Latest Diablo 3 News
DiabloWiki Updates
Support the site! Become a Diablo: IncGamers PAL - Remove ads and more!

Obama Sacks McChrystal, Puts in Petraeus Instead

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by SaroDarksbane, Jun 24, 2010.

  1. SaroDarksbane

    SaroDarksbane IncGamers Site Pal

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2003
    Messages:
    8,563
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    467
    Obama Sacks McChrystal, Puts in Petraeus Instead

    http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/06/23/general.mcchrystal.obama.apology/index.html?hpt=T1
    Unfortunate, but there wasn't any way around it, in my opinion. Regardless of whose opinion is correct, you can't let that kind of division fester.
     
  2. SonataArctica

    SonataArctica IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2008
    Messages:
    899
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    121
    Re: Obama Sacks McChrystal, Puts in Petraeus Instead

    "...now in its eighth year with a June death toll of coalition forces that is close to becoming the highest of the war."

    This is the saddest part of this whole topic.
     
  3. jimmyboy

    jimmyboy IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2003
    Messages:
    2,551
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    165
    Re: Obama Sacks McChrystal, Puts in Petraeus Instead

    Not sure what McChrystal was thinking when he made his public disclosure.

    Airborn then Counter-insurgency. At least it seems that Afghanistan is up Petraeus' alley.
     
  4. SnickerSnack

    SnickerSnack IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2007
    Messages:
    6,165
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    468
    Re: Obama Sacks McChrystal, Puts in Petraeus Instead

    I skimmed through most of the article looking for anything ****-can worthy, and the closest thing I found was McChrystal saying that one of the pres' aides said something to cover his ***. What he said was probably 100% accurate, and I think that firing him is way overboard.

    It's not like he works with the guy every day, so what's the big deal?

    Sure, it was a mistake to say something to a reporter about it, but is it really worth firing someone who (afaik) does his job very well?

    On a related point, who's going to do Petraeus' job if he's confirmed? His job was important too, right?


     
  5. jmervyn

    jmervyn IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Messages:
    15,328
    Likes Received:
    396
    Trophy Points:
    498
    Re: Obama Sacks McChrystal, Puts in Petraeus Instead

    I have an uneasy suspicion that this is a booby prize - Petraeus has oft been mentioned as someone that could be unified behind as President in this era of political slime.

    So what better way to off a potential rival than put him in charge of a losing proposition? Which, incidentally, is a demotion? If he fails, then the implication is that he wasn't as good as everyone thought he was.

    You can bet your bottom dollar that Petraeus won't get better support than McChrystal (who openly supported Obama). And who could forget how much support McChrystal received?
     
  6. Nazdakka

    Nazdakka IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2005
    Messages:
    1,470
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    165
    Re: Obama Sacks McChrystal, Puts in Petraeus Instead

    JMerv: So do you think that the war in Afganistan is a 'losing proposition'?
     
  7. jmervyn

    jmervyn IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Messages:
    15,328
    Likes Received:
    396
    Trophy Points:
    498
    Re: Obama Sacks McChrystal, Puts in Petraeus Instead

    Sadly, yes. Doesn't have to be, but we're currently not fighting to win it at the strategic level.



     
  8. SaroDarksbane

    SaroDarksbane IncGamers Site Pal

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2003
    Messages:
    8,563
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    467
    Re: Obama Sacks McChrystal, Puts in Petraeus Instead

    Yeah, I've heard some tinfoil-hat rumblings that perhaps McChrystal did it on purpose so he wouldn't be blamed when the whole thing went south. Seems a bit far-fetched, but I guess you never know . . .
    The fact that we're looking at pulling out of Afghanistan before Iraq is troubling to me, for one.

    I was wondering how you would come down on the issue, Jmerv. In your opinion, was Obama forced to let McChrystal go?



     
  9. jmervyn

    jmervyn IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Messages:
    15,328
    Likes Received:
    396
    Trophy Points:
    498
    Re: Obama Sacks McChrystal, Puts in Petraeus Instead

    That's too tin-hat for my tastes. I bet that was a mis-identification of the article's quote of McChrystal. Besides, he was the one invested in the strategy.
    Afghanistan IS Obama's war, while Iraq was Bush's. For those who forget, Obama tried quite hard to undermine Petraeus, the Surge, and Bush. There's nothing that the Socialist Left would delight more in than another Vietnam, complete with the international humiliation of America.
    Insubordination can't be given a pass, to be sure. But here's a fairly decent analysis of the event by some folks I know you love...



     
  10. Amra

    Amra IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2003
    Messages:
    7,261
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    474
    Re: Obama Sacks McChrystal, Puts in Petraeus Instead

    The whole situation does seem a bit odd.

    Regardless, what happens to McChrystal now? Does he stay in the military and just do something else? Or does he have to leave the military altogether?
     
  11. Tumbleweed

    Tumbleweed IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2010
    Messages:
    371
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    77
    Re: Obama Sacks McChrystal, Puts in Petraeus Instead

    Speaking as a foreigner, the whole story reeks. From both sides.

