The Feds just fired about 30% of the best Generals they have based on Religious, Political affiliation, and racial standards.

If the Southern state Governors hire these Generals in the National Guards, the fight is over

(10-25-2013 09:56 PM)Jerry Falwell Wrote:  The Feds just fired about 30% of the best Generals they have based on Religious, Political affiliation, and racial standards.

If the Southern state Governors hire these Generals in the National Guards, the fight is over

Link?

Positive Rep me and I'll vote for Obama in 2016

(10-26-2013 09:51 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(10-25-2013 09:56 PM)Jerry Falwell Wrote:  The Feds just fired about 30% of the best Generals they have based on Religious, Political affiliation, and racial standards.

If the Southern state Governors hire these Generals in the National Guards, the fight is over

Link?

Positive Rep me and I'll vote for Obama in 2016

I would love to see it too.

Because it worked the last time they had better generals?

(10-26-2013 04:47 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  Because it worked the last time they had better generals?

Touche. Yeah, we had the better generals ya'll just had more bodies your generals were willing to sacrifice.

You mean the "real Americans" leaving again

I'm taking it they are going to begin enforcing diversity crap in the military's command structure?

Diversity itself is of zero real world value. The best man for the job, regardless of race or anything else, even the best woman, is the only thing of any value.

Diversity is the antithesis of a meritocratic system.

Since there's no source, I'm just going to assume this is made up.

(10-26-2013 09:01 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  Since there's no source, I'm just going to assume this is made up.

The firing generals part isn't. The South part is.

Generals fired by Obama.

Keep in mind this is just generals. The problem likely runs deeper.

(10-26-2013 04:49 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(10-26-2013 04:47 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  Because it worked the last time they had better generals?

Touche. Yeah, we had the better generals ya'll just had more bodies your generals were willing to sacrifice.

And New York alone had twice the manufacturing capacity than all of the South combined.

I think this could well be the result of something much more pedestrian.

Consider that the plans for a military strike on Syria looked much like the rollout of the Obamacare website - poor definition of mission and constant tweaking and indecision with what they wanted.

I cannot imagine that many generals would sit quietly for that, and there is not much action the civilian leaders can take other than firings in order to retain any credibility at all. That doesn't work to explain firings in the nuclear missile command, but those may either be unrelated or have followed due to the administration's reputation.

(10-25-2013 09:56 PM)Jerry Falwell Wrote:  The Feds just fired about 30% of the best Generals they have based on Religious, Political affiliation, and racial standards.

If the Southern state Governors hire these Generals in the National Guards, the fight is over

Is this word of jerry for his fundraising campaign, or is based in fact?

(10-26-2013 11:45 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(10-26-2013 04:49 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(10-26-2013 04:47 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  Because it worked the last time they had better generals?

Touche. Yeah, we had the better generals ya'll just had more bodies your generals were willing to sacrifice.

And New York alone had twice the manufacturing capacity than all of the South combined.

Exactly - if it was not for the genius of Robert E Lee, and the fact that the North had your typical incompetent GOP President, the war should have lasted less than 3 months.

(10-25-2013 09:56 PM)Jerry Falwell Wrote:  The Feds just fired about 30% of the best Generals they have based on Religious, Political affiliation, and racial standards.

If the Southern state Governors hire these Generals in the National Guards, the fight is over

We've had 3-4 threads over the odd firing of senior military officers.

Having trouble trying to locate them all, but in one of them I pointed out that if something odd were going on, wouldn't it look just like this?

But there was also the "Swiss are reading about a US coup" thread, so there is that too.

In the end, this much turnover is unprecedented in the US (except perhaps Lincoln firing his union army generals). But the news media is worred about NFL team names.

While I'm looking for specifics, our military in general is too top-heavy. For example, there are 285 ships in the US Navy and 216 Admirals from 1 to 4 stars. Nothing justifies that level of bureaucracy in any fighting force.

(10-27-2013 05:09 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  While I'm looking for specifics, our military in general is too top-heavy. For example, there are 285 ships in the US Navy and 216 Admirals from 1 to 4 stars. Nothing justifies that level of bureaucracy in any fighting force.

Compare the force structure by grade today to what it was in WWII. Very enlightening.

There have been two drivers of which I am aware:
1. Retention. Keeping officers who could leave for more lucrative private sector jobs meant promoting them higher and faster.
2. Alliances. We are or have been in a number of alliances including NATO. They all have a number of combined commands. We wanted to be in charge of all of them, and to do that we needed more senior officers than everyone else combined. So we have created all these slots for admirals who wear a second hat as head of some NATO or other alliance command.

Hopefully by now everyone realizes that the firing of Generals based on politics is actually happening... the Southern States picking them up was what you call deductive reasoning.

The left should try it one day.

(10-28-2013 07:35 AM)Jerry Falwell Wrote:  Hopefully by now everyone realizes that the firing of Generals based on politics is actually happening... the Southern States picking them up was what you call deductive reasoning.

Leftists using logic? Seriously? You slay me Jerry.

If it's not in a textbook or on the news, they can't "think" it.

(10-26-2013 11:45 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(10-26-2013 04:49 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(10-26-2013 04:47 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  Because it worked the last time they had better generals?

Touche. Yeah, we had the better generals ya'll just had more bodies your generals were willing to sacrifice.

And New York alone had twice the manufacturing capacity than all of the South combined.

True, no deny the North's manufacturing advantage.

However, our generals were better. Heck, didn't Lincoln offer Lee command of the US army until Lee told him to fack off? Anyway, easier for less talented generals to gain victory when they can just throw bodies at bullets until the other side runs out of bullets.