• 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!

43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforcemen

Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

When the fouding fathers were looking for someone to make miltiary decisions, who did they turn to? It sure as hell wasn't a lawyer with zero military experience.

He doesn't need military experience. That's what he's got advisors and the Joint Chiefs of Staff for. :doh
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

Is the POTUS CinC or not?

Does that make him God, or not? Is the POTUS king of the country, or not?

Is there anyone above him to make decisions for this country? (military or not)

Above him? Technically, no. Is his authority endless and beyond question? A resounding, no.

Didn't someone once call his job "The Decider?";)


Then, PBO needs to make a decision.
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

He doesn't need military experience. That's what he's got advisors and the Joint Chiefs of Staff for. :doh

We are talking about the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

You are missing the point....If you do not know what to do/what you are doing you should follow the advice of those that do....In this case the military brass.

So Truman should have let MacArthur drop A-bombs on China in the 1950's?
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

Then what is the question here???

This:

Which is more inportant to Obama the olympics or US troops. There has been a request for reinforcments and a plea that we are going to lose this war id this requirment is not met.


It would be one thing for the CiC to say "no", but to do 50 or so interviews and leno, then run off to take credit for getting the olympics while troops are dying waiting for an answer?


Inexcusable, just when you think this guy can't get any worse. Shame on him.







pathetic. simply pathetic.

Nowhere does he say it's not up to the President to make the decision.


(characterization of someone else's post is not needed or helpful to the discussion)

Sadly for you, this is wrong. If someone's post is a fallacy -- and a strawman certainly is -- then it's 100% legit to say so.

And that's simply the way it is in a debate. You lose.
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

Are you saying they're just bagging the whole thing?

If it was such a "comprehensive strategy," it should be able to weather a few things going the wrong way, and it should anticipate that the unexpected would happen.

I agree. Obviously, this is more serious than "a few things going the wrong way."

There weren't that many more troops committed back in March; a simple request for more shouldn't send him into such a spin.

You don't think 17,000 more troops, which at the time represented an increase of 50%, is "many more?"

Oh, okay. :lol:
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

Because common sense should dictate that if your Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, your CENTCOM commander and your theater command are all of the same opinion, it shouldn't take this long to make a decision.

Unless, of course, the situation is more complicated than we'd like to think it is.
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

Sadly for you, this is wrong. If someone's post is a fallacy -- and a strawman certainly is -- then it's 100% legit to say so.

And that's simply the way it is in a debate. You lose.

My post was not a strawman just because you say it was.
You again try to state your opinions as facts.
Winning & losing this debate is not the important thing nor is it your decision to make.;)
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

He doesn't need military experience. That's what he's got advisors and the Joint Chiefs of Staff for. :doh

Ok, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs agrees with the theater commander's assessment. Now what? Is PBO going to just discount everyone's opinion until he finally finds someone to tell him what he wants to hear?
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

I agree. Obviously, this is more serious than "a few things going the wrong way."

So, you are saying they're bagging the whole thing?


You don't think 17,000 more troops, which at the time represented an increase of 50%, is "many more?"

Oh, okay. :lol:

Apparently not, if ~ 40,000 more are needed.
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

Ok, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs agrees with the theater commander's assessment. Now what? Is PBO going to just discount everyone's opinion until he finally finds someone to tell him what he wants to hear?

Isn't that exactly what GW Bush did?
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

So Truman should have let MacArthur drop A-bombs on China in the 1950's?

Seemed as if Truman was considering using them himself...nice try though-

US threat of atomic warfare

In The Origins of the Korean War (1981, 1990), US historian Bruce Cumings reports that in a 30 November 1950 press conference, President Truman's allusions to attacking the KPA with atomic bombs “was a threat based on contingency planning to use the bomb, rather than the faux pas so many assumed it to be.” The President sought to dismiss Gen. MacArthur from theater command because his insubordination demonstrated his political unreliability: A US Army officer who might disobey his civilian Commander in Chief about using or not using atomic bombs. Also on 30 November 1950, the USAF Strategic Air Command was ordered to “augment its capacities, and that this should include atomic capabilities.” In 1951, the US escalated closest to atomic warfare in Korea, because the PRC had deployed new armies to the Sino-Korean frontier, thus, at the Kadena USAF Base, Okinawa, pit crews assembled atomic bombs for Korean warfare, “lacking only the essential nuclear cores.”

On 5 April 1950, the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) issued orders for the retaliatory atomic-bombing of Manchurian PRC military bases, if either their armies crossed into Korea or if PRC or KPA bombers attacked Korea from there. The President ordered transferred nine Mark-IV nuclear capsules “to the Air Force’s Ninth Bomb Group, the designated carrier of the weapons ... [and] signed an order to use them against Chinese and Korean targets”—which he never transmitted, having out-witted the JCS to agreeing to sack the insubordinate Soldier MacArthur (announced 10 April 1950), and because neither the PRC nor USSR likewise escalated the war.[44][verification needed]

Moreover (and contradictorily), President Truman also remarked that his government were actively considering using the atomic bomb to end the war in Korea (implying that Gen. MacArthur would control it), but that only he—the US President—commanded atomic bomb use, and that he had not given authorization. For the matter of atomic warfare was solely a US decision, not the collective decision of the UN—hence his 4 December 1950 meeting with UK PM Clement Attlee (and Commonwealth spokesman), French Premier René Pleven, and Foreign Minister Robert Schuman to discuss their worries about Korean atomic warfare and its likely continental expansion. The Indian Ambassador, Panikkar, reports, "that Truman announced that he was thinking of using the atom bomb in Korea. But the Chinese seemed totally unmoved by this threat ... The propaganda against American aggression was stepped up. The 'Aid Korea to resist America' campaign was made the slogan for increased production, greater national integration, and more rigid control over anti-national activities. One could not help feeling that Truman's threat came in very useful to the leaders of the Revolution, to enable them to keep up the tempo of their activities
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

My post was not a strawman just because you say it was.
You again try to state your opinions as facts.
Winning & losing this debate is not the important thing nor is it your decision to make.;)

It was a strawman because you were arguing against a point which nobody made.

Thus, you lose again.
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

Unless, of course, the situation is more complicated than we'd like to think it is.

Well, if the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the CENTCOM commander don't see any complications, then no one else should either. If anyone knows the condition of of the United States military as a whole, it would be the Chairman of the JCS. All three branches report directly to him.
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

Isn't that exactly what GW Bush did?

Not even close.
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

Seemed as if Truman was considering using them himself...nice try though-

So...are you saying that MacArthur fired Truman???

You aren't really going to deny that Truman fired MacArthur......Are you???
 
Last edited:
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

You don't think 17,000 more troops, which at the time represented an increase of 50%, is "many more?"

Oh, okay. :lol:

It's not that many when you consider the size of Afghanistan.
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

So...are you saying that MacArthur fired Truman???

You responded pretty fast....And showed you read nothing that was posted.
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

Ok, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs agrees with the theater commander's assessment. Now what? Is PBO going to just discount everyone's opinion until he finally finds someone to tell him what he wants to hear?

It could be he's taking issue with their assessment. It could be he's asked them to evaluate some alternatives and get back to him with their advice. It could be he's asked them for options on where and how to best deploy the troops that have been requested. Maybe he's deciding where it would be best to transfer troops from.

The point I've tried to make in several different ways in this thread is that the simple fact that a general wants more troops and hasn't gotten them yet doesn't mean that the President is sitting on his thumbs or doing other things instead.
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

It's not that many when you consider the size of Afghanistan.

Okay, and what do you think would be "that many?" Are you arguing that we need a certain uniform concentration per square mile before we have "that many?"
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

Isn't that exactly what GW Bush did?

Thats exactly what Bush did until he fired Rumsfeld...now stop bringing up Bush,your trying to derail the conversation.
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

It could be he's taking issue with their assessment. It could be he's asked them to evaluate some alternatives and get back to him with their advice. It could be he's asked them for options on where and how to best deploy the troops that have been requested. Maybe he's deciding where it would be best to transfer troops from.

And, if that's the case, he's definitely micromanaging the situation, which will lead to no good.

The point I've tried to make in several different ways in this thread is that the simple fact that a general wants more troops and hasn't gotten them yet doesn't mean that the President is sitting on his thumbs or doing other things instead.


And, you wouldn't neccessarily be correct in that opinion, either. In my opinion, making the decision doesn't take that long.
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

Okay, and what do you think would be "that many?" Are you arguing that we need a certain uniform concentration per square mile before we have "that many?"

Per mile?No....But anything less than 150,000 would be useless if it is victory we seek.
 
Back
Top Bottom