• 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!

Pentagon removes Greenland base commander after Vance visit (1 Viewer)

bongsaway said:
No, I haven't been in the military and I'm thankful for it. Is someone who has been in the military a better person than me in your very humble opinion?
Click to expand...

“A veteran - whether active duty, retired, national guard, or reserve - is someone who, at one point in his or her life, wrote a blank check made payable to The ‘United States of America’, for an amount of ‘up to and including my life.’”

Make of that what you will.
 
Fani R. West said:
As a political journalist, this incident is a clear indication of the increasing politicization of the military and the militarization of politics. The dismissal of Col. Susannah Meyers—merely for expressing a diplomatically neutral stance that diverged from a politician’s remarks—raises serious concerns about the erosion of independent thought within the U.S. armed forces.
Click to expand...
Nonsense.

Myers’ comments were not “politically neutral”. In fact, her public statement put her at direct odds with the VP and President.

“I do not presume to understand current politics, but what I do know is the concerns of the U.S. administration discussed by Vice President Vance on Friday are not reflective of Pituffik Space Base,”

The type of insubordination/contempt toward officials displayed by Meyers was, and has been the cause for dismissal of commanders going all the way back to the days of the Continental Army.
Fani R. West said:
The justification, framed as maintaining alignment with President Trump’s agenda, feels more like a “soft purge” within the military ranks, where even neutrality may be interpreted as dissent.
Click to expand...
What you feel does not align with the facts.
Fani R. West said:
Given Pituffik Space Base’s strategic international role, Col. Meyers’ emphasis on unity and respect for all nations’ flags could have been seen as a gesture of diplomatic maturity—not a reason for loss of confidence.
Click to expand...
Meyers’ flag comment wasn’t why she was relieved of her command.
Fani R. West said:
The more pressing question is this: When did respectful disagreement become grounds for removal in a democratic system? And is forced silence a sign of strong leadership—or a symptom of insecurity in the face of constructive criticism?
Click to expand...
The U.S. military, like every military organization in the world, is not a democracy.

There are established processes for handling occasions when subordinates (E1 thru O10) disagree with senior enlisted/superior officers or civilian officials in their chain of command.

Colonel Meyers’ method of publicly contradicting the VP very clearly violated those established procedures.
 
bongsaway said:
No, I haven't been in the military and I'm thankful for it. Is someone who has been in the military a better person than me in your very humble opinion?
Click to expand...
Yeah I think the military is grateful as well.

Of course not. What a silly question.
 
Moon said:

Pretty basic stuff. Bad mouth senior leadership in the military and you’ll find yourself being asked to spend more time with your family.
Click to expand...

Officers who work with and because of coalitions have to be trained to understand the nuances of the reality. The reality is there are agreements covering the base. Where it is, what it is allowed to do, and probably a thousand small things. So if a political leader, and it is a stretch to call anyone in the Trump Admin a Leader, makes a comment that riles up the other nations. The job of the commander is to calm them down by pointing to the agreements and such as the official policy.

Now we can get into a pissing contest with Greenland. But eventually they’ll hand us an eviction notice. If you want to take over Greenland, well let’s say you need to dust off the Draft because occupation of Europe is going to be expensive and take a lot more soldiers than we have.
 
JMB1911A1 said:
“A veteran - whether active duty, retired, national guard, or reserve - is someone who, at one point in his or her life, wrote a blank check made payable to The ‘United States of America’, for an amount of ‘up to and including my life.’”

Make of that what you will.
Click to expand...
I don't believe that at all. I think many sign up for the benefits, not to lose their life.
 
bongsaway said:
I don't believe that at all. I think many sign up for the benefits, not to lose their life.
Click to expand...
No one who enlists chooses the military to lose their life. However, everyone who chooses the military makes the decision knowing there is a possibility of losing one’s life either during a conflict or a training accident. They do so of their own free will. The reasons to enlist are multiple with “benefits” being a small insignificant reason. For many the reason most probable for young enlisted soldiers is simply because they’re not sure who do with their lives at that time and they need to grow and possibly decide which direction they settle on. Also, believe it or not is a true sense of patriotism, coming from a family whose members have served during peace and war. So your opinions in several responses have all been very wrong. You should just stop making uneducated opinions on subjects you know nothing about.
 
gman said:
No one who enlists chooses the military to lose their life. However, everyone who chooses the military makes the decision knowing there is a possibility of losing one’s life either during a conflict or a training accident. They do so of their own free will. The reasons to enlist are multiple with “benefits” being a small insignificant reason. For many the reason most probable for young enlisted soldiers is simply because they’re not sure who do with their lives at that time and they need to grow and possibly decide which direction they settle on. Also, believe it or not is a true sense of patriotism, coming from a family whose members have served during peace and war. So your opinions in several responses have all been very wrong. You should just stop making uneducated opinions on subjects you know nothing about.
Click to expand...
You just confirmed my opinion. People don't sign up to die and they do sign up for the benefits, so how is my opinion uneducated, because it doesn't agree with yours 100%?
 
MamboDervish said:
And many more dead good guys. Rules of Engagement protect non-combatants, including children, too.
Click to expand...
I know what the ROE do and they do more than what you say. The ROE since Obama have harmed a lot of good USA troops too. The operative ROE have let a number of bad guys get away with it. Liberals don't understand the frustration and anger when a Soldier can't kill a bad guy because of somebody's rule in Washington.

You've also missed that the world has changed away from counterinsurgency in the villages to competition among the major powers and their conventional combatant forces. We send tanks to Europe, not counterinsurgency teams. The US Army Pacific has 100,000 troops in the 8th Army Group of divisions, brigades, regiments and battalions. Counterinsurgency is minor and supportive rather than central. The lighter and faster Marine Corps are the featherweight punchers that like ninjas hit you from all directions then they're gone.

The brigade and its divisions of brigades have returned to the forefront of deployments. Two dozen counterinsurgency teams aren't going to stop and crush a regiment of Russian tanks. China has gone from human wave attacks to waves of missiles incoming that have to be stopped. Counterinsurgency still has its place but it is reduced and isn't central in great power conflict.

ROE need to be changed and they will be changed. As I posted in scrolling, the three stooges agree on this, Trump, Hegseth and Vance the latter two being vets. Trump himself is a pushover on this so it's on. The new chairman of the Joint Chiefs the AF fighter pilot Gen. "Raizin" Cain is big on it.

Liberals and progressives meanwhile are labor intensive and for sure.
 
Tangmo said:
I know what the ROE do and they do more than what you say. The ROE since Obama have harmed a lot of good USA troops too. The operative ROE have let a number of bad guys get away with it. Liberals don't understand the frustration and anger when a Soldier can't kill a bad guy because of somebody's rule in Washington.

You've also missed that the world has changed away from counterinsurgency in the villages to competition among the major powers and their conventional combatant forces. We send tanks to Europe, not counterinsurgency teams. The US Army Pacific has 100,000 troops in the 8th Army Group of divisions, brigades, regiments and battalions. Counterinsurgency is minor and supportive rather than central. The lighter and faster Marine Corps are the featherweight punchers that like ninjas hit you from all directions then they're gone.

The brigade and its divisions of brigades have returned to the forefront of deployments. Two dozen counterinsurgency teams aren't going to stop and crush a regiment of Russian tanks. China has gone from human wave attacks to waves of missiles incoming that have to be stopped. Counterinsurgency still has its place but it is reduced and isn't central in great power conflict.

ROE need to be changed and they will be changed. As I posted in scrolling, the three stooges agree on this, Trump, Hegseth and Vance the latter two being vets. Trump himself is a pushover on this so it's on. The new chairman of the Joint Chiefs the AF fighter pilot Gen. "Raizin" Cain is big on it.

Liberals and progressives meanwhile are labor intensive and for sure.
Click to expand...

Interesting. You denounce the tighter ROE despite the fact that they are based in the Laws of Land Warfare. What is it about the RW that detests laws?
 
SavannahMann said:
Interesting. You denounce the tighter ROE despite the fact that they are based in the Laws of Land Warfare. What is it about the RW that detests laws?
Click to expand...
Of course they are. I never said the US armed forces ROE are not based in the Laws of War and the Law of Land Warfare. So you might want to hold your horses until you see some of the different approaches to ROE in major power warfare once they are finalized.

Your post also ignores the changeover of the modes of war from counterinsurgency in foreign villages to great power armies, navies and air forces to include inner space and satellites.


It was Gen. Milley and SecDef Mattis who told Trump that he could not line up military troops with machine guns at the southern border to commence firing which had been the RW wet dream for many years. Milley and Mattis cited the Law of Land Warfare to Trump who had to concede the matter and quit on it lest Trump get an arrest warrant against him from the ICC in The Hague.


The following is from Gen. "Razin" Cain when he was the 3-star Asst CIA Director for military affairs where he spoke about his being the Lt.Col. in command of F-16s in the skies over Washington DC on 9/11 and the instantly made Rules of Engagement:


Senior CIA Officer Reflects on Defending Washington, D.C. on 9/11 - CIA

www.cia.gov www.cia.gov

We grabbed the nearest wingman, myself, and one other flight lead, and four of us ran to a briefing room where we came up with a really quick plan on how we were going to defend Washington, D.C. from further attacks. By that time, my wing commander, Brigadier General Dave Wherley, had come in holding a piece of paper. It was a faxed copy of the Rules of Engagement. Gen. Wherley said to me, "You're going to do the right thing. I trust you. And no matter what, I have your back."

To have the decision to shoot down an airliner resting solely on a bunch of young folks in a combat air patrol – that had never happened before. I remember telling the wingman that I was going to fly with that day, “Don't shoot anybody. I'll make the decision,” because I was very mindful that if we made a mistake or if we got it wrong or if we missed somebody and we did not shoot, the consequences of that could be catastrophic, not only for the people on the ground, but for the country as a whole.


Cain noted that shooting down a commercial airliner with Americans on board, as demanded by VP Cheney in the WH reinforced underground War Room, was bad enough yet the debris would fall onto people in the Nation's capital below.


The link contains the video of Cain's 9/11 presentation to the CIA in 2023. Cain is an ROTC alum of Virginia Military Institute, 1980.

My advocating military things does not make me into a right winger btw. If you like I can flash my DEI creds at your face. :sneaky:
 
Tangmo said:
It was Gen. Milley and SecDef Mattis who told Trump that he could not line up military troops with machine guns at the southern border to commence firing which had been the RW wet dream for many years. Milley and Mattis cited the Law of Land Warfare to Trump who had to concede the matter and quit on it lest Trump get an arrest warrant against him from the ICC in The Hague.
Click to expand...

One hopes that the threat of an ICC arrest warrant will prevent Trump form doing anything stupid in Greenland.
 
gman said:
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣you’re kidding right?
Click to expand...

Well if what Tangmo said:
It was Gen. Milley and SecDef Mattis who told Trump that he could not line up military troops with machine guns at the southern border to commence firing which had been the RW wet dream for many years. Milley and Mattis cited the Law of Land Warfare to Trump who had to concede the matter and quit on it lest Trump get an arrest warrant against him from the ICC in The Hague.
Click to expand...

Is right, then it should be so over Greenland.
 
Rich2018 said:
Well if what Tangmo said:


Is right, then it should be so over Greenland.
Click to expand...
My point is that the ICC can issue as many warrants as it wants and Trump will ignore them. Even if he travels to to a foreign country do you honestly believe they would arrest a sitting or retired POTUS?
 
gman said:
My point is that the ICC can issue as many warrants as it wants and Trump will ignore them. Even if he travels to to a foreign country do you honestly believe they would arrest a sitting or retired POTUS?
Click to expand...

That's you opinion, and in direct contrast to what Tangmo said.
 
Rich2018 said:
That's you opinion, and in direct contrast to what Tangmo said.
Click to expand...
BS. I responded to your post of hope with a response based upon Trump’s latest actions of him thinking he has complete and unequivocal immunity as POTUS.
 
gman said:
My point is that the ICC can issue as many warrants as it wants and Trump will ignore them. Even if he travels to to a foreign country do you honestly believe they would arrest a sitting or retired POTUS?
Click to expand...

They could seize his overseas holdings. His Golf Course in Scotland for example as ill gotten gains of a criminal.

And yes. I think some countries just might. It isn’t that he is loved around the world. The only people he can count as friendly are dictatorial thugs. France just might to show how independent they are.
 
SavannahMann said:
They could seize his overseas holdings. His Golf Course in Scotland for example as ill gotten gains of a criminal.

And yes. I think some countries just might. It isn’t that he is loved around the world. The only people he can count as friendly are dictatorial thugs. France just might to show how independent they are.
Click to expand...
That would be interesting to say the least. But the only way I could see that happening would be when he’s retired and the Dems hold the capitol.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top Bottom