    Generals have no business commenting on politics and Presidents unless they are retired, so McChrystal's comments were out of line. The military should do its best to stay out of civilian affairs, because a politicized military is a hazard to democracy.

    That said, the Administration was in way, way too much hurry to fire McChrystal. They were far more forgiving with Obama's other appointees who had a long history of controversial-to-outrageous public statements before, during and after they got the job (Chas Freeman anyone?). I think it reflects just how intolerant the Obama team is of any criticism directed at them.
     
  12. llad12

    llad12 IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Messages:
    6,189
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    466
    Re: Obama Sacks McChrystal, Puts in Petraeus Instead

    From what I understand, Petraeus is going to still utilize McChrystal's strategies and Obama has now disavowed his 2011 drawdown date.

    It doesn't matter what general they put in ... this bloody little war is a loser.
     
  13. jmervyn

    jmervyn IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Messages:
    15,328
    Likes Received:
    396
    Trophy Points:
    498
    Re: Obama Sacks McChrystal, Puts in Petraeus Instead

    Our rezident communist-cum-military-expert doesn't know WTF he's talking about, of course, but I doubt very much that anyone in NerObama's administration has the stones or interest in winning.

    Here's an interesting article about it by someone Ill considers Satan himself (and blames for somehow, as a little-read conservative journo, as causing the Iraq war):


     
  14. vdzele

    vdzele IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2003
    Messages:
    1,554
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    256
    Re: Obama Sacks McChrystal, Puts in Petraeus Instead

    I've heard that the new general is determined in destroying opium fields. :no:
     
  15. SaroDarksbane

    SaroDarksbane IncGamers Site Pal

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2003
    Messages:
    8,563
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    467
    Re: Obama Sacks McChrystal, Puts in Petraeus Instead

    Driving the costs of opium up, thereby making it more profitable to plant opium, thereby encouraging more farmers to do so.

    The stupidity of the "war" on drugs would be hilarious if it didn't also costs thousands of lives along with the unreasonable price tag. :coffee:



     
  16. llad12

    llad12 IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Messages:
    6,189
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    466
    Re: Obama Sacks McChrystal, Puts in Petraeus Instead

    Heh, well time certainly hasn't stemmed your rabid name-calling, pompous arrogance, and pigeon-holed views.

    Right, all we have to do is conquer 40,000 plus villages in Afghanistan while backing a corrupt Afghan government and having no clue about the culture or values of the country we are occupying. Afghanistan should be a walk-in-the-park for our mighty ball-busting American military. Why we will just go in there, kick ***, and the Afghans will fall to their knees and bow to us.

    After all, look how well the Soviets and British did over there ...

    Still refering to and quoting that Neo-Con Kristol? With every passing day, your continuing remarks fly-in-the-face of your so-called "Libertarian" values.

    Want to know what real Libertarians think about America's burgeoning empire, the all encompassing military-industrial complex, and this little war?

    Go get a helping from this site: AntiWar.com and take your delusions elsewhere.



     
    Last edited: Jun 26, 2010
  17. Noodle

    Noodle Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2003
    Messages:
    9,267
    Likes Received:
    609
    Trophy Points:
    235
    Re: Obama Sacks McChrystal, Puts in Petraeus Instead

    Price of opium going up? Won't someone think of the dope fiends? Wake up, world!
     
  18. jmervyn

    jmervyn IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Messages:
    15,328
    Likes Received:
    396
    Trophy Points:
    498
    Re: Obama Sacks McChrystal, Puts in Petraeus Instead

    Yet you type that without any sense of irony or awareness whatsoever! Well done!
    Weren't you predicting the fail of the Surge and your beloved and desired humiliation of America just a couple of years ago? Funny how willing you are to prove that your head is embedded and locked. At least you finally spoke up about something you <do> have a remote clue on, which was the oil spill thread. Better that you stick to sucking your rocks, and leave the war-fighting to those who understand it.
    But according to your earlier post, he single-handedly started the Gulf War, right? :crazyeyes:
    Hey, Trotsky-boy, get some new material. This crap you're peddling is about 40 years out of date. And if you hadn't recognized that 'burgeoning' is about the most wrong-minded word imaginable, you haven't even been reading your Treason Times Op-Ed page.
    No, see, that's a Communist, anti-American, and indymedia-style site, which is why only you would consider it legitimate or even sane. A Libertarian would read Reason, though Libertarians are often isolationists and are certainly not cheerleaders for this conflict as it is currently engaged.



     
  19. zrk

    zrk IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2003
    Messages:
    1,942
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    165
    Re: Obama Sacks McChrystal, Puts in Petraeus Instead

    How about think about the rest of us that DONT use drugs? Why do we have to suffer the increase in criminal activity due to victimless drug activity being criminalised and as such having a small opportunity cost of additional crime associated with it. You come tell it to the victims of the drug war that they are only thinking about the druggies :rant:



     
  20. SaroDarksbane

    SaroDarksbane IncGamers Site Pal

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2003
    Messages:
    8,563
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    467
    Re: Obama Sacks McChrystal, Puts in Petraeus Instead

    Well said, sir.



     

Share This Page