PDA

View Full Version : McChrystal Relieved Of His Command



Gayle in MD
06-23-2010, 11:20 AM
President to speak at one-thirty pm.

pooltchr
06-23-2010, 11:50 AM
Well, Obama has named Petraeus, I believe you called him, General Betray us, to replace Stanley. And there is to be no expected change in the strategy in Afghanistan.

Petraeus was the one who used the surge to further our efforts in Iraq, and there is no reason to think he will give up that thinking in Afghanistan.

So it would appear that Obama is following a very similar line of thinking that Bush did when he was in office.

It will be interesting to see how some people will try to justify this, considering how loudly they cried out when Bush did the same thing.

Steve

Sev
06-23-2010, 11:58 AM
McChrystal's gaff in protocol was unfortunate.

However Petraues is a fine replacement.

Deeman3
06-23-2010, 12:10 PM
I don't think Obama has to justify this move. As I said, if Bush had done this I would support his decision. You just can't have that bad judgement in the political arena and hold a position accountable to the President.

If he had kept him, I might have been more inclined to critize that decision as Obama, and his other players in the ranks would forever have to live wiht, "What will he do next?"

I am not an Obama fan, you all know that, but fairness requires any rational person to stand behind our President when something that he did not cause and responded to in a reasonable manner is in play.

I agree Petraues is the best choice and will have less trouble transitioning the mission or following what McChrystal has begun. If we can't "win" in any sense of the word, we should find out as soon as posible and get out. However, for now, we have a strategy, troops in place and we should all hope and pray for the best outcome. We all jumped on the left for bashing Bush when he had very difficult decisions to make. If we can't give Obama the same defference to his plan and hope for a win here, we are no better than those we argued with just a couple of years ago. This aint just health care and money, it is our kids (soldiers) lives.

I will pray for our whole team. Politics will play out later.

pooltchr
06-23-2010, 12:32 PM
I agree. Petreaus is the natural and best choice to fill the position.

But you have to admit that our plan in Afghanistan is looking an awful lot like the plan we used in Iraq. As far as the war, I see a lot of similarities between the last administration and this one. I'm sure it must be distressing to the Bush haters to find Obama doing the same thing.

Steve

eg8r
06-23-2010, 12:39 PM
Great post Deeman.

eg8r

LWW
06-23-2010, 01:05 PM
The Petraeus appointment must be a dagger through the heart of the far left, that is they weren't faithful doublethinkers.

LWW

wolfdancer
06-23-2010, 01:27 PM
as usual...the only intelligent reply to your post was that of Deeman's

Gayle in MD
06-23-2010, 01:32 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Deeman3</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I don't think Obama has to justify this move. As I said, if Bush had done this I would support his decision. You just can't have that bad judgement in the political arena and hold a position accountable to the President.

If he had kept him, I might have been more inclined to critize that decision as Obama, and his other players in the ranks would forever have to live wiht, "What will he do next?"

I am not an Obama fan, you all know that, but fairness requires any rational person to stand behind our President when something that he did not cause and responded to in a reasonable manner is in play.

I agree Petraues is the best choice and will have less trouble transitioning the mission or following what McChrystal has begun. If we can't "win" in any sense of the word, we should find out as soon as posible and get out. However, for now, we have a strategy, troops in place and we should all hope and pray for the best outcome. We all jumped on the left for bashing Bush when he had very difficult decisions to make. If we can't give Obama the same defference to his plan and hope for a win here, we are no better than those we argued with just a couple of years ago. This aint just health care and money, it is our kids (soldiers) lives.

I will pray for our whole team. Politics will play out later. </div></div>

I agree, Deeman, with everything you said, although, I believe that invading Iraq was a huge mistake, and that they are fighting a civil war right now, as many experts believed would happen as we withdrew from battle.

I wrote here months ago, that I do not agree with President Obama's Afghanistan policy. Once I read about how few al Qaeda are in Afghanistan, I agreed with Joe Biden, and Hillary, both of whom are said to have been against any kind of surge in Afghanistan. Biden wanted to use drones and intelligence to smash Alqaeda in Pakistan/Afghanistan border areas. It seems to me that we are doing both prescriptions.

As for supporting our troops, there are many ways to do so, and I spend a good deal of my personal time, doing what I can do in that regard. I do not think that my personal disapproval of any president's policies, hurts our troops. I think that all Americans, support our troops, regardless of their opinions on policy.

Petraeus is a good replacement, and is the person I thought the President would choose. I think that statements and testimony regarding the wars, where ever they are being fought, are impacted by any given administration's policy.

IMO, both Gates, and Patreaus, have been far more forth coming about the true facts of both campaigns, since they are not under Bush's administration.

