McChrystal resigns

oldsaw wrote: In reply to ignorant: All "floundering" aside, the President has appointed Petraeus as military leader in Afghanistan. This is most interesting as Petraeus was vilified by the same people who now have saddled him as "the last, best hope" to simultaneously implement ambitious policy and counter-productive rules of engagement. One cannot but revel in the irony that those now in power are beholding to a man they literally slandered and libeled to gain power.

And those people need to have a smack down. What Petraeus gives, now, is a faster transistion.

IMHO, our military has some of the most talented minds in the world- so I honestly believe that there is NO "last, best hope"- it's more about the next guy being able to slot in fast enough.

But congressman only have to deal with the ADD public. Which fully appiles to the entire spectrum of opinions, for the most part.

Wally wrote:

TJ wrote: I heard General McChrystal resigned....anyone have any thoughts about that?

Rumor has it he had enough, threw his vuvuzela in the back of his Ridgeline and was heading to New Hampshire for this weeks Nascar Races

lolz.

/thread. well done, sir.

Cone_Junky wrote:

bravenrace wrote: In reply to Cone_Junky: How does quadrupling the deficit help clean up the mess? He's driving us into bankrupcy.

A Bush supporter has no right to criticize on defecit spending. Pre-Bush= surplus Post-Bush= huge deficit that doesn't even take into account war spending (I guess he just forgot to pencil that in...) At least Obama's spending is on the American people, not the killing of them.

OK, I hate to feed the troll, but WHOA!

Surplus? Find me a surplus in there. I am no Bush supporter, and certainly no Obama supporter, but surplus? Not so, not even close from a loooong time ago.

Cone_Junky wrote: To the conspiracy theorist remarks, please disprove my comments.

Ummm, last I heard, it was the people who were making the allegations that were required to prove them true "beyond a reasonable doubt".

At least here in America. You might want to look up that Constitution thing that you are whining about. Just because both sides of the aisle are currently ripping it to shreds doesn't mean it's not still valid.

Duke wrote:

Cone_Junky wrote: To the conspiracy theorist remarks, please disprove my comments.

Ummm, last I heard, it was the people who were making the allegations that were required to prove them true "beyond a reasonable doubt". At least here in America. You might want to look up that Constitution thing that you are whining about. Just because both sides of the aisle are currently ripping it to shreds doesn't mean it's not still valid.

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#burden

This is all just the same old story of the people who actually do getting fed up with the out of touch suits who have never once in their lives gotten their hands dirty or been in any kind danger. I know it is not how things are supposed to work but nobody seems to care about what the men and women on the ground think about all of this.

Also, the current administration was elected to office on promises, dates and deadlines that have yet to be reached. Last time I checked there are still prisoners in GTMO, we are not going to make his deadline for pulling our forces out of Afghanistan, and the economy and unemployment have not made a comeback even though he took desperately needed money from the military and gave it to wellfare...

Anyway, as soon as his blindly loyal supporters realize that he is not in fact the second coming of Christ the better for all of us...

Edited for graph I forgot to put in...

Duke wrote:

Cone_Junky wrote: To the conspiracy theorist remarks, please disprove my comments.

Ummm, last I heard, it was the people who were making the allegations that were required to prove them true "beyond a reasonable doubt". At least here in America. You might want to look up that Constitution thing that you are whining about. Just because both sides of the aisle are currently ripping it to shreds doesn't mean it's not still valid.

I see. So these are your rules? I did prove my point, I also listed facts. This isn't court BTW, there is no "beyond a reasonable doubt" here.

Whining about the Costitution? I never mentioned the Constitution, let alone "whined" about it.

Seriously, no valid rebuttle, just name calling.

Troll = anyone who disagrees with your opinion; especially one that backs up his statements with research.

So I'll just end this now. Obama isn't God/Jesus/The Almighty. In fact he is a Islamic/Muslim tyranus Nazi who is taking over our free country and pushing Communism/Socialism. Bush was awesome, the history books will no doubt make him out to be greater than our founding fathers. McChrystal had the secret to winning the war but Obama wanted to kill more of our troops, so he was fired. I will go crawl back into my troll cave and put on my tinfoil hat so that the black helicopters cannot read anymore of my thoughts. Sorry for speaking out, it won't happen again.

More appropriate GRM talk-

Anybody ever swap a W12 into a 240sx? Is it worth it? Please talk me out of it...

Cone_Junky wrote:

Duke wrote:

Cone_Junky wrote: To the conspiracy theorist remarks, please disprove my comments.

Ummm, last I heard, it was the people who were making the allegations that were required to prove them true "beyond a reasonable doubt". At least here in America. You might want to look up that Constitution thing that you are whining about. Just because both sides of the aisle are currently ripping it to shreds doesn't mean it's not still valid.

I see. So these are your rules? I did prove my point, I also listed facts. This isn't court BTW, there is no "beyond a reasonable doubt" here. Whining about the Costitution? I never mentioned the Constitution, let alone "whined" about it. Seriously, no valid rebuttle, just name calling. Troll = anyone who disagrees with your opinion; especially one that backs up his statements with research. So I'll just end this now. Obama isn't God/Jesus/The Almighty. In fact he is a Islamic/Muslim tyranus Nazi who is taking over our free country and pushing Communism/Socialism. Bush was awesome, the history books will no doubt make him out to be greater than our founding fathers. McChrystal had the secret to winning the war but Obama wanted to kill more of our troops, so he was fired. I will go crawl back into my troll cave and put on my tinfoil hat so that the black helicopters cannot read anymore of my thoughts. Sorry for speaking out, it won't happen again. More appropriate GRM talk- Anybody ever swap a W12 into a 240sx? Is it worth it? Please talk me out of it...

alfadriver wrote: IMHO, our military has some of the most talented minds in the world- so I honestly believe that there is NO "last, best hope"- it's more about the next guy being able to slot in fast enough.

Again, we're far more in agreement, than not...........

The "last, best hope" comment is referenced to the President's own (and often repeated) committment to begin troop extractions in July, 2011. If he (POTUS) reconsiders that timetable, I have every conviction there are numerous candidates to successfully replace Petraeus.

In reply to Cone_Junky:

what does that even prove? what research have you provided?

there i proved it!

tuna55 wrote: OK, I hate to feed the troll, but WHOA! Surplus? Find me a surplus in there. I am no Bush supporter, and certainly no Obama supporter, but surplus? Not so, not even close from a loooong time ago.

without offering any opinion of my own, i understood that to mean "budget surplus", as in "the govt's revenues for the year exceeded its expenses for the year," not that the national debt was wiped out. look at the section between ~1995-2000 when the debt level is decreasing.

This thread sucks. Back on topic, please.

Tom Heath wrote: This thread sucks. Back on topic, please.

Amen to that.

There was a topic?

Cone_Junky wrote: I see. So these are your rules? I did prove my point, I also listed facts. This isn't court BTW, there is no "beyond a reasonable doubt" here. Whining about the Costitution? I never mentioned the Constitution, let alone "whined" about it. Seriously, no valid rebuttle, just name calling. Troll = anyone who disagrees with your opinion; especially one that backs up his statements with research. So I'll just end this now. Obama isn't God/Jesus/The Almighty. In fact he is a Islamic/Muslim tyranus Nazi who is taking over our free country and pushing Communism/Socialism. Bush was awesome, the history books will no doubt make him out to be greater than our founding fathers. McChrystal had the secret to winning the war but Obama wanted to kill more of our troops, so he was fired. I will go crawl back into my troll cave and put on my tinfoil hat so that the black helicopters cannot read anymore of my thoughts. Sorry for speaking out, it won't happen again.

All hail the King of "I Know You Are But What Am I" arguing.

In reply to Duke:

Um, I was the one that was called names.

My arguements were backed with facts.

But please prove my point by just throwing out more slander in response to arguements that you cannot defend.

I would love to walk away from this thread, but another slanderous remark gets thrown out with ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO SUPPORT IT.

I'm sorry my points don't agree with your view of the world. If I say something that is incorrect, call me out. But trashing me just to trash me does nothing to support your arguement. Just makes you look ignorant or childish- you pick.

So . . .ah . .

As a once army grunt . . . I've seen many a officer get absolutely dragged from the type of behavior McChrystal and his staff as displayed.

Nice to see the leftist trolls are back. Where's skappes-itover/whatever his name is now? We went post election and he stopped getting encouragement from Soros-funded groups to spew his hate speach on car web pages? He'll be back, probably around '12, maybe closer to this November, but I doubt it. The totalitarians realize they're going to lose '10 and are concentrating on '12. Sure, and after a year and a half of golfing and reading the teleprompter, what exactly has been fixed? It's all Bush's fault anyway, right?

