- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Obama and the military brass at odds with strategy to fight ISIL
Posted on 9/18/14 at 8:45 pm
Posted on 9/18/14 at 8:45 pm
Holy fricking shitLINK
This post was edited on 9/18/14 at 8:48 pm
14
Posted on 9/18/14 at 8:48 pm to WildcatMike
Yes. Obama is ruling out combat troops on the ground for political reasons while military advisors are saying the troops may very well be necessary for victory. Playing politics in Iraq is the reason we lost our gains to ISIS in the first place. It's stunning that we (read Obama) didn't learn from the first mistake.
Posted on 9/18/14 at 8:54 pm to WildcatMike
Well I heard Josh Ernest say today that boots on the ground means that we are occupying territory. I thought that was interesting. That means we can have shoes on the turf without having boots on the ground. All it's all about compromise.
Posted on 9/18/14 at 8:55 pm to WildcatMike
Let's see, you have a community organizer over ruling military professionals.
And America wants to know why we are in an economic and foreign policy disaster.
And America wants to know why we are in an economic and foreign policy disaster.
Posted on 9/18/14 at 8:55 pm to WildcatMike
This is who this country voted for TWICE!
We reap what we sow with this idiot in the WH.
We reap what we sow with this idiot in the WH.
Posted on 9/18/14 at 11:03 pm to WildcatMike
Yes, they are 6 years too late in stating their "opinion". Much of the Iraqi/Syrian mess probably could've been avoided had Barry listened in the first place to his Generals.......you know, who were on the ground and all.
Posted on 9/18/14 at 11:10 pm to WildcatMike
IMO it's disrespectful of such recently retired military personnel to publicly criticize the commander in chief like this. If this ha happened under Bush (who's foreign policy was horrendous), the right would be crying treason at the top of their lungs.
Posted on 9/18/14 at 11:11 pm to idlewatcher
quote:
Yes, they are 6 years too late in stating their "opinion". Much of the Iraqi/Syrian mess probably could've been avoided had Barry listened in the first place to his Generals.......you know, who were on the ground and all.
these same "brilliant" Generals had 6 years under Bush and couldn't achieve more than a stalemate.Posted on 9/18/14 at 11:30 pm to SirWinston
quote:
If this ha happened under Bush
FYI, Bush has been gone for 6 years. This is his ball game, this is his war
Posted on 9/18/14 at 11:38 pm to Tim
I'm saying it's tacky for recently retired military personnel to publicly criticize their commander in chief.
This post was edited on 9/18/14 at 11:39 pm
Posted on 9/18/14 at 11:42 pm to SirWinston
quote:
I'm saying it's tacky for recently retired military personnel to publicly criticize their commander in chief.
For playing politics in a situation there's no room for it? I disagree.
Posted on 9/18/14 at 11:46 pm to SirWinston
quote:
I'm saying it's tacky for recently retired military personnel to publicly criticize their commander in chief.
You've got a president, staffers, and god knows who else publicly criticizing a man that's been gone for 6 years. Suddenly it's taboo to criticize the Commander in Chief?
Posted on 9/18/14 at 11:56 pm to WildcatMike
Hardly the first time..
Posted on 9/19/14 at 12:02 am to SirWinston
quote:
these same "brilliant" Generals had 6 years under Bush and couldn't achieve more than a stalemate
Mostly a new set of "brilliant" Generals then under Bush, and remember all of whom were nominated by the current Commander in Chief.
Posted on 9/19/14 at 12:10 am to SirWinston
quote:
these same "brilliant" Generals had 6 years under Bush and couldn't achieve more than a stalemate.
What's the typical length of time required to overcome an insurgent army?
Posted on 9/19/14 at 12:26 am to the808bass
quote:
What's the typical length of time required to overcome an insurgent army?
8.22 Years with a standard deviation of 8 Years.
Posted on 9/19/14 at 12:30 am to ClydeFrog
quote:I am not a politician but I would like to rule out ground troops at this time as well. Iraq has an army. Syria has an army and multiple "moderate" rebel militias.
Obama is ruling out combat troops on the ground for political reasons while military advisors are saying the troops may very well be necessary for victory.
The ruling may be "political" but it makes sense. Overruling military commanders who don't take civilian support into account isn't really a problem. If the military guys were arguing that we don't have an attainable goal or an escape plan, then I would be concerned.
Posted on 9/19/14 at 5:28 am to mmcgrath
quote:I can tell you know absolutely nothing about the military.
Overruling military commanders who don't take civilian support into account isn't really a problem.
Posted on 9/19/14 at 5:30 am to mmcgrath
Obama is saying no boots on the ground just out of arrogant pride. It'll be a damn cold day in hell before the fool admits he was wrong in pulling the troops out to soon, especially since Bush said it would be a mistake.
Posted on 9/19/14 at 5:38 am to SirWinston
Yeah right spider..., err winston...
The US generals(and GWB amoung many others) warned this two-bit street organizer not to pull out of Eye-rack too soon or the country would descend into chaos...
Well lo and behold, here we are.
The US generals(and GWB amoung many others) warned this two-bit street organizer not to pull out of Eye-rack too soon or the country would descend into chaos...
Well lo and behold, here we are.
Page 1 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News