• 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!

Support Grows to End 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'

disneydude said:
It has not been that long since the General asked for additional troops.
Those crying the loudest are the ones who believe that we should on a whim send in the additional troops.
I actually am glad that Obama hasn't done that. Its a complicated issue. We've already lived through one administration that didn't think things out before playing our soldiers like pawns. Do we really need another one?
Click to expand...




No, actually the ones that are critisizing your god king, are those like me who served, and have seen this purgatory on earth situation created by indecision first hand (think Bush 1) . :shrug:
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
No actually, they are in a hold pattern with no direction. This hold pattern started under Bush, and continues under Obama.

It became a noted "hold patttern" when We learned Obama obly spent 25 mins with McChrystal in 70 days, and will take "weeks" to respond to a request for more troops.


Ever been in a situation, where you are being shot at, and you have to wait weeks to find out if you are going to fight back, or retreat?


Not a fun situation, especially when you see the guy making this decision, on leno, and 50 other appearances, going to the olympics, and now discussing DADT.


It's about appearances, he is the CiC, he needs to start acting like it.
Click to expand...


Wow...Rev....how many threads did you start complaining about Bush going to the Olympics and speaking at thousand dollar a plate dinners to his base....and playing golf etc.....while there was a war going on.

ah....let me guess.....zero?

Just sayin.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Strawman. It's not about multitasking. Never made this argument.






I agree, we shouldn't make our service about our genitalia either.


Timing though, is off. Make social change, when we are not at war.
Click to expand...
Joe, were you born in 1991?
 
disneydude said:
Wow...Rev....how many threads did you start complaining about Bush going to the Olympics and speaking at thousand dollar a plate dinners to his base....and playing golf etc.....while there was a war going on.

ah....let me guess.....zero?

Just sayin.
Click to expand...



http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...ooting-against-america-10.html#post1058299868


Glass houses.




Afghanistan festered at the end of Bush's term, I was very clear I was not happy about it.


Feel free to usethe search feature.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
No, actually the ones that are critisizing your god king, are those like me who served, and have seen this purgatory on earth situation created by indecision first hand (think Bush 1) . :shrug:
Click to expand...

oh spare me. There are many who have served that feel differently.
 
disneydude said:
I always love this debate tactic.....its an absolute sign of weakness.
Click to expand...




You show me one soldier, airman, marine, in A-stan, who thinks this wait is not a bad thing.


Go on. Find me one who thinks hanging out in a warzone with no mission waiting for Obama to decide is a good thing... . :lol:
 
Let's clarify...

Do you think the military needs a clear mission and defined end terms for Afghanistan? Yes or no.

Do they have these at present? Yes or no?

Whose job is it to define these terms? ____________________

I'd like Joe and DD to respond to these 3 questions, please.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
No actually, they are in a hold pattern with no direction. This hold pattern started under Bush, and continues under Obama.

Ever been in a situation, where you are being shot at, and you have to wait weeks to find out if you are going to fight back, or retreat?
Click to expand...

Well I can see you are going to stick to your rhetoric, no matter how duplicitous. So I'll dig in my heels and repeat mine:

The problem with Afghanistan is, there is nothing to win. McChrystal’s plan, to me, acknowledges that. He doesn’t speak of winning anything; he speaks of not losing.

McChrystal’s plan calls for a increase of our forces as "security" while trying to massively increase Afghan forces so we turn it all over to them. But as the last eight years have shown, the locals don’t want to fight. At least not for us.
 
Joe1991 said:
Well I can see you are going to stick to your rhetoric, no matter how duplicitous. So I'll dig in my heels and repeat mine:

The problem with Afghanistan is, there is nothing to win. McChrystal’s plan, to me, acknowledges that. He doesn’t speak of winning anything; he speaks of not losing.

McChrystal’s plan calls for a increase of our forces as "security" while trying to massively increase Afghan forces so we turn it all over to them. But as the last eight years have shown, the locals don’t want to fight. At least not for us.
Click to expand...




Rhetoric? How about real world "been there done that"?


And if there is "nothing to win" why are you not for a full imediate withdrawal?
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
You show me one soldier, airman, marine, in A-stan, who thinks this wait is not a bad thing.


Go on. Find me one who thinks hanging out in a warzone with no mission waiting for Obama to decide is a good thing... . :lol:
Click to expand...

The fact that you believe that your service gives you carte blanche to speak for everyone in the military is simply laughable.
 
disneydude said:
The fact that you believe that your service gives you carte blanche to speak for everyone in the military is simply laughable.
Click to expand...

You don't think that the overwhelming majority of military service personnel, almost all of whom have spent time overseas in the last 8 years of being at war, want a clearly defined mission?

If not, you're daft. Sorry, but it's the truth. Our military personnel are heroes, and clearly they have no problem defending this country no matter what the cost, but they don't enjoy doing so without a clearly defined mission that includes terms for ending combat operations.

This is kind of a no-brainer. That you think it's arguable is pretty funny.

Also, you haven't answered my questions. Is there a reason for that? Should I feel neglected? :(
 
Catz Part Deux said:
Let's clarify...

Do you think the military needs a clear mission and defined end terms for Afghanistan? Yes or no.

Do they have these at present? Yes or no?

Whose job is it to define these terms? ____________________

I'd like Joe and DD to respond to these 3 questions, please.
Click to expand...


In answer to your questions:

1. Yes....but they've NEVER had it from the beginning. Its kinda hard to all of a sudden try to define a "clear" mission and end terms when you are in the middle of the action.

2. No.

3. Obviously the President.


However, those who are loudest at launching criticism are those who sat silent or cheered Bush on with his lack of plan from the beginning.

....and to then bring silly criticism that the President can't do anything other than focus on one issue is just ridiculous.
 
disneydude said:
In answer to your questions:

1. Yes....but they've NEVER had it from the beginning. Its kinda hard to all of a sudden try to define a "clear" mission and end terms when you are in the middle of the action.

2. No.

3. Obviously the President.


However, those who are loudest at launching criticism are those who sat silent or cheered Bush on with his lack of plan from the beginning.
Click to expand...

1. Actually, it isn't--when it's your job. It's a matter of actually sitting down and DOING IT.

2. You DON'T think that they need a clear mission? THEN WHY IN THE HELL ARE WE THERE???? AND HOW WILL WE KNOW WHEN WE'RE DONE? Or do you plan on having 100,000+ troops in a-ghan indefinitely???

3. I was similarly critical of Bush for lacking a plan/direction. I have no problem with committing our military to kick the ass of any country--as long as we have clear goals/objectives in doing so.

Not really a pacifist, but I like us to have a plan.
 
Last edited:
disneydude said:
In answer to your questions:

1. Yes....but they've NEVER had it from the beginning. Its kinda hard to all of a sudden try to define a "clear" mission and end terms when you are in the middle of the action.

2. No.

3. Obviously the President.


However, those who are loudest at launching criticism are those who sat silent or cheered Bush on with his lack of plan from the beginning.

....and to then bring silly criticism that the President can't do anything other than focus on one issue is just ridiculous.
Click to expand...





:lol: so you think the president is the one who needs to define the mission, and that he hasn't yet, and your biggest complaint is the strawmen you created? :lol:
 
Catz Part Deux said:
You don't think that the overwhelming majority of military service personnel, almost all of whom have spent time overseas in the last 8 years of being at war, want a clearly defined mission?

If not, you're daft. Sorry, but it's the truth. Our military personnel are heroes, and clearly they have no problem defending this country no matter what the cost, but they don't enjoy doing so without a clearly defined mission that includes terms for ending combat operations.

This is kind of a no-brainer. That you think it's arguable is pretty funny.

Also, you haven't answered my questions. Is there a reason for that? Should I feel neglected? :(
Click to expand...

What part of committing more troops makes it all of a sudden a "clearly defined mission?"

Anyone who believes that putting more troops in solves that problem is "daft"....sorry but that's the truth
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
:lol: so you think the president is the one who needs to define the mission, and that he hasn't yet, and your biggest complaint is the strawmen you created? :lol:
Click to expand...

No...I've said that the President is the one who needs to define the mission.
I've also said that I don't expect him to be able to do that easily where there hasn't been a clearly defined mission from the beginning in over a decade.
 
disneydude said:
What part of committing more troops makes it all of a sudden a "clearly defined mission?"

Anyone who believes that putting more troops in solves that problem is "daft"....sorry but that's the truth
Click to expand...

? This is a strawman, no one has argued this position.

I've stated, from the beginning of this thread, that we don't commit troops until we know why they're going, and what we hope to accomplish -- in real temrs --- by sending them.

Obama has not defined the mission (nor did Bush). We should not be committing additional troops until we do so (and frankly, Obama shouldn't be doing ANYTHING else with his time until he's figured out his goals for Afghanistan).

Does that help you understand my position better??
 
disneydude said:
No...I've said that the President is the one who needs to define the mission.
I've also said that I don't expect him to be able to do that easily where there hasn't been a clearly defined mission from the beginning in over a decade.
Click to expand...

He seemed pretty clear on what should be done on the campaign trail. And, if this is so complicated, why does he have time to commit to a variety of other activities?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom