EPTOn June 24 2010 07:15 Perguvious wrote:
this reminds me of truman and macarthur
this reminds me of truman and macarthur
I guess it has it's similarities, though McChrystal and Obama actually agree on war policy, unlike Truman and Macarthur.
Obama fires McChrystal, installs Petraeus - Page 6
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
eatmyshorts5
United States1530 Posts
I guess it has it's similarities, though McChrystal and Obama actually agree on war policy, unlike Truman and Macarthur. | ||
|
PhiliBiRD
United States2643 Posts
On June 24 2010 04:16 Jayme wrote: Uh it seems you don't quite know what insubordination is. Insubordination is not following a lawful order given by your commanding officer. This general followed orders so he didn't commit any insubordination. So yea you being in the military or not seems to be an issue or you'd understand this. You might have a point if it hinged on the fact that a subordinate should never QUESTION a commanding officer but that's something else altogether. that is right, but just because hes using the wrong term doesnt mean his point is wrong. | ||
|
Sanitarium14
United States141 Posts
On June 24 2010 07:51 hifriend wrote: 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. The problem with that thinking is that leaves every man to determine his own morality, and frankly, i would love to go steal some stuff, and what is your right to infringe upon my right to do that? It's not evil in my book, is it evil in yours? Of course, the counter to this thinking is that this is the state of nature in lockian thinking, and then men form goverments to secure rights because every man byhimself cannot determine that. But then that asks, why cant we invade and take all of their oil? our god says we can =P Anyway, we are getting way off topic. What do you think of the decision to put in petraus? That either will win him the presidency (every succesful miltary leader in american history, world history lol, has been elected) or it will screw him. what a silly name, petraus | ||
KwarK
United States44373 Posts
On June 24 2010 04:04 itzbrandnew wrote: You are not in the military, don't make judgments like this. It was not insubordination, he's the damn general in charge. He can speak his mind however he damn well pleases. Wtf is happening here, our generals overseas are having to be PC? Fuck this administration, I'm having to join up for 4 years following this next year and this is what I have to look forwards to? When your man in charge has to fear being sacked over disagreements then all you get is a parrot in charge. Fuckin bullshit is what it is... I thought the Commander in Chief outranked generals. :S | ||
|
LucasWoJ
United States936 Posts
On June 24 2010 07:51 hifriend wrote: 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. Yes, this is the problem with all Americans. All of them. Thankfully, we always have other nationalities to remind us of what none of us are capable of: history and considering that there's a greyscale! There's a good article on the matter in the NYTimes: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/24/us/politics/24mcchrystal.html?hp I personally feel the war effort is in even better hands in Petraeus. A fortunate turn of events. On June 24 2010 08:09 KwarK wrote: I thought the Commander in Chief outranked generals. :S Yup. And he does have a right to voice his opinions, but to refer to Biden as "Bite Me" and the national security advisor as a clown is unacceptable. It's out-of-line. | ||
|
brain_
United States812 Posts
On June 24 2010 07:51 hifriend wrote: 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. Yes, thats the problem with (real) Americans. We believe in good and evil. All the things I mentioned are undeniably evil, regardless of the causes. Saying that oppression, cruelty, and genocide aren't evil because historical causes led to them... Is that like saying that the means justify the end? I don't even know what kind of fucked up logic you are trying to put forth here, other than "ZOMG AMERIKKANS ARE DUMB AND INSENSITIVE". You'll look like an idiot if you honestly try to tell me that the Taliban is better. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44373 Posts
Nobody on this site seems to know what genocide means. It's only genocide if it's a systemic policy based upon religious, ethnic, national or political grounds. This is not. | ||
|
hifriend
China7935 Posts
On June 24 2010 08:11 LucasWoJ wrote: Yes, this is the problem with all Americans. All of them. Thankfully, we always have other nationalities to remind us of what none of us are capable of: history and considering that there's a greyscale! There's a good article on the matter in the NYTimes: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/24/us/politics/24mcchrystal.html?hp I personally feel the war effort is in even better hands in Petraeus. A fortunate turn of events. You're right of course in that this doesn't apply to all americans, possibly not even to majority but regardless, shit gets scary when that line of thought is prevalent is the freaking government and foreign policies. To be fair I don't have much to contribute on the actual topic so I'm not going to write here again. | ||
|
Rev0lution
United States1805 Posts
Bin Laden is probably sitting on a beach in the caribbean by now. | ||
|
Excalibur_Z
United States12261 Posts
On June 24 2010 08:11 LucasWoJ wrote: Yup. And he does have a right to voice his opinions, but to refer to Biden as "Bite Me" and the national security advisor as a clown is unacceptable. It's out-of-line. For the record, McChrystal never called the Vice President "Bite Me". EDIT: Or called that advisor a "clown". | ||
|
angelicfolly
United States292 Posts
On June 24 2010 07:42 hifriend wrote: 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. Wait, so US soldiers dieing is a circus? Are YOU FORGETTING the other countries that are involved in Afghanistan? OR perhaps the countries that followed in Iraq? Why are you singling out US in this when other countries are also fighting? There was no peace in the region, maybe stability but that completely disregarding what rock the people where living under. You are NOT getting this. You make the point about civilian deaths I bring up ww2 because of the civilian deaths. That is the point of comparison, so much to the fact that the US is NOT specifically bombing cities because they happen to be German. Wither the war is legal, illegal, wrong, right, etc is irrelevant to that point of comparison. Kofi Annan, you are not referring to him are you, about UN? | ||
|
hifriend
China7935 Posts
On June 24 2010 08:12 brain_ wrote: Yes, thats the problem with (real) Americans. We believe in good and evil. All the things I mentioned are undeniably evil, regardless of the causes. Saying that oppression, cruelty, and genocide aren't evil because historical causes led to them... Is that like saying that the means justify the end? I don't even know what kind of fucked up logic you are trying to put forth here, other than "ZOMG AMERIKKANS ARE DUMB AND INSENSITIVE". You'll look like an idiot if you honestly try to tell me that the Taliban is better. Well I never said any of that, and you seem to fail to understand that I was addressing the ridiculous statement expressing how middle eastern citizens just need to learn to perceive the US as "the good guy." And you're in fact the one advocating that the means justify the end, in that you argue that the death of tens of thousands and the further instabilizing of an already broken region, as long as it assures the prevailence of what you refer to as "good." And yeah lets just ignore the fact that US played a major roll in causing many of the problems in the first place, what good is history right? On June 24 2010 08:19 angelicfolly wrote: Wait, so US soldiers dieing is a circus? Of course US casualties are equally sad, but would you agree that there is a bit of a scewed focus in media and the general public toward the considerably small amount of casualties amongst US troops? It's especially saddening reading about the movement of iraq veterans against the war, basically people wondering what the hell they were fighting for in the first place and what good will ever come out of it. On June 24 2010 08:19 angelicfolly wrote: Are YOU FORGETTING the other countries that are involved in Afghanistan? OR perhaps the countries that followed in Iraq? Why are you singling out US in this when other countries are also fighting? UK (and france to a lesser extent) are also responsible but the thread was initially about USA and then it kind of went on from there. On June 24 2010 08:19 angelicfolly wrote: There was no peace in the region, maybe stability but that completely disregarding what rock the people where living under. Well lets put it this way then, we haven't exactly gotten any closer.  On June 24 2010 08:19 angelicfolly wrote: You make the point about civilian deaths I bring up ww2 because of the civilian deaths. That is the point of comparison, so much to the fact that the US is NOT specifically bombing cities because they happen to be German. Wither the war is legal, illegal, wrong, right, etc is irrelevant to that point of comparison. I think there's a difference in making a point about the civilian casualties resulted by the waging of an illegal war as opposed to the inevitable casualties of a world war that forced such a large number of nations into participation. I don't think there's any real point in comparing at all, and frankly I find it a bit appalling that you would bring up WW2 as some sort of counter-argument in the first place. On June 24 2010 08:19 angelicfolly wrote: Kofi Annan, you are not referring to him are you, about UN? I'm referring to the UN as an entity. | ||
