Retired 4-Star General and and an American Hero's Warning to the USA

Retired 4-Star General

Generals can have TDS just like any other human.
Also , that oath he took DID not end with his service.
I wonder what he thinks of Biden's actual attacks on The Constitution.
Shame he didn't say.
"Keep that mouth shut and say only what one is paid to say" ?
That is the story behind the news' "interviews"of today.
Obama did make propaganda legal.

that was sure a well scripted pr for somebody wasn't it lol lol lol

originally posted by: Gothmog

Generals can have TDS just like any other human.

and get paid off, threatened, and blackmailed too. i say this one paid off lol

The military isn't what it used to be and it seems more and more top brass are embracing the far left woke ideology. Every day we step closer to war, and every day the military looks more like a gender-confused Cub Scout troop.

The rush to be relevant looks like they're all vying for the spot ol' Songbird left.

for just one moment, think of the US Congress, and how much you approve of their integrity, loyalty to the Constitution, and quality of character.

hold that thought.

fun fact: every single O-6 and above (all Generals and Admirals in the US Military) are personally vetted and approved by Congress. If the Swamp doesn't approve, you remain an O-5 (Colonel or (Navy) Captain).

If you want a legitimate analysis: ask the retired O-5's and below.

The O-6's and above are only O-6's and above, because they've proven their ability and willingness to carry water for the swamp. Understand how the revolving door of the MIC, government, and lobbying work. Say the right thing, vote the right way when we need you to, and we'll make sure that you're taken care of (cushy job, great retirement benefits, campaign contributions, weapons purchase approvals).

agree with David64 and others.

at some point Milley stopped being a soldier and became a Democrat.

if you're a Democrat, nothing matters but the promotion of the Democrat party.

Antifa and BLM are more like Nazis than any Republican group, but comparing Republicans to Nazis is good for the Democrat party, so thus we speak, true or no.

originally posted by: tnxoxodka
for just one moment, think of the US Congress, and how much you approve of their integrity, loyalty to the Constitution, and quality of character.

hold that thought.

fun fact: every single O-6 and above (all Generals and Admirals in the US Military) are personally vetted and approved by Congress. If the Swamp doesn't approve, you remain an O-5 (Colonel or (Navy) Captain).

If you want a legitimate analysis: ask the retired O-5's and below.

The O-6's and above are only O-6's and above, because they've proven their ability and willingness to carry water for the swamp. Understand how the revolving door of the MIC, government, and lobbying work. Say the right thing, vote the right way when we need you to, and we'll make sure that you're taken care of (cushy job, great retirement benefits, campaign contributions, weapons purchase approvals).

Exactly right.

There are a few good 1 and 2 stars, but they'll never get higher unless they are yes-men.

a reply to: putnam6

Yea, and now RFK, Jr. is running as an independent......which will go nowhere.

Honestly, I really don't care anymore. This is a train wreck and there's no engineer driving the train.

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: putnam6

Yea, and now RFK, Jr. is running as an independent......which will go nowhere.

But it makes more sense, I haven't talked to a single person leaning left that took RFK Jr for a democrat. I'm an independent and he seems far to the right of me, so he definitely wasn't a democrat. He's kind of in between the independents and the republican party.

a reply to: Mahogany

I don't have to attack the general, it's the idea of greatness he represents which is the real issue. I will not stand for this undue praise!

Certainly, McCaffrey showed bravery in war, but I think a real hero avoids unnecessary bloodshed. Being courageous in peacetime is harder than it sounds, many people are afraid of speaking up or feel powerless.

In the June 1999 incident at Pristina airport, British Lieutenant General Mike Jackson refused to enforce General Wesley Clark's orders, reportedly telling him, "I'm not going to start the Third World War for you."

In Spring 1997, Russian General Alexander Lebed once said, "They support Yeltsin who helped start the war in Moldova. I stopped it. He started the war in Checnya. I stopped it. Who is the greater democrat then, he or I? Is democracy war or peace? I think it is the latter."

Antiquity too furnishes an excellent example: "Alexander in storming the rock lost many of his Macedonians, whereas our ruler and general lost not a single chiliarch or a captain, nay not even a legionary from the muster-roll, but achieved an unsullied and "tearless" victory." (Julian, on Constantius)

Also, the generals who were really heroes are those who climbed their way to the top in spite of prejudice, such as Generals John Monash & Lev Rokhlin, discriminated against for his background.
___

originally posted by: Mahogany
A life long public servant...

Very poor choice of words. Public servants are bureaucrats who view everything from the standpoint of their profession, they're doomed to mediocrity from the moment the press stops giving them support. Generals usually only think in terms of military successes and defeats, nothing for political or humanitarian considerations.

Historically, the generals have proven unfit for politics (i.e. De Gaulle, Giraud, Zhukov). Stalin criticized De Gaulle for being "very unreal in his political activities". Not only that, but De Gaulle's American allies criticized him for spending most of his time involved in London's political affairs while his soldiers perished on the battlefield, neglecting to use his prestige to rally French soldiers.

originally posted by: Mahogany
...that dedicated his entire life to serving the Constitution and protecting our nation — our way of life.

He was merely serving the interests of the status quo, ruling clique. American geopolitical interests are not the interests of American people. The fact that he lends his prestige to a media corporation shackled by the political considerations of a certain party sufficiently demonstrates where his loyalties lie.

A proper statesmen wouldn't have allowed this. A historical anecdote: Sir Pierson suggested that the Secretary-General should make a statement in support of the British position. Dag refused. The ambassador insisted that, “After all, there is something called political sense.” “And there is something called integrity,” Dag turned around and closed the door behind him.

originally posted by: Mahogany
someone who's given so much to our country — likely more than any of us here have, other than those that have experienced physical loss for our defense

"Those who sleep are also hard at work." All of humanity is working towards one goal, this world is not only for powerful men. All work is spiritual and significant, provided their heart is in the right place. There are many people who make substantial sacrifices every day in complete secrecy.

old.reddit.com...
"Many of the people who seem to just flow through life have deep inner lives that you cannot see. I have been pleasantly surprised by people that I perceived as superficial dropping the most profound wisdom on me out of nowhere. The world requires all types of people to function, and it is one of the mysteries of life to see all the different ways that people, in their flaws and talents, work together to weave the tapestry of life."

originally posted by: Mahogany
the very least we can do is listen to him and consider his background and his life experience in making these statements in public.

The least we can do is not to listen to gossip. We should consider whether he is qualified for his post. Competence alone grades judgment, not his background, prestige, wealth, etc.
___

originally posted by: Mahogany
This man should be enjoying his retirement after a life of service, but he feels his service is not yet finished.

Men of action just don't know when to quit. George Washington was the exception, he was forced out of retirement.

General De Gaulle's retirement was an altruistic pose, he still remained in touch with political contacts and was updated on political developments. Churchill renewed his interest in politics only five years after resigning. Both expected to return to power with a majority backing. Why didn't the British want Churchill back, why did they instead try to prevent him from returning to power?

Here's one good reason: "Soldiers in the field, too, were fed up with fighting and looked forward to a new age of prosperity and peace." Generals are simply not cut out for the shaping of peacetime.

theconversation.com...
I share in the belief that "democratic elections are not won due to past achievements, personal glory and celebrity status", but rather, truly great democratic leaders, like Kemal Attaturk, owe their success to presenting a realistic program, along with their rapidity of decision. Generals in the 20th century were renowned for their hesitation, they were unwilling to take risks unless they were certain about its success.

In The Time for Decision, British diplomat Sumner Welles summarized Attaturk's merit as follows:

"Most important of all, he knew how to seize the opportunity to strike at the psychological moment for the freedom and integrity of what was left of his country. He struck with entire success at the very moment that the Peace Treaty of Versailles was about to be concluded. Had he not acted when he did, and had he not dared to confront what would have seemed to any observer the crushing superiority of the victorious Allied powers, Turkey could never have achieved the untrammelled independence which is hers to-day."

Here lies the essential distinction between a statesman and a general: a statesman has a vision for the future, a general is seldom inspired by higher ideals.