• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Now Trump is at war with the generals

Lursa said:
Yup and people relieved of command dont necessarily get their full pension...or any...when they retire. After he was relieved of command, he retired.


Keep going...you're very familiar with this process...I guess you enjoy it or get some kind of disturbing gratification out of public humiliation. Have at it.
Click to expand...

There's nothing the president can do revoke a general's pension, or anyone else's, regardless of rank.

The only way to dishonorably discharge a general is through courts martial. Again, the president has no say in those matters.

Stop trying to claim Obama "allowed" McChrystal to keep his pension.
 
apdst said:
There's nothing the president can do revoke a general's pension, or anyone else's, regardless of rank.

The only way to dishonorably discharge a general is through courts martial. Again, the president has no say in those matters.

Stop trying to claim Obama "allowed" McChrystal to keep his pension.
Click to expand...

And yet the article said otherwise. He could have courtmartialed him. He didnt need that, McCrystal resigned.

Obviously he didnt find further action needed and not only that, granted him his FULL pension.
 
Trump will be irrelevant fairly soon. I think the best course of action at this juncture is to simply ignore him. The child loves attention. Best not give him what he wants.
 
Lursa said:
And yet the article said otherwise. He could have courtmartialed him. He didnt need that, McCrystal resigned.

Obviously he didnt find further action needed and not only that, granted him his FULL pension.
Click to expand...

Relieving him of his command was the only action Obama could legally take. The president can't order a service member be court martialed. It's called "unlawful command influence" and it's illegal.
 
apdst said:
Relieving him of his command was the only action Obama could legally take. The president can't order a service member be court martialed. It's called "unlawful command influence" and it's illegal.
Click to expand...

You cant read well, but that's not news. I also noted that by granting him his FULL pension...which he didnt have to do...indicated Obama's position. No further action in his opinion was called for.
 
apdst said:
Relieving him of his command was the only action Obama could legally take. The president can't order a service member be court martialed. It's called "unlawful command influence" and it's illegal.
Click to expand...

Like unlawful command influence doesn't happen.

It does happen that commanders sometimes offer retirement instead of pursuing a court martial case. I saw it happen with a Brigade CSM who was trying to move on a lower EM's wife by threatening the lower EM's career.

In the case of McChrystal , what President Obama did was make special dispensation to allow him to retire with a 4 star pension instead of the 3 star pension he would normally have been entitled to.
 
RF667799 said:
Like unlawful command influence doesn't happen.

It does happen that commanders sometimes offer retirement instead of pursuing a court martial case. I saw it happen with a Brigade CSM who was trying to move on a lower EM's wife by threatening the lower EM's career.

In the case of McChrystal , what President Obama did was make special dispensation to allow him to retire with a 4 star pension instead of the 3 star pension he would normally have been entitled to.
Click to expand...

Obama didn't "allow" anything. He had zero say in what McChrystal's pension would be. You know that.
 
apdst said:
Obama didn't "allow" anything. He had zero say in what McChrystal's pension would be. You know that.
Click to expand...

And yet, the article shows you are 100% wrong in that statement :lamo

Keep digging!
 
Lursa said:
You cant read well, but that's not news. I also noted that by granting him his FULL pension...which he didnt have to do...indicated Obama's position. No further action in his opinion was called for.
Click to expand...

There was nothing Obama could do to stop McChrystal from getting 100% of his pension.
 
apdst said:
Obama didn't "allow" anything. He had zero say in what McChrystal's pension would be. You know that.
Click to expand...

He actually allowed him more of a pension than his entitlement. McChrystal hadn't served as a 4 star long enough to draw a 4 star pension.
 
RF667799 said:
He actually allowed him more of a pension than his entitlement. McChrystal hadn't served as a 4 star long enough to draw a 4 star pension.
Click to expand...

Again, Obama has no say in that. Besides, McChrystal was promoted to general before he took command of the theater of operations.
 
Lursa said:
And yet, the article shows you are 100% wrong in that statement :lamo

Keep digging!
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't. :lamo

You people are so easy.
 
apdst said:
There was nothing Obama could do to stop McChrystal from getting 100% of his pension.
Click to expand...

LOL It's already been pointed out to you that POTUS's sphere of influence could have brought on a court-martial as well.

Do you need another shovel? Seems like you'd have broken a few by now.
 
apdst said:
Obama didn't "allow" anything. He had zero say in what McChrystal's pension would be. You know that.
Click to expand...
Lursa said:
And yet, the article shows you are 100% wrong in that statement :lamo

Keep digging!
Click to expand...

apdst said:
No, it doesn't. :lamo

You people are so easy.
Click to expand...

Er,:

President Barack Obama will guarantee former Afghanistan commander General Stanley McChrystal a four-star pension despite firing him last week over comments disparaging civilian leaders.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...rystal-a-4-star-pension-idUSTRE65S6ZL20100629
Click to expand...

:lamo
 
Interesting how the left has spent years ****ting themselves over GENERAL Kelly...and GENERAL Flynn...and thats not disrespectful to 'the generals' but when Trump has a batle with GENERAL McChrystal, Generals are sacred and Trump has no respect for the military.

Now dont get me wrong. I think Trump is STILL a douchebag, and he definitely should have heeded Mattis's counsel. But before anyone puts McChrystal on any pedestals, you should look at his service POST military...especially the political component. And finally...if we are talking protocol, is it appropriate for a general to trash a sitting Commander in Chief?
 
VanceMack said:
Interesting how the left has spent years ****ting themselves over GENERAL Kelly...and GENERAL Flynn...and thats not disrespectful to 'the generals' but when Trump has a batle with GENERAL McChrystal, Generals are sacred and Trump has no respect for the military.

Now dont get me wrong. I think Trump is STILL a douchebag, and he definitely should have heeded Mattis's counsel. But before anyone puts McChrystal on any pedestals, you should look at his service POST military...especially the political component. And finally...if we are talking protocol, is it appropriate for a general to trash a sitting Commander in Chief?
Click to expand...

I'm not distinguishing McC from any of the others. Trumps' disregarded all of them, to our detriment.

However, it was not McC that made any comments about Obama, it was his men...and he took full responsibility.
 
Lursa said:
Er,:



:lamo
Click to expand...
I'm genuinely interested in HOW that supposedly happened. The Army regulations require ANY servicemen to serve a minimum of 3 years in their highest rank in order to maintain that rank at retirement. The President does not have the authority to create law or ADD TO law...and certainly doesnt have the authority to disregard law. SO...it would be very interesting to know what he actually retired at and if he is a 4 Star retiree, how that is justified.
 
VanceMack said:
I'm genuinely interested in HOW that supposedly happened. The Army regulations require ANY servicemen to serve a minimum of 3 years in their highest rank in order to maintain that rank at retirement. The President does not have the authority to create law or ADD TO law...and certainly doesnt have the authority to disregard law. SO...it would be very interesting to know what he actually retired at and if he is a 4 Star retiree, how that is justified.
Click to expand...

I dont know. Did you read the article? There was more at the time but I dont remember it.
 
Lursa said:
I'm not distinguishing McC from any of the others. Trumps' disregarded all of them, to our detriment.

However, it was not McC that made any comments about Obama, it was his men...and he took full responsibility.
Click to expand...
Actually I was referring to his criticism of Trump, not the profiles that got him fired.
 
VanceMack said:
I'm genuinely interested in HOW that supposedly happened. The Army regulations require ANY servicemen to serve a minimum of 3 years in their highest rank in order to maintain that rank at retirement. The President does not have the authority to create law or ADD TO law...and certainly doesnt have the authority to disregard law. SO...it would be very interesting to know what he actually retired at and if he is a 4 Star retiree, how that is justified.
Click to expand...

Regulations can be waived?
 
Lursa said:
I dont know. Did you read the article? There was more at the time but I dont remember it.
Click to expand...
I read three of them. They all say the same thing. I'm just not sure how that happens. The law is the law. And if it DID happen, doesnt that STINK of corruption?
 
Trump rambling about Syria. The emperor makes no sense. Just look at the acting Sec of Defense's face as he tries to show no expression while listening to a stream of nonsense

 
VanceMack said:
This is not an Army regulation (or AFI). It is codified law.
Click to expand...

If that is the case then you do have a good question.

Even if it isn't codified law, to me it was obviously a political move- sweetening the pot a little to get him to go quietly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom