• 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!

Former US commander Stanley McChrystal calls Trump dishonest and ‘immoral’

apdst said:
We fought against the idea of Fascism. Then, we fought the idea of Communism. Both ideas attemptex to dominate the globe, just like Islamocism is attempting to do.
Click to expand...

You are very confused. HAND
 
ttwtt78640 said:
I am unable to view the link on my old iPad 2.

After this statement:



The next obvious question would be "where, exactly, are these additional ISIS fighters and do you suggest that we send US troops to (all of) those places to fight them?".

The problem, IMHO, is that once the US goes down that rabbit hole (idea fighting) then we are indeed fighting an endless 'war on terror' since our exit from those many (and expanding?) places would be impossible "at the present time" as it seems to be now in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria. Obviously, as long as there are Islamists then they will want an Islamic State and will use terror to try to achieve it - yet we are assured that we are not at war with Islamists (the idea).
Click to expand...

I was wondering about that too. The question isnt whether ISIS is defeated around the world, but whether or not it is defeated in Syria. Is MccHristal suggesting we take the fight to every corner of the planet where a couple ISIS show up?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
I am unable to view the link on my old iPad 2.

After this statement:



The next obvious question would be "where, exactly, are these additional ISIS fighters and do you suggest that we send US troops to (all of) those places to fight them?".

The problem, IMHO, is that once the US goes down that rabbit hole (idea fighting) then we are indeed fighting an endless 'war on terror' since our exit from those many (and expanding?) places would be impossible "at the present time" as it seems to be now in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria. Obviously, as long as there are Islamists then they will want an Islamic State and will use terror to try to achieve it - yet we are assured that we are not at war with Islamists (the idea).
Click to expand...

Most of the rest of isis is either hiding in libya or afghanistan. Russian intel announced to the world last year isis was fleeing to the afghan mountains, which is ofcourse one of the hardest places to find them. Given the use of the moab under trump against their tunnels it is quite evident the us knew that before russian intel told everyone else, but given how little fighting they have done against the taliban, it is fairly obvious they are hiding to regroup.

The rabbit hole being the endless war is correct, by the time isis regroups iraq and syria will be powerful enough to not let them in, libya is regaining stability as well, so likely they will find another country to try and take for their self proclaimed caliphate, could be kyrgystan, uzbekistan, chechnya, jordon etc.
 
Fletch said:
I was wondering about that too. The question isnt whether ISIS is defeated around the world, but whether or not it is defeated in Syria. Is MccHristal suggesting we take the fight to every corner of the planet where a couple ISIS show up?
Click to expand...

Nope, the question is - what is the best way to defend the US homeland? We owe nothing to Assad or Syria.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Nope, the question is - what is the best way to defend the US homeland? We owe nothing to Assad or Syria.
Click to expand...

I understand that but the reason we are talking about this is because Trump wants to pull out of Syria.
 
beerftw said:
Most of the rest of isis is either hiding in libya or afghanistan. Russian intel announced to the world last year isis was fleeing to the afghan mountains, which is ofcourse one of the hardest places to find them. Given the use of the moab under trump against their tunnels it is quite evident the us knew that before russian intel told everyone else, but given how little fighting they have done against the taliban, it is fairly obvious they are hiding to regroup.

The rabbit hole being the endless war is correct, by the time isis regroups iraq and syria will be powerful enough to not let them in, libya is regaining stability as well, so likely they will find another country to try and take for their self proclaimed caliphate, could be kyrgystan, uzbekistan, chechnya, jordon etc.
Click to expand...

Islamic State support (the idea he wishes to fight) is global.

https://www.counterextremism.com/sites/default/files/Spiders of the Caliphate (May 2018).pdf
 
Fletch said:
I understand that but the reason we are talking about this is because Trump wants to pull out of Syria.
Click to expand...

Nope, the reason that I am talking about this is that I am addressing the statements inspiring this thread. Not only does that military genius (and expert on Islamic terror?) want us to remain in areas where US military is already present - he seems to want to send the US military all over the world to fight the idea of an Islamic State.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Nope, the reason that I am talking about this is that I am addressing the statements inspiring this thread. Not only does that military genius (and expert on Islamic terror?) want us to remain in areas where US military is already present - he seems to want to send the US military all over the world to fight the idea of an Islamic State.
Click to expand...

Thats what I said.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
Which is why we invaded Spain and deposed of Franco, right?
Click to expand...

Why did the fascists and the communists go to Spain to support their respective ideologies? It was because each ideology was trying to spread it's influence.

For The United States, the Spanish Civil War was a double edged sword. The bad guys won, no matter which side won.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Islamic State support (the idea he wishes to fight) is global.

https://www.counterextremism.com/sites/default/files/Spiders of the Caliphate (May 2018).pdf
Click to expand...

Their support is global but their military is not. They hide in the afghan mountains because even the us military with it's best tech is hard pressed to find where all of them are there. The question is not support, but the wuestion is where will they rise up next, they hit libya syria and afghanistan due to a power vacuum, but failed to take hold in egypt, wherever they go next it will be somewhere they can thrive with minimal resistance militarily, which leave many middle eastern countries as their possible next target as well as the caucuses.
 
beerftw said:
Their support is global but their military is not. They hide in the afghan mountains because even the us military with it's best tech is hard pressed to find where all of them are there. The question is not support, but the wuestion is where will they rise up next, they hit libya syria and afghanistan due to a power vacuum, but failed to take hold in egypt, wherever they go next it will be somewhere they can thrive with minimal resistance militarily, which leave many middle eastern countries as their possible next target as well as the caucuses.
Click to expand...

The statement in the OP link was that ISIS fighters were growing all over the world - obviously being in or staying in Syria (alone) is not addressing that. IMHO, it is mission impossible for the US military to prevent ISIS fighters from finding safe havens anywhere in the world.

We have had US military in Afghanistan for 17 years and have achieved, at best, a stalemate. At some point one has to admit that what we have been and are still doing militarily is not working - much like saying that no matter how many times I saw this board it is still too short.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The statement in the OP link was that ISIS fighters were growing all over the world - obviously being in or staying in Syria (alone) is not addressing that. IMHO, it is mission impossible for the US military to prevent ISIS fighters from finding safe havens anywhere in the world.

We have had US military in Afghanistan for 17 years and have achieved, at best, a stalemate. At some point one has to admit that what we have been and are still doing militarily is not working - much like saying that no matter how many times I saw this board it is still too short.
Click to expand...

We are doing it militarily wrong, because in effect many of those regions are tribal or aligned with religious sects, and we made the mistake of trying to build their nations in our image rather than having them build their own nations based off the challenges they face. The soviets invaded afghanistan before america did and got nowhere, before that it was the british and russian empires fighting back and forth over it, neither got nowhere, in the end afghanistan is nothing but an empire killer, as any empire is too arrogant to understand their tribal system of loyalty which is closer to feudalism and instead tries to destroy that system to only find the people are too stubborn to give it up and stay loyal to their tribes and their elders.
 
beerftw said:
We are doing it militarily wrong, because in effect many of those regions are tribal or aligned with religious sects, and we made the mistake of trying to build their nations in our image rather than having them build their own nations based off the challenges they face. The soviets invaded afghanistan before america did and got nowhere, before that it was the british and russian empires fighting back and forth over it, neither got nowhere, in the end afghanistan is nothing but an empire killer, as any empire is too arrogant to understand their tribal system of loyalty which is closer to feudalism and instead tries to destroy that system to only find the people are too stubborn to give it up and stay loyal to their tribes and their elders.
Click to expand...

The military is not trained or equipped to nation, region, tribe or cult build - they are well trained and equipped to nation, region, tribe or cult destroy. It would seem that without defining the military mission in those terms then it remains mission impossible.
 
Fortunately, many of our best known retired flag officers like Gen. McCrystal, Admn. McRaven, Gen. Jim Mattis, Gen. Kelley, etc., are not buying Trump's interpretation of stewardship. Imagine if you lived somewhere where the military leadership did buy into the likes of Trump?
 
Last edited:
The statements of Graham and the various generals demonstrate clearly that POTUS is PINO. Those behind the scenes make the decisions, whether they are described as Deep State or whatever else. All that talk of democratic republicanism and constitutional governance is lip service and propaganda only.
 
Thoreau72 said:
The statements of Graham and the various generals demonstrate clearly that POTUS is PINO. Those behind the scenes make the decisions, whether they are described as Deep State or whatever else. All that talk of democratic republicanism and constitutional governance is lip service and propaganda only.
Click to expand...

Couldn't you say that those statements by Graham and various generals are a necessary part of a public debate on policy? Didn't we learn due to a lack of public debate during the lead up to the inasion of Iraq that that's a positive thing to have?
 
dave8383 said:
Couldn't you say that those statements by Graham and various generals are a necessary part of a public debate on policy? Didn't we learn due to a lack of public debate during the lead up to the inasion of Iraq that that's a positive thing to have?
Click to expand...

Yes, I suppose you could say that.

To keep things in perspective however, did we have that public debate about entering Syria in the first place?

Did we have a public debate about AUMF as it relates to the powers of POTUS as enumerated in Article II of the US Constitution?

Your point is good, but public debates about policy and law is in short supply in this country. I would like to see some public debate regarding the enforcement of the War Powers Act of 1973. Alas, that is not to be.

Happy New Year!
 
Thoreau72 said:
Yes, I suppose you could say that.

To keep things in perspective however, did we have that public debate about entering Syria in the first place?

Did we have a public debate about AUMF as it relates to the powers of POTUS as enumerated in Article II of the US Constitution?

Your point is good, but public debates about policy and law is in short supply in this country. I would like to see some public debate regarding the enforcement of the War Powers Act of 1973. Alas, that is not to be.

Happy New Year!
Click to expand...

I would add the word good prior to 'public debates' and say, isn't that too bad?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom