Biden catching hell for a hasty withdrawal yet Trump signed order 8 days after election.

[Leftfield 2,585]

2 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

SHHHHH.....nobody tell these guys Trump is no longer in charge of the current Joint Chiefs!

Well, then I guess you have no reason to blame them for anything. Even though you are. But only when it suits your argument, of course.

[AUFAN78 3,890]

2 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

Well, then I guess you have no reason to blame them for anything. Even though you are. But only when it suits your argument, of course.

That makes zero sense.

[AU9377 4,914]

2 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

This is so wrong. Biden ignored military intelligence and demanded withdrawal without a coherent plan. Thus the cluster****. 

Show us the cluster**** withdrawals from the prior admin. I'll wait.

Had the Generals not intervened, the military would have been withdrawing all forces within a month of being ordered to do so. What do you think that would have looked like exactly?

[AU9377 4,914]

12 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

There is soooooo much wrong with the Democrats’ talking points.  First the Afghans lost over 50,000 lives trying to fight for their own government over the years we were there.  The reason they did fight was to establish their own government and because they had support the US Military provided.  The only time they cut bait was when Joe closed down Bagram Airbase and the close in air support was taken away.  Joe didn’t even tell his allies he was doing it.

As to the 100,000 Afghans being flown out, that was more of a first come first serve type of approach so we really don’t know who we have in the country.  The problem with leaving people behind is that some of those left behind were AMERICAN CITIZENS and GREEN CARD HOLDERS who couldn’t make it to the airport because the Taliban had control of Kabul.

Joe Biden personifies weakness to our allies because of the way he got out of Afghanistan.  The Taliban has been emboldened by Joe’s actions, the UN is going to send $600 million dollars to feed the poor and children now desolate by Joe because the UN knows how the Taliban operate.  And let me be clear; as soon as that money lands in Afghanistan, the Taliban will seize control of it and the poor and children will some money, but the majority will go to feed the Taliban’s power.  So in essence this money is a bribe.

We still have charter flight with American citizens on them that the Taliban will not let leave.  We have a hostage situation that is not yet public.  Let’s see what Joe does.

As to Joe’s claim he only followed through with what Trump negotiated, what Leader who do that if he thought it was not a good idea?  Only a Leader that is weak and indecisive would do something like that.  Joe wanted out by 9/11, why?  He got his wish.

I don’t know if you know the latest about our Military leaders, but there may have been a reason you perceived military to be chaotic and disjointed under Trump.  This information is new, but IF it is true, may God help us.

U.S. General Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called General Li Zuocheng of the People’s Liberation Army on Oct. 30, 2020 - four days before the election - and again on Jan. 8, two days after Trump supporters led a deadly riot at the U.S. Capitol, the newspaper reported.

In the calls, Milley sought to assure Li the United States was stable and not going to attack and, if there were to be an attack, he would alert his counterpart ahead of time, the report said.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-top-general-secretly-called-china-twice-trump-term-ended-report-2021-09-14/

Can you imagine if Trump was re-elected?  There could have been a true coup with military support.  That insurrection nonsense would not have had the backing of our Military Leadership.

In your mind, all of these grown men, men who have served this country all of their lives, are at fault for safeguarding this country.  That is a sickness.

[Leftfield 2,585]

13 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

That makes zero sense.

You agreed that they'd all become political instead of doing their jobs. You agreed that they're turning this into the most "woke" military ever.  Well, if all they do is follow what the President tells them, how can it be their faults?

Why even have Joint Chiefs if all they're supposed to do is what they're ordered by the President?

 

 

[AUFAN78 3,890]

14 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

Had the Generals not intervened, the military would have been withdrawing all forces within a month of being ordered to do so. What do you think that would have looked like exactly?

With proper planning and execution the evacuation could have been successful.  

[AUFAN78 3,890]

21 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

You agreed that they'd all become political instead of doing their jobs. You agreed that they're turning this into the most "woke" military ever.  Well, if all they do is follow what the President tells them, how can it be their faults?