I believe now, as I always have, that running our country into the ground, financially, losing lives and treasure, in two expensive wars, or any campaign with boots on the ground, anywhere in the middle east, gives bin Laden exactly what he always said he wanted, to see the US of A go down the financial tubes trying to win wars, in those God forsaken sands.

I have far more trust in this president's judgement, than I ever had in George Bush, which was basically no trust at all, but I do not think we should have boots on the ground, anywhere in the Middle East.

As an example of the differences between administrations, Petraeus stated, in front of the senate, when he was asked if he thought the war in Iraq, was making us any safer here in America, that he actually did not know, until after he was called by the White House during the lunch break. I think he had the obligation to tell the truth to the Senate, which he did, until he was called and given orders from Bush, to backtrack. Which he did.

While I realize that being in the Military requires undying support of the Commander & Chief, I also believe that honesty with the representatives of American Citizens, who pay for wars, and lose their children in those wars, is just as important.

I hope with all my heart that we are out of the Middle East, as soon as possible. I have wanted that since we went into Iraq, although I originally supported going after al Qaeda in Afghanistan, but when I realized that Bush and Cheney had other plans, that had absolutely nothing to do with getting al Qaeda, I was against invading Iraq, for oil.

The time frame for destroying al Qaeda after 9/11, was years ago. Bush lost that opportunity, back then, by going into Iraq, and making Iraq the important campaign. Al Qaeda has since franchised, according to National Security Estimates.

I still believe that Bush did the wrong thing, that Iraq should not have even been on our radar at that time, and the facts, since, according to our own National Security Estimates, have proven that to be true.

I can think of nothing of value derived from our invasion and occupation of Iraq, and in fact, I think it has made our circumstances within the Middle East, and agsint al Qaeda, far worse.

We can only hope for the best. Suspending our own individual judgement on the matter, however, is not what I believe a Patriotic individual should ever do, given our debt to all of those who go to fight our wars. Far too many of them wars of choice, IMO, which I believe, should not have been fought, Vietnam, and Iraq, both in that category.

G.

Gayle in MD
06-23-2010, 01:41 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">as usual...the only intelligent reply to your post was that of Deeman's </div></div>

Yes, as usual.... /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gifthat's why I don't bother reading them....it would be more productive to read the funny papers. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

pooltchr
06-23-2010, 02:52 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">as usual...the only intelligent reply to your post was that of Deeman's </div></div>

As usual, you added absolutely nothing to the conversation except another insult.

I haven't posted to you in 2 weeks, and I see it hasn't changed your attitude at all. You still act like a jerk.

Steve

Sev
06-23-2010, 04:21 PM
And just exactly what was off key about my post?

Given the circumstances I believe while unfortunate the proper course of action was taken.

LWW
06-23-2010, 07:00 PM
Now, when the party tells Gayle that General Petraeus is good:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I agree, Deeman, with everything you said ...

Petraeus is a good replacement ...

As an example of the differences between administrations, Petraeus stated, in front of the senate ...

G. </div></div>

In the past, when the party told Gayle he was General Betray-us.

September 11, 2007:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">When Patraeus said we had the best equipped army in the world, I nearly choked. It is truly sad to see such extreme dereliction of duty from a four star general </div></div>

August 28, 2007:<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
So what does htis mean? Just another Rumsfeld? </div></div>

LWW

pooltchr
06-23-2010, 07:21 PM
If the party can't be consistent, how can you expect their party loaylists to be?

Steve

wolfdancer
06-23-2010, 09:11 PM
Who cares if you have posted to me or not?....you mean nothing to me, your posts are crap, with nothing to back them up...and you only post to insult others so.......***

wolfdancer
06-23-2010, 09:35 PM
I think I will begin a thread...the top 50 dumbest things that you wrote. Nobody will have to go search too far back, as you keep repeating them, as if they are new thoughts....
Stick to your juvenile insults...something that you are good at...and stay out of the adult discussions....at least till you catch up a bit....hmmm, by then the topic will have changed....by the way Sparky...it's loyalists....that's why they invented spellcheck....for dummies like you

LWW
06-24-2010, 02:41 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If the party can't be consistent, how can you expect their party loaylists to be?

Steve </div></div>

The hard core dead enders of the demokook following are forever faithful as they simply regurgitate the "TRUTH" as relayed by the party that day.

LWW

pooltchr
06-24-2010, 05:17 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Who cares if you have posted to me or not?....you mean nothing to me, your posts are crap, with nothing to back them up...and you only post to insult others so.......***
</div></div>

Typical woofie. We are talking about a change of command in Afghanistan, and you bring in the insults again.

Well, at least you're good for something!

Steve

hondo
06-24-2010, 12:26 PM
Is that Ugotda7s cat?