• 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!

Top Marine to Obama: Get in the Fight

Bush's mistake wasn't invading. Iraq was like Vietnam as far as thorns in our side. Except we had the military to crush Saddam and forever rid the world of a monster. The Iraqi people wouldn't go back to that life like black people wouldn't go back to slavery.
Bush's mistake was in not enforcing the idea that the undertaking would be something along the lines of post-WW2 Japan and Germany. we would have to stay for DECADES, not years, to pacify that country and build a stable foundation. Liberals were just salivating form day 1 to get the hell out of there, no matter the long term consequences. He should have been honest and readied the people for the long trudge ahead. Instead he made it easier for the snake oil libs to come in at the first opportunity and and tear the entire operation down, piece by piece. but as long as they are deemed "right" at the end of the story, what the hell do they care. Someone else will deal with the chaotic fallout.
 
haymarket said:
The American people wisely want nothing to do with war in the Middle East. Lets keep it that way. The military is often like a kid who simply has toys they want to play with. One way to avoid that is not keep giving them so many new toys.
Click to expand...
Maybe you do not realize this but the military is not the ones who get us into wars. There are also very few in the military in positions of power who want to go to war.
I think your view of the military is based a whole lot more on liberal fantasy than reality.
 
I'm sure he doesn't give a **** at this point, but General Amos just might find himself retiring a bit sooner than planned.

Obama doesn't like it one bit when his Generals criticize him. He's like a little boy that way.

"I don't like the way you talk about me! I'll get you for that!"
 
CalGun said:
Then who ever made that plan, and obama carried it out, was wrong. They are ignorant of history and are condemned to repeat it - like you.
Click to expand...

Ignorant of history was going into that quagmire in the first place.

If only someone in the Bush administration had seen this coming.


What happened to this guy? I liked this guy.

edited for less-douchey youtube link. (yes, moveon.org is less douchey than the other one was)
 
Last edited:
Navy Pride said:
I got a flash for you...we have 1000 troops there now and counting.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and that should be zero. But this guy wants us to "get in the fight." Easy to say on your way out the door, send other men and women to die there. And for what?
 
Thrilla said:
did you like it when top generals spoke out against Bush?

if Bush signed the withdrawal orders, which he certainly did, why did we elect Obama to get us out of Iraq?
Click to expand...

Because McCain would have escalated the war.
 
Moot said:
Because McCain would have escalated the war.
Click to expand...

Did he say anything to that effect or is that speculation? I would like to believe McCain's personal experiences with war would make him more cautious about the costs of eternal warfare.
 
Navy Pride said:
I got a flash for you...we have 1000 troops there now and counting.
Click to expand...

Yes I know, that's disappointing as well. Though I suspect you're delighted.
 
JoeTrumps said:
Bush's mistake wasn't invading. Iraq was like Vietnam as far as thorns in our side. Except we had the military to crush Saddam and forever rid the world of a monster. The Iraqi people wouldn't go back to that life like black people wouldn't go back to slavery.
Bush's mistake was in not enforcing the idea that the undertaking would be something along the lines of post-WW2 Japan and Germany. we would have to stay for DECADES, not years, to pacify that country and build a stable foundation. Liberals were just salivating form day 1 to get the hell out of there, no matter the long term consequences. He should have been honest and readied the people for the long trudge ahead. Instead he made it easier for the snake oil libs to come in at the first opportunity and and tear the entire operation down, piece by piece. but as long as they are deemed "right" at the end of the story, what the hell do they care. Someone else will deal with the chaotic fallout.
Click to expand...

Yeah well sorry, Americans aren't interested in decades of occupation of Iraq. And Bush was wrong to invade Iraq, that's been established sooooooo many times.
 
Mycroft said:
I'm sure he doesn't give a **** at this point, but General Amos just might find himself retiring a bit sooner than planned.

Obama doesn't like it one bit when his Generals criticize him. He's like a little boy that way.

"I don't like the way you talk about me! I'll get you for that!"
Click to expand...

Presidents fire generals that cross them or embarrass them. What a partisan statement.
 
Deuce said:
Did he say anything to that effect or is that speculation? I would like to believe McCain's personal experiences with war would make him more cautious about the costs of eternal warfare.
Click to expand...

Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran, ring a bell!
 
Thrilla said:
coward?

he's not the kind of Officer I prefer ( flyboys are very different leaders than grunts), but he's definitely no coward.
Click to expand...

He used Dakota Meyer as a rhetorical human shield to protect himself from criticism. I'll sling out the "coward" charge against this guy.

What he's saying isn't exactly all that novel or original. It is pretty much what everyone in the national security sector already knows.
 
Deuce said:
Did he say anything to that effect or is that speculation? I would like to believe McCain's personal experiences with war would make him more cautious about the costs of eternal warfare.
Click to expand...

McCain backed the Surge in '07-08; a time when his own son was deployed as a Marine Corps Infantryman, so he knew what it could potentially cost him. So, you know, that makes him, like, an evil war-mongerer and stuff :roll:
 
braindrain said:
Maybe you do not realize this but the military is not the ones who get us into wars. There are also very few in the military in positions of power who want to go to war.
I think your view of the military is based a whole lot more on liberal fantasy than reality.
Click to expand...

yeah - the military never lobbies for military action..... or maybe you did not read the OP?
 
Montecresto said:
Yeah well sorry, Americans aren't interested in decades of occupation of Iraq. And Bush was wrong to invade Iraq, that's been established sooooooo many times.
Click to expand...

..and you do write the history books, so who am i to argue.
 
This is why generals should stick to tactical and stay away from strategic.

This guy seems willing to throw American lives out the window to try and police the world...when policing the world is none of America's business.
And all it does is cost trillions of dollars America does not have, create more resentment and hatred of Americans and (worst of all) get brave Americans killed/permanently injured fighting other people's battles.

Generals are for tactics and logistics...NOT politics.

If he wants to try and start wars - he should resign and run for office.

Otherwise, I wish he would keep his Neocon ideology to himself.
 
Last edited:
DA60 said:
This is why generals should stick to tactical and stay away from strategic.

This guy seems willing to throw American lives out the window to try and police the world...when policing the world is none of America's business.
And all it does is cost trillions of dollars America does not have, create more resentment and hatred of Americans and (worst of all) get brave Americans killed/permanently injured fighting other people's battles.

Generals are for tactics and logistics...NOT politics.

I wish they would remember that.
Click to expand...

While I agree on principle with what you're saying, and don't believe a current military officer should be getting involved publicly in political matters, aren't you concerned in the least that we now have a terrorist organization that clearly would love to kill as many Americans as possible in control of half of Iraq?
 
Hamster Buddha said:
While I agree on principle with what you're saying, and don't believe a current military officer should be getting involved publicly in political matters, aren't you concerned in the least that we now have a terrorist organization that clearly would love to kill as many Americans as possible in control of half of Iraq?
Click to expand...

Not in the slightest...I think of ISIS as just another phase of Iraq changing into what it eventually will become...three countries; one Kurdish, one Sunni and one Shia.
ISIS is run by extremists. I assume they will be tossed out by moderates eventually (extremists rarely stay in power for long). But right now, they represent the Sunni's best hope for getting power, so the latter support them...for now.
Iraq, IMO, should be left alone to work out it's own problems and decide for itself what shape it wants to take.

As for terrorists?
You don't here of al-Queda bombing China much. Why? Because China does not interfere in the Middle East on a military basis...they just use economics. They don't prop up corrupt Middle Eastern regimes (like Saudi Arabia) or drone strike countries in that region when they feel like it. They just use old fashioned commerce to get what they want.

If America did that and left the Middle East to sort itself out (less then 25% of America's imported oil comes from the Persian Gulf anyway)...eventually terrorists would care less about killing Americans.
Plus, less American soldiers would die/get permanently injured and huge amounts of U.S. tax dollars would be saved.

U.S. Total Crude Oil and Products Imports
 
Last edited:
DA60 said:
Not in the slightest...I think of ISIS as just another phase of Iraq changing into what it eventually will become...three countries; one Kurdish, one Sunni and one Shia.
ISIS is run by extremists. I assume they will be tossed out by moderates eventually (extremists rarely stay in power for long). But right now, they represent the Sunni's best hope for getting power, so they support them...for now.
Iraq, IMO, should be left alone to work out it's own problems and decide for itself what shape it wants to take.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah, giving the Arabs the the ability to vote is a great idea when they elect the likes of the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas. Also, we're talking about an organization that was too brutal for Al Qaeda, you really think they're letting go of power. Finally, what happened the last time we let a radical Islamist government have control of a country?

DA60 said:
As for terrorists?
You don't here of al-Queda bombing China much. Why? Because China does not interfere in the Middle East on a military basis...they just use economics. They don't prop up corrupt Middle Eastern regimes (like Saudi Arabia) or drone strike countries in that region when they feel like it. They just use old fashioned commerce to get what they want.

If America did that and left the Middle East to sort itself out (less then 25% of America's imported oil comes from the Persian Gulf anyway)...eventually terrorists would care less about killing Americans.
Plus, less American soldiers would die/get permanently injured and huge amounts of U.S. tax dollars would be saved.

U.S. Total Crude Oil and Products Imports
Click to expand...

Now you're just showing how little you know about China and it's problems with radical Islamist. Allow me to enlighten you:

Terrorist attack kills dozens in China's tense Xinjiang region

And regarding of China and Iraq's oil.....

China Is Reaping Biggest Benefits of Iraq Oil Boom
 
Navy Pride said:
You got to love this guy, he tells it like it is......we should have more senior officers like him..........


http://finance.yahoo.com/news/top-marine-obama-fight-191600744.html
Click to expand...

Plus pink slips for those in battle. Sending pink slips to a war zone | New York Post

And over 500 generals have gone since Obama took over.

This is no accident. Few will want to serve in the United States military again when they know they'll get pink slipped and will, as in Iraq and Afghanistan, have been injured or seen their loved ones die for nothing. It's a modern tragedy on the highest scale.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9uZdfqv3Hc
 
Hamster Buddha said:
Oh yeah, giving the Arabs the the ability to vote is a great idea when they elect the likes of the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas. Also, we're talking about an organization that was too brutal for Al Qaeda, you really think they're letting go of power. Finally, what happened the last time we let a radical Islamist government have control of a country?
Click to expand...
So you are suggesting taking away their ability to vote?

That is ridiculous and backwards.


Now you're just showing how little you know about China and it's problems with radical Islamist. Allow me to enlighten you:

Terrorist attack kills dozens in China's tense Xinjiang region

And regarding of China and Iraq's oil.....

China Is Reaping Biggest Benefits of Iraq Oil Boom
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:

I said al Queda attacking China over their Middle Eastern policy...not internal Chinese terrorist problems.

Try reading what I actually type.


And of course China are benefitting...they are not butting in militarily and are willing to pay for the oil and it benefits them...which was my point.

:rolleyes:


You are clearly a waste of my time on this.

We are done...good day.
 
Last edited:
DA60 said:
So you are suggesting taking away their ability to vote?

Okaaaaaaaaaay.

That is ridiculous and backwards.
Click to expand...

Is it? Look at the result of Arab Democracy: You have the Muslim Brotherhood being elected in Egypt, Palestinians electing in Hamas, Iraq voting in a sectarian government that is the root of this problem.... where is Democracy in the Middle East not causing us more problems?

DA60 said:
:rolleyes:

I said al Queda attacking China over their Middle Eastern policy...not internal Chinese terrorist problems.

Try reading what I actually type.

You are clearly a waste of my time on this.

We are done...good day.
Click to expand...

If you are going to argue that the US desire for oil is a cause for hostilities in the Middle east, you cannot logically turn around and deny that China's involvement in the Middle East and wanting it's oil plays no part. You can't have it both ways, but if you can't stand up to debate then that is fine. Good day to you as well.
 
haymarket said:
The American people wisely want nothing to do with war in the Middle East. Lets keep it that way. The military is often like a kid who simply has toys they want to play with. One way to avoid that is not keep giving them so many new toys.
Click to expand...
So what if the United States doesn't want a war in the Middle East. Does that mean others don't want a war with you?

The Unites States has already shown themselves retreating in the major confrontations of Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan for a history of three losses and no wins. The US has, or had, the finest military and armaments in the world yet their record shows only cut and run.

Do you really believe, with all the leftists in the United States, that anyone is now afraid of America??
 
Grant said:
So what if the United States doesn't want a war in the Middle East. Does that mean others don't want a war with you?

The Unites States has already shown themselves retreating in the major confrontations of Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan for a history of three losses and no wins. The US has, or had, the finest military and armaments in the world yet their record shows only cut and run.

Do you really believe, with all the leftists in the United States, that anyone is now afraid of America??
Click to expand...

The three conflicts that you mentioned were NOT US defeats. There's a point that (unless you can't to begin colonizing... which at this point might not be a bad idea) their own people have to stand or fall on their own. It's not our fault they can't get their **** together.
 
Hamster Buddha said:
The three conflicts that you mentioned were NOT US defeats. There's a point that (unless you can't to begin colonizing... which at this point might not be a bad idea) their own people have to stand or fall on their own. It's not our fault they can't get their **** together.
Click to expand...

We have seen the photos of Americans scrambling to leave Vietnam. We know terrorists will win the war in Iraq, with the United States not even having a drop of oil they were accused being the reason they were there. In Afghanistan they were being defeated by a third world bunch of goat herders, a deserter is the hero, and the main subject of conversation in any possible conflict is 'exit strategy'.

Do people who intend to win ever talk of an 'exit strategy'? Only today's Americans, as far as I can tell.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom