• 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

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

No, if that's the case he's being a good manager. Micromanaging would be telling them in detail how to do their jobs (or even worse, giving orders directly to their subordinates).

And, you wouldn't neccessarily be correct in that opinion, either. In my opinion, making the decision doesn't take that long.

You don't think it takes some time to make a decision that involves the lives of tens of thousands more American servicemen and -women?

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

So you are denying the the civilian President (Truman) fired General MacArthur? .(whatever the background was)

WikiAnswers - Why did Truman fire MacArthur

Here,go ahead and ignore what I posted again-


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

Did I at ANY point deny MacArthur was fired?
 
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?"

You do realize that 17,000 soldiers is only one division, right? The US Army and Marine Corps consist of 22 combat divisions + 4 independent brigade combat teams.
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

Here,go ahead and ignore what I posted again-




Did I at ANY point deny MacArthur was fired?

Truman's initial considerations are not the question here.....His final decision is all that matters & the fact that HE gets the final decision....Not his generals.
That's kinda the whole point here.;)
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

I think we are answering the basic question in about 3 separate threads here.
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

Truman's initial considerations are not the question here.....His final decision is all that matters & the fact that HE gets the final decision....Not his generals.
That's kinda the whole point here.;)

No,you were insisting that it was only MacArther that wanted to nuke China...I showed you that Truman was on the same page and even ordered the deployment of nuclear weapons to the Korean theater.

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

No, if that's the case he's being a good manager. Micromanaging would be telling them in detail how to do their jobs (or even worse, giving orders directly to their subordinates).

They're telling him what they need to do their jobs. he seems to think they're all fll of ****. That's micromanaging, to be sure.



You don't think it takes some time to make a decision that involves the lives of tens of thousands more American servicemen and -women?

Oh, okay.

It doesn't take long when you already got soldiers on the ground need help, unless you just wanna say, "screw'em", and just let'em deal with it.
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

You do realize that 17,000 soldiers is only one division, right? The US Army and Marine Corps consist of 22 combat divisions + 4 independent brigade combat teams.

Sorry, but I have an awfully hard time of using the word "only" when I think of 17,000 soldiers. :lol:
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

Truman's initial considerations are not the question here.....His final decision is all that matters & the fact that HE gets the final decision....Not his generals.
That's kinda the whole point here.;)

No, it isn't.

The "whole point here" is that the President isn't making a decision (he's waffling), not that he's the one to make it.

This is why it's a strawman, dude. You lose yet again.
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

They're telling him what they need to do their jobs. he seems to think they're all fll of ****. That's micromanaging, to be sure.

Really? Could you point me to an Obama quote where he says anything of the sort?

It doesn't take long when you already got soldiers on the ground need help, unless you just wanna say, "screw'em", and just let'em deal with it.

:doh

. . .

Well, I guess I shouldn't expect any other response from someone who doesn't have access to any of the data the President does and who isn't ultimately responsible for the lives of tens of thousands of military personnel, much less the overall situation of an entire foreign nation.
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

No,you were insisting that it was only MacArther that wanted to nuke China...I showed you that Truman was on the same page and even ordered the deployment of nuclear weapons to the Korean theater.

Try again.


You must be deliberately feigning obtuseness. The whole point is who gets the final decision......The POTUS or his generals....& the POTUS is the Decider. (considerations are not the point here regardless of you throwing up smoke screens about them)
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

Sorry, but I have an awfully hard time of using the word "only" when I think of 17,000 soldiers. :lol:

When I was deployed to Iraq my base had 20,000 soldiers living on it....It was about as big as a small town area wise with plenty of room to spare.17,000 troops are a tiny drop in a bucket containing 2.4 million Personnel.
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

The whole point is who gets the final decision

No. THIS is "hollow" and "getting old."
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

You must be deliberately feigning obtuseness. The whole point is who gets the final decision......The POTUS or his generals....& the POTUS is the Decider. (considerations are not the point here regardless of you throwing up smoke screens about them)

Show me where I argued it should be otherwise.

I have argued that Obama should follow the advice of the military....Not hand over control of the government to the joint chiefs.
 
Last edited:
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

When I was deployed to Iraq my base had 20,000 soldiers living on it....It was about as big as a small town area wise with plenty of room to spare.17,000 troops are a tiny drop in a bucket containing 2.4 million Personnel.

The fact that 17,000 is a small number when compared to the total of the whole doesn't make it a small number on the battlefield.
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

The fact that 17,000 is a small number when compared to the total of the whole doesn't make it a small number on the battlefield.

17,000 is not enough to control the situation.
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

Show me where I argued it should be otherwise.

I have argued that Obama should follow the advice of the military....Not hand over control of the government to the joint chiefs.

Then why shouldn't Truman have followed MacArthur's advise to drop A-bombs?

Answer to both questions was written down by our founding fathers who didn't want the military to have final decision authority...They gave that authority to civilians.

You say that Obama "should follow the advice of the military..".....which can be true in many cases but "Should" is too strong a word.
 
Last edited:
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

17,000 is not enough to control the situation.


It's not 17,000, it's 17,000 added to 36-odd thousand. :lol:

That said, neither you nor I are qualified to say what is or is not enough to control the situation.
 
Last edited:
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

Then why shouldn't Truman have followed MacArthur's advise to drop A-bombs?


:confused: I have already showed you that Truman was considering it all on his own.


You say that Obama "should follow the advice of the military..".....which can be true in many cases but "Should" is too strong a word.

No,we arent talking about dropping nuclear weapons here...We are talking about the need to control the tactical situation in Afghanistan.I seriously doubt Obama knows a damn thing about guerrilla warfare.
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

Well, I guess I shouldn't expect any other response from someone who doesn't have access to any of the data the President does and who isn't ultimately responsible for the lives of tens of thousands of military personnel, much less the overall situation of an entire foreign nation.

I have access to what McChrystal told the president and that Patreaus and Mullen support McChrystal's position. Whatelse is there to know?
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

It's not 17,000, it's 17,000 added to 36-odd thousand. :lol:

The Soviet Union deployed 100,000 troops in Afghanistan throughout the 80's and never had enough troops to secure their lines of communication/supply and combat at the same time.They had enough troops to secure the major cities....the places where the war could'nt be won.

53,000 American troops are not nearly enough for the task at hand,it is too small a force for a country as big as Afghanistan.


That said, neither you nor I are qualified to say what is or is not enough to control the situation.

As a ten year (and still counting) military veteran ,I would like to think I know a thing or two about this subject.
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

I have access to what McChrystal told the president and that Patreaus and Mullen support McChrystal's position. Whatelse is there to know?

That the guy who is responsible for the ultimate result of the final decision is taking the time to think about it.

The fact that he didn't immediately give a "go" order suggests to me that there's more going on here than we're being allowed to see.

Isn't that how it works in a war -- that there are lots of things going on that spectators aren't allowed to see?
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

The Soviet Union deployed 100,000 troops in Afghanistan throughout the 80's and never had enough troops to secure their lines of communication/supply and combat at the same time.They had enough troops to secure the major cities....the places where the war could'nt be won.

53,000 American troops are not nearly enough for the task at hand,it is too small a force for a country as big as Afghanistan.

The situation in Afghanistan today is not the situation in Afghanistan 20 years ago. I'm sorry, but you just can't compare them apples to apples.

As a ten year (and still counting) military veteran ,I would like to think I know a thing or two about this subject.

I never said you didn't, but that still doesn't qualify you to say what is or is not enough to control the situation.
 
Back
Top Bottom