Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a “troll” by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldn’t be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg “It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill,” is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points – Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

Robert Gates Goes To War

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Robert Gates Goes To War

    For the Obama fan boys:

    The bad news is, Robert Gates unloads on your one true love.

    The worse news is, this is the first of many books on the incompetence of your lord and master. They blood is in the water, and we can expect that most everyone not yet 'still in the bunker' with him is going to write a book detailing why this mess we are in is not their fault, but the fault of the guy at the top. Sinking ships, rats, and all that stuff.

    The good news is... the truth about this fraud is going to finally come out. For the first time we'll get to see the real Barrack Obama. Not the manufactured fake that caused millions to be duped into voting for him... but the real deal.

    It's not pretty...

    In a new memoir, former defense secretary Robert Gates unleashes harsh judgments about President Obama’s leadership and his commitment to the Afghanistan war, writing that by early 2010 he had concluded the president “doesn’t believe in his own strategy, and doesn’t consider the war to be his. For him, it’s all about getting out.”

    Leveling one of the more serious charges that a defense secretary could make against a commander in chief sending forces into combat, Gates asserts that Obama had more than doubts about the course he had charted in Afghanistan. The president was “skeptical if not outright convinced it would fail,” Gates writes in “Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War.”
    “All too early in the [Obama] administration,” he writes, “suspicion and distrust of senior military officers by senior White House officials — including the president and vice president — became a big problem for me as I tried to manage the relationship between the commander in chief and his military leaders.”

    Gates offers a catalogue of various meetings, based in part on notes that he and his aides made at the time, including an exchange between Obama and then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton that he calls “remarkable.”

    He writes: “Hillary told the president that her opposition to the [2007] surge in Iraq had been political because she was facing him in the Iowa primary. . . . The president conceded vaguely that opposition to the Iraq surge had been political. To hear the two of them making these admissions, and in front of me, was as surprising as it was dismaying.”
    I love this contrast of leaders:

    It is difficult to imagine two more different men than George W. Bush and Barack Obama. Clearly, I had fewer issues with Bush. Partly that is because I worked for him in the last two years of his presidency, when, with the exception of the Iraq surge, nearly all the big national security decisions had been made. He had made his historical bed and would have to lie in it. I don't recall Bush ever discussing domestic politics—apart from congressional opposition—as a consideration in decisions he made during my time with him (although, in fairness, his sharp-elbowed political gurus were nearly all gone by the time I arrived). By early 2007, Vice President Dick Cheney was the hawkish outlier on the team, with Bush, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley and me in broad agreement.

    With Obama, however, I joined a new, inexperienced president determined to change course—and equally determined from day one to win re-election. Domestic political considerations would therefore be a factor, though I believe never a decisive one, in virtually every major national security problem we tackled. The White House staff—including Chiefs of Staff Rahm Emanuel and then Bill Daley as well as such core political advisers as Valerie Jarrett, David Axelrod and Robert Gibbs —would have a role in national security decision making that I had not previously experienced (but which, I'm sure, had precedents).

    Politics and agitation... the only things Obama knows. And they didn't serve him well.

    Thoughts?


    Robert Gates, former defense secretary, offers harsh critique of Obama&rsquo;s leadership in &lsquo;Duty&rsquo; - The Washington Post

    An Excerpt From Robert Gates' 'Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War' - WSJ.com

  • #2
    Re: Robert Gates Goes To War

    Obama is not a leader and he is not the leader. He is a follower. He has to be pushed into everything. Even his signature program should not be called Obamacare, it should be called ReidPelosicare or DemocratPartycare. Obama is just there for the ride. I think the American people realize that he is not the leader in any shape form or fashion and that is why he escapes blame for a lot. He's only to blame from the perspective that he has not led.

    מה מכילות החדשות?


    • #3
      Re: Robert Gates Goes To War

      How exactly is this news.

      Obama wanted to end the wars.

      The generals, while they may not have started the war, are asking for more troops to improve their effort.

      They disagree, that was clear from day one. Blindly following your generals does not a good leader make.

      Obama being "skeptical if not outright convinced it would fail" is just a testement to him being grounded in the worldly reality, rather than having a fantasy of American exceptionalism. A reality where extremists have expanded their influence in Iran, Iraq and Pakistan. Things that wouldn't have happened if we didn't have those damn wars and drone strikes.

      If it were up to me Obama should've cut half of the defense department. Half the budget, half the tanks, half the bases, half the planes, half the ships, half the nukes, half the contractors. Let the free market and the people keep their money.
      Last edited by erikvv; 01-08-2014, 05:48 AM.

      מה מכילות החדשות?


      • #4
        Re: Robert Gates Goes To War

        Originally posted by erikvv View Post
        How exactly is this news.

        Obama wanted to end the wars.

        The generals, while they may not have started the war, are asking for more troops to improve their effort.

        They disagree, that was clear from day one. Blindly following your generals does not a good leader make.

        Obama being "skeptical if not outright convinced it would fail" is just a testement to him being grounded in the worldly reality, rather than having a fantasy of American exceptionalism. A reality where extremists have expanded their influence in Iran, Iraq and Pakistan. Things that wouldn't have happened if we didn't have those damn wars and drone strikes.

        If it were up to me Obama should've cut half of the defense department. Half the budget, half the tanks, half the bases, half the planes, half the ships, half the nukes, half the contractors. Let the free market and the people keep that money.
        you don't appear to have read the opening post:

        Obama's resistance towards the war on terror is well known. What Gates showed in his book is Obama's indeciveness and his ineffectual "leadership" (which can't really be called "leadership" at all).

        I was also struck by his (Gates') candor regarding Joe Biden:
        ...Gates writes that Biden is "a man of integrity," but also a political figure who has been "wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades."
        to which the White House alarmist responded:
        The National Security Council issued a statement late Tuesday asserting that Obama relies on Biden's "good counsel" every day and considers him "one of the leading statesmen of his time." Not only that, the White House issued a highly unusual invitation for news organization representatives to photograph Obama and Biden sitting together Wednesday at their weekly private luncheon. It was another sign that the president was not putting any distance between himself and Biden.
        Gates also criticized the NSC with:
        Gates, a Republican, also slammed the National Security Council under Obama's watch. The Republican cited what he called the "controlling nature" of the White House, writing that Obama's national security team "took micromanagement and operational meddling to a new level."
        quotes taken from CNS News Article this morning.

        מה מכילות החדשות?


        • #5
          Re: Robert Gates Goes To War

          Originally posted by erikvv View Post
          How exactly is this news.

          Obama wanted to end the wars.

          The generals, while they may not have started the war, are asking for more troops to improve their effort.

          They disagree, that was clear from day one. Blindly following your generals does not a good leader make.

          Obama being "skeptical if not outright convinced it would fail" is just a testement to him being grounded in the worldly reality, rather than having a fantasy of American exceptionalism. A reality where extremists have expanded their influence in Iran, Iraq and Pakistan. Things that wouldn't have happened if we didn't have those damn wars and drone strikes.

          If it were up to me Obama should've cut half of the defense department. Half the budget, half the tanks, half the bases, half the planes, half the ships, half the nukes, half the contractors. Let the free market and the people keep their money.
          Yeah, I bet the folks receiving aid wish there were half as many people delivering half as much: Typhoon relief efforts gets new U.S. ships - CNN.com

          מה מכילות החדשות?


          • #6
            Re: Robert Gates Goes To War

            Originally posted by Good1 View Post
            you don't appear to have read the opening post:

            Obama's resistance towards the war on terror is well known. What Gates showed in his book is Obama's indeciveness and his ineffectual "leadership" (which can't really be called "leadership" at all).
            WHAT indeciveness? WHAT did he not effect because of his "leadership" that did want and would have been able to do? Is your vision of leadership a grand Red Square parade?

            Look at the great Iran deal, the Syria deal, the drone strikes, the peace progress made all over Africa, his efforts to reduce nukes, the return of normalcy in relationships across the world rather than "you're either with us or against us".

            Obama is a listener, a compromiser. He is compromising his own pacifism with the hawkishness of the security establishment and thereby not really satisfying anyone. That makes him too much of a warmonger much for my taste, but I certainly can't oppose him for being ineffective.


            I was also struck by his (Gates') candor regarding Joe Biden:

            to which the White House alarmist responded:


            Gates also criticized the NSC with:


            quotes taken from CNS News Article this morning.
            All I read from that is that Bush was a lapdog of the security establishment and Obama and Biden aren't. I know which of those sides I am on. Do you?

            Does Gates have anything to tell I didn't know yet?

            (̅_̅_̅(̅(̅_̅_̅_̅_̅_̅̅()ڪ

            On Biden: he had the insight to be against the first gulf war, and was one of the first to come back on his decision to support the second. What does Gates disagree with exactly? We should've bombed Kosovo instead of Serbia? The West Bank should be Jewish? We should bomb Iran? He believes we should lift the Embargo on Cuba? (well he would be right on that last one, but he isn't)

            מה מכילות החדשות?


            • #7
              Re: Robert Gates Goes To War

              Originally posted by tsquare View Post
              For the Obama fan boys:

              The bad news is, Robert Gates unloads on your one true love.

              The worse news is, this is the first of many books on the incompetence of your lord and master. They blood is in the water, and we can expect that most everyone not yet 'still in the bunker' with him is going to write a book detailing why this mess we are in is not their fault, but the fault of the guy at the top. Sinking ships, rats, and all that stuff.

              The good news is... the truth about this fraud is going to finally come out. For the first time we'll get to see the real Barrack Obama. Not the manufactured fake that caused millions to be duped into voting for him... but the real deal.

              It's not pretty...





              I love this contrast of leaders:




              Politics and agitation... the only things Obama knows. And they didn't serve him well.

              Thoughts?


              Robert Gates, former defense secretary, offers harsh critique of Obama’s leadership in ‘Duty’ - The Washington Post

              An Excerpt From Robert Gates' 'Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War' - WSJ.com
              Rats abandoning the sinking ship. Hmm. Can't think of a better analogy than that.

              Everyone not in the bunker coming out with tell-all's 'it isn't my fault'. That sure has to get up Obama's nose, as he doesn't feel himself accountable or responsible for anything, as his track record shows.

              The real legacy of Obama starting to unfold.

              WRT ObamaCare / ReidPelosicare / DemocratPartycare: You don't suppose that the Democratic leadership figured it out all along the way (even before the '08 campaign?) to take advantage of this rube president this way do you? I see Reid / Pelosi / Democrats / Liberals / Progressives taking ricochet fire, but Obama get's direct fire. What an excellent way of playing the DC game 'fuck your buddy' (to your advantage).

              מה מכילות החדשות?


              • #8
                Re: Robert Gates Goes To War

                Originally posted by MattInFla View Post
                Yeah, I bet the folks receiving aid wish there were half as many people delivering half as much: Typhoon relief efforts gets new U.S. ships - CNN.com
                Cuz the best way to transport relief goods is by nuclear powered aircraft carrier...

                מה מכילות החדשות?


                • #9
                  Re: Robert Gates Goes To War

                  Originally posted by erikvv View Post
                  Cuz the best way to transport relief goods is by nuclear powered aircraft carrier...
                  Sigh.

                  I'm guessing you don't remember how the tsunami aid actually got into the countryside where it was needed. Here's a hint - when the roads are covered in debris, you don't load it in your Volvo and drive it in. It gets flown in via a - wait for it - helicopter.

                  When the airport is all messed up from the storm damage, where do you fly the helicopters from? Yup, an aircraft carrier.

                  Seriously, do you even think about these things before you post, or do you just have to get a dig in at the US at all costs, reason be damned?

                  מה מכילות החדשות?


                  • #10
                    Re: Robert Gates Goes To War

                    Originally posted by erikvv View Post
                    How exactly is this news.

                    Obama wanted to end the wars.

                    The generals, while they may not have started the war, are asking for more troops to improve their effort.

                    They disagree, that was clear from day one. Blindly following your generals does not a good leader make.
                    No, you are revising history... Obama called Afghanistan "the good war" and campaigned in 2008 on the policy of continuing and winning that war. As Gates points out, once elected, Obama didn't have the balls to carry out his own policy.

                    In addition to that many of you on the left criticized Bush for not listening to the generals, the professionals. Not that there was any real proof of this, but that never stops folks on the left. Now that Obama is in, you make ignoring the generals a wonderful thing.

                    Originally posted by erikvv View Post
                    If it were up to me Obama should've cut half of the defense department. Half the budget, half the tanks, half the bases, half the planes, half the ships, half the nukes, half the contractors. Let the free market and the people keep their money.
                    I'll Take that deal... as long as we cut EVERYTHING ELSE in the budget by 50%.

                    Deal?

                    מה מכילות החדשות?


                    • #11
                      Re: Robert Gates Goes To War

                      Originally posted by erikvv View Post
                      How exactly is this news.

                      Obama wanted to end the wars.

                      The generals, while they may not have started the war, are asking for more troops to improve their effort.

                      They disagree, that was clear from day one. Blindly following your generals does not a good leader make.

                      Obama being "skeptical if not outright convinced it would fail" is just a testement to him being grounded in the worldly reality, rather than having a fantasy of American exceptionalism. A reality where extremists have expanded their influence in Iran, Iraq and Pakistan. Things that wouldn't have happened if we didn't have those damn wars and drone strikes.

                      If it were up to me Obama should've cut half of the defense department. Half the budget, half the tanks, half the bases, half the planes, half the ships, half the nukes, half the contractors. Let the free market and the people keep their money.
                      Dude you don't send your troops in to a situation where you are "outright convinced" they will fail. You can send them in to DIE if you feel that will accomplish their mission but throwing them into the grinder knowing you're going to fail because you haven't put enough shit on target because, as admitted, you opposed putting more troops there as a political consideration to get elected and now you're fucking stuck, is FUCKING CRIMINALLY IRRESPONSIBLE IN ANY COMMANDER BUT ESPECIALLY A SUPREME ONE. Command comes with a duty. The duty to spend your troops lives in a MEANINGFUL WAY not to throw them away uselessly on something you're 9/10's of the way sure won't fucking work because you tied your hands to get elected! A roman consul who did the same would've been TOLD not asked to fall upon his own sword.

                      מה מכילות החדשות?


                      • #12
                        Re: Robert Gates Goes To War

                        Originally posted by MattInFla View Post
                        Sigh.

                        I'm guessing you don't remember how the tsunami aid actually got into the countryside where it was needed. Here's a hint - when the roads are covered in debris, you don't load it in your Volvo and drive it in. It gets flown in via a - wait for it - helicopter.

                        When the airport is all messed up from the storm damage, where do you fly the helicopters from? Yup, an aircraft carrier.

                        Seriously, do you even think about these things before you post, or do you just have to get a dig in at the US at all costs, reason be damned?
                        A college buddy of mine was in the Corps and got deployed for tsunami relief. He spent a good bit of time digging up corpses out of the rubble and fixing helicopters (his actual job) every few days.

                        מה מכילות החדשות?


                        • #13
                          Re: Robert Gates Goes To War

                          Originally posted by MattInFla View Post
                          Sigh.

                          I'm guessing you don't remember how the tsunami aid actually got into the countryside where it was needed. Here's a hint - when the roads are covered in debris, you don't load it in your Volvo and drive it in. It gets flown in via a - wait for it - helicopter.

                          When the airport is all messed up from the storm damage, where do you fly the helicopters from? Yup, an aircraft carrier.

                          Seriously, do you even think about these things before you post, or do you just have to get a dig in at the US at all costs, reason be damned?
                          I am all for some relief effort and in fact I will begin training in 3 months for the Royal Netherlands Army as a reservist for mainly that purpose. (they'll be reading my posts here for the screening, oh dear)

                          But I know WHY we have all that equipment and what it is designed for, and it's not to help out people after floods how convenient it may be. If that were the case we would be much better off giving that $600 billion to the red cross so they could build their own fleet of vehicles. Cuz transport aircraft don't need flares and amphibious vehicles don't need machine guns to transport rice.

                          מה מכילות החדשות?


                          • #14
                            Re: Robert Gates Goes To War

                            Originally posted by erikvv View Post
                            I am all for some relief effort and in fact I will begin training in 3 months for the Royal Netherlands Army as a reservist for mainly that purpose. (they'll be reading my posts here for the screening, oh dear)

                            But I know WHY we have all that equipment and what it is designed for, and it's not to help out people after floods how convenient it may be. If that were the case we would be much better off giving that $600 billion to the red cross so they could build their own fleet of vehicles. Cuz transport aircraft don't need flares and amphibious vehicles don't need machine guns to transport rice.
                            They do when you're providing relief in a place like somalia.

                            מה מכילות החדשות?


                            • #15
                              Re: Robert Gates Goes To War

                              This is what happens when you elect narcissists who talk themselves into thinking they can talk everyone else into doing and thinking whatever they want them to. The very concept that someone else with a view of the world and life fundamentally incompatible with our own and is not going to be convinced otherwise by flattery and going to have to be taken out by force is completely foreign to them. Such people must be kept from the office of commander in chief at all costs, or your going to pay a very high price for no return on your investment.

                              מה מכילות החדשות?

                              Working...
                              X