Anyway, on the topic of General McChrystal, here's an interesting essay by Buchanan: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=170193

Big Pat said: Obama vs. the U.S. Army -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted: June 23, 2010 6:53 pm Eastern © 2010 In confiding to Rolling Stone their unflattering opinions of the military acumen of Barack Obama, Joe Biden, National Security Adviser Gen. James Jones, Dick Holbrooke and Ambassador Karl Eikenberry, Gen. Stanley McChrystal and his staff were guilty of colossal stupidity. And President Obama had cause to cashier them. Yet his decision to fire McChrystal may prove both unwise and costly. For McChrystal, unlike Gen. MacArthur, never challenged the war policy – he is carrying it out – and Barack Obama is no Harry Truman. Moreover, the war strategy Obama is pursuing is the McChrystal Plan, devised by the general and being implemented by the general in Marja and Kandahar, perhaps the decisive campaign of the war. Should that plan now fail, full responsibility falls on Obama. He has made the Afghan war his war in a way it never was before. If the McChrystal strategy fails, critics will charge Obama with causing the defeat by firing the best fighting general in the Army out of pique over some officers-club remarks that bruised the egos of West Wing warriors. And though those remarks never should have appeared in print, they may well reflect the sentiments of not a few soldiers and Marine officers on third and fourth tours of duty in the Afghan theater. Had Obama, instead of firing McChrystal, told him to shut up, can the interviews and go back to fighting the war until the December review of strategy, he could have shown those soldiers he is a bigger man than they or McChrystal's team give him credit for. And if success in Afghanistan is the highest goal, how does it help to fire the best fighting general? Do you relieve Gen. Patton during combat because he vents his prejudices or opinions? This city may draw the parallel, but the Obama-McChrystal clash does not remotely rise to the historic level of the collision between MacArthur and Truman. Truman had dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, ordered the airlift that broke the Berlin blockade, and produced the Marshall Plan and NATO. He had won election in his own right with a legendary comeback in 1948. Obama has nothing like Truman's credibility as a war leader. And MacArthur was the most famous U.S. soldier since Gen. Grant. No. 1 at West Point, he was a legendary commander in France in 1918, leading troops out of the trenches with a swagger stick. Driven out of the Philippines in 1942, he had declared, "I shall return," and led the liberation of the islands in 1944. He conducted the famous island-hopping campaign up the archipelagos of the South Pacific and took Japan's surrender on the battleship Missouri in Tokyo Bay. As military proconsul, he presided over the reconstruction of Japan, wrote her constitution and converted her into an ally. When North Korea invaded the South and drove the U.S. Army into the Pusan perimeter, MacArthur landed Marines far behind enemy lines at Inchon in a flanking maneuver that destroyed the North Korean army and will be studied at military academies for centuries to come. In late 1950, MacArthur was stunned by the intervention in Korea of the armies of Mao Zedong, lately victorious in China's four-year civil war. MacArthur's clash with Truman was not over something so trivial as a gossipy article in Rolling Stone. MacArthur's hands had been tied by Truman. He was not allowed to bomb the Yalu bridges over which Chinese troops were pouring into Korea. He was not allowed to bomb Chinese troop concentrations and munitions dumps in Manchuria. He was not allowed to use Chiang Kai-shek's armies on Taiwan. He was not allowed hot pursuit of enemy aircraft into Chinese or Russian airspace. MacArthur was being restricted to fighting the war Mao wanted to fight, a war of attrition against the world's most populous nation, and largest army, while China was allowed to remain a privileged sanctuary, off-limits to U.S. bombers like those that smashed Germany and Japan. In his address to Congress, after his firing by Truman, MacArthur put it this way: "'Why,' my soldiers asked of me, 'surrender military advantages to an enemy in the field?' I could not answer." MacArthur's letter to Rep. Joe Martin, in response to a letter from the GOP leader, was indeed a challenge to Truman's policy of avoiding any risk of a clash with Russia, even if it meant U.S. soldiers would pay the price of Truman's timidity. Events would prove MacArthur right. Truman's restrictions would ensure a "no-win war" for two more years that would cost tens of thousands more American lives, and Harry would be sent packing with the lowest rating of any president in history. Gen. Eisenhower would take office, two years after MacArthur's firing, and threaten the exact escalation MacArthur envisioned, ending the Korean War in six months. Obama and his party may be celebrating his cashiering of Gen. McChrystal as a macho moment, but by firing the fighting general, for his foolish remarks, Obama has deepened the gulf between his party and the U.S. military.

Despite a last ditch effort by Dr. Hess, we have achieved thread failure and will abort.