General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsMy dear DU friends of all stripes
I am afraid of what is happening. I think you are about to be asked to chose between the elected, constitutional, and often very wrong civilian leadership of this country and very powerful men that you were never given a chance to vote for but who are in positions of great power. Civilian control of the military is essential to the survival of our Republic. Don't be a sucker, don't get behind some powerful general who seems to be on your side at whatever given time. That is why we have elections. Our founders knew we should put those generals under the control of our Elected President (Art. 2, US Constitution). For all our problems THAT is what separates us from tyranny, civilian control of the most powerful military ever. Look within your hearts. Don't be on the wrong side of history, I beg you.
Think.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)dkf
(37,305 posts)We will never know if things happen because of choice or manipulation.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #1)
Buzz Clik This message was self-deleted by its author.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)and I thought nothing could do that to me anymore here.
unbelievable.
cali
(114,904 posts)I agree that civilian control of the armed forces is vital, but have I missed some plan for a coup?
What are you talking about? Is it the ex-general who may have been a leaker? How is that an affront to the President's control of the military?
quinnox
(20,600 posts)Last edited Thu Jun 27, 2013, 11:53 PM - Edit history (2)
Ok, after finding out what this refers too, and what the reality is, compared to what the OP is hinting at, they are very far apart. About the same as saying a news story about a satellite malfunctioning near Mars *must be the work of Aliens*, for example.
I suggest laying off the alcohol, or suggest seeing one too many spy thriller movies lately can lead to strange fantasies about news happening in the real world.
patrice
(47,992 posts)Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Scary. Looks like the general may have tried to undermine the administration. Also he was passed up by Obama for joint chiefs position.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)Starting now.
Jesus Fucking Christ!
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)will protect our liberties, we have stripped our gears. people here are already praising this guy.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)arely staircase
(12,482 posts)over their elected president.
Taking the side of the generals over the elected president NEVER brings more freedom.
But I don't want to attack anyone. I just want everyone to think very hard about the repercussions of siding with a general over the president that was constitutionally and democratically elected to command that general.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)I'd like to know who's on your list of approved others.
I'd also like to know why we're required to choose sides, much less choose them absolutely. It's possible for people to be right about some things and wrong about others. Agreeing with people when they're right and disagreeing when them when they're wrong isn't disloyalty; it's common sense.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)just look up and down the GD threads.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)arely staircase
(12,482 posts)all in the name of the bad civilian leadership's "spying" on Americans. We already have DUrs talking about how great an unelected general is for breaking his civilian chain of command and leaking intel info to the press. And the intel isn't even about domestic communications. It is a general supposedly who leaked how we apparently were behind the virus/worm that clogged up the Iranian nuclear program.
And he is another "great man" leaker.
Dangerous stuff.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)to "put military authority above civilian leadership". Our government has done a lot of things it shouldn't have, and exposing that isn't more wrong than the things being brought to light. It's pretty insulting to believe that the President's leadership is so fragile that it can't weather some embarrassing leaks.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)Paranoia undermines intelligence.
One general says he's being investigated for a leak and you transform that into a military coup?
siligut
(12,272 posts)Ditto on the
kentuck
(111,111 posts)How many times have we heard people like John McCain say that we should trust the judgement of the generals on the ground? If the military says we need to do something, then we should be listening to the military. We have heard that consistently for the last 12 years. The executive branch abrogated its responsibilities to the military in many instances. It was a terrible precedent.
Amonester
(11,541 posts)for oïl
octoberlib
(14,971 posts)War is very profitable for a lot of people.
Amonester
(11,541 posts)This whole story stinks to high heaven, IMO.
patrice
(47,992 posts)McCain and Carl Levin.
octoberlib
(14,971 posts)McChrystal was insubordinate too when he did all that crap behind the administration's back to prolong the war in Afghanistan. I think they have too much power. We don't know what Cartwright's motivations were. Money? Revenge because he got busted acting inappropriately with a military aide?
Amonester
(11,541 posts)Iran song... And our President said: no?
octoberlib
(14,971 posts)msongs
(67,496 posts)Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)In "Seven Days in May," a military man plots a coup, and another military man prevents it.
HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)heard or read no praise for the general's alleged leaking.
I think you are using the allegations of the general's leak to try to impugn the patriotism of those who support Snowden's leaks. Sort of a sneaky 'guilt by association' play, once removed. That is, your argument suggests that those who support Snowden may also support the General's alleged leak, like somehow those who support Snowden are dupes for the military's usurpation of the Constitution.
Snowden: leaks details of massive government spying on Americans and other civilians, in gross violation of the Fourth Amendment.
Hoss: allegedly leaks details of a covert op against Iran.
Not all leaks are created equal and your post insults the intelligence of DUers by presuming they are unable to make the distinction between the two.
And that's not even to mention the alarmism and histrionics that infuse your OP; there's no military coup, no imminent coup. The only coup I've seen in the US was back in 2000 and its instigators were the SCOTUS.
Poll_Blind
(23,864 posts)First, I wanna be up front- what you said has nothing to do with race or anything like that. I'm not claiming that. But that, what you said, I'll forever know that as the "Don't go out with a black girl" speech my mom gave me when I was a junior in high school, because there was this black girl I was thinking about dating.
It's just...going...to...cause...all...kind...of...problems."
That's not quite it but close enough. It's been forever.
Arley, I think I speak for all of us when I say we're real glad and all that you don't want us to mistakenly support a putch against a duly-elected Democratic official.
We don't want that either.
We're going to have opinions that're different from yours or, maybe, the exact same. But let's all remember that we can have different opinions and not be, ahem, on the wrong side of history...eh?
PB
HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)SwampG8r
(10,287 posts)come together people
all the other shit is nothing compared to this
this isn't civilian employees exposing possibly unconstitutional facts
this is the us military losing the trust of the people
a high level member of the us military does not "leak"
this more Arnold than Revere and it undermines our nation
GeorgeGist
(25,326 posts)Who declared war on Iran?