Topic: Obama firing a lot of military personnel

Yes firing

http://conservativeangle.com/disturbing … der-obama/

Crazy numbers of high level officers, and very worrisome.

Everything bad in the economy is now Obama's fault. Every job lost, all the debt, all the lost retirement funds. All Obama. Are you happy now? We all get to blame Obama!
Kemp currently not being responded to until he makes CONCISE posts.
Avogardo and Noir ignored by me for life so people know why I do not respond to them. (Informational)

2 (edited by Key 27-Nov-2013 17:52:27)

Re: Obama firing a lot of military personnel

I reckognize some of those officers names from recent reports of improper conduct, namely in the Navy.  I reckognize at least two in the marines which had made deragitory remarks to our civilian leadership, in both towards the president AND congress.  The West Point officer that I saw was either asked to "retire" or face discplinary hearing charges on the officers inability to reign in hazing and sexual assault cases.

Reason why an officer is fired or asked to "retire early":

Failure to respect the chain of command. (this includes the president of the united states, joint chiefs of staff, and the senate.  One of those officers listed was at a hearing of the military oversite committee and called one of the sitting senators a "moron" to his face.)

Failure to reign in subordinates.  (Each commanding officer is the end of the line for any action taken by a subordinate.)

Failure to follow protocol or orders. (Pretty damn self explanatory)

Training Exercise death. (This one can ruin the career of an officer that was in charge of the base in question that the death occured, at no fault of their own. )

Sexual harrasment/assault.  (Failure to keep control of subordinates or themselves)

Physical altercation.  (Officers get over fights for even the most stupidest things, just like any private.)

Drug or alcohol abuse.  (Can't follow a man whose orders are slurred speach, and napping during award ceremonies)


That list is a small thimble of water compared to the number of officers that were "dismissed" under George Bush Jr.  This doesn't even include the number of officers that were sacked under Bill Clinton during the army base closures.

Plus Einstein, this doesn't even come close to half of what needs to be done during the "Sequestrian".  During the sequestrian, the armed forces must draw down all forces.  That includes base closures and shutdowns.  Fleet mothballs, where serving Naval officers  have rank, but no commands at all.  Some of those naval officers aren't even being fired, their losing their command because they will no longer have a fleet command due to draw down.  So some of those names on that list doesn't mean their being fired, their just losing their Fleet or Base command.  In other words, their being transitioned to civil works.  That means lots of travel, overseeing closures and shutdowns, and being placed in advisory positions.

Now for decades when an officer "screwed up", the chain of command usually kept it on the down low.  I was present during the sacking of my unit captain in South Korea back in 91'.  Now you can sack anyone in the armed forces for any reason.

During Bill Clintons base closures, they used the PT draw dawn method.  Physical Training Tests.  If an officer OR subordinate, failed their PT test three times in a row...they were disqualified for service in the armed forces.  And there were a LOT of officers of higher rank, Colonal and above who were unable to meet the physical needs of the armed forces they served.  They got sacked, mostly because they were couch potatoes who ate and drank to much at military functions.  And it cost them their status.

So when I look at those names...that's a drop of officers in a big great lakes worth and number of officers.  There's any amount of reasons that those ass hats got canned.

And personally as a Grunt, I really don't care.  I met a few of those high ranking officers, and most of them had achieved such levels of snobbery that If I was president, I would have canned their ass BEFORE they reached higher rank.

=^o.o^= When I'm cute I can be cute.  And when I'm mean, I can be very very mean.  I'm a cat.  Expect me to be fickle.

Re: Obama firing a lot of military personnel

Bush fired 2 generals

Everything bad in the economy is now Obama's fault. Every job lost, all the debt, all the lost retirement funds. All Obama. Are you happy now? We all get to blame Obama!
Kemp currently not being responded to until he makes CONCISE posts.
Avogardo and Noir ignored by me for life so people know why I do not respond to them. (Informational)

Re: Obama firing a lot of military personnel

And some of those names were not canned by the president.  They were canned by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who were under pressure from the senate to take care of a lot of problems which were being made public.  There's been several commanding officers overturning JAG rulings in rape cases?  Those generals got canned for overturning, because it became a public embarrassment to the politicians, who had to field phone calls from the national press on the matter.  We had several training accidents that lead to deaths.  Destruction of million dollar hardware, namely several naval jets crashing.

Yah.  Don't care.  You do a job, and if you can't do the job, or mouth off at the bosses...yah your going to get canned.

This is...old news to me.

=^o.o^= When I'm cute I can be cute.  And when I'm mean, I can be very very mean.  I'm a cat.  Expect me to be fickle.

Re: Obama firing a lot of military personnel

I am calling you on that.

Links or lies...

Everything bad in the economy is now Obama's fault. Every job lost, all the debt, all the lost retirement funds. All Obama. Are you happy now? We all get to blame Obama!
Kemp currently not being responded to until he makes CONCISE posts.
Avogardo and Noir ignored by me for life so people know why I do not respond to them. (Informational)

Re: Obama firing a lot of military personnel

Sometimes nuclear weapons need to be transferred off the books. And you can shut the hell up about it or lose your pension.

And sometimes troops need to be taught that freedom loving Americans who honor America's founders are extremists and likely terrorists. And you can shut the hell up about it and radicalize your troops or lose your pension.

[I wish I could obey forum rules]

Re: Obama firing a lot of military personnel

I reckognize at least two in the marines which had made deragitory remarks to our civilian leadership, in both towards the president AND congress.

And that's supposed to disprove an Obama vendetta?

The core joke of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is that of course no civilization would develop personal computers with instant remote database recovery, and then waste this technology to find good drinks.
Steve Jobs has ruined this joke.

8 (edited by esa 17-Dec-2013 00:40:19)

Re: Obama firing a lot of military personnel

I googled only  the first name on the list.
He  wasn't fired, but  retired because his wife fell ill

The inmates are running the asylum

Re: Obama firing a lot of military personnel

sick? Or just sick and tired?

The core joke of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is that of course no civilization would develop personal computers with instant remote database recovery, and then waste this technology to find good drinks.
Steve Jobs has ruined this joke.

Re: Obama firing a lot of military personnel

The list is ridiculously long and the timing on Navy Vice Adm. Tim Giardina and Maj. Gen. Michael Carey is very suspicious.

That they claimed gambling for one guy says nothing of the veracity of the entire list.

[I wish I could obey forum rules]

Re: Obama firing a lot of military personnel

Rightwinger calling Obama a dummy for not firing General Allen

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtMQUZbbVb8

Damned if you do, damned if you don't

The inmates are running the asylum

12 (edited by V. Kemp 17-Dec-2013 22:00:28)

Re: Obama firing a lot of military personnel

Allen is irrelevant and the argument that Obama is doing bad things to military leadership does not rely on his credentials. You've disputed nothing but an irrelevant single individual's grounds for dismissal.

[I wish I could obey forum rules]

Re: Obama firing a lot of military personnel

Sequester.

=^o.o^= When I'm cute I can be cute.  And when I'm mean, I can be very very mean.  I'm a cat.  Expect me to be fickle.

Re: Obama firing a lot of military personnel

Somebody wanted links. So here we go. :V  (Long post is long. You have been warned.)

General John R. Allen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_R._Allen

Major General Ralph Baker
http://www.stripes.com/news/africa/bake … r-1.215108

Major General Michael Carey
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/nat … story.html

Colonel James Christmas
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/article … ed-command

Major General Peter Fuller
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/06/world … .html?_r=0

Major General Charles M. Gurganus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_M._Gurganus

General Carter F. Ham
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 … orced-out/

Lieutenant General David H. Huntoon
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/nat … story.html

Command Sergeant Major Don B Jordan
http://www.armytimes.com/article/201310 … estigation

General James Mattis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Mattis

I'm just going to break this up with an interjection here:  Most of these guys were rightly fired or retired and were incorrectly reported as fired by the article linked by OP.  Also, under the section on the articled labeled "Commanding Generals Fired," some of those aren't even generals. They're Colonels. There be a difference between an O6 and anything O7 and above. Crap article is crap. Just sayin.

Colonel Daren Margolin
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/article … n-relieved

General Stanley McChrystal
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/power-playe … 22388.html

General David D. McKiernan
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … 01864.html

General David Petraeus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Petraeus  (For the record, the guy retired first, then resigned from the CIA because he had an affair.)

Brigadier General Bryan Roberts
http://www.armytimes.com/article/201305 … llegations

Major General Gregg A. Sturdevant
http://www.stripes.com/news/middle-east … n-1.244316

Colonel Eric Tilley
http://www.stripes.com/news/camp-zama-c … y-1.250472

Brigadier General Bryan Wampler
http://www.stripes.com/news/brigadier-g … t-1.247623


Ok, that's just the first section of names in OP's article.  I will do the rest when I get home.  So far, OP's article appears to be a load of crap. But let's see just how high we need to hike our boots up to wade through this. :V 

Until next time.... tongue

Praise Kek

Re: Obama firing a lot of military personnel

It seems fishy that some of these guys are being fired for vague or completely unspecified reasons, given that torture (including rape and the rape of minors) at Gitmo and the assassination of a US Ambassador being covered up weren't a big deal.

A regime this corrupt can't be trusted when it does anything. That doesn't make Einstein right about any or all of these personnel, but it certainly gives ground for serious consideration that maybe unspecified "misconduct" isn't why some of these guys are being canned.

And these are guys who lose their livelihoods, decades of service expecting a pension, if they speak out.

[I wish I could obey forum rules]

Re: Obama firing a lot of military personnel

Mister Spock wrote:

It seems fishy that some of these guys are being fired for vague or completely unspecified reasons, given that torture (including rape and the rape of minors) at Gitmo and the assassination of a US Ambassador being covered up weren't a big deal.

A regime this corrupt can't be trusted when it does anything. That doesn't make Einstein right about any or all of these personnel, but it certainly gives ground for serious consideration that maybe unspecified "misconduct" isn't why some of these guys are being canned.

And these are guys who lose their livelihoods, decades of service expecting a pension, if they speak out.

The "vague reasons" you speak of are only vague because they are under investigation. Any investigation will be like that. Try asking the cops for info about shit that's under investigation and see how far you get.

My point is, the whole article OP posted is BS. I only got part way through the list of names before I had to stop. I haven't finished it yet because I was tired and felt a bit sick when I got home from work. :V

Half the guys the article says were fired, retired of their own accord. Only one was asked to resign and that's just a partial list. Let's not even get started on the fact that when you say "Commanding Generals" your list better include ONLY Generals (i.e. O7 and above). There were quite a few O6s on that list. They can't even keep their own list straight.

Dear OP, 

Crap article is crap.

Praise Kek

Re: Obama firing a lot of military personnel

Many of the investigations are complete and the personnel have been let go; they're not on suspension because of an ongoing investigation. These men have a lot of reason not to speak up if they believe they're being targeted for political reasons, because they're appealing the decisions and hoping to salvage their careers and pensions. They have a lot of reasons not to speak up because the personal cost to them is so high.

As I pointed out, 2 of them let go were major nuclear commanders and they were let go for supposedly committing far less egregious acts than the Obama administration has already covered up, suggesting their actions weren't as important as the administration's desiring them out of command.

Why would the Obama administration fire no one over photo-documented rape and other torture, or proven deceit regarding the assassination of a US ambassador, or illegally providing guns to criminals, yet fire someone for supposedly wasting a few hundred thousand dollars on luxury accommodations over a period of years?

Far worse proven transgressions have repeatedly gone unpunished in any way, strongly suggesting that the often only vaguely alluded to transgressions alleged in some of these cases are not the reasons for the terminations. You've completely ignored this point of why there is such strong reason for suspicion, so presumably you accept its validity--yet are ideologically bent on defending your position--so you're ignoring it and offering no alternative explanation.

[I wish I could obey forum rules]

Re: Obama firing a lot of military personnel

Oh, I thought of an alternative explanation. Perhaps the Obama administration ordered those scandals they covered-up. That would explain why they didn't want to ruin anyone's career and risk them spilling the beans on where their orders came from.

Of course, considering that the cover-ups include the rape of minors, illegal international gun sales, and murder, the explanation that the Obama administration ordered them hardly gives us less reason to doubt the official reasons for firing so many high ranking nuclear commanders. This explanation is horrifying and gives us far more reason to suspect that the Obama administration might be firing anyone who opposes their program of arse-kissery, militarizing police forces in America, and making sure everyone's on board with shooting at American citizens if ordered.

[I wish I could obey forum rules]

19 (edited by The Great Eye 05-Jan-2014 07:18:05)

Re: Obama firing a lot of military personnel

The military has a different set of rules than most employers.  It could have been any kind of conduct unbecoming of an officer. You sign a contract when you enter the military and they have all kinds of rules that you have to follow or they can, and will, kick you out. [Personal attacks]

Praise Kek

20 (edited by V. Kemp 28-Dec-2013 12:28:32)

Re: Obama firing a lot of military personnel

You can call me any names you want. The fact is that the Obama administration took NO disciplinary action for proven (photo evidence) rape and other torture at Abu Graib. There are photos of some of the torture and multiple testimonies (unconstested) of what other other tortures unreleased photos prove.

No conspiracy theory about it. There's public record proof of torture and uncontested testimony that unreleased photos show much worse torture. Obama disciplined nobody over the matter. He won't even let us know what happened.

Obama's failed "fast and furious" program, pushing guns to illegal buyers, has been proven to be the source of guns used in murders on both sides of the border. Illegal gun sales Obama pushed have been traced. No contest. No doubt. The program resulted in the illegal sale of weapons which were used in hundreds, perhaps thousands, of murders. The Obama administration has claimed "executive privilege" in response to requests for information, proving they had knowledge of the operation (which they lied about). Obviously they couldn't have documents about the program if they had no knowledge of the program.

No conspiracy theory about it. Hundreds, perhaps thousands dead, and admission that the Obama administration has documents about the operation. Obama disciplined nobody over the matter. He won't even let us know what happened.

Obama's officials touted the line that there was a "protest" over a video which was presumed the cause of the death of the US ambassador in Libya. Turns out, literally all testimonies of personnel in the know show that nobody ever believed that. The Obama administration lied to the American people about the assassination of our ambassador. And NO witnesses who were there in Libya have been made available to Congress for its numerous investigations of the matter.

No conspiracy theory about it. Not only did Obama administration officials lie about the events of the night of Stevens' murder, they've taken action to prevent Congress (and the press) from having access to witnesses to ascertain the truth. Despite these, a multitude of sources have come out to contest all of the Obama administration lies. There were more than a hundred armed personnel in the city that night and more ready to board a plane to go there. They were ordered to stand down. Obama disciplined nobody over the matter. He won't even let us know what happened.

You haven't contested a single fact I claimed, nor a single thing I've said. Just vaguely called me names, without the nerve to actually state disagreement with anything I've said. You call me a nut. Why? What facts have I claimed which are not verifiable? You won't state any, because I can cite sources for everything I've said. And I would do so if you questioned any specific statements I have made. And it would get old very quickly and it would become obvious very quickly that nothing I've said is disputed. (The facts--The reasoning has all been mine, though you've disagreed with none of that either.)

You can't offer me an alternate explanation of why the Obama administration overlooked and even covered up major blunders/corruption yet supposedly fired some of its top nuclear commanders for relatively minor infractions of military policy. You've just demonstrated this by name-calling in place of responding to what I posted. Nobody is fooled. Nobody is distracted. The point stands, and you haven't even attempted to argue against it.

[I wish I could obey forum rules]