• 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!

Kucinich: Obama should fire generals who pushed Afghan surge

RDS

RDS

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 21, 2009
Messages
5,398
Reaction score
1,323
Location
Singapore
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Obama campaigned on staying put in Afghanistan but then I have to agree on the opportunity cost of war.
"Some of [Obama's] generals made remarks publicly, which is unheard of," Kucinich told Russia Today. "Generals are subordinate to the Commander-in-Chief. When generals start trying to suggest publicly what the president should do, they shouldn't be generals anymore. That's the way it works. And frankly, President Obama, who is a good man, has given his generals a little too much leeway."
Click to expand...
Kucinich: Obama should fire generals who spoke out on Afghan surge | Raw Story
 
They weren't too bad. But it should be private until they resign. If they disagree, and can't live with it, resigning is the usual response.
 
When was the last time a general spoke out and wasn't fired?
 
these generals weren't going against the president. they were serving the president by telling him what they needed. the media said the generals wanted 40,000 more troops, but only got 30,000.

of course the military pushes for what they deem nessacary, from the sec. of defense, to the generals that run each of the branches of the military.

...and all this "fire the generals" is coming from a "classic" anti-military congressman!! hahaha

mtm1963
 
mtm1963 said:
these generals weren't going against the president. they were serving the president by telling him what they needed. the media said the generals wanted 40,000 more troops, but only got 30,000.

of course the military pushes for what they deem nessacary, from the sec. of defense, to the generals that run each of the branches of the military.

...and all this "fire the generals" is coming from a "classic" anti-military congressman!! hahaha

mtm1963
Click to expand...

Can you name me the last time a general went to the media when he wasn't getting what he wanted?
 
So, which generals would these be?
 
Did he? All I recall is some leaked information. I can't remember General McChrystal openly criticising Obama.
 
Last edited:
the makeout hobo said:
Can you name me the last time a general went to the media when he wasn't getting what he wanted?
Click to expand...

Can you name me the last general who was completely ignored by his commander in chief?
 
the makeout hobo said:
I think MacArthur might have. And how is leaking information any different?
Click to expand...

Do you know that McChrystal intentionally leaked that info?

If we're going t go by that standard, we need to go after all the folks that leaked info to try and burn Bush.
 
apdst said:
Do you know that McChrystal intentionally leaked that info?

If we're going t go by that standard, we need to go after all the folks that leaked info to try and burn Bush.
Click to expand...

Well how did the information get out there then?
 
who's to say the leaks weren't deliberate in order to set up a sernario/perception that they were being prudent and caution by only giving the 30,000 troops instead of 40,000 that was said to have been the requested number of the generals.

mtm1963
 
mtm1963 said:
who's to say the leaks weren't deliberate in order to set up a sernario/perception that they were being prudent and caution by only giving the 30,000 troops instead of 40,000 that was said to have been the requested number of the generals.

mtm1963
Click to expand...

I'm sure that's exactly the reason. But, we still don't know who leaked the information.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom