McCain Avoids Vietnam Vets Tough Questions

[isshinwhat]

The Lt. General who was the supreme allied commander during the Bosnian Civil War, he knows nothing about national security and his career should be ignored.

So you didn't read what I wrote, got it. What I said was his opinion on McCain's judgment doesn't hold much weight with me, given that he was fired from his job Supreme Allied Commander because he almost started WWIII by ordering military interdiction against Russia... He was fired because of his lack of judgment and character, so I find it funny and more than a little ironic that he's attacking Sen. McCain's judgment like he's shown such superior decision making skills himself.

 

[JoabAnias]

You really need to study up on logic and critical thinking before throwing around terms like ad hominem. Obviously you don't know what it means.

And there is another one. My opinion must be worthless because you say you are smarter than everyone else.

When in reality the less charity and respect one shows makes them all the more foolish looking. Insults prove nothing but ones own ignorance. Also makes the rest of whats said irrelevant because its irrational. Does make one feel better about themselves to slander those they should admire though I suppose. Its sad thats all they can do about it.

Imagine me expecting rationality from a single minded agenda based on personal opinion and no experience to back it up, my bad. I learned my lesson.

 

[JoabAnias]

It really doesn't matter if I've been to war or not. I know the difference between operative soldiers and decision makers.

How could you possibly know that? From TV.

 

[JoabAnias]

"I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. - Maj Gen Butler.

Reminds me of being self employed and coming to the realization I actually worked for the Finance and Insurance Companies and everyone else with their hand out. It was called overhead but amounted to oppression. I still think capitalism is better than socialism though. Let me know if you find something better. I will move on your commune and run the oxen.

 

[geocajun]

How could you possibly know that? From TV.

It's simple, anyone who has ever worked in leadership knows that being an operative employee doesn't qualify someone to lead. In fact, many leaders are incapable of doing the work their operative employees do, and that is fine because a real leader can lead anywhere.

 

[isshinwhat]

Then I assume you know that Naval Officers serve in many billets besides their primary one and may be called to lead 30-50 men as a newly commissioned Ensign, which will in all likelihood be outside their area of expertise, in addition to flying? Not only that, but Naval Aviatiors are called upon to understand the tactical and strategic significance of their engagements. Why? Because they are being groomed for future leadership from the beginning. Do all of them understand it? I am sure they don't, but your assertions are incorrect on principle due to your lack of understanding of military operations. Officers are raised to read von Clausewitz and Douhet, Sun Tzu and Musashi, and they are taught from day one that "war is merely the continuation of politics by other means," and "No one starts a war - or rather, no one in his senses ought to do so - without first being clear in his mind what he intends to achieve by that war and how he intends to conduct it." (Carl von Clausewitz, On War). A failure to understand the geopolitical significance of a campaign is a failure as an officer. You can assert that Sen. McCain did not live up to the expectations of a Naval Officer and therefore discount his time in the Navy as foundational to his political education, but to do so based upon his position within the military alone, as though only Generals and Admirals see the big picture, would be foolish.

 

[Cosmic Charlie]

Reminds me of being self employed and coming to the realization I actually worked for the Finance and Insurance Companies and everyone else with their hand out. It was called overhead but amounted to oppression. I still think capitalism is better than socialism though. Let me know if you find something better. I will move on your commune and run the oxen.

As a man who has operated his own consulting practice and been a small businessman I find your attitude toward normal and expected expenses of doing and running a business to betray a certain, well, operational employee point of view rather a one of leadership.

 

[Cosmic Charlie]

"I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. - Maj Gen Butler.

Evidence strongly indicates that Preston Bush (W's grandpappy) was one of the people attempting to overthrow the government.

The Bush crime family figure out its easier to steal the Treasury then to subvert the government.

 

[Cosmic Charlie]

Then I assume you know that Naval Officers serve in many billets besides their primary one and may be called to lead 30-50 men as a newly commissioned Ensign, which will in all likelihood be outside their area of expertise, in addition to flying? Not only that, but Naval Aviatiors are called upon to understand the tactical and strategic significance of their engagements. Why? Because they are being groomed for future leadership from the beginning. Do all of them understand it? I am sure they don't, but your assertions are incorrect on principle due to your lack of understanding of military operations. Officers are raised to read von Clausewitz and Douhet, Sun Tzu and Musashi, and they are taught from day one that "war is merely the continuation of politics by other means," (Carl von Clausewitz, On War). A failure to understand the geopolitical significance of a campaign is a failure as an officer. You can assert that Sen. McCain did not live up to the expectations of a Naval Officer and therefore discount his time in the Navy as foundational to his political education, but to do so based upon his position within the military alone, as though only Generals and Admirals see the big picture, would be foolish.

I've never been to the Naval Academy but from what I understand and from what people have told me the Navy teaches that no one beneath Flag rank is qualified to make, suggest or even argue international policy or security.

This is the Navy talking.

Somehow you want me to believe that McCain (who never attended Flag rank) WAS qualified to do something that the Navy itself claims he wasn't.

 

[isshinwhat]

Then the people you know in the Navy "betray a certain, well, operational employee point of view rather a one of leadership," or you misunderstood their statement. The authority to make final decisions with respect to international policy for the military as a whole lies with the civilian leadership and the general officers; however, many officers below the rank of Admiral/General serve as advisors specifically because of their expertise. If the Navy actually thought that field and company grade officers could not have the expertise to "suggest or even argue international policy or security," then they are wasting their time sending Ensigns, Lieutenants and Commanders to the Naval Post Graduate School's School of International Graduate Studies. Having the authority to exercise that opinion and judgment in a specific situation lies at the proper level of authority relative to overall mission impact. Go tell the SF Capt in Afghanistan who just met with the entire region's Pashto leadership that he is not, "qualified to make, suggest or even argue international policy or security."

 

[Cosmic Charlie]

Then the people you know in the Navy "betray a certain, well, operational employee point of view rather a one of leadership," or you misunderstood their statement. The authority to make final decisions with respect to international policy for the military as a whole lies with the civilian leadership and the general officers; however, many officers below the rank of Admiral/General serve as advisors specifically because of their expertise. If the Navy actually thought that field and company grade officers could not have the expertise to "suggest or even argue international policy or security," then they are wasting their time sending Ensigns, Lieutenants and Commanders to the Naval Post Graduate School's School of International Graduate Studies. Having the authority to exercise that opinion and judgment in a specific situation lies at the proper level of authority relative to overall mission impact. Go tell the SF Capt in Afghanistan who just met with the entire region's Pashto leadership that he is not, "qualified to make, suggest or even argue international policy or security."

Can you stay on one subject ?

Now you got Special Forces involved.

I just want to ask one question (and it a hard one given how Bush is running the war).

Who's in charge of making policy the Civilian Government or the Military ?


The answer to this should answer the question as to whether a grunt in the army actually understands the situation hes in and, more to the point, whether it matters.

 

[isshinwhat]

Can you stay on one subject ?

Now you got Special Forces involved.

I am on subject, and that subject was Sen. McCain and whether his experience as a Naval Officer could have given him a certain amount of expertise in international policy. To do so, I brought in the fact that CGO's are making quite significant decisions wrt international politics, and always have, field grade officers even moreso, and that they are capable of doing so because of gained and learned expertise. As to why, see my previous post.

I just want to ask one question (and it a hard one given how Bush is running the war).

Who's in charge of making policy the Civilian Government or the Military ?

There's not one answer as it depends on what level of policy you are speaking, and what the specific policies are.

The answer to this should answer the question as to whether a grunt in the army actually understands the situation hes in and, more to the point, whether it matters.

We're not talking grunts, we're talking operational company and field grade military officers since we're talking about Senator McCain's experience.

 

[geocajun]

I'm going to stick with General Clark who says McCain's experience is meaningless. Issi, I'm going to take a wild guess here and assume that General Clark's knowledge of military training programs and his ability to apply it to wartime situations dwarfs your own.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=r-79uQM0VpM

 

[isshinwhat]

I'm going to stick with General Clark who says McCain's experience is meaningless. Issi, I'm going to take a wild guess here and assume that General Clark's knowledge of military training programs and his ability to apply it to wartime situations dwarfs your own.

Go for it... But you know good and well that if John McCain had been fired because he lacked judgment, you'd be all over him for it and there's no way you'd use him as a source for your decision on someone else's. Yeah, Wesley Clark is a fine one to be making the comment, "It’s a matter of gauging your opponents and it’s a matter of being held accountable," given his record...

 

[JoabAnias]

As a man who has operated his own consulting practice and been a small businessman I find your attitude toward normal and expected expenses of doing and running a business to betray a certain, well, operational employee point of view rather a one of leadership.

Ah, then you would understand all to well the poor feeding the rich scenario. Its easy to maintain objectivity when ones overhead isn't 80+ percent. I doubt many would define fiscal hostility as normal. Normal would allow for prosperity, thats not what I alluded to at all and always mean to give to Cesar what is Cesar's. Its not usually Cesar that wants more than his due either. Its the greedy. Eventually the illusion of freedom in most small business comes to and end for that very reason. Everyone is conditioned to toe a schedule and everyone works for someone else except the independently wealthy right? Just some harder than others. One could say; its socialism in the disguise of capitalism. What is capitalist leadership besides enforcement really? The only true leader, Jesus, few choose to follow. Blessed are the .... Lets recall he had no where to lay His head. What is the world, and why does God teach its the enemy to be departed from? Sure men must work and women bear children in pain. Thats not the point. The point is about whats honest. In the dog eat dog world its not always so and complaints are legitimate yet how many enter business with high ideals to find out in reality its only a more complicated trap? KISS seems to work mo betta. Less diligence, subsidiaries, holding companies and other hostile takeover tactics for the sake of gain alone that do what exactly besides make the rich richer and leave those who shed blood to get them there in their wake. That for me are the drawbacks of capitalism in a hand basket. It can be a ruse in both the corp and small business worlds completely aside from regulations. Not to be confused with an honest days pay for an honest days work.

 

[JoabAnias]

Go for it... But you know good and well that if John McCain had been fired because he lacked judgment, you'd be all over him for it and there's no way you'd use him as a source for your decision on someone else's. Yeah, Wesley Clark is a fine one to be making the comment, "It’s a matter of gauging your opponents and it’s a matter of being held accountable," given his record...

Lol. He is not a general anymore than I am still a sargent, he is a media puppet sell out for hire.

 

[isshinwhat]

Are you saying that he said things like, "And I'm very glad we've got the great team in office, men like Colin Powell, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice... people I know very well -- our president George W. Bush. We need them there," and didn't mean them? Surely you jest...

 

[JoabAnias]

It's simple, anyone who has ever worked in leadership knows that being an operative employee doesn't qualify someone to lead. In fact, many leaders are incapable of doing the work their operative employees do, and that is fine because a real leader can lead anywhere.

I didn't realize there were qualifications for leadership. Qualities maybe.

Would you rather work for someone that knows what you do or one who just manipulates you to do their bidding? Who would you respect more, the boss who can do your job or the one who is inept?

I don't think I could look up to Jesus if He had been advocating abortion and He would have been forgotten the day He died.

True leaders lead by example first do they not?

 

[geocajun]

I didn't realize there were qualifications for leadership.

Exactly! You have no idea what you are talking about.

Would you rather work for someone that knows what you do or one who just manipulates you to do their bidding? Who would you respect more, the boss who can do your job or the one who is inept?

I manage a team of 11 people who do a job I can't do. It happens all the time. You think a CEO can perform every function within his organization? Of course not. Leaders hold employees accountable for doing the job they are expected to do, and communicate their goals, and remove obstacles from them getting their job done. That is what leaders do.
Have you ever worked in a leadership role? It sure doesn't sound like it...

 

[geocajun]

Go for it... But you know good and well that if John McCain had been fired because he lacked judgment, you'd be all over him for it and there's no way you'd use him as a source for your decision on someone else's. Yeah, Wesley Clark is a fine one to be making the comment, "It’s a matter of gauging your opponents and it’s a matter of being held accountable," given his record...

What specifically is so bad about his record, Issi? Explain in simple terms that even a civilian can understand.