I choose not to go to war. War is not in anyone's better interest-especially unjust, undeclared wars of conquest like the mythical "War On Terror". When was the last time Obama or Bush went to war? Hardly any of the warmongers who start these stupid wars know anything of the soldiers' plight. They're just out to profiteer.

I don't know why, but I feel compelled to give a ringing recommendation for the movie/musical 'HAIR' great music, great messages

And as to my comments, I am not saying "WAR" is wonderful. And yes they both made some good points. As did everyone else posting here. I feel the pain of families losing loved ones. I have 5 children, 2 sons. I thank God they chose other roads than that of military.

That said though .. I'd be PROUD of them if they chose that route to serve their country.
And I can say that whenever or where ever I want to. It's my freedom (pun intended) to do so.


Oh ya .. and MY father was US Navy Lt Commander. So ya. I get it too

Oh and my children's father is 100% disabled, and PROUD to be a Vet. As are 2 of my bro in laws. I know military hon. I live in a military community. And I thank those who are in uniform every single time I see them.

Oh and for the record, I DO agree that the General needed to step down. I agree with honoring and supporting authority. The President was his immediate superior.

Military should be a 'team effort' .. he definitely was in the wrong bad-mouthing his superior to the public.

Enough said on that.

Some perspective. McChrystal spoke disparagingly about BO, his staff, and the vice president in a public venue. For this, he should be and was removed as is appropriate for reasons of chain of command.

The other side of the coin is that McChrystal isn't stupid. He knew exactly what he was doing. He told the truth.

BO delayed command decisions which should have been made quickly. He delayed adding troops and support while our troops were in harm's way.
He publicly stated that there was a firm deadline to remove the troops which is one of the dumbest things you can do in a war and can result in loss of our troops and assistance in the long term planning strategy options of the enemy. McChrystal was aware of this and effectively fell on his sword to save the lives of his troops. He should get a medal.

Shortly after this fiasco, Obama started backpedaling on the "firm" withdrawal date after "someone" explained to him how the world really works.

Soldiers do serve themselves!

They serve themselves when they are taking rounds
They serve themselves when they bury comrads in the ground
They serve themselves when from their family they are torn
They serve themselves when they miss thier first child being born
They serve themselves when they when they pick up their guns
They serve themselves when they fight instead of run
They serve themselves when they don't sleep to watch the gate
They serve themselves when they come back home and find hate
They serve themselves when they don't come home at all
They serve themselves when they die smiling saying "i want freedom for all"

What are we to do with these selfish selfish people. Give me a break.

What he said .. WORD.

**Okay folks, lets debate the topic without attacks/insults of your fellow forum members.**

Yes ma'am .. but can we include, then, not attacking our elite soldiers as well

I don't agree with attacking troops either.

However, it's been an accepted thang to do ever since the first Vietnam Vet was called a baby killer.

Yeah, even though MANY of those who were Vietnam Vets weren't given a choice to go .. or to die. They were drafted. And so very many 18 & 19 yr olds died

IN perspective, if your commander tells you to go do something that might cost your life and you DISAGREE with the order, wouldnt arguing that point with him be insubordination and isnt insubordination immediate grounds for removal?

I thought the very reason the military works is the requirement for allegiance and respect of superiors and of their commands,,,,like them or not,,,

These are some of the precise reasons that standing armies DON'T work, and why the more intelligent founding fathers voiciferously opposed them.

The Anti-Federalist who used the pen name Brutus (generally believed to be judge Robert Yates) wrote most eloquently on this topic. Anti-Federalist essays no.'s 1, 8, 9, and 10 are most important here.

"Brutus" wrote in no. 1,

"It might be here shown, that the power of the federal legislative, to raise and support armies at pleasure, as well in peace as in war, and their controul over the militia, tend, not only to a consolidation of the government, but the destruction of liberty.

In despotic governments, as well as in all the monarchies of Europe, standing armies are kept up to execute the commands of the prince or the magistrate, and are employed for this purpose when occasion requires: But they have always proved the destruction of liberty, and [as] abhorrent to the spirit of a free republic. In England, where they depend upon the parliament for their annual support, they have always been complained of as oppressive and unconstitutional, and are seldom employed in executing of the laws; never except on extraordinary occasions, and then under the direction of a civil magistrate.

A free republic will never keep a standing army to execute its laws. It must depend upon the support of its citizens. But when a government is to receive its support from the aid of the citizens, it must be so constructed as to have the confidence, respect, and affection of the people. Men who, upon the call of the magistrate, offer themselves to execute the laws, are influenced to do it either by affection to the government, or from fear; where a standing army is at hand to punish offenders, every man is actuated by the latter principle, and therefore, when the magistrate casts, will obey: but, where this is not the case, the government must rest for its support upon the confidence and respect which the people have for their government and laws."

In Anti-Federalist no. 8, he writes:

"I have always been, and always shall be against a standing army of any kind; to me it is a terrible thing, whether under that of a parliamentary, or any other designation; a standing army is still a standing army by whatever name it is called; they are a body of men distinct from the body of the people; they are governed by different laws, and blind obedience, and an entire submission to the orders of their commanding officer, is their only principle; the nations around us, sir, are already enslaved, and have been enslaved by those very means; by means of their standing armies they have every one lost their liberties; it is indeed impossible that the liberties of the people in any country can be preserved where a numerous standing army is kept up. Shall we then take our measures from the example of our neighbours? No, sir, on the contrary, from their misfortunes we ought to learn to avoid those rocks upon which they have split."

"It signifies nothing to tell me that our army is commanded by such gentlemen as cannot be supposed to join in any measures for enslaving their country; it may be so; I have a very good opinion of many gentlemen now in the army; I believe they would not join in any such measures; but their lives are uncertain, nor can we be sure how long they will be kept in command, they may all be dismissed in a moment, and proper tools of power put in their room. Besides, sir, we know the passions of men, we know how dangerous it is to trust the best of men with too much power. Where was a braver army than that under Jul. Caesar? Where was there ever an army that had served their country more faithfully? That army was commanded generally by the best citizens of Rome, by men of great fortune and figure in their country, yet that army enslaved their country. The affections of the soldiers towards their country, the honor and integrity of the under officers, are not to be depended on. By the military law the administration of justice is so quick, and the punishment so severe, that neither the officer nor soldier dare dispute the orders of his supreme commander; he must not consult his own inclination. If an officer were commanded to pull his own father out of this house, he must do it; he dares not disobey; immediate death would be the sure consequence of the least grumbling: and if an officer were sent into the court of request, accompanied by a body of musketeers with screwed bayonets, and with orders to tell us what we ought to do, and how we were to vote: I know what would be the duty of this house; I know it would be our duty to order the officer to be hanged at the door of the lobby; but I doubt, sir, I doubt much, if such a spirit could be found in the house, or in any house of commons that will ever be in England."

"Sir, I talk not of imaginary things? I talk of what has happened to an English house of commons, from an English army; not only from an English army, but an army that was raised by that very house of commons, an army that was paid by them, and an army that was commanded by generals appointed by them; therefore do not let us vainly imagine, that an army, raised and maintained by authority of parliament, will always be so submissive to them. If an army be so numerous as to have it in their power to overawe the parliament, they will be submissive as long as the parliament does nothing to disoblige their favourite general; but when that case happens, I am afraid, that in place of the parliament’s dismissing the army, the army will dismiss the parliament."

People today tend to ignore Brutus and the other Anti-Federalists, despite the fact that they've been clearly vindicated by history.

I partly disagree. Soldiers enlist voluntarily, even with every opportunity to learn why what they are doing is wrong from numerous historical sources that are readily available. Such behavior can only be considered morally wrong.

Just as war is the rich man's terror, soldiers are the rich man's terrorists.

You dont b!tch about your employer to a national news paper!

If you do, you deserve to get sacked.

Neither the government nor the armed forces are "employers". They are petty thugs who use force to extort money from citizens and murder foreigners. (Employers actually contribute to society and the economy, unlike government goons.)

LMAO...and I suppose you, in all your wonder, have the answer to world peace too ...........

SIGH.

em·ploy (m-ploi)
tr.v. em·ployed, em·ploy·ing, em·ploys
1. a. To engage the services of; put to work:
1. b. To provide with gainful work:
2. To put to use or service. See Synonyms at use.
3. To devote (time, for example) to an activity or purpose: employed several months in learning Swahili.

n.
1. The state of being employed: in the employ of the nation


So, as he got paid for gainful work, I think you will find he was employed by the Federal govt. Head of which is? Oh yeah POTUS!

Dont argue semantics when its flimsy at best.

Nope soldiers have never contributed to society....America just appeared here, uninhabited and was given to our forefathers.

Slavery just up and vanished one day for no reason.

He shouldn't have had to step down. He should have ben severly punished but not had to step down. This guy has made so much success in Afganistan and is completely trusted by the Afgan Government.

If he didn't have General Patreaus he would be so screwed, so would we.