|
Tdelamay
Canada548 Posts
Wars are no longer fought by soldiers, but by economies. | ||
|
Severedevil
United States4839 Posts
On June 24 2010 08:35 Tdelamay wrote: There is no winning. Only losing. Wars are no longer fought by soldiers, but by economies. I doubt this was ever not the case. | ||
|
Severedevil
United States4839 Posts
On June 24 2010 08:09 KwarK wrote: I thought the Commander in Chief outranked generals. :S Not if he's a Democrat. | ||
|
mmp
United States2130 Posts
I disagree. Some of the more outlandish military opinions recognized early on that reconciliation with the Taliban was the most stable way forward, but this is a taboo to the American public. There is no implicit rule that a war campaign cannot succeed - but it is rarely a judicious undertaking, misguided by wishful images of what a victory outcome must look like. Now we're open to talk because we have no alternative, but the Taliban sees a victory on the horizon and isn't backing down. On June 24 2010 08:53 sikyon wrote: Frankly I give a big thumbs up to Obama for this because it takes balls to sack the military commander. Alot of the times military commanders forget their bosses are "civies" and the civilian leaders are too pansy to do anything about it. I think the balls are on the other foot here. If you read the article, McChrystal's estimation was that the Obama government doesn't know shit about military strategy but has far-reaching opinions about how the war should be fought. This, and Obama didn't take the time to meet and discuss strategy with McChrystal, but never hesitated to chastise when his general spoke out of beat. Fighting a losing battle is frustrating, but it is shameful to never voice your dissent, privately first-and-foremost. I get the impression from these articles that private criticisms weren't taken seriously, and we're only seeing the public tip of the iceberg. | ||
|
sikyon
Canada1045 Posts
Frankly I give a big thumbs up to Obama for this because it takes balls to sack the military commander. Alot of the times military commanders forget their bosses are "civies" and the civilian leaders are too pansy to do anything about it. For the record, I am Canadian | ||
|
bjwithbraces
United States549 Posts
On June 24 2010 05:47 Mothxal wrote: 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). 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? Yeah because what they had before was really working with the rest of the world..... [e] To all the people trashing america you realize how different the globe would be today if America didn't do anything, particularily the 'world enforcer' everyone always falls back on. Whether we should have gone into Iraq when we did or not, we would have later. If you honestly think saddam hussein was a good guy doing the right things for his country and wasn't a problem, you're an idiot. | ||
|
angelicfolly
United States292 Posts
Of course US casualties are equally sad, but would you agree that there is a bit of a scewed focus in media and the general public toward the considerably small amount of casualties amongst US troops? It's especially saddening reading about the movement of iraq veterans against the war, basically people wondering what the hell they were fighting for in the first place and what good will ever come out of it. Civilian deaths are sad, soldier deaths are sad. The thing is that's the face of war. To somehow single out one nation because EVERY nation has had both happen, is a disregard to what war actually is. Also to somehow imply that the US doesn't care or somehow targets civilians is a dishonest thing to do (be honest this was what your trying to do). Do you realize that the Iraq vets against the war is a small minority compared to the rest of the troops who believe they are doing something worthwhile? Also it should be a good thing that there are small deaths of US soldiers, I mean the US has to look out for IT'S population (if you really are faulting the US for this go after every country also). UK (and france to a lesser extent) are also responsible but the thread was initially about USA and then it kind of went on from there. So it's ok to single out the US when you make a statement that applies to everyone? Well lets put it this way then, we haven't exactly gotten any closer Wrong, we have gotten closer, regardless of your thoughts on US interests. You see the reason why there is still instability is because the people who originally was hurting the population want control again, thus they are attacking everybody for it. Regardless of how you view things, there is ground to the fact that we have gotten closer. I'm referring to the UN as an entity. Then give a link to the UN stating such a thing that doesn't have Annan in it. If you can't find out then you are referring to Annan. | ||
|
UmmTheHobo
United States650 Posts
| ||
| ||
