking for more than it is... or????


One has to question if getting out is a good idea, or not. The one thing I am sure of is that we need to fight to win, or leave. But first we really, really could use a definition of "win"-hell, any sort of goal would be helpful! Propping up another corrupt government while they rape, and pillage their own nation is not exactly a sound endgame. It's not like the USA doesn't have a track-record of doing just that, and that it appears, at least to me, that is what is doing on. Now there is word of a [url="http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/2010/06/26/prime-minister-sets-five-year-target-for-troop-withdrawal-from-afghanistan-86908-22362015/"]5-year plan[/url] for final drawdown of coalition forces in Afganistan. Seems like wasting soldiers, and resources on an exercise in futility. After all, no one has been able to create a functioning nation in that area... the Afgans included. fighting an asymmetrical conflict against a gorilla force is always a loosing choice. fight, or leave-soldiers are not "nation builders".

[Rani]

[quote name='TheScotsman' date='26 June 2010 - 06:22 PM' timestamp='1277601734' post='472985']
[quote name='Rani' date='26 June 2010 - 06:29 PM' timestamp='1277594959' post='472978']
[quote name='TheScotsman' date='26 June 2010 - 12:54 PM' timestamp='1277582089' post='472961']
[quote name='mustafabey' date='25 June 2010 - 09:46 AM' timestamp='1277477209' post='472787']
I left the Marine Corps in 1969, so maybe I'm not quite aware as I used to be, and some of you are active military, so help me understand this. Gen. Petraeus was CG CentCom, Gen. McChyrstals superior in the chain of command, so by taking ground command in Afghanistan, is'nt this a step down? A new commander will be appointed to Centcom, who will be his superior. I realize 3 and 4 star ranks are considered temporary and only for the command. For instance, if McChyrstal doesn't retire and they don't give him another 4 star command, he reverts back to MajGen. Now Petraeus keeps his rank, and would imagine his seniority, so they would have to appoint a senior 4 star to Centcom. Did they promise Petraeus Chairman JCS? I've heard he has presidential ambitions. I've heard he is a cancer survivor and the fainting episode leads me to believe he is stressed out. McChrystal seemed like a tough SOB, one meal a day, run ebery morning, 4 hours sleep, the Afghanis liked him,but like many a combat general(George Patton and "Chesty" Puller come to mind), he wasn't a great politician. Anyway, I'd appreciate soem of you military men to sound off this one. Thanks
[/quote]

IMNHO, you are right on the demotion. I think it's a slap-on-the-wrist for the fact "progress" is going backwards at an alarming rate. I can't figure out if McCrystal was told to do what he did, a bit of a controled info leak, if you will, or if he decided it was time to let the public know just what he thought of a loosing situation. Make no mistake, we are loosing that conflict. McCrystal isn't an idiot, he knew exactly what he was saying, and knew exactly how it would be used. He choreographed the entire event from the beginning. The only thing we are left wondering is what the motivation was.

It is evident he set those insane ROE at the direction if the white house. As an old war-dog you know the rules of engagement can make, or break the success, or even the survivability of an enemy contact. McCrystal is the nations finest combat general, I believe he is a better combat commander than Petraeus, but fails on the political side when compared. Any good officer is not going to stand around and let his troops be used as bullet-sponges while they are forbidden to engage the enemy. I think McCrystal had just put up with enough of it.

It is obvious McCrystal was frustrated/disappointed by our commander-in-chief's complete inability to properly prosecute a war, his cabinet/advisor's all seemingly taking up the cause of the enemy. I think McCrystal saw an end to his career coming, either as he chose to do, or when the incompetents in the executive branch needed a scapegoat to blame the unavoidable failure on.

Can't say I blame him at all. If only the rest of the gov't would man-up, and say what they mean, then have the honour to stand by what they said. I salute him.



I find it somewhat un-nerving to think several intel agencies are chasing wikileaks around the world just a couple of days before the McCrystal interview is made public. Any connection may be coincidental, but then...


Rani, you are reading to many logos off police cars. The duty of any military officer is not to "protect and serve the country", that is some CNN hogwash.

The oath taken by any officer, upon receiving commission: (typed from memory, go find your own source if you question it.)
[i]"I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the [u]Constitution of the United States against all enemies,
foreign and domestic[/u]; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;
that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion;
and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.[/i]"

Questions would better be:
What enemy is he taking action against, and why?
[/quote]

Scotsman, did you skip the part where I said "general attitude"? You're still picking things out of context.

In some ways the military is no different from any other organization, private or public. Go around badmouthing your CEO and you're going to find yourself booted to the top of the lay-off list. That's just the way it is, and in the case of the military, it has the potential to become insubordinate on a huge scale. Yeah, just what you want to encourage in several hundred thousand armed and combat trained troops. If all branches of the military joined forces with the intent to take over the country, don't even argue, just give 'em the keys, because there's no possible way they'd lose and you might as well keep the civilians alive to pay taxes.

I don't disagree about his being fed up though. He was on the backward side of his career and undoubtedly that was a factor in being fed up with this particular conflict which is most definitely strictly a political one - since most Americans interviewed seem to think we should get the hell out altogether. (I'm more of a level the place so we don't have to worry about it anymore and call it a day kind of girl myself.) But people who show bad judgement in one area of their career, can't be trusted to show only good judgement in others. It will blow over and be forgotten eventually. Especially since both the President and McChrystal mouthed all the niceties about the unfortunate outcome.

'Rani
[/quote]

I wasn't sure of what you meant with "general attitude". Any out of context interpretation was unintentional-sorry if it sounded such.

I can tell you that every SF member is asked if they would fire upon a US citizen, including their own friends, if ordered to under a declaration of martial law. A disconcerting thought, isn't it? Originally it was called the "combat arms survey" and was really played down when it was first public. They called it a limited survey, later a mental evaluation for vets of DS/DS. There isn't a service officer that hasn't taken this er, "limited" survey in one form, or another.

I am not so sure McCrystal's comments were bad judgement. You don't get to the rank of MG if you can't control your mouth. I still believe it was a calculated event. Nothing in his publicly available past would even hint at him being a loose canon. But who knows, everyone reacts differently than their norm sometimes. I can't help but to think with a few of his staff members there, no one pointed out that running their mouths would be a bad career move. Maybe it's just me being suspicious of everything that happens, and looking for more than it is... or????


[b][color="#FF0000"]One has to question if getting out is a good idea, or not. The one thing I am sure of is that we need to fight to win, or leave. But first we really, really could use a definition of "win"-hell, any sort of goal would be helpful! Propping up another corrupt government while they rape, and pillage their own nation is not exactly a sound endgame. It's not like the USA doesn't have a track-record of doing just that, and that it appears, at least to me, that is what is doing on. Now there is word of a [/color][/b][url="http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/2010/06/26/prime-minister-sets-five-year-target-for-troop-withdrawal-from-afghanistan-86908-22362015/"][b][color="#FF0000"]5-year plan[/color][/b][/url][b][color="#FF0000"] for final drawdown of coalition forces in Afganistan. Seems like wasting soldiers, and resources on an exercise in futility. After all, no one has been able to create a functioning nation in that area... the Afgans included. fighting an asymmetrical conflict against a gorilla force is always a loosing choice. fight, or leave-soldiers are not "nation builders".[/color][/b]
[/quote]



Pigs are flying again Scotsman, 'cuz we're in total agreement on that. But then again I'm the "level the place" girl so..........

'Rani

[Rani]

Interesting story..... Those who are old enough to remember Vietnam...... When the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, my then boss, a Vietnam vet, laughed his ass off and said, "I'm so glad the USSR got into this mess. They can't win against generations of gorilla desert fighters. It's their Vietnam."

The man knew what he was talking about. That kind of war is not winnable until we throw out half the Geneva Convention. There's that whole 'let's not descend to their level" attitude, but you know....... As a former Ranger friend of mine said......

"Nobody wants a war that will kill civilians. But our civilians lives versus their civilians? Where's my nuke?" A little extreme from the nuke remark but the man has a point.

'Rani

[mustafabey]

You would think that in the past 60 years, American would have over come its Anglo Saxon hubris and stop getting involved in internal conflicts small "backward" nations. Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and maybe Korea again. Of course, we have to "get" bin Laden, then we can leave. The Afghans don't want western democracy, complete with a years subscription to Playboy and a half gallon of jack daniel's. We used them to give the Russians a black eye and left them in a lurch and as soon as we find some strategy that will give us peace with honor(is there an echo in the room?) We'll leave them in the lurch. Bin Laden and al Qaeda won't go away until we quit meddling in middle eastern affairs. Its very simply about access to oil in the coming times of short oil. Just wait till the other players get involved, Russia, China,India. When the oil wars are done, you may well see America sitting between the UK and France in that section of the UN reserved for fromer great powers, while China and India begin drawing lines in the sand for world domination.

[TheScotsman]

[quote name='mustafabey' date='27 June 2010 - 06:39 AM' timestamp='1277638787' post='473023']
You would think that in the past 60 years, American would have over come its Anglo Saxon hubris and stop getting involved in internal conflicts small "backward" nations. Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and maybe Korea again. Of course, we have to "get" bin Laden, then we can leave. The Afghans don't want western democracy, complete with a years subscription to Playboy and a half gallon of jack daniel's. We used them to give the Russians a black eye and left them in a lurch and as soon as we find some strategy that will give us peace with honor(is there an echo in the room?) We'll leave them in the lurch. Bin Laden and al Qaeda won't go away until we quit meddling in middle eastern affairs. Its very simply about access to oil in the coming times of short oil. Just wait till the other players get involved, Russia, China,India. When the oil wars are done, you may well see America sitting between the UK and France in that section of the UN reserved for fromer great powers, while China and India begin drawing lines in the sand for world domination.
[/quote]

Amen.

[acolorado]

[quote name='TheScotsman' date='27 June 2010 - 10:30 AM' timestamp='1277656238' post='473039']
[quote name='mustafabey' date='27 June 2010 - 06:39 AM' timestamp='1277638787' post='473023']
You would think that in the past 60 years, American would have over come its Anglo Saxon hubris and stop getting involved in internal conflicts small "backward" nations. Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and maybe Korea again. Of course, we have to "get" bin Laden, then we can leave. The Afghans don't want western democracy, complete with a years subscription to Playboy and a half gallon of jack daniel's. We used them to give the Russians a black eye and left them in a lurch and as soon as we find some strategy that will give us peace with honor(is there an echo in the room?) We'll leave them in the lurch. Bin Laden and al Qaeda won't go away until we quit meddling in middle eastern affairs. Its very simply about access to oil in the coming times of short oil. Just wait till the other players get involved, Russia, China,India. When the oil wars are done, you may well see America sitting between the UK and France in that section of the UN reserved for fromer great powers, while China and India begin drawing lines in the sand for world domination.
[/quote]

Amen.
[/quote]

+1

[TheScotsman]

[quote name='acolorado' date='27 June 2010 - 03:32 PM' timestamp='1277670771' post='473047']
[quote name='TheScotsman' date='27 June 2010 - 10:30 AM' timestamp='1277656238' post='473039']
[quote name='mustafabey' date='27 June 2010 - 06:39 AM' timestamp='1277638787' post='473023']
You would think that in the past 60 years, American would have over come its Anglo Saxon hubris and stop getting involved in internal conflicts small "backward" nations. Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and maybe Korea again. Of course, we have to "get" bin Laden, then we can leave. The Afghans don't want western democracy, complete with a years subscription to Playboy and a half gallon of jack daniel's. We used them to give the Russians a black eye and left them in a lurch and as soon as we find some strategy that will give us peace with honor(is there an echo in the room?) We'll leave them in the lurch. Bin Laden and al Qaeda won't go away until we quit meddling in middle eastern affairs. Its very simply about access to oil in the coming times of short oil. Just wait till the other players get involved, Russia, China,India. When the oil wars are done, you may well see America sitting between the UK and France in that section of the UN reserved for fromer great powers, while China and India begin drawing lines in the sand for world domination.
[/quote]

Amen.
[/quote]

+1
[/quote]

What is this world coming to?

[mustafabey]

The Scotsman said, "What is this world coming to? "

The religious fundamentalists will tell you its coming to an end. They seem to have it all worked out. Others warn about 2012, which is really just more of millennium madness of the type of what Y2K was all about. Of course man has always been predicting the end of the world. Times can always be seen to be bad enough. things are bad now, how about the 14th century. No sooner than the mongol threat evaporated and islam regained the holy land, Europe was struck by the 100 years war, a conflict between England and France that basically just caused enormous taxes and devastation of the countryside. Then came the Black Death, conservative estimates say 1/4 of Europe's population died. Some of those people might have thought the world had already ended. And that doesn't cover events like Timur Lang(Tamerlane) in the East.
We are at a crossroads in time. Our respective belief systems no longer hold validity, Science is redefining the3,500 year old world view inherited by Abraham. It does mean god doesn't exist, or that the bible is wrong, it only means we need to modernize our spiritual viewpoint. This scares the hell out of people, hence fundamentalism. I won't believe it, I'll deny it. A solar centric planetary system was resisted for centuries by "the Church" Our energy is running out. A fossil fuel based society and economic system will not survive the 21st century. What will replace it?
Will we deny that there are other alternatives and fight to the death over the remaining pockets of oil and catapult us into a Mad Max new dark age, or will a new power source propel us into the future like the industrial revolution(fossil fuel).
Our climate is changing. Blame whoever you want. Is man doing it, is it cyclical? Who cares, its happening. Seas are going to rise, coastal populations will be stressed, floods, weather, all that. How will we deal with that?
Human population is growing beyond the means of being able to support itself. People are going to starve and die. Water is running out. Large corporations are buying up water rights around the world. You may not own your own aquifers. Coca Cola is Dasani and coke is cheaper in the third world than bottled water. Coke owns alot of third world water.
The pessimists envision a collapse of world order. More and more failed states. Money and resources being concentrated in gated and guarded city states, while billions of people starve and die. Read Robert Kaplan for a taste of one possiblity. Its scary.

Of course that brings us to Mayan Long count and the end of an era. What some scholars suggest that the long count represents is a spiritual era and the coming of an age of spirituality where the human identifies with the whole, and the earth begins to be understood as an organism itself.
I am reminded of a vedantic vision of the whole. Vishnu lies asleep in a lotus pond, he dreams that out of his eye grows a lotus, atop this lotus sits the four headed Brahma, with whom every blink of his eye records the creation and destruction of a universe and there are a infinite number of lotus ponds, Vishus, Brahmas,eye blinks etc.

[Venger]

[quote name='mustafabey' date='28 June 2010 - 01:48 PM' timestamp='1277747339' post='473136']
The Scotsman said, "What is this world coming to? "

The religious fundamentalists will tell you its coming to an end. They seem to have it all worked out. Others warn about 2012, which is really just more of millennium madness of the type of what Y2K was all about. Of course man has always been predicting the end of the world. Times can always be seen to be bad enough. things are bad now, how about the 14th century. No sooner than the mongol threat evaporated and islam regained the holy land, Europe was struck by the 100 years war, a conflict between England and France that basically just caused enormous taxes and devastation of the countryside. Then came the Black Death, conservative estimates say 1/4 of Europe's population died. Some of those people might have thought the world had already ended. And that doesn't cover events like Timur Lang(Tamerlane) in the East.
We are at a crossroads in time. Our respective belief systems no longer hold validity, Science is redefining the3,500 year old world view inherited by Abraham. It does mean god doesn't exist, or that the bible is wrong, it only means we need to modernize our spiritual viewpoint. This scares the hell out of people, hence fundamentalism. I won't believe it, I'll deny it. A solar centric planetary system was resisted for centuries by "the Church" Our energy is running out. A fossil fuel based society and economic system will not survive the 21st century. What will replace it?
Will we deny that there are other alternatives and fight to the death over the remaining pockets of oil and catapult us into a Mad Max new dark age, or will a new power source propel us into the future like the industrial revolution(fossil fuel).
Our climate is changing. Blame whoever you want. Is man doing it, is it cyclical? Who cares, its happening. Seas are going to rise, coastal populations will be stressed, floods, weather, all that. How will we deal with that?
Human population is growing beyond the means of being able to support itself. People are going to starve and die. Water is running out. Large corporations are buying up water rights around the world. You may not own your own aquifers. Coca Cola is Dasani and coke is cheaper in the third world than bottled water. Coke owns alot of third world water.
The pessimists envision a collapse of world order. More and more failed states. Money and resources being concentrated in gated and guarded city states, while billions of people starve and die. Read Robert Kaplan for a taste of one possiblity. Its scary.

Of course that brings us to Mayan Long count and the end of an era. What some scholars suggest that the long count represents is a spiritual era and the coming of an age of spirituality where the human identifies with the whole, and the earth begins to be understood as an organism itself.
I am reminded of a vedantic vision of the whole. Vishnu lies asleep in a lotus pond, he dreams that out of his eye grows a lotus, atop this lotus sits the four headed Brahma, with whom every blink of his eye records the creation and destruction of a universe and there are a infinite number of lotus ponds, Vishus, Brahmas,eye blinks etc.
[/quote]
Soylent green is a great visual for this. But I think the Scotsman query is how He and acolorado could possibly agree on something.
Ray

[mustafabey]

Venger said," But I think the Scotsman query is how He and acolorado could possibly agree on something."

That would truly be regarded as a modern miracle!