• 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!

Can the US Military Win Wars If It Keeps Losing Talented Officers?[W:43]

Beaudreaux said:
No surprise. You feel it's okay for you to insult people like me with accusations that are cutting to our (my) very honor and accuse me of committing war crimes, and that you have no personal responsibility for making such statements. There are numerous names for people like you, but I will not use them here since they are not allowed by the rules of the forum.
Click to expand...
Aw, are your widdle feelers hurt? Truth does that sometimes.
 
Summerwind said:
Or perhaps being educated and all, they see that historically for the past nearly a century now, we get into unending "wars," that do nothing but send our soldiers back damaged. And historicially, we've not actually brought any "greater good," to very many places in a very long time. If these wars were sports games, the fans of the team would be showing up for support,... with bags on their heads. We are a losing team spreading heartache and destruction and creating more enemies than friends... what intelligent person wants to be on that team?
Click to expand...

I'll bet you're a hoot to party with on Veterans day or Memorial day.
 
Simpleχity;1065224032 said:
Can the US Military Win Wars If It Keeps Losing Talented Officers?



With conflicts, weapon platforms, and operations becoming ever more complex, intelligence and innovation in the officer corps is a requisite for military success.
Click to expand...

Your syllogism is flawed because the academies are still producing the same high caliber graduates, and with peacetime always comes a Reaganesque peace dividend.

The non academy colleges only produce the bulk of reserve officers anyway.

And without another Viet Nam or Korean Conflict we would not need a huge massive Army anyway.

Ergo there are plenty of good officers to go around for the job now.

Q.E.D.
 
Beaudreaux said:
No surprise. You feel it's okay for you to insult people like me with accusations that are cutting to our (my) very honor and accuse me of committing war crimes, and that you have no personal responsibility for making such statements. There are numerous names for people like you, but I will not use them here since they are not allowed by the rules of the forum.
Click to expand...

don't worry about such nonsense...just remember that it's her right to say as she pleases

just be lucky you weren't around during 'Nam... this kind of stuff was widespread and socially acceptable.
 
Summerwind said:
Or perhaps being educated and all, they see that historically for the past nearly a century now, we get into unending "wars," that do nothing but send our soldiers back damaged. And historicially, we've not actually brought any "greater good," to very many places in a very long time. If these wars were sports games, the fans of the team would be showing up for support,... with bags on their heads. We are a losing team spreading heartache and destruction and creating more enemies than friends... what intelligent person wants to be on that team?
Click to expand...
Who did you vote for for president in say...1992? 1996? 2008? 2012?
 
VanceMack said:
Who did you vote for for president in say...1992? 1996? 2008? 2012?
Click to expand...

George HW Bush, didn't vote, Obama, and couldn't vote. Why? What difference does that make to the topic at hand.
 
Summerwind said:
George HW Bush, didn't vote, Obama, and couldn't vote. Why? What difference does that make to the topic at hand.
Click to expand...
Just wanted to see if you voted for a war criminal commander in chief. You like to talk big **** about the military and where they serve, what they do based on your interpretations. So...congrats...you voted for someone you deem a war criminal and will no doubt again vote for someone you deem a war criminal.
 
VanceMack said:
Just wanted to see if you voted for a war criminal commander in chief. You like to talk big **** about the military and where they serve, what they do based on your interpretations. So...congrats...you voted for someone you deem a war criminal and will no doubt again vote for someone you deem a war criminal.
Click to expand...

That is true, I do believe that Obama's administration has committed war crimes. I do not revere Obama, you won't find any evidence of that foolishness anywhere on this or any other forum I post on, because it ain't so.
 
Summerwind said:
That is true, I do believe that Obama's administration has committed war crimes. I do not revere Obama, you won't find any evidence of that foolishness anywhere on this or any other forum I post on, because it ain't so.
Click to expand...

And did you vote for Bill Clinton? Will you be voting for Hillary?
 
VanceMack said:
Just wanted to see if you voted for a war criminal commander in chief. You like to talk big **** about the military and where they serve, what they do based on your interpretations. So...congrats...you voted for someone you deem a war criminal and will no doubt again vote for someone you deem a war criminal.
Click to expand...

Actually probably not. I won't vote for Hillary, and I won't vote for a Republican. So if need be I simply won't vote for that office. I probably could have worked out things so I could vote in 2012, but I couldn't vote again for Obama, and the Republicans are just jokes, can't even begin to consider voting for the new style of them.... eh? People suggest I hold my principles ahead of common sense, better to vote for the lesser of evils, but I really just can't make myself do that, though I recognize the wisdom of the consideration.
 
