Skip to comments.
Is Obama Sparking a Second “Revolt of the Admirals”?
The Nav Log ^
| 9/22/09
| ip568@charter.net
Posted on 09/22/2009 10:37:50 AM PDT by pabianice
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-45 last
To: pabianice
41
posted on
09/22/2009 5:38:32 PM PDT
by
Jet Jaguar
(A mob of one.)
To: Nosterrex
Thank you for this post. I have had a terrible time trying to convince some of the great Veterans on this board that this is not their Military anymore.
It is far worse than having a punk Looey in your face giving crazed orders because he can. THESE are the Commanders who have betrayed their Troops and US. No one wants to believe it. I don’t either. I always believed that if push ever came to shove, there would be honor before self. Now, I just don’t know what to believe anymore.
42
posted on
10/06/2009 9:12:30 PM PDT
by
MestaMachine
(One if by land, 2 if by sea, 3 if by Air Force 1.)
To: OldCorps
"The debate taking place now is more serious"
Sorry Devil Dog, but I think that debate was just as serious. Can you imagine if the new U.S. Air Force at that time had successfully gotten rid of the Navy and Marine Corps? The Korean War was just around the corner and the landing at Inchon to halt the communist agression and free up the Pusan Perimeter. Could the Inchon landing had taken place without the Navy and Marine Corps?
Can you just imagine how the world would have been shaped the last 60 years if we had no aircraft carriers or nuclear submarines? I daresay Russia would have won the cold war. The higher ups in the Air Force always believe that having air power alone is all that's needed. They thought that in the Gulf War, but boots still had to go on the ground to win the war. I think as long as I'm living, that will always be the reality. This is serious today, but it was just as serious back then.
To: Old Teufel Hunden
I stand corrected. You have convinced me the debate over roles and missions was just as, if not more, serious.
My point was that the debate over how to fight in Afghanistan is not similar to the "revolt of the admirals."
BTW, I'm retired army, not USMC. My freeper name refers to the college i attended.
44
posted on
10/07/2009 9:03:34 AM PDT
by
OldCorps
To: OldCorps
"My point was that the debate over how to fight in Afghanistan is not similar to the "revolt of the admirals."
I agree with you. Not the same, but both very serious. BTW, we'll forgive the fact that you were in the Army over the Marine Corps. You've made up for it by being a freeper.... : )
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-45 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson