Right Wing Crazies Fantasize About a Military Coup

It seems like getting him returned to Washington may be part of the plan. From one of the sources:

[rquoter]

I am concerned that the legions and their commanders are becoming more politically active and resistent to civilian authority than is good for them or the country.

McChrystal's estimate is a case in point:

- This paper presents the president with only one option on a "take it or leave it" basis. I realize that Stanley M. is a subordinate theater commander and a full general but he is still the president's subordinate and he serves at the pleasure of the president/commander in chief. In all the Army schools that I attended (Infantry Officer Basic Course to the US Army War College), it was more or less customary to present the commander with several options in the way of "courses of action." If you do not do that then you are clearly seeking to limit the freedom of action of the commander. This is insubordinate in spirit.

- There is considerable log-rolling going on to bring Stanley and Dave back from their commands to Washington so that they can talk it up around town. When Petraeus testified before Congress on behalf of the AEI/Keene Iraq strategy he was justifying GW Bush's policy. That was bad enough in that it made him a player in the political process, but in this case the Republicans and the AEI crowd clearly want these two gentlemen back here so that they can be used to undercut the possibility of an independent policy decision by their constitutional civilian commander. The Republicans seem to have forgotten that the wheel of history is turning and that soon they will have a Republican president in the White House whose authority may be challenged on the basis of the precedent they seek.

- It has been blogged (not by me) that people on Stanley M's staff claim that he has the thought that he might ask to be relieved if not given what he wants. I do not know if that is true. If it is, and he follows through on that hoping for an "Old Soldiers never die..." moment, then he ought to be retired in his permanent grade.

- Andrea Mitchell reportedly said on Friday that one of the redacted secret parts of the Stanley M. estimate says that 500,000 troops will be needed in Afghanistan over the next five years to achieve success in a counterinsurgency campaign. That appears to means that some combination of US/NATO troops and Afghan troops amounting to half a million would be required. Does that mean that whatever portion of that half million is not supplied by the Afghans must be supplied by the US and NATO. Someone should ask Stanley M. what he expects will be the peak "in country" strength for US/NATO forces.

The legions and their commanders are not exactly angry yet, but they wll be. pl

[/rquoter]

 

lol. Tschmal pwns thumbs.

 

Rimrocker, I am going to respond to you since you were the only one with a non-juvenile or knee-jerk response. First, I did not want to engage in a lengthy tit-for-tat similar to the exchanges for which vlaurio is infamous. Second, it puts me in the position of defending Newsmax, which is not something I am wont to do. Third, I would be forced to read Daily Kos stories for its outrageous behavior, and my blood pressure is high enough already. Fourth, its pointless to reason with true believers. I do the last on occasion, but it is hardly satisfying.

 

All this notwithstanding, you still have not acknowledged the fact that you were unequivocally wrong. Why's that so hard, thumbs?

 

Who's wrong? Not me. But in an "opinion" like this one, right and wrong are highly subjective. Tschmal is a bright kid with a great deal of intellectual promise, but he desperately wants to gain recognition on the board by being one of the majority. One day he will no longer have the need to run with the herd and start thinking for himself rather than feeling the need to show off to prove himself.

 

Wow.

 

Oh my god, did I stumble upon a thumbs pity-party? This might be the most pathetic thing you've ever posted.

You can't begin to equate anything on DailyKOS to this goofy assholes plea for a revolutionary coup. That's pretty cut and dry. I'm not sure why you'd want to make the argument of "subjectivity" since there is nothing subjective to be debated. There is no opinion, no varying shades of right and wrong, nothing. One side is arguing for violent takeover of the government, the other has not. But you're too damn entrenched in your faux persona of the "victim" to just admit it.

You're a sad person thumbs. You want so hard to be taken seriously, but all you've done is prove that this "bright kid with a great deal of intellectual promise" has what you don't: Intellectual honesty. (side note: could you be a bit more of an arrogant douche? sheesh)

It's a minority group, a fringe entity - I agree. The author of the article in the OP is not representative of the right. But at the same time, you've repeatedly and ardently claimed to not affiliate with that crowd. You've claimed that your ashamed of that crowd, and that it's a pity Glenn Beck has become the "face of the movement", among many other things. You've claimed that you're a moderate; a seriously disillusioned american patriot, that suddenly "woke up" when Obama took office. Not some angry right wing lunatic who paints Obama signs with swastikas on them.

Yet here you are, trying really hard to make those same lunatics out as not quite so extreme as they objectively are.

You say you don't want to give the appearance of "defending" newsmax, yet by making unfounded assertions that other, opposing, sites are similarly biased, you grant acceptability to the arguments made therein. There is nothing, and I mean NOTHING, wrong in labeling ignorance when you see it, thumbs. The american propensity to defend every point of view as a "right" does not have to extend to an "idiot protection program".

 

I'll make it simple for you.

Is the unconstitutional deposition of a legitimate government right or wrong?

 

I'm sorry for asking for evidence for your un-based claims. How very juvenile.

I will let you continue your mature baseless accusations.

 

This made me chuckle. I have no political background; I've never been political before. Throughout the last year or two when following the election (the first one I actually ever cared to follow since I was in college getting a degree for the last two and didn't really give a crap), I rendered my own opinion about everything that was fed to me through the media. I continue to do so with each topic/debate that presents itself. I'm not running "with the herd," I'm making my own decision about what I feel is the most logical option.

Honestly, I don't even know what the "Daily Kos" is, and I have absolutely no reason to defend it, but I loathe the continual "well, the Democrats did it too!" argument that you continue to regurgitate at every ridiculous claim that pops up from right-wing proponents. I wasn't sniping at you because I like Daily Kos; I wasn't sniping at you because I want to "prove" myself. I was sniping at you to prove a point, which appears to be lost on you.

Joe Wilson shouting "You lie!" was something you dismissed because Democrats booed Bush before, as if the actions are somehow equivocal. Did the Democrats do something worse than boo? If so, please show me -- I'd love to be proven wrong, but I've simply seen no evidence otherwise.

Now you're doing something similar, claiming one left-wing publication makes as outrageous accusations/suppositions are a right-wing publication. You're attempting to equate a military coup to something involving Sarah Palin's children. This sounds ridiculous as far as magnitude of outrageousness. So, I was simply curious to see if you know of anything more specific that could be equal in incredulity, but unfortunately you fell short, and after falling short you did something even worse: dismissed your shortcoming.

You might consider me young and impressionable because I made the folly of mentioning my age (26), but trust me, I form my own opinion. My opinion is that your credibility is questionable at best because of the sheer lack of support for practically any of your arguments.

Continue to think that I actually want to make a name for myself on an Internet forum. I could care less what any people here actually think of me. I've been using the Internet for almost 2 decades (yes, 75% of my life) and am a computer science major -- things like Internet forums are completely meaningless to me.

But like I said, continue to be judgmental of me, by all means. It'll make people support you even further, I swear.

 

In another thread you posted that you were very young -- my faulty conclusion was that you were about 16 and posting at a level far beyond your years. At 26 you are an adult, and I apologize for my wrong assumption. If you find I have been judgmental (which we all are), then read back and see that it was a kind judgment.

If you ever read what the Daily Kos is, then you would know why I don't why I don't go there. Excerpts are bad enough. I did read it during the campaign, and that alone made me vote for McCain. Once he was elected, I wanted -- and still want -- Obama to succeed for a number reasons, the nation finally getting past the race issue being one of them. Whereas I support the generalizations on which he campaigned, now I believe he is going too far too fast with questionable advisors.

 

Seriously? A web site made you vote for McCain? Did you also read Little Green Footballs?

 

Come on, rimrocker. Have you never heard of the concept of hyperbole? FTR, I have never even heard of Little Green Footballs.

 

either way, why attack someone over their age rather than the content of what they say? the point is just as valid whether or not they are 8 or 80, is it not?

wait a minute...so the content posted on a left-wing website which you despise was the only reason you voted for mccain? that is just sad, especially in light of the fact that you accuse others of following a herd mentality.

daily kos seems to really be nothing more than a punching bag for yall - i hate bush and everything that administration did and stood for but i never once went to daily kos. i wonder why someone like you who hates it so much bothered to go there.

 

Sorry, but saying I "run with the herd" and I simply want to "gain recognition" isn't what I would construe as kind. Some fluff preceding it does not excuse what follows.

That being said, it's words on the Internet, so I don't ever take these things personally, despite my lengthy retort (which was mostly on trying to prove me point anyway, not "oh how dare you insult me!").

 

there's a saying the truth hurts

 

Acceptance by the group is a natural instinct for a 16-year-old, which was the basis for my conclusions and statements. No disparagement was intended. I listen to and encourage teens wherever I can because I remember that once upon a time I was that young.

 

no. He's not serious. He's a habitual liar. Last year he claimed it was the "sexist, distorted campaign" that made him vote for Palin. I believe he or his crappy imitation off-brand version giddyup once also claimed that it was mean posters on CF.net that made him vote for Palin.

 

so where did you base your assumption that he was 16yo?

 

Maybe I am just a zoological stickler but that isn't a walrus its an elephant seal.