|
On June 24 2010 04:51 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2010 04:31 oBlit wrote:
He realized it was a lost cause and decided to, in a sense, get the information out there that the current administration is inept. That is the reason he agreed to the interview in the first place. Generals are not stupid people. He knew the reprecussions of doing the interview. I would assume this was all calculated on his part. How patriotic. <_< He thinks stuff is going poorly, so instead of doing his job, he makes a big mess and accomplishes absolutely nothing in the process. Show nested quote +On June 24 2010 04:50 oBlit wrote:
McChrystal should have talked to Obama, but guess what, Obama hardly ever made time for the general and did not give the general what he needed to be successful. McChrystal has to go to sleep every night with those soldiers on his mind. You could say the same thing about Obama, but I honestly don't believe he cares.
Its impossible to take you seriously when you are comfortable saying the president doesn't care about the troops.
My opinion is that he doesn't really care. Otherwise he would do whatever he could to help insure the safety of the troops over there (for instance, getting the troop levels to where they need to be and not telling our enemies when we will stop fighting them.
I honestly believe that all Obama cares about is his own image and pushing his agenda. It is all a song and dance for him to move this country where he wants it to be.
I find it so amusing that you ignore the point about not giving the general what he needed and pointed out my personal opinion on how sorry of a person the president is. If it was my decision, the generals running the operations would get whatever they needed to win the war and come home.
|
I pretty much agree with this. From what I heard on NPR today, this is the latest in a long string of insubordination by McChrystal. He publicly leaked information that should have only been known to the president, such as his opinion on the new soldiers being sent to Iraq, and the exact number he was asking. According to what I heard, that was unprecedented to be so public about what he was asking, it was if he wanted to be fired. IDK how much of that is truth, but if that is true, then I would say this is warranted.
|
I wonder how this will affect the political ambitions that General Petraeus says he doesn't have.
|
On June 24 2010 04:03 Gen.McChrystal wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2010 03:55 Cleomenes wrote:
Any military serviceman have an opinion on this? I trust your opinion on this more then some news service. The war is unwinnable, Petreus is a sissy, Obama is black and I'm goooinng streeeeeeaaaaakkking!!11! User was banned for this post.
You think you can silence me? Let's remember which one of us is General Stanley mother fucking McChrystal.
I'm puttin' a mark out on the reporter meathead who thought he had the nerve to translate my brilliance to a bunch of lefty cry-babies who wouldn't know COIN if it stood for Conan O'brien's Irish Nutsack. Rawling Stun? Never heard of it.
I'm comin' for you kid. And I'm a-bringin' hell with me:
+ Show Spoiler +
I'm comin' for you too, Intrigue on the internet.
|
motbob
United States12546 Posts
Petraeus won Iraq. Maybe he can win Afghanistan.
|
On June 24 2010 05:12 motbob wrote:
Petraeus won Iraq. Maybe he can win Afghanistan.
I hope so. Iraq has shaped up pretty well in the last few months, and I think the way things have been going in Afghanistan we need some new blood in there. Best of luck to our men and women in uniform, and God Bless.
|
I'm not convinced the Obama administration knows what they are doing in this war but trading McChrystal for Patraeus is a good deal. Patraeus has way more experience with politicians and being discrete. McChrystal should probably go back to working with Spec Ops or working closer with the troops, it seems to be what he loves.
|
On June 24 2010 04:16 snotboogie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2010 04:09 Sfydjklm wrote:
McChrystal acted like a celebutante by giving such an interview to such a journal.
He deserves what he gets. I think he knew exactly what he was getting into. I wouldn't be surprised if he runs for President.
I would be.
|
On June 24 2010 05:12 motbob wrote:
Petraeus won Iraq. Maybe he can win Afghanistan.
Most Americans will take a 1-1 win at this point =[
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On June 24 2010 05:12 motbob wrote:
Petraeus won Iraq. Maybe he can win Afghanistan.
lol, define "win".
|
obama should fire everyone and fire himself.
|
While i agree with most of what McCrystals said a magazine (especially the Rolling stones??) is not the forum to discuss your thoughts. It was insubordination and there really isn't any debate on that. He grew frustrated with the situation and let off steam in the wrong way. Perhaps a calculated move on his part but he couldn't expect any other outcome.
As to whether or not his comments are true...
|
motbob
United States12546 Posts
On June 24 2010 05:22 EpiCenteR wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2010 05:12 motbob wrote:
Petraeus won Iraq. Maybe he can win Afghanistan. lol, define "win".
Casualties:
Year US UK Other Total
2003 486 53 41 580
2004 849 22 35 906
2005 846 23 28 897
2006 822 29 21 872
2007 904 47 10 961
2008 314 4 4 322
2009 149 1 0 150
2010 38 0 0 38
That's such a ridiculous drop in casualties. Stability is on the rise over there. We won the war.
|
On June 24 2010 04:59 hifriend wrote:
US military involvement in the Middle East is pretty hilarious at this point. Completely disregarding the massive amounts of civilian casualties, that is. What a fucking circus.
Then lets call WW2 hilarious while where at it. I mean there was more civilian casualties in that war then Iraq or Afghanistan.
That's also disregarding that the terrorists are using civilians as shields.
This is pure drama at it's finest. Something that doesn't need to happen, and I would bet both sides suck because of it. Soldiers are left in the wind, and as such this could/will bring down morale. It sucks, when the top start showing drama. Nasty situation that really could of been avoided.
|
WW2 was a world war, with two massive sides facing off. (And Germany's invasion of Russia + Japan's invasion of China drove the civilian casualties through the roof.) Not remotely comparable to Iraq/Afghanistan.
|
On June 24 2010 05:33 motbob wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2010 05:22 EpiCenteR wrote:On June 24 2010 05:12 motbob wrote:
Petraeus won Iraq. Maybe he can win Afghanistan. lol, define "win". Casualties: Year US UK Other Total 2003 486 53 41 580 2004 849 22 35 906 2005 846 23 28 897 2006 822 29 21 872 2007 904 47 10 961 2008 314 4 4 322 2009 149 1 0 150 2010 38 0 0 38 That's such a ridiculous drop in casualties. Stability is on the rise over there. We won the war.
u call it "war"? i call it genocide of the middle eastern population
|
On June 24 2010 05:44 GuerrillaRepublik wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2010 05:33 motbob wrote:On June 24 2010 05:22 EpiCenteR wrote:On June 24 2010 05:12 motbob wrote:
Petraeus won Iraq. Maybe he can win Afghanistan. lol, define "win". Casualties: Year US UK Other Total 2003 486 53 41 580 2004 849 22 35 906 2005 846 23 28 897 2006 822 29 21 872 2007 904 47 10 961 2008 314 4 4 322 2009 149 1 0 150 2010 38 0 0 38 That's such a ridiculous drop in casualties. Stability is on the rise over there. We won the war. u call it "war"? i call it genocide of the middle eastern population
Its not like stuff was exactly peachy before we got there. The entire Middle East situation has always been a mess that needed to be fixed. Just because we're sorting it out now rather than later doesn't mean that its any worse.
|
I hope Patraeus's plan is, "Peace treaty with Taliban, leave ASAP". Now that would be progress.
|
On June 24 2010 05:33 motbob wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2010 05:22 EpiCenteR wrote:On June 24 2010 05:12 motbob wrote:
Petraeus won Iraq. Maybe he can win Afghanistan. lol, define "win". Casualties: Year US UK Other Total 2003 486 53 41 580 2004 849 22 35 906 2005 846 23 28 897 2006 822 29 21 872 2007 904 47 10 961 2008 314 4 4 322 2009 149 1 0 150 2010 38 0 0 38 That's such a ridiculous drop in casualties. Stability is on the rise over there. We won the war.
The war against the Iraq military was won before 2005. The rest doesn't have anything to do with winning. You don't win a fight against a population you are trying to control after having invaded their country. There is still corruption, chaos, instability in Iraq (see here).
On June 24 2010 05:46 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2010 05:44 GuerrillaRepublik wrote:On June 24 2010 05:33 motbob wrote:On June 24 2010 05:22 EpiCenteR wrote:On June 24 2010 05:12 motbob wrote:
Petraeus won Iraq. Maybe he can win Afghanistan. lol, define "win". Casualties: Year US UK Other Total 2003 486 53 41 580 2004 849 22 35 906 2005 846 23 28 897 2006 822 29 21 872 2007 904 47 10 961 2008 314 4 4 322 2009 149 1 0 150 2010 38 0 0 38 That's such a ridiculous drop in casualties. Stability is on the rise over there. We won the war. u call it "war"? i call it genocide of the middle eastern population Its not like stuff was exactly peachy before we got there. The entire Middle East situation has always been a mess that needed to be fixed. Just because we're sorting it out now rather than later doesn't mean that its any worse.
Who assigned you arbiter of who gets to live and die, and what government a nation gets? Or right, I guess insubordination to the United States is a crime?
|
On June 24 2010 05:33 motbob wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2010 05:22 EpiCenteR wrote:On June 24 2010 05:12 motbob wrote:
Petraeus won Iraq. Maybe he can win Afghanistan. lol, define "win". Casualties: Year US UK Other Total 2003 486 53 41 580 2004 849 22 35 906 2005 846 23 28 897 2006 822 29 21 872 2007 904 47 10 961 2008 314 4 4 322 2009 149 1 0 150 2010 38 0 0 38 That's such a ridiculous drop in casualties. Stability is on the rise over there. We won the war.
So we "won" a war that should have never been started. Thousands of our souldiers have dies, tens of thousands, if not more, innocent iraqis have been murdered, and put this country in a horrible fiscal hole.
All for what? Throwing out a regime who had NOTHING to do with 9/11? Capturing wmds that did not exist?
Yeah, we sure have won this war. It was all totally worth it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://us.7digital.com/cms/USReviews/img/cassie-almost-famous.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01064/NYP_280_1064498a.jpg)
