alexava 6,977 Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 At this stage of things there are no good options available. I respect Petraeus and I respect his opinion. Walking away is not going to make the peoblem go away. We had the situation in hand and then Obama decided to just pull up stakes and leave them on their own. Maybe going there was not the right move. Once there however, you don't leave until you have a stable government capable of handling things. Letting Iran in on things is putting the fox in to guard the henhouse. In hand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFAN78 4,174 Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 His opinion I respect because he has been there and is highly decorated. These are the type people that should be running our country. Military leaders. Being a military leader is only one narrow aspect of being the type of overall leader required of a president. autigeremt is right...they aren't all cut out for that kind of power. Dwight Eisenhowers don't grow on trees. Let me rephrase, since you guys didn't understand what I meant. People that are in the office of Commander In Chief of our Armed Forces, in my opinion, should be those that have served in the military. In the past, I would have agreed with the concept. However, not because of military experience but, because at one time, I believe our military leaders served a higher calling than politicians, lawyers, or bureaucrats. I believe that our military leaders were more dedicated to public service and, many did in fact stand on higher ground, ethically, and in principle. Today, I believe we have military leadership that is just as driven by politics and bureaucracy as the rest of the government (this is a generalization intended to mean most, not all). I truly believe we don't need military leaders, liberal leaders, or conservative leadership. What we need are leaders who will more likely to compromise their ideology and, less likely to compromise themselves ethically. All of the talent, force of will, and ambition are worthless if a person is lacking ethically. In fact, that type of individual is probably more of a force for destruction than progress. I agree and it is why I would use caution regarding the David Petraeus interview. BTW, I hope I am wrong. Wouldn't it be interesting to have a private conversation with Gen. Petraeus, Adm. Fallon, and Sec. Gates. Wouldn't it be interesting to have a private conversation with Paula Broadwell? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFAN78 4,174 Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 Who is going to hold their breath waiting for Iraq to form a non-sectarian govt? These people have been at this religious war for 1400 years. Yaboy Georgie said they were ready for democracy! He was wrong! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFAN78 4,174 Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 At this stage of things there are no good options available. I respect Petraeus and I respect his opinion. Walking away is not going to make the peoblem go away. We had the situation in hand and then Obama decided to just pull up stakes and leave them on their own. Maybe going there was not the right move. Once there however, you don't leave until you have a stable government capable of handling things. Letting Iran in on things is putting the fox in to guard the henhouse. In hand? I don't think so. Better than present, much much better, but not in hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elephant Tipper 430 Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 I don't know. He's putting forth some ideas for deep thinkers. 'Muricans prefer easy solutions....bomb something. http://www.nbcnews.c...ilitias-n135311 OOOOPS ! Deep thinking "Murican" General Petraeus just said "BOMBS AWAY !!!!" "US should launch targeted military strikes on 'terrorist army' Isis, says General David Petraeus" http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/10913259/US-should-launch-targeted-military-strikes-on-terrorist-army-Isis-says-General-David-Petraeus.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Proud Tiger 4,261 Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 How 'bout that TT? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexava 6,977 Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 Maybe he got some info he was not privy to earlier. ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strychnine 1,809 Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 There is nothing in that article that contradicts what he said in the article TT posted. The theme of the original was basically that the US cannot and should not be Iraq's Air Force, especially considering that al-Maliki made much of this mess himself. The theme of the one Elephant Tipper posted is that they should be targeted for strikes if they present a threat to us. Meanwhile, our buddies in Saudi Arabia (the home of plenty of funding for all things Sunni) say that we absolutely should not intervene. The reality is that direct military action in Iraq is going to piss someone off. Personally, I would support action in support of al-Maliki if I felt he were capable of holding the country together after we got rid of his opponents for him. I just do not see it though. If we act to support him against the Sunni uprising, we end up pissing off the Gulf states that we are friendly with. We also do the unthinkable for so many people and find ourselves agreeing with Iran on an important issue, and possibly even cooperating with them. The region sees it as a Sunni vs. Shia issue, but we see it differently. However, how we see it is ultimately irrelevant because at that point we will have chosen sides in an Islamic sectarian conflict (in their perspective). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBlueVue 177 Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 Who is going to hold their breath waiting for Iraq to form a non-sectarian govt? These people have been at this religious war for 1400 years. Yaboy Georgie said they were ready for democracy! Maboy Georgie made a mistake but if you followed that story at all I'm pretty sure you know that John Kerry, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton even Diane Feinstein supported the Iraq War in 2002. So, maboy Georgie wasn't alone in his mistakes was he? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icanthearyou 4,468 Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 Who is going to hold their breath waiting for Iraq to form a non-sectarian govt? These people have been at this religious war for 1400 years. Yaboy Georgie said they were ready for democracy! Maboy Georgie made a mistake but if you followed that story at all I'm pretty sure you know that John Kerry, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton even Diane Feinstein supported the Iraq War in 2002. So, maboy Georgie wasn't alone in his mistakes was he? Did Cheney's fabricated intel fool GWB also? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cptau 169 Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 His opinion I respect because he has been there and is highly decorated. These are the type people that should be running our country. Military leaders. Being a military leader is only one narrow aspect of being the type of overall leader required of a president. autigeremt is right...they aren't all cut out for that kind of power. Dwight Eisenhowers don't grow on trees. Let me rephrase, since you guys didn't understand what I meant. People that are in the office of Commander In Chief of our Armed Forces, in my opinion, should be those that have served in the military. In the past, I would have agreed with the concept. However, not because of military experience but, because at one time, I believe our military leaders served a higher calling than politicians, lawyers, or bureaucrats. I believe that our military leaders were more dedicated to public service and, many did in fact stand on higher ground, ethically, and in principle. Today, I believe we have military leadership that is just as driven by politics and bureaucracy as the rest of the government (this is a generalization intended to mean most, not all). I truly believe we don't need military leaders, liberal leaders, or conservative leadership. What we need are leaders who will more likely to compromise their ideology and, less likely to compromise themselves ethically. All of the talent, force of will, and ambition are worthless if a person is lacking ethically. In fact, that type of individual is probably more of a force for destruction than progress. I agree and it is why I would use caution regarding the David Petraeus interview. BTW, I hope I am wrong. Wouldn't it be interesting to have a private conversation with Gen. Petraeus, Adm. Fallon, and Sec. Gates. Wouldn't it be interesting to have a private conversation with Paula Broadwell? Petraeus was fond of private conversations with her too. They are after all both West Pointers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFAN78 4,174 Posted June 21, 2014 Share Posted June 21, 2014 His opinion I respect because he has been there and is highly decorated. These are the type people that should be running our country. Military leaders. Being a military leader is only one narrow aspect of being the type of overall leader required of a president. autigeremt is right...they aren't all cut out for that kind of power. Dwight Eisenhowers don't grow on trees. Let me rephrase, since you guys didn't understand what I meant. People that are in the office of Commander In Chief of our Armed Forces, in my opinion, should be those that have served in the military. In the past, I would have agreed with the concept. However, not because of military experience but, because at one time, I believe our military leaders served a higher calling than politicians, lawyers, or bureaucrats. I believe that our military leaders were more dedicated to public service and, many did in fact stand on higher ground, ethically, and in principle. Today, I believe we have military leadership that is just as driven by politics and bureaucracy as the rest of the government (this is a generalization intended to mean most, not all). I truly believe we don't need military leaders, liberal leaders, or conservative leadership. What we need are leaders who will more likely to compromise their ideology and, less likely to compromise themselves ethically. All of the talent, force of will, and ambition are worthless if a person is lacking ethically. In fact, that type of individual is probably more of a force for destruction than progress. I agree and it is why I would use caution regarding the David Petraeus interview. BTW, I hope I am wrong. Wouldn't it be interesting to have a private conversation with Gen. Petraeus, Adm. Fallon, and Sec. Gates. Wouldn't it be interesting to have a private conversation with Paula Broadwell? Petraeus was fond of private conversations with her too. They are after all both West Pointers. Bingo! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.