VanceMack said:
And did you vote for Bill Clinton? Will you be voting for Hillary?
Click to expand...
So you ask questions and apparently don't read the answers? Granted the Hillary answer was being typed as you were posting this, but the Bill query is already answered, see if you can figure out where?
 
Summerwind said:
So you ask questions and apparently don't read the answers? Granted the Hillary answer was being typed as you were posting this, but the Bill query is already answered, see if you can figure out where?
Click to expand...
Ah...I see...you just didnt vote for President in 1996. Good thing...because whoever you voted for, you would have voted for someone you perceive as a war criminal.

You understand of course that anyone you vote for will end up being in your eyes...a war criminal. Now...granted I may have missed it...but while you are posting your critiques of the military, are you first venting hatred towards the sitting commander in chief/ Surely it is the Commander in Chief who you are TRULY upset with...is he being mentioned in your expressions of hatred?
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Hmph. You complain about how terrrrrrible Obama is...and then you state that you don't think we should have gone into Libya or Syria, and you're adamantly opposed to a military presence in the Ukraine.

So...seems to me that in YOUR eyes, Obama shoulda kept us in Iraq, but made the right decisions with Libya, Syria, and the Ukraine - he's three for four! That's a pretty good batting average, if you ask me.

And when it comes to the 'top brass', perhaps you should read up on how Douglas MacArthur publicly stated that he wanted to drop an atomic bomb on NK, and Truman not only said 'NO!' but also publicly fired him. MacArthur then went on the public speaking circuit and was the darling of the hawkish red-scare Right (we were FAR more hawkish then than we are now).

The Army hated Truman for not agreeing to drop the Bomb - after all, why not, didn't it work in Japan? The Army also hated Truman for requiring equal opportunity for blacks in the military. It turns out in the generations since, though, that Truman was right to not drop the Bomb, to fire MacArthur, and to require equality for blacks in the military.

The point is, Obama's not the military's most-hated commander-in-chief. I'd say Truman probably was, though Woodrow Wilson probably wasn't far behind. But just because a commander-in-chief makes decisions that are unpopular with the military doesn't make him wrong.
Click to expand...

I think you misunderstood. I was opposed to both Libya and Syria. I was also opposed to his African missions. Because it seems every where that 'bama goes the terrorists are sure to grow. I don't think that's incompetence, I think it's aiding and abetting.
 
Thrilla said:
don't worry about such nonsense...just remember that it's her right to say as she pleases

just be lucky you weren't around during 'Nam... this kind of stuff was widespread and socially acceptable.
Click to expand...

True. Last night I went to a college game and it was military appreciation night. During breaks in the game, veterans of Aghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, Korea and even WWII were brought out on the field to be honored. The last veteran honored was a WWII vet and his experience was pretty much depicted in Band of Brothers. Of course he was an elderly man now and needed the assistance of his family to stand up. He was in his uniform, though, and far from wanting to wear a bag on my head, as some claim here, I couldn't have felt greater repect for anyone.

It made me think of this:

“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.”


― Theodore Roosevelt
 
Go the Jeffersonian route and shrink that goddamn behemoth :2mad:

After all, what's the point of a large army if some of them can't be lead by great officers?
 
Moderator's Warning:
Stop talking about each other and address the OP.
 
Summerwind said:
That is true, I do believe that Obama's administration has committed war crimes. I do not revere Obama, you won't find any evidence of that foolishness anywhere on this or any other forum I post on, because it ain't so.
Click to expand...

Doesn't that by extension mean that the soldiers are guilty of war crimes?
 
Summerwind said:
By extension some are, that's true.
Click to expand...

But that isn't what the Nuremberg Trials declared... they said that if you willingly follow an immoral order you are also guilty.

So if the military follows orders that are "war Crimes" then is not all those that participate also guilty of war crimes?
 
Bodhisattva said:
But that isn't what the Nuremberg Trials declared... they said that if you willingly follow an immoral order you are also guilty.

So if the military follows orders that are "war Crimes" then is not all those that participate also guilty of war crimes?
Click to expand...

I believe that I've already answered in the affirmative. Why are you continuing to type as though we are disagreeing on this point?
 
Summerwind said:
By extension some are, that's true.
Click to expand...

Seeing as how in the past you have demonstrated a complete lack of knowledge with regards to the military please forgive me if I don't put to much stock in your opinion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom