RE: Should McChrystal be fired for the Rolling Stone interview? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


pahunkboy -> RE: Should McChrystal be fired for the Rolling Stone interview? (6/22/2010 6:03:36 PM)

the article was in fact 5-6 pages long.   the rest of the article I understand was pretty good- a patriot.


but it all begs the question.

why ARE we there?

what is the exit strategy?

how is "win" defined?






TheHeretic -> RE: Should McChrystal be fired for the Rolling Stone interview? (6/22/2010 6:10:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: pahunkboy


why ARE we there?

what is the exit strategy?

how is "win" defined?






Because the Taliban wouldn't give up Bin Laden after 9/11, and the laws of the universe dictated that the US was going to invade someplace over that.

There isn't one

There is no such thing as "winning" in Afghanistan




domiguy -> RE: Should McChrystal be fired for the Rolling Stone interview? (6/22/2010 6:22:44 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen



Obama happens to be the president right now - it could just as well have played out the same (indeed almost inevitably would have) were anyone else president.


No, it wouldnt. He's engaged in a hopeless battle because his campaign rhetoric was to blast Iraq and focus the war effort "where it belongs". No one could be as incompetent a CIC.


What about the last CIC?...have you recently experienced a blow to the head?




pahunkboy -> RE: Should McChrystal be fired for the Rolling Stone interview? (6/22/2010 6:22:47 PM)

so we got a bunch of drug addicted tribes- minerals galore when we cant even secure an oil pipeline, we got 8 years of Soviets giving it there all- and we have McCrystal abit tipsy gabbing with a rock newspaper that no one reads spouting off?

and the constitutional law professor is perplexed and mad.

STOMP




Whiplashsmile4 -> RE: Should McChrystal be fired for the Rolling Stone interview? (6/22/2010 6:30:16 PM)

Okay Obama Wilbur BlowBoy should fire McChrystal Methods ass, and hire Sid Meier to create an interactive solution he can run on his BlackBerry. Sid can also come up with "Gulf Oil Spill Clean Up 1.0".

Better yet, let's just replace McChrystal with Eric Cartman. At this rate, I'm not certain which is greater, the number of times Kenny McCormick has died or the number of War Generals that have resigned or been fired.




TheHeretic -> RE: Should McChrystal be fired for the Rolling Stone interview? (6/22/2010 6:47:35 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Whiplashsmile4

BlowBoy


Hijack alert

Didn't we have enough of this shit when Bush II was in the White House? His name is Barack Obama. He is the President of the United States, whether you voted for him or not. A little respect to the office he holds is appropriate, Whipla.

You are, of course, free to express yourself as you please. We, in turn, are free to judge you based on that, and grant you credibility in line with how we judge you.

End hijack




AnimusRex -> RE: Should McChrystal be fired for the Rolling Stone interview? (6/22/2010 6:48:37 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: pahunkboy
why ARE we there?

what is the exit strategy?

how is "win" defined?


Exactly. This war has become the quagmire that many predicted in 2002, with no point or purpose.




pahunkboy -> RE: Should McChrystal be fired for the Rolling Stone interview? (6/22/2010 6:52:50 PM)

I agree that names like "blow boy" are  --  uncalled for/not the best use of posts-- that the OFFICE of the prez should have respect.  as it is all of "our" country.




nakedthinker -> RE: Should McChrystal be fired for the Rolling Stone interview? (6/22/2010 7:36:37 PM)

When looking at Afghanistan, it is important to remember why we are there in the first place: Al Quada and the attacks on September 11th, 2001

Al Quada is not going to go away. Al Quada is not run by a bunch of nutcases as many people would like to believe. Al Quada's unalterable goal is to restore the power of the former Persian Empire (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achaemenid_Empire) which represents the absolute height of power and cultural influence to people in the Middle East. Because a leader from western civilization (Alexander the Great) brought down the Persian Empire, Al Quada is convinced that restoration of the Persian Empire first will likely require the destruction of western civilization. Therefore, Al Quada WILL attack western civilization every single chance they get.

The best that we can hope for is to continue to keep them off balance and unable to maintain a safe ground so that it continues to be difficult for them to become sufficiently organized and trained to be able to execute another attack on the scale of what occurred on September 11th... or worse. Failure to maintain that sort of pressure guarantees that someday, the center of at least one U.S. city will disappear under a mushroom cloud. The nuclear genie is out of the bottle in too many places around the world, and as long as there is an organized desire to destroy western civilization, and a safe place for that organization to prepare, it is only a matter of time before major portions of U.S. cities start to go "boom."

So, we in the United States collectively have a simple question to answer: Do we prefer to have tens of thousands of Americans killed, lose billions in physical assets, and redefine our acceptable level of safety to compensate for these losses, as the centers of U.S. cities are leveled, or do we prefer to have at least thousands... maybe tens of thousands... of American service personnel killed in Afghanistan, and invest billions of dollars in attempting to build an actual modern country out of Afghanistan over the 20-100 years that it will take to force the cultural shift in that country's people necessary to sustain a modern country?

In spite of the wishful thinking that President Obama has sold to the American people, there really are no other choices.

General McChrystal is quite aware of those realities. He also knows that President Obama is not going to give him the time and resources that are required to get the job done effectively in Afghanistan, which means that the United States IS going to lose the Afghanistan battle in the "war on terror." Under Obama's watch, we are going to negate all of the sacrifice of the service personnel over the last nine years. The U.S. military has already started to scale back their objectives in Afghanistan, and destroy and abandon their own firebases because what is the point in getting killed trying to defend something that will be abandoned permanently in a year? Our enemies in Afghanistan are going to just lay low and wait for our departure, and then conditions for Al Quada will be able to revert back to September 10th, 2001.

After the next big attack in the United States, we will then be able to go back to Afghanistan to try again, and perhaps then we will have the political resolve to do what is required to negate the need for a third invasion.

So, there was a simple question that General McChrystal had to answer: Do I want to just go with the flow, and appear to support the Commander In Chief, knowing that I will be known for all of future history as the general who commanded the most powerful military in the world to a loss against what are no more than tribal thugs barely out of the stone age (which pretty much will end my military career), or do I want to go down while expressing in a very public way why we are about to lose the war in Afghanistan?

Either way, McChrystal's career in the military is over, and he knows it. So, he has chosen to fall on his sword and make it clear that he knows that Obama's leadership is going to force the most powerful military force that has ever existed on the planet to steal defeat away from what could have been a victory. Honorable men, when presented with nothing but unfortunate choices, usually chose the option that will be best for their fellow men and their country, and that is what General McChrystal has done.

I hope that some private company gives him a very lucrative position managing a substantial portion of their business.




domiguy -> RE: Should McChrystal be fired for the Rolling Stone interview? (6/22/2010 7:46:11 PM)

So he can betray their CEO if he disagrees or if the going gets tough?.

It seems there are lots of douchebags in Texas. Why is that?




domiguy -> RE: Should McChrystal be fired for the Rolling Stone interview? (6/22/2010 7:51:14 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: nakedthinker


So, we in the United States collectively have a simple question to answer: Do we prefer to have tens of thousands of Americans killed, lose billions in physical assets, and redefine our acceptable level of safety to compensate for these losses, as the centers of U.S. cities are leveled, or do we prefer to have at least thousands... maybe tens of thousands... of American service personnel killed in Afghanistan, and invest billions of dollars in attempting to build an actual modern country out of Afghanistan over the 20-100 years that it will take to force the cultural shift in that country's people necessary to sustain a modern country?




Or we have the choice to reject your ramblings all together.

There was another guy from Texas that seemed to think that we had pretty much destroyed the Taliban so he quit the pursuit. He let them regroup into what they have become today.

What was his name?...Texan fellow, wore a cowboy hat, spoke in monosyllabic words, liked to go on vacation.

I can't say I blame him, who doesn't like holiday?




girlygurl -> RE: Should McChrystal be fired for the Rolling Stone interview? (6/22/2010 7:55:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda

Treason? No.

Fired? Yes. Even if he was right in everything he said (and I'm sure not saying he wasn't), he's insubordinate. He has to go.



Yep, I agree.

If the President doesn't fire the guy, he's setting precedence for all sorts of bull pucky.




juliaoceania -> RE: Should McChrystal be fired for the Rolling Stone interview? (6/22/2010 8:10:15 PM)

Fast reply....

The unfortunate thing about the comments made in this situation, and how they differ from comments by previous military brass in regard to Bush, is that some of the comments made were immature and derogatory, showing a lack of respect for the authority of the office of the presidency.

McChrystal was not the only person to make these comments, but his aids also did so. This lack of regard for the policy that he has been charged with implementing has caused a predicament for the Obama White House, they fire him and they divide the military at a time we are attempting to extricate ourselves from two wars, ignore him and they possibly look as though they will not instill discipline at the top, undermining the civilian control over our military....

The thing I find most galling about this is that McChrystal has said that the strategy that HE advocated for (building up the troops in Afghanistan) is a flawed one. I seriously have much doubt in his ability to lead when he states these conflicting opinions after his vocal campaigning for this very policy.... I don't trust him.




TheHeretic -> RE: Should McChrystal be fired for the Rolling Stone interview? (6/22/2010 8:12:38 PM)

There is no such thing as "victory" in Afghanistan, Nake, and there are plenty of other crazy, chaotic, wild places in the world where the Islamic Crazy People can set up shop while we are throwing fine young men and women into that meatgrinder.




nakedthinker -> RE: Should McChrystal be fired for the Rolling Stone interview? (6/22/2010 8:36:27 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: domiguy
It seems there are lots of douchebags in Texas. Why is that?


All I can say is that here in Texas, a gentleman does not lower himself to when his opposition attempts to substitute the ability to present a logical argument with mere namecalling.




domiguy -> RE: Should McChrystal be fired for the Rolling Stone interview? (6/22/2010 8:39:26 PM)

True, but apparently you still are not adult enough to stop drawing on your hands.




willbeurdaddy -> RE: Should McChrystal be fired for the Rolling Stone interview? (6/22/2010 8:39:31 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: nakedthinker


quote:

ORIGINAL: domiguy
It seems there are lots of douchebags in Texas. Why is that?


All I can say is that here in Texas, a gentleman does not lower himself to when his opposition attempts to substitute the ability to present a logical argument with mere namecalling.


Well, DG has never been mistaken for a gentleman.




divi -> RE: Should McChrystal be fired for the Rolling Stone interview? (6/22/2010 8:41:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: domiguy

True, but apparently you still are not adult enough to stop drawing on your hands.

he does have a point lol.. jus saying




willbeurdaddy -> RE: Should McChrystal be fired for the Rolling Stone interview? (6/22/2010 8:42:13 PM)

Ok...I started the thread, I guess I should comment. My initial reaction from watching it unfold was that he's got to go. After reading the article and seeing how little McC really said, its an embarassing moment for BHO, and he'll have to take some action. Its a distraction from BP, and he has a new bad guy, which could actually help him in the long run.




domiguy -> RE: Should McChrystal be fired for the Rolling Stone interview? (6/22/2010 8:44:04 PM)

Nope...all ya gotta do is ask the ladies.

Subsusie squeals, "Domi, you are no gentleman!!!"

I reply, "Whoda thunk that my fist could fit entirely in your kooch?....Babe, if you get the chance, would you please ask the waiter for another glass of wine."




Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875