Why even have Joint Chiefs if all they're supposed to do is what they're ordered by the President?

 

 

Some are political, all is a stretch. Not a fan of a woke military. They are there to advise, firmly if necessary. 

Again they are there to advise. 

[jj3jordan 2,040]

1 hour ago, AU9377 said:

In your mind, all of these grown men, men who have served this country all of their lives, are at fault for safeguarding this country.  That is a sickness.

Stranding thousands of Americans and allied indigenous personnel with accompanying biometric data while relocating massive quantities of unvetted military aged men is what you call safeguarding the country?

[Leftfield 2,585]

6 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

Some are political, all is a stretch. Not a fan of a woke military. They are there to advise, firmly if necessary. 

Again they are there to advise. 

I agree that their main function is to advise. I just don't understand why you think that advice would have been different had Trump still been in office, and in either case I don't understand why you think he would have done any better. I'm not going to defend the way the drawdown was handled, other than to say that once it was announced it was always going to be messy because the Taliban could see a light at the end of the tunnel, but why do you think it would have been different with Trump? The man tried to do an end-run around around his top team to get the entire military out by January 15. That's just not a person that is focused on making sure all civilians and Afghan citizens who helped us can safely get out.

Out of Trump and Biden, which has shown a greater proclivity to trust their advisors and act according to their advice? Hell, just about every Biden critic on this board claims the man can barely remember his name, but in this case he was somehow barking orders and making plans to pull out despite the advice he was being given? Meanwhile, Trump was unwilling to trust the top virologists and epidemiologists in the world in the middle of a pandemic.

 

[creed 1,629]

I believe this conversation is an example of the opinionated (mostly uninformed) and problematic dynamic that is going on in our country. It propagates a negative view in an institution we should have faith and trust in, and only serves to divide our country. On top of that it's rooted in an idiotic line of political affiliation. 

[I_M4_AU 7,772]

9 hours ago, AU9377 said:

In your mind, all of these grown men, men who have served this country all of their lives, are at fault for safeguarding this country.  That is a sickness.

Who said ALL?  Why do you have to lump the patriotic young men and women in with a General that does not respect the chain of command?  This General, if the reports are true, undermined the US by his actions.  He is (maybe) a General that believed more in his way than established military conduct.  A person with any integrity would have stepped down when he disagreed with his boss.  This General, no matter how long he has served, needs to resign.

I am grateful to the men and women in uniform that serve our country and uphold the military code of honor in spite of their personal feelings.  I am also grateful to the men and women that serve as police officers.  However, there are some that have put their personal believes ahead of there duty to protect and serve.  Where do you stand on this issue.  Have you ever thought that we should defund the police?  Are the police systemically racist?  Are there a few bad apples in the military and police?  Sure there are and by their actions they are found out.  It is better to find this out before they make their big mistake, but it happens.

[I_M4_AU 7,772]

44 minutes ago, creed said:

I believe this conversation is an example of the opinionated (mostly uninformed) and problematic dynamic that is going on in our country. It propagates a negative view in an institution we should have faith and trust in, and only serves to divide our country. On top of that it's rooted in an idiotic line of political affiliation. 

So, is defund the police an example of a negative view of an institution we should have faith and trust in?  I guarantee it serves to divide our country especially domestically.  I think that is idiotic; how about you?  Is it associated with any particular  political affiliation?

When leaders of an institution act contrary to established rules (chain if command) they need to be called out.  In the military it is the most important code they live by.  The fictional character Colonel Jessup in the movie “A Few Good Men” was one of these type of men that believed his way was the way things should be run.  It happens and needs to be rooted out.  It does not mean ALL the military men and women are guilty of this just like it doesn’t mean all police officers are racist murderers. 

Which belief do you believe divides the country more Creed?  Can you see the difference in the arguments?  

I personally am grateful for the men and women of the Armed Services as I am grateful for the men and women of the Police.  Both must stay vigilant in vetting their leaders or the institution will suffer.

[aubaseball 2,583]

2 hours ago, Leftfield said:

I agree that their main function is to advise. I just don't understand why you think that advice would have been different had Trump still been in office, and in either case I don't understand why you think he would have done any better. I'm not going to defend the way the drawdown was handled, other than to say that once it was announced it was always going to be messy because the Taliban could see a light at the end of the tunnel, but why do you think it would have been different with Trump? The man tried to do an end-run around around his top team to get the entire military out by January 15. That's just not a person that is focused on making sure all civilians and Afghan citizens who helped us can safely get out.

Out of Trump and Biden, which has shown a greater proclivity to trust their advisors and act according to their advice? Hell, just about every Biden critic on this board claims the man can barely remember his name, but in this case he was somehow barking orders and making plans to pull out despite the advice he was being given? Meanwhile, Trump was unwilling to trust the top virologists and epidemiologists in the world in the middle of a pandemic.

 

This is just my opinion and based on nothing other than seeing the man on tv during his press conferences.    Him saying “I know that I’m not supposed to take questions “ or “I’m going to get into trouble “.   It’s obvious the man is being told what to say and when to say it.   
 

I know that all presidents take advice and then make their own decisions based on this advice.   I don’t believe he is making any decisions on his own.   

[Leftfield 2,585]

29 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

When leaders of an institution act contrary to established rules (chain if command) they need to be called out.

Except Trump, right?

This is what you keep missing, and I don't understand why: The entire reason Milley took these actions is because in his view, and the view of many others, Trump was going off the rails. Trump was already making attempts to circumvent established rules by going to people he knew were completely loyal to him. It's a pattern he's had during his entire time in office: If someone wouldn't play ball with him, he replaced them with a total loyalist. If Milley had done what you suggest, and step aside because he didn't agree, all Trump would have to do was keep going until he found someone who would go along with him. At that level, you do not want a blind loyalist, or a person that will follow commands without question. You're making no distinction between service members in a platoon and the Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs, which is absurd.

Also, don't forget, the entire lesson in A Few Good Men was to not blindly follow orders, no matter where you are in the chain of command. Trump is Jessup in this scenario.

[Leftfield 2,585]

12 minutes ago, aubaseball said:

I know that all presidents take advice and then make their own decisions based on this advice.   I don’t believe he is making any decisions on his own.   

I remember things like this being said about Reagan.

If you're right, it means there is a large group that is willfully supporting it, including the Joint Chiefs. Milley has already acted against a President (who appointed him) he felt was not mentally stable. I can think of no reason he would go along with another.

[jj3jordan 2,040]

11 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

Except Trump, right?

This is what you keep missing, and I don't understand why: The entire reason Milley took these actions is because in his view, and the view of many others, Trump was going off the rails. Trump was already making attempts to circumvent established rules by going to people he knew were completely loyal to him. It's a pattern he's had during his entire time in office: If someone wouldn't play ball with him, he replaced them with a total loyalist. If Milley had done what you suggest, and step aside because he didn't agree, all Trump would have to do was keep going until he found someone who would go along with him. At that level, you do not want a blind loyalist, or a person that will follow commands without question. You're making no distinction between service members in a platoon and the Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs, which is absurd.

Also, don't forget, the entire lesson in A Few Good Men was to not blindly follow orders, no matter where you are in the chain of command. Trump is Jessup in this scenario.

I’m afraid you have missed the point my friend. Trump is not Jessup. Trump is the top of the chain of command. Jessup gave the order for the code red and it was followed. Then he lied about it. Millie is a traitor who instead of usurping the chain or command should have resigned if he felt he could not serve in his appointed post.  Trump had a very large contingent of the Washington establishment actively trying to destroy him and his presidency from the second he had the gall to beat Hillary in the 2016 election. I’m afraid you will have to forgive him for being a tad bit paranoid. Although when they actually are trying to destroy you and yes, spying on you with the fbi, it is not paranoia.  The “rules” as stated by Ltc Vindman are different from military chain of command so if the sitting president decides to skip the underlings and talk straight to another head of state as many other presidents have, it is not the same.

