So Amos and other brass have always been accepting of their subordinates down the chain of command openly criticizing them in public? :2rofll:
I take your word for it.
But there seems to be more today who say they always opposed going to war in Iraq than there was in 2003.
I'm sorry Apache, obviously we weren't here on this message board at the time, so I can't prove this to you. But its not hindsight for ME, I was a huge outspoken critic of the plans to invade Iraq at the time, and it created quite the caustic work environment at the time, opposing it earned me the label of Taliban John, anti-American, un-patriotic, Muslim lover and more. I was right.
Having read - and admired - numerous posts of yours on this subject, I believe you.
To be honest, I came later to the party.
Back in 2003, I thought the salivation the GW Bush administration clearly had for invading Iraq was creepy...but I was more neutral on it otherwise.
But I am an investor, so I was caught up in the investment side of life...but by about '06 I finally began to realize (and lose all faith in) government's ability to do the right thing.
Ever since 9/11 I have seen one cowardly act after another by both administrations in the name of American security...Gitmo, Iraqi Freedom, rendition, propping up corrupt regimes, drone strikes, meddling in the Libyan civil war, NSA spying and so on - it's disgusting.
Mixed in with the incredible meddling of the Fed and one massive fiscal deficit after another...I now have ZERO faith in the U.S. federal government (or any other for that matter) and I assume whatever they do MUST be wrong until I have unbiased, factual evidence to the contrary.
I am not an anarchist...but the present system is NOT working and must be radically altered.
The masses must stop having all faith in their elected, federal officials if America is to turn around, IMO.
But I fear they will not until it is too late.
Radicals who want to kill everyone don't necessarily campaign that way. We can see that in our own governments.You are partially correct in that assessment. Left to their own devices, then you would be correct in saying that it is up to them. However, Iraq was a functioning democracy while we were there because we ensured that the Sunnis wouldn't get cut out of the government. That's why these democracies that have cropped up of late keep biting us in the ass when these people keep electing radicals that want to kill everyone.
Radicals who want to kill everyone don't necessarily campaign that way. We can see that in our own governments.
Are you really comparing going to compare people who cut other people's heads off to ANYTHING in American politics? Regardless, it's not like these organizations hide who they are and they don't need too. Everyone knew what groups like the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas were all about. They just didn't care.
I never mentioned head lobbing. What I am saying is that candidates will lie as to their real intentions. I assumed that was something with which we could all identify.
And everyone didn't know what the Muslim Brotherhood was all about.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/23/opinion/roger-cohen-working-with-the-muslim-brotherhood.html?_r=0
Or did they?
Obama, Muslim Brotherhood, and Mideast Chaos: Presidential Study Directive 11
Oh malarkey! They wanted this change. Do these people look scared to you:
Of course people want out from under a dictator but this isn't a black and white situation which you seem to be putting out there. Dictators are oppressive but can create an overall stable respite in a relatively unstable region. Saddam did that for Iraq. Tito did it in Yugoslavia. Nobody wants to be under a dictator but that doesn't mean people want to be in anarchy... especially religious nutjobs fighting in your front yard anarchy.
Having read - and admired - numerous posts of yours on this subject, I believe you.
To be honest, I came later to the party.
Back in 2003, I thought the salivation the GW Bush administration clearly had for invading Iraq was creepy...but I was more neutral on it otherwise.
But I am an investor, so I was caught up in the investment side of life...but by about '06 I finally began to realize (and lose all faith in) government's ability to do the right thing.
Ever since 9/11 I have seen one cowardly act after another by both administrations in the name of American security...Gitmo, Iraqi Freedom, rendition, propping up corrupt regimes, drone strikes, meddling in the Libyan civil war, NSA spying and so on - it's disgusting.
Mixed in with the incredible meddling of the Fed and one massive fiscal deficit after another...I now have ZERO faith in the U.S. federal government (or any other for that matter) and I assume whatever they do MUST be wrong until I have unbiased, factual evidence to the contrary.
.
It wasn't the Egyptians who wanted the Muslim Brotherhood, it was the Obama Administration. They replaced a long time American ally (Mubarak) by having him overthrown and replaced by the MB. It's there in the links and has done the US great harm for the years to come.When our politicians lie, they just go and past stupid laws ... or don't do anything at all. When their politicians lie, people get killed in brutal fashion. But I suppose that yes, at it's core, politicians do lie. Though, I suspect many in the middle east know just what the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas was all about, and sympathized with them.
Plus pink slips for those in battle. Sending pink slips to a war zone | New York Post
And over 500 generals have gone since Obama took over.
This is no accident. Few will want to serve in the United States military again when they know they'll get pink slipped and will, as in Iraq and Afghanistan, have been injured or seen their loved ones die for nothing. It's a modern tragedy on the highest scale.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9uZdfqv3Hc
It wasn't the Egyptians who wanted the Muslim Brotherhood, it was the Obama Administration. They replaced a long time American ally (Mubarak) by having him overthrown and replaced by the MB. It's there in the links and has done the US great harm for the years to come.
Who trusts America anymore?
Of course people want out from under a dictator but this isn't a black and white situation which you seem to be putting out there. Dictators are oppressive but can create an overall stable respite in a relatively unstable region. Saddam did that for Iraq. Tito did it in Yugoslavia. Nobody wants to be under a dictator but that doesn't mean people want to be in anarchy... especially religious nutjobs fighting in your front yard anarchy.
Hey, if I had my choice, Saddam would still be in power in Iraq. But that has nothing to do with this situation. The Egyptians didn't just want out from under Mubarak's rule, they wanted Democracy to have a voice and say in what their government will be. Well they got their voice, and they chose radicals to head their government. We'd be better off with Mubarak in charge.
tunisia chose democracy around that same time, and it adopted a constitution this january that is considered to be very progressive.
BBC News - Tunisia assembly passes new constitution
Hey, if I had my choice, Saddam would still be in power in Iraq. But that has nothing to do with this situation. The Egyptians didn't just want out from under Mubarak's rule, they wanted Democracy to have a voice and say in what their government will be. Well they got their voice, and they chose radicals to head their government. We'd be better off with Mubarak in charge.
You got to love this guy, he tells it like it is......we should have more senior officers like him..........
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/top-marine-obama-fight-191600744.html
Hey, if I had my choice, Saddam would still be in power in Iraq. But that has nothing to do with this situation. The Egyptians didn't just want out from under Mubarak's rule, they wanted Democracy to have a voice and say in what their government will be. Well they got their voice, and they chose radicals to head their government. We'd be better off with Mubarak in charge.
Let that "top Marine" run for the Office of Commander-in-Chief, then he'll get to make those decisions. Until then, his job is to do what he's told and stay out of politics. He doesn't know all the facts, anyway, OR have the same interests as everyone else in the country. He has a singular interest which doesn't take into account what's best for others. Sounds like he's chomping at the bits to get into the fight, is all.
Let that "top Marine" run for the Office of Commander-in-Chief, then he'll get to make those decisions. Until then, his job is to do what he's told and stay out of politics. He doesn't know all the facts, anyway, OR have the same interests as everyone else in the country. He has a singular interest which doesn't take into account what's best for others. Sounds like he's chomping at the bits to get into the fight, is all.
If this incompetent stumble bum president starts listening to his senior officers instead of firing them we would be in a lot better shape.
He did just that with regards to Syria last summer, and you didn't like that either.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?