EPTOn June 24 2010 04:08 travis wrote:
Positions of great influence are mostly political these days.
Positions of great influence are mostly political these days.
yeah, but this is Obama's guy
Obama fires McChrystal, installs Petraeus - Page 5
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Trezeguet
United States2656 Posts
yeah, but this is Obama's guy | ||
|
hejakev
Sweden518 Posts
Do you think it was a heated discussion that ended it or was he simply 'let go' on good terms? | ||
|
brain_
United States812 Posts
He must know that the war, with our current administration's priorities and rules of engagement, is unwinnable. So he probably made his decision knowing that one of two things would happen: 1) He gets fired, and is no longer in charge of a bloody, long, downhill war which he might take the blame for. In addition, he has stood up for soldiers and stated his honest opinion. 2) His complaints are listened to and he somehow manages to get more policy-changing power out of it, which he can wield to improve the course of the war as he sees fit. Either way he wins. One thing I know for certain is that the General is NOT A STUPID MAN. He made these comments for a reason. I think this is a very, very bad sign for the state of the war in Afghanistan- when the man in charge is trying to get himself fired, you know the war is going poorly. | ||
|
hifriend
China7935 Posts
On June 24 2010 06:14 StarBrift wrote:Terrorism was started by all the wars in the middle east that made some people over there get a deep hatred for westerners (primarily americans). To end terrorism you need to root out tthe terrorist military organisations and destroy them aswell as reach out to the people. People down there have been living in war zones for a long time and need to be reassured that we are the good guys. But neither of that can be acomplished unless the Taliban are forcefully disarmed. No ammount of diplomacy will change the minds of those few sorry ass brain washed wrecks. Their organisation needs to fall and to speak about diplomacy with these people is in my opinion naive. Care to elaborate on the notion that the western world (well US in particular, but also france, UK and other parties) are the good guys in this scenario. I mean historically, you can't honestly think that western imperialism has had a stabilizing effect on the middle east? Ever since the rise of the petroleum industry western society and soviet union have only had one interest in this otherwise insignificant area of land. Not to mention the establishment of Israel. Read up on the Sykes–Picot Agreement and puzzle together what's went down since then and you'll have no trouble understanding the desperation and hatred resulting in *gasp* terrorism. | ||
|
xBillehx
United States1289 Posts
As already said, the General resigned with his own free will. Obama accepted his resignation, no "firing" went on. What did you want Obama to do? Tell the General no he can't quit? The issue that caused the resignation is valid as well. Under US Military regulations what he did was grounds for punishment. (Also sourced on page 2 of this thread) + Show Spoiler + Edit: I also think its a pretty lame un-winnable war. He probably did it on purpose, as already said by many other people.  | ||
|
kodancer
United States89 Posts
But the most interesting action by Obama to me was that he didn't give a damn about how the press will see this, as he said that McChrystal "made a poor judgement" and fires him after his 1on1 talk together. That's what I want to see in a leader. Not a happy go lucky president who cares how the press will see him and acts accordingly to it, but someone who can put all that aside and have his own firm, reasonable decisions. | ||
|
bakesale
United States187 Posts
On June 24 2010 04:33 Cleomenes wrote: "The fucking lads love Stan McChrystal," says a British officer who serves in Kabul. "You'd be out in Somewhere, Iraq, and someone would take a knee beside you, and a corporal would be like 'Who the fuck is that?' And it's fucking Stan McChrystal." Its the idea of moments like this that made me believe that military men would have a fresh opinion. Ah, I see what you mean. I'm sure a lot of people have their opinion of what Gen. McChrystal is like personally (e.g. the quote you gave, or this other quote from the same article: "Bottom line?" says a former Special Forces operator who has spent years in Iraq and Afghanistan. "I would love to kick McChrystal in the nuts. His rules of engagement put soldiers' lives in even greater danger. Every real soldier will tell you the same thing."), or how good of a job he's doing running things. To me, though, this seems like a simple action/reaction. General X said blah blah, President Y had to fire him. It seems cut and dry. You just don't do that while in uniform. | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7031 Posts
| ||
|
Slow Motion
United States6960 Posts
On June 24 2010 07:03 Mothxal wrote: I doubt McChrystal wanted to be fired. The remarks seemed to have been made off-the-record and the general or his aides probably weren't expecting them to be high-profile. As long as he didn't tell the reporter that his comments were off the record, the guy can print anything the General says. I find it hard to believe that he didn't know this considering he probably deals with media every day. Having said that I don't blame Obama for firing him, but I also don't blame the General. When Bush's generals were coming out and criticizing him and Rumsfeld most of us weren't complaining. From a military standpoint this was bad but from a political one transparency and criticism of the government is good. | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7031 Posts
On June 24 2010 07:08 Slow Motion wrote: As long as he didn't tell the reporter that his comments were off the record, the guy can print anything the General says. I find it hard to believe that he didn't know this considering he probably deals with media every day. Having said that I don't blame Obama for firing him, but I also don't blame the General. When Bush's generals were coming out and criticizing him and Rumsfeld most of us weren't complaining. From a military standpoint this was bad but from a political one transparency and criticism of the government is good. I was thinking of this quote in Politico. Maybe people in the Pentagon always assume the media won't be problematic. | ||
|
Perguvious
United States1783 Posts
| ||
|
HnR)hT
United States3468 Posts
| ||
|
angelicfolly
United States292 Posts
On June 24 2010 05:44 Severedevil wrote: 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. Actuality yeah it is. What was the qoute? 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.' What's the main point? disregarding the massive amounts of civilian casualties So in that aspect, yes they are comparable. Point is if your just going after civilian causalities then lamblast other wars ALSO. That's not to say my point was that, other wars had more civilian casualties that resulted because they WENT after the civilian population. | ||
|
HnR)hT
United States3468 Posts
edit: I don't mean the poster immediately above. | ||
|
hifriend
China7935 Posts
On June 24 2010 07:23 angelicfolly wrote: Actuality yeah it is. What was the qoute? 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.' What's the main point? disregarding the massive amounts of civilian casualties So in that aspect, yes they are comparable. Point is if your just going after civilian causalities then lamblast other wars ALSO. That's not to say my point was that, other wars had more civilian casualties that resulted because they WENT after the civilian population. What I meant is, US involvment in the middle east and everything that surrounds it is so ridiculous it almost gets humorous at this point. But of course there's nothing humorous about it seeing as tens of thousands of innocents have lost their lives in the process, and peace and stability have been severely damaged in the region. Comparing WW2 with the iraq or afghanistan invasion is simply ridiculous because it's quite debatable whether there was even sufficient justification to invade Iraq in the first place. Actually it's not even debatable seeing as high ranked pentagon officials have alleged that the war was in fact a violation of international law, there was almost no support in the UN etc. | ||
|
brain_
United States812 Posts
On June 24 2010 06:51 hifriend wrote: Care to elaborate on the notion that the western world (well US in particular, but also france, UK and other parties) are the good guys in this scenario. I mean historically, you can't honestly think that western imperialism has had a stabilizing effect on the middle east? Ever since the rise of the petroleum industry western society and soviet union have only had one interest in this otherwise insignificant area of land. Not to mention the establishment of Israel. Read up on the Sykes–Picot Agreement and puzzle together what's went down since then and you'll have no trouble understanding the desperation and hatred resulting in *gasp* terrorism. Yes. The people who turn soccer fields into execution areas, stop little girls from going to school, grow and traffic heroine, and kill women who go outside without a veil and a male escort... They're definitely the good guys. | ||
|
KaRnaGe[cF]
United States355 Posts
On June 24 2010 04:00 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: No debate, it was insubordination no matter how you look at it. You do not know what insubordination is. It wasn't insubordination. Insubordination has a distinct definition indside of the military meaning purposefully not following orders. | ||
|
hifriend
China7935 Posts
On June 24 2010 07:48 brain_ wrote: Yes. The people who turn soccer fields into execution areas, stop little girls from going to school, grow and traffic heroine, and kill women who go outside without a veil and a male escort... They're definitely the good guys. See this is the problem with you americans. There has to be good and there has to be evil. No gray-scale what so ever and not even the faintest attempt at understanding the underlying historical causes for the current situation. And what you're describing isn't iraq by the way. | ||
|
Maenander
Germany4926 Posts
On June 24 2010 06:48 brain_ wrote: I think McChrystal made those comments knowing full well what would happen. He must know that the war, with our current administration's priorities and rules of engagement, is unwinnable. So he probably made his decision knowing that one of two things would happen: 1) He gets fired, and is no longer in charge of a bloody, long, downhill war which he might take the blame for. In addition, he has stood up for soldiers and stated his honest opinion. 2) His complaints are listened to and he somehow manages to get more policy-changing power out of it, which he can wield to improve the course of the war as he sees fit. Either way he wins. One thing I know for certain is that the General is NOT A STUPID MAN. He made these comments for a reason. I think this is a very, very bad sign for the state of the war in Afghanistan- when the man in charge is trying to get himself fired, you know the war is going poorly. bla bla all that stick up for his soldiers bullshit I think it is far more likely he is politically opposed to Obama and wanted to make the president look like an idiot. | ||
|
Romantic
United States1844 Posts
On June 24 2010 07:51 hifriend wrote: Not to mention the denial of our crimes, assumption we can intervene wherever we want, expansive view of "American Interests", nationalism, that sort of thing. See this is the problem with you americans. There has to be good and there has to be evil. No gray-scale what so ever and not even the faintest attempt at understanding the underlying historical causes for the current situation. And what you're describing isn't iraq by the way. Hey, if one of these "the Taliban mistreated the people" people advocates invading Saudi Arabia because they execute people for hugging and women can't even drive I'll give them some respect. At least they'd be consistent  . | ||
| ||
