U
Yes in Ko's world, it has no credibility until reported on by Brian Williams.LOL!
No, you don't get it; I can't even find this shit on Fox.
BotanyBoy
Fuck Your Safe Space
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2012
- Posts
- 52,256
Preach it, Brother!
Taco Bell in a war zone
For real...look at this "COMBAT" whatever the fuck...DEFENDING VETTEMANS FREEDUMB!!! LMAO!!!
Look they don't even roll around with mags anymore LOL prob got PTSD from the internet going down in the middle of a video game.
http://b.pcc4.fubar.com/35/58/2158553/2682414433.jpg
"YEEEEUPAHH!!...kid threw a hand grenade (official report found fire cracker) at the front gate the other night during dinner, got my combat patch. Put yer life on the line every day is the job though, FREEDOM!"
Oh dude....I can't stand that fucking shit. Straight up posers are the worst though....I've met 10th Mountain Rangers.....7th Group SEAL's...oh I ran into some doozies at Uni after getting out. In all fairness most were bullshitting to get laid.....*shrug* I'd either make for the cock block and have my own pass at her, or walk away shaking my head.
Yet the don't have any real capacity to do so...they just go around killing each other instead because /rage. The only real threat they pose? Totally up to domestic security....there is no fucking need for a continued military occupation of any number of middle eastern nation.
Not to mention we don't have the political capital to wage a holy war.... there is only one way to win a holy war, you and I both know America and the rest of the western world can't stomach it.
So cut the bullshit vetteman....be honest for once....what is the REAL reason you think we should continue fiddle fucking about in the middle east like a bunch of lobotomized chimps trying to fuck a football?? Because contrary to popular conservitard belief we are NEVER going to westernize/Christianize these people at the end of an M4 or JDAM. If you actually think that is going to work you're fucking retarded.......
Last edited:
Boxlicker101
Licker of Boxes
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2003
- Posts
- 33,665
You're not looking very hard. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...te-house-official-met-us-at-state-department/
http://nation.foxnews.com/2015/02/08/muslim-brotherhood-comes-white-house
http://news.investors.com/ibd-edito...ing-included-known-jihadist-group-members.htm
If you want more, Google "Obama Muslim Brotherhood."
M
miles
Guest
Why would he do that? He might become informed and violate one of the tenets of liberalism.
RobDownSouth
BoycotDivestSanctio
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2002
- Posts
- 78,974
Tell us how "informed" you are, schmuck.
U
unregistered
Guest
RobDownSouth
BoycotDivestSanctio
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2002
- Posts
- 78,974
Obama tells the enemy what we aren't going to do to him. He tells them he isn't really serious when he assures them there will be no enduring ground force operations. He tells the enemy how long he will "fight" them and he tells them that he's going to protect them from the next President for one year. What a man!
#ArmchairGeneral
M
miles
Guest
Obama tells the enemy what we aren't going to do to him. He tells them he isn't really serious when he assures them there will be no enduring ground force operations. He tells the enemy how long he will "fight" them and he tells them that he's going to protect them from the next President for one year. What a man!
The worst excuse for a leader in American history. He's a fucking traitor.
People who still support him are mentally ill.
U
unregistered
Guest
U
unregistered
Guest
Obama tells the enemy what we aren't going to do to him. He tells them he isn't really serious when he assures them there will be no enduring ground force operations. He tells the enemy how long he will "fight" them and he tells them that he's going to protect them from the next President for one year. What a man!
Well, it's a bit more complicated than that, as things usually are.
See also:
Wednesday, Feb 11, 2015 02:52 PM EST
White House’s plan for war: What, exactly, does “enduring offensive ground combat operations” mean?
The White House's AUMF proposal isn't as bad as it could've been -- but it can't leave any room for ambiguity
Jim Newell
The White House finally got around to submitting its draft authorization for use of military force for Congress to consider, debate, amend, vote on, ignore, ruin, whatever. And if it passes in some form or another, the war that’s already been underway for nearly six months might actually rest on a solid legal foundation.
The good news for people who don’t like open-ended ground wars — which, shockingly but not shockingly, is not everyone — is that the administration won’t pursue what could euphemistically be described as “maximum flexibility.” It has backed away from its previous posture, as annunciated by Secretary of State John Kerry in congressional testimony last December, that it didn’t want an explicit ban on ground combat troops. That’s the key thing here, and it was a pleasure to make such a fuss over it.
The president has always claimed that he will not deploy combat troops to fight a ground war against ISIS in multiple countries in the Middle East. But according to the administration’s current, dicey justification for war — the 2001 AUMF against Al Qaeda and affiliates, and conveniently lenient legal readings thereof — the only thing getting in the way of a ground war is the president’s judgment. As in: President Obama could simply change his mind. Or incoming President John Bolton or Hillary Clinton could decide that yes, an open-ended ground war in multiple countries in the Middle East would be an excellent investment of resources. This is why it’s so important to straitjacket the presidency, and Obama seems to understand how this could affect his legacy.
Now it’s just a matter of getting the words right. Specifically, five words: “enduring offensive ground combat operations.” This is what the White House’s draft AUMF prohibits — the language it uses to bar the “long-term, large-scale ground combat operations like those our Nation conducted in Iraq and Afghanistan,” as the White House puts it in an accompanying letter. The letter goes on to list exceptions:
If the prohibition on “enduring offensive ground operations” explicitly means everything but those itemized exceptions — special ops on high value targets, spotters, search and rescue teams, intelligence officials, advisers — then that’s not so bad. Most of the AUMF proposals have allowed these exceptions. The “boots on the ground” that are important to restrict are those that could blossom into tens or hundreds of thousands.
But that’s just what the letter says, and a letter is just a letter. Meanwhile, this is all the the draft legislation itself has to offer:
And… that’s the end of that section. Hmmm. Letting ”enduring offensive ground operations” just sit there like that, without any hard definition, runs the risk — or perhaps serves the intention — of allowing it to get loopholed beyond any recognition. Some hack lawyer for this or the next administration could come along and offer a legal opinion that “enduring” means, say, more than 100 years. Or that this war against various people in the desert thousands and thousands of miles away is strictly a defensive operation — there is no “offensive” nature whatsoever in these operations. This is about defending freedom! How dare you! Etc etc.
Or there’s the most obvious path regarding “advisers.” Hell, “possible presidential candidate” Lindsey Graham, relentless in his thirst for death, is already sniffing out this one:
It’s just a draft, sure, fine, but that language will need some tightening up. As Rep. Adam Schiff, one of the leading House Democrats on this issue, says in a statement today, the AUMF “should place more specific limits on the use of ground troops to ensure we do not authorize another major ground war without the President coming to Congress to make the case for one.” (He also notes another major problem: the new AUMF doesn’t address the 2001 AUMF. Meaning, if this new one were to pass and sunset in three years, the next administration could revert to the broad, problematic reading of the 2001 AUMF under which the White House is currently operating.)
The obvious problem with regards to tightening the prohibition of ground combat troops is that the Republican party controls Congress. And its leaders will want to move in the opposite, more expansive direction. It seems ironic, at first, that the Republican party would want to give the Imperial Tyrant President the broadest imaginable executive authority here, authority that the Imperial Tyrant President himself isn’t even calling for. This isn’t really about the current president, though. It’s about the presidency. The stakes aren’t just about who’s in charge today, but about who’s going to be in charge come January 2017 and beyond. If that person wants a ground war against ISIS, they should have to come to Congress and make that case.
Wednesday, Feb 11, 2015 02:52 PM EST
White House’s plan for war: What, exactly, does “enduring offensive ground combat operations” mean?
The White House's AUMF proposal isn't as bad as it could've been -- but it can't leave any room for ambiguity
Jim Newell
The White House finally got around to submitting its draft authorization for use of military force for Congress to consider, debate, amend, vote on, ignore, ruin, whatever. And if it passes in some form or another, the war that’s already been underway for nearly six months might actually rest on a solid legal foundation.
The good news for people who don’t like open-ended ground wars — which, shockingly but not shockingly, is not everyone — is that the administration won’t pursue what could euphemistically be described as “maximum flexibility.” It has backed away from its previous posture, as annunciated by Secretary of State John Kerry in congressional testimony last December, that it didn’t want an explicit ban on ground combat troops. That’s the key thing here, and it was a pleasure to make such a fuss over it.
The president has always claimed that he will not deploy combat troops to fight a ground war against ISIS in multiple countries in the Middle East. But according to the administration’s current, dicey justification for war — the 2001 AUMF against Al Qaeda and affiliates, and conveniently lenient legal readings thereof — the only thing getting in the way of a ground war is the president’s judgment. As in: President Obama could simply change his mind. Or incoming President John Bolton or Hillary Clinton could decide that yes, an open-ended ground war in multiple countries in the Middle East would be an excellent investment of resources. This is why it’s so important to straitjacket the presidency, and Obama seems to understand how this could affect his legacy.
Now it’s just a matter of getting the words right. Specifically, five words: “enduring offensive ground combat operations.” This is what the White House’s draft AUMF prohibits — the language it uses to bar the “long-term, large-scale ground combat operations like those our Nation conducted in Iraq and Afghanistan,” as the White House puts it in an accompanying letter. The letter goes on to list exceptions:
If the prohibition on “enduring offensive ground operations” explicitly means everything but those itemized exceptions — special ops on high value targets, spotters, search and rescue teams, intelligence officials, advisers — then that’s not so bad. Most of the AUMF proposals have allowed these exceptions. The “boots on the ground” that are important to restrict are those that could blossom into tens or hundreds of thousands.
But that’s just what the letter says, and a letter is just a letter. Meanwhile, this is all the the draft legislation itself has to offer:
And… that’s the end of that section. Hmmm. Letting ”enduring offensive ground operations” just sit there like that, without any hard definition, runs the risk — or perhaps serves the intention — of allowing it to get loopholed beyond any recognition. Some hack lawyer for this or the next administration could come along and offer a legal opinion that “enduring” means, say, more than 100 years. Or that this war against various people in the desert thousands and thousands of miles away is strictly a defensive operation — there is no “offensive” nature whatsoever in these operations. This is about defending freedom! How dare you! Etc etc.
Or there’s the most obvious path regarding “advisers.” Hell, “possible presidential candidate” Lindsey Graham, relentless in his thirst for death, is already sniffing out this one:
It’s just a draft, sure, fine, but that language will need some tightening up. As Rep. Adam Schiff, one of the leading House Democrats on this issue, says in a statement today, the AUMF “should place more specific limits on the use of ground troops to ensure we do not authorize another major ground war without the President coming to Congress to make the case for one.” (He also notes another major problem: the new AUMF doesn’t address the 2001 AUMF. Meaning, if this new one were to pass and sunset in three years, the next administration could revert to the broad, problematic reading of the 2001 AUMF under which the White House is currently operating.)
The obvious problem with regards to tightening the prohibition of ground combat troops is that the Republican party controls Congress. And its leaders will want to move in the opposite, more expansive direction. It seems ironic, at first, that the Republican party would want to give the Imperial Tyrant President the broadest imaginable executive authority here, authority that the Imperial Tyrant President himself isn’t even calling for. This isn’t really about the current president, though. It’s about the presidency. The stakes aren’t just about who’s in charge today, but about who’s going to be in charge come January 2017 and beyond. If that person wants a ground war against ISIS, they should have to come to Congress and make that case.
Boxlicker101
Licker of Boxes
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2003
- Posts
- 33,665
Quote:
Originally Posted by vetteman View Post
Obama tells the enemy what we aren't going to do to him. He tells them he isn't really serious when he assures them there will be no enduring ground force operations. He tells the enemy how long he will "fight" them and he tells them that he's going to protect them from the next President for one year. What a man!
I don't believe I have ever heard or read that designation for the Big O but it is an apt one. He basically sits in an arm chair and expresses disagreement with people who know far more about military matters than he does. The problem is that he is also in a position to insist those who are more knowledgeable than he is do things his way, even if they know it is the wrong thing to do.
Originally Posted by vetteman View Post
Obama tells the enemy what we aren't going to do to him. He tells them he isn't really serious when he assures them there will be no enduring ground force operations. He tells the enemy how long he will "fight" them and he tells them that he's going to protect them from the next President for one year. What a man!
I don't believe I have ever heard or read that designation for the Big O but it is an apt one. He basically sits in an arm chair and expresses disagreement with people who know far more about military matters than he does. The problem is that he is also in a position to insist those who are more knowledgeable than he is do things his way, even if they know it is the wrong thing to do.
Busybody
We are ALL BUSYBODY!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Posts
- 55,323
Psaki: Third U.S. Embassy Evacuation In Mideast Doesn’t Mean U.S. Is Being Run Out Of Town, We Have Six Embassies In The Mideast Still Open
#Obama:surrender monkey
Strategic relocation of assets.
Via CNS News
First Syria, then Libya, now Yemen: The United States has now evacuated its embassies in all three of those countries, but on Wednesday, a State Department spokesman said “it’s not a reflection” of U.S. “engagement” or “leadership.”
A reporter asked spokesperson Jen Psaki: “This is the third embassy that you guys have had to, uncharitably perhaps say, abandon in an Arab Spring country since the first one, which was Syria. Is there a broader concern that you’re being – the U.S. is being run out of town in the Arab world?”
“We certainly don’t look at it in that way,” Psaki responded. “I would remind you that we were not the only country that moved our staff out of Yemen last night (so did the U.K. and France), and we have to take precautions to protect the men and women who are serving on our behalf.
#Obama:surrender monkey
Strategic relocation of assets.
Via CNS News
First Syria, then Libya, now Yemen: The United States has now evacuated its embassies in all three of those countries, but on Wednesday, a State Department spokesman said “it’s not a reflection” of U.S. “engagement” or “leadership.”
A reporter asked spokesperson Jen Psaki: “This is the third embassy that you guys have had to, uncharitably perhaps say, abandon in an Arab Spring country since the first one, which was Syria. Is there a broader concern that you’re being – the U.S. is being run out of town in the Arab world?”
“We certainly don’t look at it in that way,” Psaki responded. “I would remind you that we were not the only country that moved our staff out of Yemen last night (so did the U.K. and France), and we have to take precautions to protect the men and women who are serving on our behalf.
U
unregistered
Guest
cowslinger64
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- May 15, 2010
- Posts
- 44,485
Leave the embassies open, have them get bombed and we can have 50 useless "benghazi" investigations on how Obama fucked up.
You guys are fucked in the head.
U
unregistered
Guest
Busybody
We are ALL BUSYBODY!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Posts
- 55,323
"Mr. President, we are being run out of Yemen."
"Look! Selfie stick!"
"Mr President....about Yemen?"
"CHEESE!"
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B9qPVLSCUAAjPF4.jpg
"Look! Selfie stick!"
"Mr President....about Yemen?"
"CHEESE!"
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B9qPVLSCUAAjPF4.jpg
U
unregistered
Guest
That is what any POTUS/CinC does.
Now, how do you know he disagrees with his generals and military advisors? You do not know what advice they are giving him, that's all behind-closed-doors stuff.
U
unregistered
Guest
Ulaven_Demorte
Non-Prophet Organization
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2006
- Posts
- 30,016
Such as? Go ahead, name names.
I can name a few that were relieved for damn good reasons.
For example:
Major General Michael Carey – As commander of the US land-based nuclear missile program, Carey was responsible for three units of ICBMs. He was relieved in October 2013 for his conduct on a July trip to Moscow, where he went on what news reports called a “drunken bender,” fraternized with local women and made inappropriate comments disparaging the Russian military. As a result, he was reassigned and made Special Assistant to the Commander of Air Force Space Command in Colorado.
or
Vice Admiral Tim Giardina – Giardina served as chief of staff of the US Pacific Fleet and was the number 2 officer of US Strategic Command (StratCom) until being relieved of duty in September 2013, following an investigation into his use of fake casino chips in a poker game. This is a class D felony in Iowa, where StratCom is located. He was already due to leave StratCom, and his bio currently lists him as “assigned to the staff of the vice chief of naval operations.”
How about these marine commanders?
Major General C.M.M. Gurganus – This was one of two generals asked to retire early by the Commandant of the Marine Corps after a September 2012 Taliban surprise attack on a Marine airbase. Gurganus was found to have “not taken adequate force protection measures” at Camp Bastion, which led to the death of two Marines and the destruction of six Harrier jet fighters.
Major General Gregg A. Sturdevant – Sturdevant was the other general asked to retire in the wake of the Camp Bastion attack.
Several more were at or close to mandatory retirement age of 62.
So go ahead, give us some names.
Because I can name more than a handful that were terminated under the previous administration for voicing opposition to the war in Iraq.. and they turned out to be right.
Last edited:
I had heard that some generals were cashiered for telling W what he did not want to hear, i.e., that it would be impossible to occupy Iraq effectively with fewer than 400,000 troops.
U
unregistered
Guest
Similar threads
