| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
NuKedUFirst
Canada3139 Posts
On June 24 2010 04:20 Sadist wrote: you can criticize all you wan. Just dont do it in public Pretty much this. It's like if you work at McDonalds and you say how much you hate McDonalds and prefer DQ. So fired. Although i'm surprised no warning was given instead? Any word on this? | ||
|
mmp
United States2130 Posts
On June 24 2010 09:05 NuKedUFirst wrote: Pretty much this. It's like if you work at McDonalds and you say how much you hate McDonalds and prefer DQ. So fired. Although i'm surprised no warning was given instead? Any word on this? The world is not frozen in a vacuum, just waiting for the spotlight of the press before taking action. Things have been happening behind the scenes that we do not hear about, and you can be certain that private criticisms have already been expressed. The military chain of command indoctrinates the virtue of confidence more than anyone other group (second only to political campaigns and religious cults). It sounds more like there is an absence of leadership from Obama himself. Firing a very competent general for his 0 tolerance for political bullshit is a cowardly move, and 100% political. Obama brought this on himself by not getting his hands dirty. | ||
|
Jugan
United States1566 Posts
On June 24 2010 04:11 Fallen33 wrote: war isnt nearly as bad as that portrays it is this a fact or an opinion? | ||
|
LonelyMargarita
1845 Posts
On June 24 2010 06:16 EpiCenteR wrote: What else do you call the murder of tens of thousands of innocent people.? You've completely misused the words "murder" and "genocide" so far. I suggest you purchase a dictionary before posting again. | ||
|
PanN
United States2828 Posts
On June 24 2010 09:05 NuKedUFirst wrote: Pretty much this. It's like if you work at McDonalds and you say how much you hate McDonalds and prefer DQ. So fired. Although i'm surprised no warning was given instead? Any word on this? Lol. I used to work at subway, and I constantly told people the breakfast is shit (it is), I told them when they ordered water bottles I could give them free water instead, I told them when the cookies were old, I told them when we didn't have fresh bread, I told them how long the meat has been sitting out etc I wasn't a great salesman in their eyes, but at least I was honest. | ||
|
theron[wdt]
United States395 Posts
| ||
|
sikyon
Canada1045 Posts
On June 24 2010 09:15 mmp wrote: Things have been happening behind the scenes that we do not hear about, and you can be certain that private criticisms have already been expressed. Firing a very competent general for his 0 tolerance for political bullshit is a cowardly move, and 100% political. Grats on contradicting yourself. I highly doubt it's 0 tolerance... do you really think that obama would bring previous arguements to light? Of course not. Even if they disagree they still have to stay solid in the face of their enemies. The general betrayed that trust, which is totally unacceptable. It seems virtually as though he had forgotten his place. Also, if you hadn't noticed, a politician's job is to be political. Obama wages a war on the homefront of probably greater importance than any oversees. | ||
|
meegrean
Thailand7699 Posts
| ||
|
bellz
United States20 Posts
The appointment (and technical demotion) of Petraeus from CENTCOM to ISAF is really interesting, certainly an interim move to show stability and continuality in the Afghan strategy as the summer fighting season hits a fever pitch and the Kandahar campaign finally......gets underway. I think Obama and Petreaus just made a deal for Petreaus to be the next CJCS if he took the Afghan job for a few months since Mullen's term as CJCS is up in 2011. I was at the Senate hearing last week when Petraeus fainted in the middle of his testimony, he said it was dehydration and he missed breakfast but I think it was related to his prostate cancer which he is still recovering from which makes me think its definitely a short-term appointment until they can find someone else. It was a good move by Obama since he also knocked off a potential Republican threat in 2012 and put the Republican's favorite general from Iraq in charge of "his" war which will neutralize some criticism from Republican hawks as the administration moves towards giving the green light on peace negotiations between the Taliban QS and Karzai (probably after midterms) and maybe turn around this horrendous news-cycle coming out of Kabul. | ||
|
mmp
United States2130 Posts
On June 24 2010 10:48 sikyon wrote: Grats on contradicting yourself. I highly doubt it's 0 tolerance... do you really think that obama would bring previous arguements to light? Of course not. Even if they disagree they still have to stay solid in the face of their enemies. The general betrayed that trust, which is totally unacceptable. It seems virtually as though he had forgotten his place. Also, if you hadn't noticed, a politician's job is to be political. Obama wages a war on the homefront of probably greater importance than any oversees. Would you care to spell out my contradiction? No this is political cowardice from Obama. Internal politics, but covering his team's asses nonetheless at the cost of leadership on the ground. It's nothing more than a dick-waving contest and Obama, threatened by McChrystal's claims that he lacks manliness, is backed into a corner and forced to assert his presidential endowment. This only confirms the insecurity of the administration on the subject of Afghanistan. They know they're not getting results, but they aren't interested in critiques either. It doesn't take strong leadership to be vague and wishy-washy, nor does obstinateness beget strong leaders (some pundits are praising the firing, although this is in part motivated by the controversial wartime deeds on the general's record). Obama can demonstrate awesome leadership by clearly stating the objective for Afghanistan. Right now we're middle of the road, not sure if we're leaving and not sure how (or if) we should even be going after the Taliban. The general's job is to develop a strategy for the latter, but it takes leadership from the CC to execute any strategy and we have yet to see such leadership from the Obama administration. On June 24 2010 10:24 theron[wdt] wrote: talking back to a superior officer at my level is an Article 15 (non-judicial punishment) on record depending on how high the superior officer is. Talking shit about the commander in chief to the press, especially that high up in the brass, would be suicide to any service member's career. I think MacArthur got shitcanned in a similar way. MacArthur wanted nukes so he could take on China... | ||
KwarK
United States44374 Posts
On June 24 2010 09:57 PanN wrote: Lol. I used to work at subway, and I constantly told people the breakfast is shit (it is), I told them when they ordered water bottles I could give them free water instead, I told them when the cookies were old, I told them when we didn't have fresh bread, I told them how long the meat has been sitting out etc I wasn't a great salesman in their eyes, but at least I was honest. I doubt you had the same power to to make Subway look bad as a general in command of a war has to make the administration look bad. The principle still applies. As a private citizen you can say what you like but in your professional role while speaking to the press you say what your boss says. | ||
|
dogabutila
United States1438 Posts
On June 24 2010 06:16 EpiCenteR wrote: What else do you call the murder of tens of thousands of innocent people.? Saddam having a forgiving day. | ||
|
T0fuuu
Australia2275 Posts
| ||
|
KwarK
United States44374 Posts
Or just the murder of tens of thousands of people. We don't have to have a word for every idea and we shouldn't just wrongly use words that mean something different. Genocide has a specific meaning which can be applied to the death of just dozens of people or not relevant to the death of millions. | ||
|
cbkenned2009
United States55 Posts
| ||
|
Madkipz
Norway1643 Posts
| ||
|
dogabutila
United States1438 Posts
On June 24 2010 12:03 KwarK wrote: Or just the murder of tens of thousands of people. We don't have to have a word for every idea and we shouldn't just wrongly use words that mean something different. Genocide has a specific meaning which can be applied to the death of just dozens of people or not relevant to the death of millions. Ahh, so you don't know about his efforts to wipe out the Kurds. Which was exactly "deliberate and systematic destruction of an ethnic group" | ||
|
NukeTheStars
United States278 Posts
Maybe he didn't want his name on the war, maybe he didn't think he could accomplish their goals, or maybe he was just tired. There could be a lot of reasons, but I don't think we'll know the real reason until he gives another interview several years down the road. | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7032 Posts
1. why the war wasn't about humanitarian causes, that was simply a pretext for other reasons (in fact, about all the given reasons were lies). 2. that even if that were the case, it would still fall outside any international law and would be an aggressive war 3. the current Iraqi government is hardly better than Saddam's 4. there were massive amounts of casualties as a result of the war | ||
|
buhhy
United States1113 Posts
If you don't remember, the US put Saddam in power to counterbalance Iran. They also supplied arms and supplies to the Taliban and Al Qaeda during the 1980's to counter the Soviet invasion. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Other Games |
|
OSC
WardiTV Weekly
PiGosaur Cup
Kung Fu Cup
The PondCast
Online Event
Korean StarCraft League
Afreeca Starleague
Rush vs Soulkey
CranKy Ducklings
BSL Open Qualifier
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
