It would be a sad state of affairs if that was anywhere close to true. Lee lost the war he was in charge of. If every general after him was worse, then the United States would have lost every war since 1865.
- Much less understanding psyops, and other duties as assigned. Opinions on generals aside, Rolling Stone would do better sticking to what it knows best: The entertainment industry’s fascination with sex, Drugs, Rock 'n Roll and other assorted related salacious topics.
Leave journalism and war fighting to the men who know it. Bed wetting liberal crybabies like RS reporters are way out of their league in military affairs.
I disagree with you there. RS performed a great service in helping sack McChrystal, a disaster waiting to happen. Liberals by and large are much better informed as citizens than conservatives on the contra-indications of wars because we are by and large skeptical of the use of force, whereas conservatives will suck down any patriotic line of bullshit as long as it appeals to the use of force because conservatives like to think that the military is always correct and patriotic and try to remove dissenting voices. Since at least the time of Pericles people who have been democratically trying to stop wars have been correct that war can lead to disaster and at least since classical Athens war hawks believing themselves to be patriots have wrongly convinced people to go to war and their own deaths by appeals to patriotism and asking the nay-saying war skeptics to shut up because they don’t know anything about war making. And that is what you are doing.
Had Pericles failed to take Athens to war against Sparta, the Athenian empire might have not fallen for a long time and become the leading center of culture, rather than Rome. Turtledove would have a field day with such an alternate history. (I knew him through his wife 30 years ago when she and I were both studying classical Greece at UCLA.)
Liberals like me know a hell of a lot more about war than conservatives. War is expensive beyond all pre-war imagining and it’s outcome uncertain. The only kind of people who stand to benefit from all war are arms manufacturers. The people at large in a democracy do not benefit from war at all with one very important exception: if they win, they can keep their freedom. Thus, it is necessary for the people to fight when they judge that their freedom is at risk, and at no other time.
The last time our freedom was seriously at risk requiring a war declaration by the people was in WWII. Roosevelt, a liberal, had worked hard for years preparing the groundwork for that war: conservatives opposed moving toward war.
Sorry for the hijack, but when was our freedom ever seriously at risk during WW2? I suppose it will boil down to a difference of opinion of the word seriously. This last jab at conservatives seems to contradict the previous ones.
You are certainly entitled to have an incorrect opinion about that. Only as much would be expected from anyone who forms an opinion about the military or military leaders from sources like Rolling Stone.
Stan McChrystal is great leader, respected by his troops, feared by his enemies, and feared even more by liberal lackeys with no clue about the prosecution of war. The only great service done was to the general himself. I imagine he’s making double the salary in his current civilian position along with a nice retirement package, while the situation in Afghanistan roils in ongoing chaos.
Congratulations Rolling Stone and all the liberals like you who think you know more about war than the men and women who actually do the job as opposed to waxing philosophic in your historical hindsight.
Nadir, are you trying to pick a fight? What gives?
If so, start a thread in the BBQ pit.
He’s telling The Truth. And we can’t handle it. Because we’re all bed-wetting liberals.
(Ever notice how a certain breed of conservatives keep throwing bed-wetting into the argument out of nowhere? It makes you wonder.)
Maybe you need the term “bed wetting liberal” explained to you, so can decide if you are one of them, or not?
Nadir, I’m tired of seeing you do this in every thread you post in. Drop the hostility and the one-liners. Either contribute to arguments with facts instead of insults, or confine your posting to the Pit. This is a formal warning.
Nadir, you are way out of line, taking this thread into personal attacks.
Back off.
[ /Moderating ]
Rather than continuing this in a PM exchange with the mods, I’ll just get on with it here:
Little nemo brought up the “bed wetter” thing, not me. A mod quoted my whole post in warning and after being questioned as to exactly what I said was wrong, still did not point out where I called anybody anything with the possible of exception of “liberal.” If pointing out a poster’s liberal POV as their only basis for an uninformed opinion is wrong or against the rules, I humbly apologize. Maybe little nemo was for baiting me into saying something you could warn me about? I was exhorted in my “warning” to provide “facts or cites, or even a complete position,” yet reading back through this thread see none of that from anyone else. Is this required of only the unpopular opinion? Is an editiorial begininning with the question “Is the Pentagon trying to control Sen. Al Franken’s mind?” considered good, factual support material in the SDMB model? There is no supporting evidence, facts or anything similar backing up a statement anywhere in this thread.
Look, I really could not possibly care any less what anyone here thinks of me, personally. I’ve been called a jerk, an idiot and few other things not quite so nice in my short time here thus far. Let’s keep things in perspective - it is the Internet, after all. Psychological warfare may be an interesting topic to some, but if you call that little bit about it from msmth537 supporting evidence of what the Army does with legislators, you might want to ponder what Rolling Stone does with you. The whole episode from the time RS released the story amounts to nothing more that journalistic sensationalism targetd at their gullible audience. Congratulatins on being rabble roused - hook, line and sinker.
FYI: There is no “great debate” about psyops troops and operations. The rock bottom truth about the OP’s original question posted: No, it is not remarkable - at all. I can assure you anything posted in this forum on that subject is purely speculative and opinionated, as is any interpretation of General McChrystal’s portrayal by said journalists. Psyops activites are by and large higlhly classified. Nobody except cretins like those that feed Wikileaks would offer further details. The meager bits and pieces dreged up and published out of context by people like RS reporters, only stoke the wild imaginatjons of their cluless readers.
If you feel my dialog needs supressed here because you disagree with my POV, by all means keep it up. I’ll either get banned or decide to leave you to your little liberal rant fests all on my own. I have plenty of other things I may wish to attend to in my slack time.
carry on.
Former Lt. General Chrystal (not “Stan” Chrystal) was part of conspiracy which covered-up the fratricide of Pat Tillman. If that’s a sign of great leadership, Nadir, feel free to explain to me why that is the case. In the meanwhile, I believe he was being insubordinate with respect to his superiors. Remember he always had the choice to keep his mouth shut. He screwed up, not RS. He was one of the few who actually got what was coming to him IMHO.
BTW, on the aside, just how classified are psyops? “Secret”, “Top Secret”, higher?
…:rolleyes: