• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Hagel Said to Be Stepping Down as Defense Chief Under Pressure[W:56]

Unitedwestand13 said:
Generals that have too much power are just as bad. Case in point: Douglas MacArthur.
Click to expand...

Are just as bad as what? There is nothing worse than a president who doesn't understand his level of competence and won't stay away from things about which he is not competent. Presidents do politics. Generals do military missions. That is what each does best. Despite my being a veteran, if I were president I wouldn't dream of telling the generals how to run a war. That isn't my area of expertise.
 
Hagel doesn't get a pass though. Sorry!


Tim-
 
j-mac said:
Listening to Obama right now lie about why Hagel is out is pathetic....He's making it sound like this was Hagel's idea....
Click to expand...

There was scuttlebutt going back in October that Obama was going to purge Hagel from the DoD.

It was expected.

The question is who will be the next Secretary of Defense ? It'll be another affirmative action appointment of someone who's incompetent and who's main agenda will be to continue the social engineering of our military services.

Looking at the "A" list we see Susan Rice, Barbra Boxer, Jane Fonda and Al Sharpton.
 
fmw said:
Are just as bad as what? There is nothing worse than a president who doesn't understand his level of competence and won't stay away from things about which he is not competent. Presidents do politics. Generals do military missions. That is what each does best. Despite my being a veteran, if I were president I wouldn't dream of telling the generals how to run a war. That isn't my area of expertise.
Click to expand...

But war sometimes stumbles into international politics.
 
j-mac said:
Not at all, I am just saying that it is already known that he was fired, even before this dog and pony show for the camera's...Why come out there and make it seem like Hagel was leaving of his own accord? It was a political move to fire him, and now those with two shreds of common sense saw yet another opportunity to lie for Obama, and he does it seamlessly....He is pathological.
Click to expand...

circumspect diplomacy
it's a good thing
 
cpwill said:
Well. This is not entirely unanticipated.



Sort of. Hagel was brought on board to be the whipping boy, to put a Republican in charge of drawing down so as to partly shield Democrats from charges of being Soft On Defense. Whether that means he isn't up to the task of crafting a counter-ISIL policy is an interesting claim, given that he has generally been out in front of the President on this.

So Hagel is being told to resign. I wonder how he's going to take that?



So.... in other words, they don't like Hagel because he pointed out how they didn't take ISIL seriously... so they are firing him in order to prove that they are going to take ISIL seriously......



Thus far every single SECDEF to have served under Obama has gone on to write a memoir smashing the administration for being generally unwilling and incapable to the task of effectively pursuing foreign policy in a complex and rapidly moving world. I wonder how long we'll have to wait for Hagel's book. Especially if this is done so that they can put the blame for failing to respond in time to the growth of ISIL, we might get a response that is quite interesting.
Click to expand...

I wonder if this has anything to do with Benghazi.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
IF Truman did not fire MacArthur for insubordination, who knows what would have happened in Korea.

MacArthur argued for using nukes on china for Pete's sake.
Click to expand...
So? The "bomb" was the latest and greatest military tool of the day. We had just used two not many years before. With no promise that we would never use them again.
 
CRUE CAB said:
So? The "bomb" was the latest and greatest military tool of the day. We had just used two not many years before. With no promise that we would never use them again.
Click to expand...

The whole point at the time was to avoid getting involved in a war with the Soviet Union, which would be catastrophic for the entire human race.
 
apdst said:
How is General McArthur a good example?
Click to expand...

Unitedwestand13 said:
IF Truman did not fire MacArthur for insubordination, who knows what would have happened in Korea.

MacArthur argued for using nukes on china for Pete's sake.
Click to expand...

Ok, we know the history, now how is an example of a general with too much power?
 
apdst said:
Ok, we know the history, now how is an example of a general with too much power?
Click to expand...

You know how military coups happen? One military official who thinks that the countries' civilian leaders are inferior and deserved to be removed.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
But war sometimes stumbles into international politics.
Click to expand...

Naturally, but micromanaging the military from the white house is never an appropriate activity regardless of the politics.
 
He failed in wiping out ISIS and weapons are flowing from the U.S. to the Iraqi army to ISIS fighters.
 
RDS said:
weapons are flowing from the U.S. to the Iraqi army to ISIS fighters.
Click to expand...

Would you prefer ISIS overruns Iraq immediately?
 
American said:
I wonder if this has anything to do with Benghazi.
Click to expand...

Nah. They need someone to be a whipping boy for ISIL, and Hagel had a bad habit lately of telling the truth going off message.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
Generals that have too much power are just as bad. Case in point: Douglas MacArthur.
Click to expand...

...the guy who basically saved South Korea? After leading the Island Hopping campaign in WWII? And who then was easily replaced by a President who decided he had run his mouth too much?

Yeah. That's clearly as bad as politicians who don't know what they are doing micromanaging a war playing soldier :roll: I mean, it's not like anyone dies when we wage war ineffectively or anything....
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
You know how military coups happen? One military official who thinks that the countries' civilian leaders are inferior and deserved to be removed.
Click to expand...

That is objectively false. No single military officer has that capability in any military.
 
Jim Mattis for SECDEF
 
cpwill said:
That is objectively false. No single military officer has that capability in any military.
Click to expand...
this is an overview of macarthur's termination as a lone wolf undermining US foreign policy:
With all American forces in full retreat , some of the military decisions made by MacArthur were accused of accelerating the crisis. American losses, particularly marines, reached the unacceptable range. The U.S. retreat was humiliating. The conversation now turned to total evacuation of our forces. General Ridgway assumed more and more responsibility in decision making. The U.S., during a lull in the fighting, announced that negotiations might be possible with both sides separated by the 38th parallel. As usual MacArthur rejected the idea of a negotiated settlement. He continued to irritate Ridgway, however so far Ridgway had kept it to himself. MacArthur continued to make statements that were contrary to not only Ridgway but to the official position of Washington, and specifically Truman. The arrogant MacArthur had derailed the U.S. initiative with his "routine communiqué", which was actually a dare for China to continue the war. The Pentagon received his message, which infuriated many high ranking officials. Acheson said that MacArthur had "shot his mouth off" for the last time. The next morning Truman awakened to the news of MacArthur's "sabotage". At that moment he could no longer tolerate his insubordination. Truman had considered firing MacArthur many times previous to this, but this was the last straw. Actually the order of Dec. 6 which MacArthur had disobeyed was explicit enough to warrant court-martial proceedings. MacArthur's statements were causing consternation in Washington as was his insulting personal letter to Ridgway. His advice letter to the House of Representatives again infuriated everyone. The British Government called the letter the "most dangerous" of an "apparently unending series of indiscretions". They claimed it was another irresponsible statement without the authorization of the U.S. or any U.N. member government. The Foreign Secretary complained that MacArthur wanted a war with China, and his leadership could no longer be tolerated. On Apr. 6 a meeting was held with Truman to determine how to get rid of MacArthur. Truman insisted "I'm going to fire the son of a bitch right now". MacArthur was ordered to turnover his command at once to Lt. General Ridgway. General Bradley warned Truman that if MacArthur heard about the orders before they reached him officially he might resign with an arrogant flair. Truman exclaimed "The son of a bitch isn't going to resign on me, I want him fired". MacArthur's dismissal was announced on late night radio:
"With deep regret I have concluded that General of the Army Douglas MacArthur is unable to give his wholehearted support to the policies of the U.S. Government and of the U.N. in matters pertaining to his official duties. In view of the specific responsibilities imposed upon me by the Constitution of the U.S. and the added responsibilities entrusted to me by the U.N. I have decided that I must make a change in command in the Far East. I have, therefore, relieved General MacArthur of his command and have designated Lt. Gen. Matthew Ridgway as his successor". MacArthur accepted the unsurprising news impassively. He said that he had never disobeyed orders, and that his dismissal was a plot in Washington to weaken the American position in the Far East.
Click to expand...
TRUMAN FIRES INSUBORDINATE MacARTHUR

macarthur was so full of himself, Truman could not allow him to remain in a position of authority damaging to the administration
 
justabubba said:
this is an overview of macarthur's termination as a lone wolf undermining US foreign policy:

TRUMAN FIRES INSUBORDINATE MacARTHUR

macarthur was so full of himself, Truman could not allow him to remain in a position of authority damaging to the administration
Click to expand...

....which in no way justifies the illiterate claim that a single military officer (any single military officer) deciding that he should replace the administration is all that you need to happen for a coup.
 
cpwill said:
Worth highlighting from the OP article in this context:
several of Mr. Obama’s top advisers over the past few months have also acknowledged privately that the president did not want another high-profile defense secretary in the manner of Mr. Gates​

In other words, with major portions of the world collapsing, the President didn't want anyone who might challenge his status as the Smartest Man In Any Room He Walks Into.
Click to expand...

At the very least an erroneous interpretation that is possibly the result of the flaw of distortion due to projection. On the other end of the spectrum it is a deliberate, diabolical distortion that is meant to create an image of the President as someone who is a self absorbed elitist snob in the minds of those who are susceptible, due to malice, envy, and/or frustration that Obama is President in the first place.

It appears George Will, et al, have quite a following, as this is no more than a regurgitation of the same vindictive rhetoric that has been born from that deformed mental womb.
 
MildSteel said:
At the very least an erroneous interpretation that is possibly the result of the flaw of distortion due to projection. On the other end of the spectrum it is a deliberate, diabolical distortion that is meant to create an image of the President as someone who is a self absorbed elitist snob in the minds of those who are susceptible, due to malice, envy, and/or frustration that Obama is President in the first place.

It appears George Will, et al, have quite a following, as this is no more than a regurgitation of the same vindictive rhetoric that has been born from that deformed mental womb.
Click to expand...

:) A pretense of sesquipedalianism will not save you.

Oh look, the President engages in a deliberate diabolical distortion meant to create an image of himself as an elitist snob who thinks he is the smartest man in any room he walks into:

President Obama said:
“I think that I’m a better speechwriter than my speechwriters. I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors. And I’ll tell you right now that I’m gonna think I’m a better political director than my political director.”
Click to expand...

:lol: The guy is arrogant. It's part of the core of who he is. He's so arrogant he's the kind of guy who can even admit to being arrogant, but think that that doesn't make him arrogant, it just makes him truthful. I mean, if writing two autobiographies before he even did anything wasn't enough, well, there you are, in his own words and in the words of his staff members (which you were upset about).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom