Jump to content

Mattis to the rescue?


RTB

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:
20 hours ago, ClearedHot said:
I don't respect McCain AT ALL, because I know his roommate from the Hanoi Hilton.

I've only talked to a couple people who knew him, but it seems like everyone who was there gets real stiff when his name is brought up.

Phrasing.

  • Haha 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...
1 hour ago, bfargin said:

Some initial cheap shots (even if deserved) that kind of diminished an otherwise excellent speech.

It wasn't enough. I don't forgive him for joining that dumpster fire of a presidency then bailing. And that weird blood racket operation too... 

Mcraven is the hero here. He is calling it like it is, completely apolitical and just remaining loyal to the US. 

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Richard_Butte said:

Mcraven is the hero here. He is calling it like it is, completely apolitical and just remaining loyal to the US. 

Bruh, cmon. Merely being a 4-star General means being political. McCraven merely represents elite foreign policy consensus. A "nice guy" ...maybe?, but I bet you he towed the line on some of our disastrous foreign policy mistakes over the past 20 years (Iraq War, Libya, etc.)

Don't pretend he's anybody he's not.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bfargin said:

Some initial cheap shots (even if deserved) that kind of diminished an otherwise excellent speech.

Do you not like people showing emotion?  Maybe his views don’t mesh with everyone’s but I respect that he actually shows how he feels in regards to some comments, as opposed to just being politically correct and staying quiet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Ghost of James Post said:

Bruh, cmon. Merely being a 4-star General means being political. McCraven merely represents elite foreign policy consensus. A "nice guy" ...maybe?, but I bet you he towed the line on some of our disastrous foreign policy mistakes over the past 20 years (Iraq War, Libya, etc.)

Don't pretend he's anybody he's not.

Valid points. I don't have a rebuttal to that. I did enjoy his book "Make your bed" though, but my background is JSOC and he is pretty immortalized around these parts. 

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Retired GOFOs are like children; they should be seen and not heard.

Unless he/she is willing to step into the political ring and run for office, then hiding behind the "I'm a general and therefore apolitical, thus speak truth to power" is complete bullsh1t.

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We talk about failing strategy and then talk “immortalizing” guys who were at the tip of the spear during many of those miscalculations. I like Mattis, McRaven, mchrystal and what they taught us through exemplary organizational leadership....but that doesn’t mean they have the ing answer to every problem.

like brickhistory said join the solution cause I am pretty sure making bank in your think tank you rolled directly to isn’t helping anyone but themselves. 

Edited by Genghis John
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, brawnie said:

Do you not like people showing emotion?  Maybe his views don’t mesh with everyone’s but I respect that he actually shows how he feels in regards to some comments, as opposed to just being politically correct and staying quiet.

I'm good with emotion, but his whole speech was about getting rid of name calling and division and led off with jokes about POTUS. He stooped and got down in the mud, which is good in war and barroom brawls, but not before a speech about bipartisanship and working together. Just my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bfargin said:

I'm good with emotion, but his whole speech was about getting rid of name calling and division and led off with jokes about POTUS. He stooped and got down in the mud, which is good in war and barroom brawls, but not before a speech about bipartisanship and working together. Just my opinion.

Fair enough I see your point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sua Sponte said:

Some people here are conflicted about his speech because they’re Trump supporters, and they like Mattis, but don’t know how to tap dance around addressing Trump’s clueless insults of Mattis.

Also, McRaven apolitical? Sure 😂

http://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/17/opinion/trump-mcraven-syria-military.amp.html

That article specifically is one I was talking about. Trump literally admitted on the south lawn that he gives f*** all about the constitution. He asked Ukraine and China for help with the 2020 election. Not to mention the Mulvaney shitshow in the past few days. 

Its binary ones and zeros...this isnt up for interpretation. 

I mean I think we're on the same wavelength, but I really think Mcraven is for the boys and has our best interest in mind. I still think he doesn't lean one way or another. I think hes calling out dangers to our democracy. Maybe im wrong, hopefully not. 

Edited by Richard_Butte
  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/18/2019 at 12:41 PM, Richard_Butte said:

It wasn't enough. I don't forgive him for joining that dumpster fire of a presidency then bailing. And that weird blood racket operation too... 

Mcraven is the hero here. He is calling it like it is, completely apolitical and just remaining loyal to the US. 

What dumpster fire? Is that what CNN told you? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some people here are conflicted about his speech because they’re Trump supporters, and they like Mattis, but don’t know how to tap dance around addressing Trump’s clueless insults of Mattis.

Also, McRaven apolitical? Sure 

http://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/17/opinion/trump-mcraven-syria-military.amp.html

Trump is a piece of shit. He'll never be 10% of the man Mattis is, nor will he ever know what honor or courage is like Mattis does.

 

But Mattis, like the others, has been wrong on the Middle East, and no amount of personal character will make up for the fact they are fundamentally wrong.

 

In some sort of strange way we have ended up with two camps. The Bush/Generals/McCain camp, where personal conduct is dignified and policy is catastrophic, and the Trump camp, where personal conduct is alarming and shameful, but the policy is somehow pretty solid.

 

Not sure why we can't have both, but you'd have to ask the electorate

 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 6
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Sua Sponte said:

I mean, having a huge turn over multiple times in your administration and having the House initial an impeachment inquiry isn’t exactly a positive status quo.

Turnover within presidential cabinets during a presidency is nothing new and far from a cry for concern, as to the impeachment inquiry: I think that speaks more to the desperation and madness of the democrats than to Trump’s actual performance.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dream big said:

Turnover within presidential cabinets during a presidency is nothing new and far from a cry for concern, as to the impeachment inquiry: I think that speaks more to the desperation and madness of the democrats than to Trump’s actual performance.

Turnover is normal, however this amount of members is not.

https://www.brookings.edu/research/tracking-turnover-in-the-trump-administration/

And the House doesn’t have to do an impeachment inquiry. Technically they just start articles of impeachment now. No where in the Constitution does require them to have an inquiry, call witnesses, etc. Of course it’ll never be approved by the Senate. But even being impeached, though not approved, has collateral consequences. Clinton was disbarred by the Arkansas Bar for being impeached due to lying under oath and obstruction, though it wasn’t approved.

Edited by Sua Sponte
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Sua Sponte said:

Turnover is normal, however this amount of members is not.

https://www.brookings.edu/research/tracking-turnover-in-the-trump-administration/

And the House doesn’t have to do an impeachment inquiry. Technically they just start articles of impeachment now. No where in the Constitution does require them to have an inquiry, call witnesses, etc. Of course it’ll never be approved by the Senate. But even being impeached, though not approved, has collateral consequences. Clinton was disbarred by the Arkansas Bar for being impeached due to lying under oath and obstruction, though it wasn’t approved.

The House impeaches and the Senate tries, convicts, and removes; there is no “approved.”

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, LookieRookie said:

The House impeaches and the Senate tries, convicts, and removes; there is no “approved.”

Semantics. One could argue the entire process is designed to remove an elected official, not just the actions by the Senate. Six to one, half a dozen to another.

Edited by Sua Sponte
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

The Bush/Generals/McCain camp, where personal conduct is dignified and policy is catastrophic, and the Trump camp, where personal conduct is alarming and shameful, but the policy is somehow pretty solid.

And there’s the rub.  It’d be nice and desired to have both positives, but if we do only get one (because the perfect scenario is unlikely) which do people want? The thing that chaps my ass is how emotional people get and so easily turn a blind eye to facts. I think Obama was very well spoken, polite, resembled the “consummate” politician of a first world country, but I also think his administration fucked it away horribly and he did a terrible job. I think trump is the antithesis of those same qualities, but his administration’s policies and actions are in general far more in line with what this country needs (my opinion obviously). So, perhaps he is the blowhard asshole that we needed at this particular time in our country’s existence. Doesn’t mean someone like him is the answer in ten years,  but for now I think we needed a shakeup in the political elite class across both parties. In the end, I don’t care who the man in the seat is or if I’d invite him to my bbq, I care what he and his administration does for America. And right now, the dems are run by socialists, so yeah, I’ll take the loudmouth asshole over that. 

  • Like 12
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Sua Sponte said:

Semantics. One could argue the entire process is designed to remove an elected official, not just the actions by the Senate. Six to one, half a dozen to another.

If you think accused and convicted are the same thing, your legal understanding is lacking.  House investigations and/or referrals are absolutely NOT the same as a Senate trial and removal from office 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...