McChrystal Says He's Talked With Obama Once Since Taking Afghanistan Command

[GWV5903]

This isn't some silly game of trivial pursuit.... I merely pointed out that you clearly don't have a clue about how the military chain of command works and how it is important for all levels of it to use it and support it up AND down. For Obama to talk directly to McChrystal, it would require that he bypass at least two layers of the chain of command to do so.

And the only Patterson I know of is the union general who screwed up at Harper's Ferry.... but I hardly think he changed the world as we know it. Maybe he brought back jalapeno peppers from his exploits in Mexico earlier in his career, but that would hardly be world changing either.

Just what I thought, you can not stand up in a debate on the military......

Robert Patterson was Secretary of War during WW II, he is the one who told Patton when Patton wanted to take the Russians out then and I quote "Oh, George, you have been so close to this thing so long, you have lost sight of the big picture.", right, nearly 40 years later we witnessed the demise of the Soviet Empire, how many lives were lost, how many dollars were wasted because the chain of command didn't communicate with the true pulse on the street????

You have no understanding of military history, so are you sure you want to get into a pissing contest with me? Maybe you want to stick to that chain of command bullshit you really know nothing about.....

like I said, this isn't some silly ass trivial pursuit discussion. YOu still have shown zero understanding of how our military and civilian command structure work together...

and are you suggesting that, even though they were our allies, we should have invaded the soviet union at the end of WWII because Patton with his three stars thought it was a good idea? Really?

Your the only dumb ass who thinks this is trivial pursuit, Patton was correct, history has proven that, are you trying to say we didn't have the Cold War?

Do you really think that the military has a patent on chain of command? You act like they are the only ones.......

Patton had four stars, what rank where you?

Funny how history has clearly proven his ambitions where correct, yet you try to protect the idiot you elected, no surprise

 

[GWV5903]

like I said, this isn't some silly ass trivial pursuit discussion. YOu still have shown zero understanding of how our military and civilian command structure work together...

and are you suggesting that, even though they were our allies, we should have invaded the soviet union at the end of WWII because Patton with his three stars thought it was a good idea? Really?

Sounds like it...or else he was using Patton as an example to bolster our side of the argument.

exactly. It seems as if he is suggesting that the secretary of war should have listened to a tactically brilliant, but strategically deranged three star general and endorse the invasion of one of our allies at the close of the already extraordinarily taxing and draining WWII. If such is the case, then clearly, not only does this bozo not understand the chain of command, he is also barely tethered to reality on a broader perspective.

Again you show your ignorance, Patton was correct, how do you get out of bed? Do you every 5 or 10 minutes?

The Chain of Command drill, are you this stupid? He is the POTUS, Commander and Chief, do you really think Gates or Casey are going to be offended if he speaks with McChrystal? Gates comment is to protect Obama's image only......

Just admit it, your guy has no real leadership skills, he is from the anti war, anti success, anti American, anti capitalist revolution of the '60s & '70s, let's see Ayers was just a guy who lived in the neighborhood and Rev. Wright never ever said anything like that in the 20 years I attended, sure thing, when they insert that bar code up your ass and tell you what choice they made for you, remember all of this was a lie.....

 

[GWV5903]

patterson was undersecretary of war at the time of the conversation and the war in europe ended (VE-Day 8 May 1945) the day after the meaningless conversation took place.

big whoop

Actually he served both Roosevelt & Truman, Under Secretary under Roosevelt & Secretary under Truman, the time in question was early summer of '45 and if you have forgotten or your not old enough, we had a 40+ year Cold War, um and it was with Russia.....

Your entitled to your opinion, but history is pretty clear, we would have had a better world with out the existence of Communist Russia, or the USSR, which ever.....

In the minds of idiots I can understand how that would be a "big whoop", but the lives that have been lost in the fight for democracy, they have a very different opinion

 

[GWV5903]

patterson was undersecretary of war at the time of the conversation and the war in europe ended (VE-Day 8 May 1945) the day after the meaningless conversation took place.

big whoop

Damn.

You just pissed all over his meaningless tidbit, that's only point was to demonstrate that he is a "student of military history".

And that would mean your a student of maineman? or del? or is it both? maybe a threeway?

 

[del]

patterson was undersecretary of war at the time of the conversation and the war in europe ended (VE-Day 8 May 1945) the day after the meaningless conversation took place.

big whoop

Actually he served both Roosevelt & Truman, Under Secretary under Roosevelt & Secretary under Truman, the time in question was early summer of '45 and if you have forgotten or your not old enough, we had a 40+ year Cold War, um and it was with Russia.....

Your entitled to your opinion, but history is pretty clear, we would have had a better world with out the existence of Communist Russia, or the USSR, which ever.....

In the minds of idiots I can understand how that would be a "big whoop", but the lives that have been lost in the fight for democracy, they have a very different opinion

only an idiot would attribute the cold war and the existence of the ussr to a conversation between patton and a relatively minor figure in the war dept. i'll keep that in mind in future.

keep up the good work.

 

[maineman]

Again you show your ignorance, Patton was correct.

Patton was "correct"?? How so? Because in the years that followed, things happened that would not have happened if, for some incomprehensible reason, we would have turned around, after winning the war in Europe, and invaded and conquered one of our own allies? That is just plain silly. You cannot state what sort of world we would live in today if that had taken place. You cannot begin to know the unintended negative consequences that would have accompanied the supposed positive consequence of destroying the Soviet Union. You cannot possibly know how China, for example, would have reacted if their major competitor for preeminence in that hemisphere had been removed. You cannot possibly know how we would have been viewed by the rest of our former allies after such an act of treachery. Monday morning quarterbacking 64 years after the fact about such an event is stupid. Attempting to claim that your prognostications would have been undeniably correct and that there would have been no unintended overwhelmingly negative consequences is not only stupid, it is arrogant.

And your hatred for all things Obama and democratic severely curtails the limits of your already limited intellect.

 

[GWV5903]

patterson was undersecretary of war at the time of the conversation and the war in europe ended (VE-Day 8 May 1945) the day after the meaningless conversation took place.

big whoop

Actually he served both Roosevelt & Truman, Under Secretary under Roosevelt & Secretary under Truman, the time in question was early summer of '45 and if you have forgotten or your not old enough, we had a 40+ year Cold War, um and it was with Russia.....

Your entitled to your opinion, but history is pretty clear, we would have had a better world with out the existence of Communist Russia, or the USSR, which ever.....

In the minds of idiots I can understand how that would be a "big whoop", but the lives that have been lost in the fight for democracy, they have a very different opinion

only an idiot would attribute the cold war and the existence of the ussr to a conversation between patton and a relatively minor figure in the war dept. i'll keep that in mind in future.

keep up the good work.

"Only an idiot" Funny you would identify yourself as an idiot? But I guess you would know best......

The illusion running through your brain that the USSR would be in existence if Patton had taken on the Russians is crazy, stupid and sad.....you are second guessing the best, Eisenhower didn't agree with Patton on this, but he knew Patton was this best he had in command.....

Oh and you think the Secretary of War, today's version of the Secretary of Defense, is a minor figure?? And then you defend the chain of command......brilliance from the lame left

 

[del]

Actually he served both Roosevelt & Truman, Under Secretary under Roosevelt & Secretary under Truman, the time in question was early summer of '45 and if you have forgotten or your not old enough, we had a 40+ year Cold War, um and it was with Russia.....

Your entitled to your opinion, but history is pretty clear, we would have had a better world with out the existence of Communist Russia, or the USSR, which ever.....

In the minds of idiots I can understand how that would be a "big whoop", but the lives that have been lost in the fight for democracy, they have a very different opinion

only an idiot would attribute the cold war and the existence of the ussr to a conversation between patton and a relatively minor figure in the war dept. i'll keep that in mind in future.

keep up the good work.

"Only an idiot" Funny you would identify yourself as an idiot? But I guess you would know best......

The illusion running through your brain that the USSR would be in existence if Patton had taken on the Russians is crazy, stupid and sad.....you are second guessing the best, Eisenhower didn't agree with Patton on this, but he knew Patton was this best he had in command.....

Oh and you think the Secretary of War, today's version of the Secretary of Defense, is a minor figure?? And then you defend the chain of command......brilliance from the lame left

are you always this vapid?

 

[GWV5903]

Again you show your ignorance, Patton was correct.

Patton was "correct"?? How so? Because in the years that followed, things happened that would not have happened if, for some incomprehensible reason, we would have turned around, after winning the war in Europe, and invaded and conquered one of our own allies? That is just plain silly.

Silly? Are you still playing with Barbie dolls? Silly? Are you so lame that all you can call it is silly? Are you trying to deny the Cold War existed? That 40+ year period would have been very different if Patton had had his way......

You cannot state what sort of world we would live in today if that had taken place

Just as you can not defend Obama for not talking with his field commander, you can't have it both ways.....

You cannot begin to know the unintended negative consequences that would have accompanied the supposed positive consequence of destroying the Soviet Union.

So what is it we did for 40+ years?? Build catapults, mangonel fireball launchers, no we built nuclear warheads.....so doesn't it seam fairly obvious, even to your limited understanding, that this may not have been necessary???

You cannot possibly know how China, for example, would have reacted if their major competitor for preeminence in that hemisphere had been removed. You cannot possibly know how we would have been viewed by the rest of our former allies after such an act of treachery.

And what did China do after the fall of the USSR in the late '80s?? I can't hear you, speak up....Oh and the treachery part, aren't you one of the believers that our global image was tarnished by Bush?? Let's see, the rest of the world that you believe is our friend, the Russians, the Chinese, Iran, Cuba, Venezuela and the list goes on, they are not going to change their opinion of us, we are the only nation in history to accomplish what we have in such a short period of time, all of them have failed miserably at FREEDOM, name one who even comes close???

Monday morning quarterbacking 64 years after the fact about such an event is stupid.

I had this opinion in the '50s dumb ass, there you go assuming again, I thought you learned, oh well....

Attempting to claim that your prognostications would have been undeniably correct and that there would have been no unintended overwhelmingly negative consequences is not only stupid, it is arrogant.

Again, the same could easily be said of your assertion about chain of command applying to the POTUS

And your hatred for all things Obama and democratic severely curtails the limits of your already limited intellect.

You continue to assume when you don't even know me, unbelievable.....and you question my intellect, shame on you, I don't hate Obama, I don't agree with him, he has shown in 9 short months that with his guidance we would gravitate to the socialist platform he so dearly adores, that and that alone is why I do not agree with him, oh he has some of the tools, no doubt, problem is he dislikes what America has become and I don't think it is that bad at all...........................................big divide

 

[maineman]

Silly? Are you still playing with Barbie dolls? Silly? Are you so lame that all you can call it is silly? Are you trying to deny the Cold War existed? That 40+ year period would have been very different if Patton had had his way......

The cold war did exist. and to suggest that one can look backward through the history of the cold war and say, in retrospect, that if we had attacked one of our allies at the conclusion of a horrific and bloody five year war, we would have avoided it is....silly.
You cannot state what sort of world we would live in today if that had taken place

Just as you can not defend Obama for not talking with his field commander, you can't have it both ways.....

not both ways at all. One is ridiculous supposition, the other is commonly understood military protocol

So what is it we did for 40+ years?? Build catapults, mangonel fireball launchers, no we built nuclear warheads.....so doesn't it seam fairly obvious, even to your limited understanding, that this may not have been necessary???

again... it may not have been necessary against the soviet union, but that is a far cry from claiming that it would not have been necessary



And what did China do after the fall of the USSR in the late '80s?? I can't hear you, speak up....Oh and the treachery part, aren't you one of the believers that our global image was tarnished by Bush?? Let's see, the rest of the world that you believe is our friend, the Russians, the Chinese, Iran, Cuba, Venezuela and the list goes on, they are not going to change their opinion of us, we are the only nation in history to accomplish what we have in such a short period of time, all of them have failed miserably at FREEDOM, name one who even comes close???

what China did after 1989 and the economic collapse of the soviet union, and what china might very well have done in the 50's 60's and 70's if there had not been a soviet union are two completely different things... tu suggest that the two are synonymous is moronic

I had this opinion in the '50s dumb ass, there you go assuming again, I thought you learned, oh well....

regardless... it is a hairbrained opinion that looks at the complex calculus of foreign affairs and artificially reduces it down to elementary school arithmetic.... perhaps for YOUR benefit, but certainly not for the benefit of any greater understanding of how our policy vis a vis the soviet union might have bee different than what it was.

[Again, the same could easily be said of your assertion about chain of command applying to the POTUS

bullshit. one is a stupid prognostication, the other is fact

You continue to assume when you don't even know me, unbelievable.....and you question my intellect, shame on you, I don't hate Obama, I don't agree with him, he has shown in 9 short months that with his guidance we would gravitate to the socialist platform he so dearly adores, that and that alone is why I do not agree with him, oh he has some of the tools, no doubt, problem is he dislikes what America has become and I don't think it is that bad at all...........................................big divide

your hatred is evident by your arguments. sorry

 

[JakeStarkey]

Let's ask if Patton had the resources to take on the Russians. The answer is simply "no".

The Russian army was several times larger, well armed, incredibly vicious, had great air support, and had plenty of training formations to the east. The U.S. had no atomic weapons, no training divisions stateside, and still confronted Japan.

If Patton had attacked the Russians, the ruskies would have been on the channel in four weeks.

 

[rdean]

General Crystal met with Obama when Obama went to Copenhagen.

 

[GWV5903]

only an idiot would attribute the cold war and the existence of the ussr to a conversation between patton and a relatively minor figure in the war dept. i'll keep that in mind in future.

keep up the good work.

"Only an idiot" Funny you would identify yourself as an idiot? But I guess you would know best......

The illusion running through your brain that the USSR would be in existence if Patton had taken on the Russians is crazy, stupid and sad.....you are second guessing the best, Eisenhower didn't agree with Patton on this, but he knew Patton was this best he had in command.....

Oh and you think the Secretary of War, today's version of the Secretary of Defense, is a minor figure?? And then you defend the chain of command......brilliance from the lame left

are you always this vapid?

Take a look at your avatar pic, that is clearly lacking taste......yikes....

 

[GWV5903]

Let's ask if Patton had the resources to take on the Russians. The answer is simply "no".

The Russian army was several times larger, well armed, incredibly vicious, had great air support, and had plenty of training formations to the east. The U.S. had no atomic weapons, no training divisions stateside, and still confronted Japan.

If Patton had attacked the Russians, the ruskies would have been on the channel in four weeks.

"We promised the Europeans freedom. It would be worse than dishonorable not to see they have it. This might mean war with the Russians, but what of it? They have no Air Force anymore, their gasoline and ammunition supplies are low. I’ve seen their miserable supply trains; mostly wagons draw by beaten up old horses or oxen. I’ll say this; the Third Army alone with very little help and with damned few casualties, could lick what is left of the Russians in six weeks. You mark my words. Don’t ever forget them. Someday we will have to fight them and it will take six years and cost us six million lives"

Sounds like Patton......

 

[GWV5903]

Silly? Are you still playing with Barbie dolls? Silly? Are you so lame that all you can call it is silly? Are you trying to deny the Cold War existed? That 40+ year period would have been very different if Patton had had his way......

The cold war did exist. and to suggest that one can look backward through the history of the cold war and say, in retrospect, that if we had attacked one of our allies at the conclusion of a horrific and bloody five year war, we would have avoided it is....silly.
You cannot state what sort of world we would live in today if that had taken place

Just as you can not defend Obama for not talking with his field commander, you can't have it both ways.....

not both ways at all. One is ridiculous supposition, the other is commonly understood military protocol

So what is it we did for 40+ years?? Build catapults, mangonel fireball launchers, no we built nuclear warheads.....so doesn't it seam fairly obvious, even to your limited understanding, that this may not have been necessary???

again... it may not have been necessary against the soviet union, but that is a far cry from claiming that it would not have been necessary



And what did China do after the fall of the USSR in the late '80s?? I can't hear you, speak up....Oh and the treachery part, aren't you one of the believers that our global image was tarnished by Bush?? Let's see, the rest of the world that you believe is our friend, the Russians, the Chinese, Iran, Cuba, Venezuela and the list goes on, they are not going to change their opinion of us, we are the only nation in history to accomplish what we have in such a short period of time, all of them have failed miserably at FREEDOM, name one who even comes close???

what China did after 1989 and the economic collapse of the soviet union, and what china might very well have done in the 50's 60's and 70's if there had not been a soviet union are two completely different things... tu suggest that the two are synonymous is moronic

I had this opinion in the '50s dumb ass, there you go assuming again, I thought you learned, oh well....

regardless... it is a hairbrained opinion that looks at the complex calculus of foreign affairs and artificially reduces it down to elementary school arithmetic.... perhaps for YOUR benefit, but certainly not for the benefit of any greater understanding of how our policy vis a vis the soviet union might have bee different than what it was.

[Again, the same could easily be said of your assertion about chain of command applying to the POTUS

bullshit. one is a stupid prognostication, the other is fact

You continue to assume when you don't even know me, unbelievable.....and you question my intellect, shame on you, I don't hate Obama, I don't agree with him, he has shown in 9 short months that with his guidance we would gravitate to the socialist platform he so dearly adores, that and that alone is why I do not agree with him, oh he has some of the tools, no doubt, problem is he dislikes what America has become and I don't think it is that bad at all...........................................big divide

your hatred is evident by your arguments. sorry

Your sad, if you don't agree with you, your labeled as hateful, what do you do in real life when someone doesn't agree with you????

 

[del]

"Only an idiot" Funny you would identify yourself as an idiot? But I guess you would know best......

The illusion running through your brain that the USSR would be in existence if Patton had taken on the Russians is crazy, stupid and sad.....you are second guessing the best, Eisenhower didn't agree with Patton on this, but he knew Patton was this best he had in command.....

Oh and you think the Secretary of War, today's version of the Secretary of Defense, is a minor figure?? And then you defend the chain of command......brilliance from the lame left

are you always this vapid?

Take a look at your avatar pic, that is clearly lacking taste......yikes....

so that's a yes.

btw, patterson was undersecretary of war at the time of the earth changing conversation with which you're obsessed.

at least try to get the details right, spanky.

 

[oreo]

Again you show your ignorance, Patton was correct.

Patton was "correct"?? How so? Because in the years that followed, things happened that would not have happened if, for some incomprehensible reason, we would have turned around, after winning the war in Europe, and invaded and conquered one of our own allies? That is just plain silly. You cannot state what sort of world we would live in today if that had taken place. You cannot begin to know the unintended negative consequences that would have accompanied the supposed positive consequence of destroying the Soviet Union. You cannot possibly know how China, for example, would have reacted if their major competitor for preeminence in that hemisphere had been removed. You cannot possibly know how we would have been viewed by the rest of our former allies after such an act of treachery. Monday morning quarterbacking 64 years after the fact about such an event is stupid. Attempting to claim that your prognostications would have been undeniably correct and that there would have been no unintended overwhelmingly negative consequences is not only stupid, it is arrogant.

And your hatred for all things Obama and democratic severely curtails the limits of your already limited intellect.

The only thing I want to know is: Have we gone from taking our EYE OFF OF THE BALL--to FUMBLING THE BALL----

 

[GWV5903]

are you always this vapid?

Take a look at your avatar pic, that is clearly lacking taste......yikes....

so that's a yes.

btw, patterson was undersecretary of war at the time of the earth changing conversation with which you're obsessed.

at least try to get the details right, spanky.

Yes, your pic lacks taste....

Under Secretary to Secretary in 1945, excuse moi......

del, the conversation is relevant to the subject, if you want to remain in denial, have at it, Patton was spot on.....

Obama gives McChrystal 25 minutes and how much time did he give the Olympic panel in his quest to deliver Chicago the 2016 games?? Priceless.....

In nine short months he has managed to deliver Cash for Clunkers, what an amazing accomplishment !!!!

 

[del]

Take a look at your avatar pic, that is clearly lacking taste......yikes....

so that's a yes.

btw, patterson was undersecretary of war at the time of the earth changing conversation with which you're obsessed.

at least try to get the details right, spanky.

Yes, your pic lacks taste....

Under Secretary to Secretary in 1945, excuse moi......

del, the conversation is relevant to the subject, if you want to remain in denial, have at it, Patton was spot on.....

Obama gives McChrystal 25 minutes and how much time did he give the Olympic panel in his quest to deliver Chicago the 2016 games?? Priceless.....

In nine short months he has managed to deliver Cash for Clunkers, what an amazing accomplishment !!!!

perhaps in your world, but not here in reality.

have a nice day.

 

[Meister]

Take a look at your avatar pic, that is clearly lacking taste......yikes....

so that's a yes.

btw, patterson was undersecretary of war at the time of the earth changing conversation with which you're obsessed.

at least try to get the details right, spanky.

Yes, your pic lacks taste....

Under Secretary to Secretary in 1945, excuse moi......

del, the conversation is relevant to the subject, if you want to remain in denial, have at it, Patton was spot on.....

Obama gives McChrystal 25 minutes and how much time did he give the Olympic panel in his quest to deliver Chicago the 2016 games?? Priceless.....

In nine short months he has managed to deliver Cash for Clunkers, what an amazing accomplishment !!!!

I guess, a person has to set priorities when running the most powerful nation in the world, and Obama has made his.
Cash For Clunkers? It was tax dollars that did it...no amazing accomplishment. What is amazing was that the government has stepped in, and took over an auto industry....now that's amazing!!
Lastly, are you that trite that you have to make an attempt to belittle a posters avatar? Talk about a person who lacks taste, don't need to look any further than what you see when you look into a mirror.