forums

Presidential Search

Advertisement
CaneFan79 said:
Gatorhater said:
SmokeyRone said:
Stavridis is the worst of the worst. LOL! He claims Shalala is his mentor!

A Clintonite. A lifelong flunkie and benefactor of the Clintons.

I see what they are doing.


BTW, he LOVES Al Golden, according to his statements
Click to expand...

The other thing that worries me is that he is an advocate of "smart power". "Smart" is normally a code word for elitists. At this point I will settle if he could just be as bad as Foote was.
Click to expand...

Without going too OT, I think a "Smart Power" real world definition is in order..."Smart Power" is a re-branding of the "Soft Power" stuff that came from an egg head named Nye in the Clinton administration. After the Cold War and Gulf War, both the Democrats and Republicans wanted a "Peace Dividend;" i.e. slashing the defence budget and using the money from it to pay for their pet social programs or bridges to nowhere (cut taxes?...LMAO, it's D.C.). So the stripped pants(suit)s from Foggy Bottom came up with goofy "Soft Power" doctrine to make the Pols feel safe in cutting the DoD Budget. When "Soft Power" sounded too wussy post 9/11, "Smart Power' came around.

Today, it is used as code by some military leaders and their staffs to indicate they have absolutely nowhere near the force structure to accomplish their mission, hence they are relying on "Smart Power." I think Stavridis partly used it in this context to signal he had a EUCOM that was a mere shadow of even its 90s strength. He also partly used it to get the USSOUTHCOM and EUCOM gigs; most politicians either served for a short while or have never served in the military; they think military people conform to movie stereotypes. Trust me, ALL senior military leaders are adept politicians and by saying the "right" things, totally bamboozle these naive non-military politicians.

To Stavridis' credit, when Crimea was "liberated" by volunteer "freedom fighters," he was one of the few voices advocating a real response:

http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/03/01/nato-needs-to-move-now-on-crimea/

His successor mentioned, USAF General Breedlove, has only recently implemented some of these measures (though Breedlove probably realizes that between Jarrett, Swift Boat Coward Lurch and Video maven Rice, anything he does will get him thrown under the bus, hence a "what difference does it make" response).
Click to expand...

Nicely written. However you have taken a narrow military approach and are talking specifically to "smart power." My comment was addressed to the use of the word "smart". Elitists, almost by definition, love the word smart. They believe they are the smartest people in any room and all smart people agree with them. Anyone who does not agree with them is not smart. They label many of their "ideas" and program as "smart" or claim to be doing things "smartly". All they candidates are "smart" regardless of actually GPA or IQ. That is why they love dictatorial methods of government. Let's hope this dude, if chosen, decides that "effective" coaching is what we need because "smart" just is not cutting it.

By the way, believing he politicians at naive or even stupid is one of our most serious mistakes. As a whole, they play the stupid card about as well as it is player. We excuse so much of what they do because we think they are stupid when in truth the almost always get what they REALLY want -- it just that it is never what they SAY they want. Our education system is the perfect example. They are getting exactly what they want from it; we just mistakenly think they want an educated populace. They switched gears in the late 60's because they need a different kind of citizen.
 
capefearcane said:
The Franchise said:
Serious question: What has Stavridis ever done as an administrator that makes you guys excited about him from an athletics standpoint? So far, about all I've seen is that his parents used to attend UM football games and that he might have some sort of friendship or acquaintance with Butch.

Is there something concrete he's done as an administrator that makes people think he'll be pro-athletics?
Click to expand...

read post #41 - nah, no management background at all.
Click to expand...

Practice some thinking above a 5th grade level before you address me again, skip. I don't have tolerance for your vapidity.
 
Filmed June 2012 at TEDGlobal 2012
James Stavridis: A Navy Admiral's thoughts on global security


[video]http://www.ted.com/talks/james_stavridis_how_nato_s_supreme_commander_think s_about_global_security[/video]

I took 16 minutes and 27 seconds out of my life to view this public speech. IMHO, we have another idealistic impractical elitist. Politically, there is very little difference between him and the present regime. He reminds me of Ross Perot: states a problem (inferring knowledge/solution) but solves it with platitudes. The mere fact that this guy made admiral, shows that the pussification of America is entrenched, and continues.

I have no idea of his administrative skills. His office political skills must be excellent to get to his present rank. He might be an OK university president, or a continuation of the present idiocracy. On the surface, he speaks well but in idealistic platitudes, exuding an air of quiet dignified confidence. The country clubbers will love his civilized manner.

As far as the football program is concerned, as someone else said, he needs to hire a good AD, and get out of the way.

He wouldn't be my choice to lead the university, but no one is asking me.
 
Advertisement
Klamalama said:
Filmed June 2012 at TEDGlobal 2012
James Stavridis: A Navy Admiral's thoughts on global security


[video]http://www.ted.com/talks/james_stavridis_how_nato_s_supreme_commander_think s_about_global_security[/video]

I took 16 minutes and 27 seconds out of my life to view this public speech. IMHO, we have another idealistic impractical elitist. Politically, there is very little difference between him and the present regime. He reminds me of Ross Perot: states a problem (inferring knowledge/solution) but solves it with platitudes. The mere fact that this guy made admiral, shows that the pussification of America is entrenched, and continues.

I have no idea of his administrative skills. His office political skills must be excellent to get to his present rank. He might be an OK university president, or a continuation of the present idiocracy. On the surface, he speaks well but in idealistic platitudes, exuding an air of quiet dignified confidence. The country clubbers will love his civilized manner.

As far as the football program is concerned, as someone else said, he needs to hire a good AD, and get out of the way.

He wouldn't be my choice to lead the university, but no one is asking me.
Click to expand...

What? Pussification of America?

I don't think you listened or read it at all.

He is talking about 21st century Security issues. As we have seen, military force alone can't defeat problems like failed states, insurgency, terrorism, cyber crime, etc. this is all Mainstream political/security theory discussion. It's not a left-wing versus right-wing argument either.

If teaching literacy to Afghans keeps some of them from being brainwashed by Jihadists, how is it "pussifivation" to utilize those resources?

He isn't saying we should abolish the military, then hold hands and sing Kumbaya.


"Now, let me hit a somber note. This is a photograph of a brave British soldier. He's in the Scots Guards. He's standing the watch in Helmand, in southern Afghanistan. I put him here to remind us, I would not want anyone to leave the room thinking that we do not need capable, competent militaries who can create real military effect. That is the core of who we are and what we do, and we do it to protect freedom, freedom of speech, all the things we treasure in our societies ."

Officers don't choose what administrations they want to work for, they can't put their careers on hold waiting for a new president. Its not like being in the private sector where they can switch companies because of conflicts with the CEO and shareholders. They can't go to the Spetsnaz.

it's silly for people to judge him because they don't like Democrats, but I guess the Shalala angle makes people suspicious.
 
Last edited:
Gatorhater said:
CaneFan79 said:
Gatorhater said:
SmokeyRone said:
Stavridis is the worst of the worst. LOL! He claims Shalala is his mentor!

A Clintonite. A lifelong flunkie and benefactor of the Clintons.

I see what they are doing.


BTW, he LOVES Al Golden, according to his statements
Click to expand...

The other thing that worries me is that he is an advocate of "smart power". "Smart" is normally a code word for elitists. At this point I will settle if he could just be as bad as Foote was.
Click to expand...

Without going too OT, I think a "Smart Power" real world definition is in order..."Smart Power" is a re-branding of the "Soft Power" stuff that came from an egg head named Nye in the Clinton administration. After the Cold War and Gulf War, both the Democrats and Republicans wanted a "Peace Dividend;" i.e. slashing the defence budget and using the money from it to pay for their pet social programs or bridges to nowhere (cut taxes?...LMAO, it's D.C.). So the stripped pants(suit)s from Foggy Bottom came up with goofy "Soft Power" doctrine to make the Pols feel safe in cutting the DoD Budget. When "Soft Power" sounded too wussy post 9/11, "Smart Power' came around.

Today, it is used as code by some military leaders and their staffs to indicate they have absolutely nowhere near the force structure to accomplish their mission, hence they are relying on "Smart Power." I think Stavridis partly used it in this context to signal he had a EUCOM that was a mere shadow of even its 90s strength. He also partly used it to get the USSOUTHCOM and EUCOM gigs; most politicians either served for a short while or have never served in the military; they think military people conform to movie stereotypes. Trust me, ALL senior military leaders are adept politicians and by saying the "right" things, totally bamboozle these naive non-military politicians.

To Stavridis' credit, when Crimea was "liberated" by volunteer "freedom fighters," he was one of the few voices advocating a real response:

http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/03/01/nato-needs-to-move-now-on-crimea/

His successor mentioned, USAF General Breedlove, has only recently implemented some of these measures (though Breedlove probably realizes that between Jarrett, Swift Boat Coward Lurch and Video maven Rice, anything he does will get him thrown under the bus, hence a "what difference does it make" response).
Click to expand...

Nicely written. However you have taken a narrow military approach and are talking specifically to "smart power." My comment was addressed to the use of the word "smart". Elitists, almost by definition, love the word smart. They believe they are the smartest people in any room and all smart people agree with them. Anyone who does not agree with them is not smart. They label many of their "ideas" and program as "smart" or claim to be doing things "smartly". All they candidates are "smart" regardless of actually GPA or IQ. That is why they love dictatorial methods of government. Let's hope this dude, if chosen, decides that "effective" coaching is what we need because "smart" just is not cutting it.

By the way, believing he politicians at naive or even stupid is one of our most serious mistakes. As a whole, they play the stupid card about as well as it is player. We excuse so much of what they do because we think they are stupid when in truth the almost always get what they REALLY want -- it just that it is never what they SAY they want. Our education system is the perfect example. They are getting exactly what they want from it; we just mistakenly think they want an educated populace. They switched gears in the late 60's because they need a different kind of citizen.
Click to expand...

Smart power is a "phrase" coined by a famous IR theorist. It is common lingo in those circles.

You being "cautious" of him for using that term, is akin to me saying Al Golden is an "elite" coach because he said "pass rush" and "3-tech", and Bill Belichek also uses those words when he talks.
 
Grisha.Otrepyev said:
Klamalama said:
Filmed June 2012 at TEDGlobal 2012
James Stavridis: A Navy Admiral's thoughts on global security


[video]http://www.ted.com/talks/james_stavridis_how_nato_s_supreme_commander_think s_about_global_security[/video]

I took 16 minutes and 27 seconds out of my life to view this public speech. IMHO, we have another idealistic impractical elitist. Politically, there is very little difference between him and the present regime. He reminds me of Ross Perot: states a problem (inferring knowledge/solution) but solves it with platitudes. The mere fact that this guy made admiral, shows that the pussification of America is entrenched, and continues.

I have no idea of his administrative skills. His office political skills must be excellent to get to his present rank. He might be an OK university president, or a continuation of the present idiocracy. On the surface, he speaks well but in idealistic platitudes, exuding an air of quiet dignified confidence. The country clubbers will love his civilized manner.

As far as the football program is concerned, as someone else said, he needs to hire a good AD, and get out of the way.

He wouldn't be my choice to lead the university, but no one is asking me.
Click to expand...

What? Pussification of America?

I don't think you listened or read it at all.

He is talking about 21st century Security issues. As we have seen, military force alone can't defeat problems like failed states, insurgency, terrorism, cyber crime, etc. this is all Mainstream political/security theory discussion. It's not a left-wing versus right-wing argument either.

If teaching literacy to Afghans keeps some of them from being brainwashed by Jihadists, how is it "pussifivation" to utilize those resources?

He isn't saying we should abolish the military, then hold hands and sing Kumbaya.


"Now, let me hit a somber note. This is a photograph of a brave British soldier. He's in the Scots Guards. He's standing the watch in Helmand, in southern Afghanistan. I put him here to remind us, I would not want anyone to leave the room thinking that we do not need capable, competent militaries who can create real military effect. That is the core of who we are and what we do, and we do it to protect freedom, freedom of speech, all the things we treasure in our societies ."

Officers don't choose what administrations they want to work for, they can't put their careers on hold waiting for a new president. it's silly for people to judge him because they don't like Democrats.
Click to expand...

What? Pussification of America?

I don't think you listened or read it at all.

You don't agree with my conclusion so I must not have actually listened/read it. Ridiculous. BTW, it was a video. I didn't notice a transcript.

He is talking about 21st century Security issues. As we have seen, military force alone can't defeat problems like failed states, insurgency, terrorism, cyber crime, etc. this is all Mainstream political/security theory discussion. It's not a left-wing versus right-wing argument either

The military has been pussified because it is run by pussified officers and politicians. Not talking about the foot soldiers that do the work, only their leadership. The job of the military is to kill people and break things, not engage in social therapy.

He is talking about 21st century Security issues. As we have seen, military force alone can't defeat problems like failed states, insurgency, terrorism, cyber crime, etc. this is all Mainstream political/security theory discussion. It's not a left-wing versus right-wing argument either.

Again, the job of the military is to kill people and break things. We have no business in Afghanistan. There are insurgents in a dozen countries. Your comment regarding terrorism and cyber crime is a straw man. I didn't say anything about left vs right.

If teaching literacy to Afghans keeps some of them from being brainwashed by Jihadists, how is it "pussifivation" to utilize those resources?

Ridiculous! After we leave, the Jihadists will use literacy to more easily indoctrinate them. It's pussification to believe that good intentions give positive results.

"Now, let me hit a somber note. This is a photograph of a brave British soldier. He's in the Scots Guards. He's standing the watch in Helmand, in southern Afghanistan. I put him here to remind us, I would not want anyone to leave the room thinking that we do not need capable, competent militaries who can create real military effect. That is the core of who we are and what we do, and we do it to protect freedom, freedom of speech, all the things we treasure in our societies ."

Another straw man statement. I don't care if the Brits are in Helmand, Afghanistan. They can choose to waste their people and resources, as they like. They are doing nothing to protect their freedom, freedom of speech, all the things they treasure in their society. BTW, he's NOT a Brit. He's just pandering to his audience.

Officers don't choose what administrations they want to work for, they can't put their careers on hold waiting for a new president. it's silly for people to judge him because they don't like Democrats.

Another straw man argument. Officers' military careers were not part of anything I said. BTW, people have been known to quit their jobs. Who said anything about liking/disliking Democrats?
 
Advertisement
Advertisement
Back
Top