Millie was in a bad spot. He chose poorly even though it was at the obvious direction of the democrat party apparatchik.  
 

Obama vetted a bunch of generals and dismissed them if he thought they would not 100% support and implement his directives. Millie is one of his. 

[I_M4_AU 7,772]

22 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

Except Trump, right?

This is what you keep missing, and I don't understand why: The entire reason Milley took these actions is because in his view, and the view of many others, Trump was going off the rails. Trump was already making attempts to circumvent established rules by going to people he knew were completely loyal to him. It's a pattern he's had during his entire time in office: If someone wouldn't play ball with him, he replaced them with a total loyalist. If Milley had done what you suggest, and step aside because he didn't agree, all Trump would have to do was keep going until he found someone who would go along with him. At that level, you do not want a blind loyalist, or a person that will follow commands without question. You're making no distinction between service members in a platoon and the Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs, which is absurd.

Also, don't forget, the entire lesson in A Few Good Men was to not blindly follow orders, no matter where you are in the chain of command. Trump is Jessup in this scenario.

In his view and the view of many others??????  In view of many Trump should have been impeached at least two times, but this is not majority rule.  You actually have to have proof.  There is no evidence that Trump was “going off the rails”.  It was all in Milley’s and a few people that agreed with him.  There are established rules to abide by and should be followed.

If you are to lead you definitely want like minded people in your key positions, Biden is doing that.  Is Biden going off the rails by doing this?  I happen to think Biden, as shown by his withdrawal in Afghanistan, seemed to have more *yes* men installed than Trump did.

As to the entire lesson of “A Few Good Men”, did Trump lead us into any war?  In fact, he was the only President in a long time that didn’t lead us into war in his first term.  Trump was hand cuffed his entire term as President, to believe he went off the rails (except of course after his defeat in the election) is void of fact.  There would not be any Republican that would go along with a lame duck President in the last 4 months of his term to start a war.

It was a continuous theme during Trump’s Presidency that he was unfit, crazy and not intelligent enough to be President.  This view wall held by many, yet there was not enough evidence to remove him from office.  It seems a few around here would rather believe a General that, arguably, committed treason than any evidence to the contrary.

[AU9377 4,914]

48 minutes ago, aubaseball said:

This is just my opinion and based on nothing other than seeing the man on tv during his press conferences.    Him saying “I know that I’m not supposed to take questions “ or “I’m going to get into trouble “.   It’s obvious the man is being told what to say and when to say it.   
 

I know that all presidents take advice and then make their own decisions based on this advice.   I don’t believe he is making any decisions on his own.   

You actually draw that conclusion because someone at a podium makes a comment that I have heard made by countless numbers of public officials.  The comment is more of a comment made in jest than anything else.  In fact, if anything, it shows a willingness to go off script at the risk of getting off message.  What it absolutely does not prove is that the speaker is incapable in some way of handling himself or making his own decisions. 

When will some of you learn that this is a line of attack used by the Republicans against anyone and everyone?  Remember, Hillary was supposed to be dead by now, her health was failing so badly.  Biden has had a stutter since childhood.  He overcame that, but will always need to take pauses at times during a speech to ensure that he doesn't allow that stutter to trip him up. 

Is the only way to show command at the podium to take cheap shots at others?  Should he call others names like a 3rd grade kid?  Biden will never do that.  That fact is part of the reason he was elected.

[AU9377 4,914]

10 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

In his view and the view of many others??????  In view of many Trump should have been impeached at least two times, but this is not majority rule.  You actually have to have proof.  There is no evidence that Trump was “going off the rails”.  It was all in Milley’s and a few people that agreed with him.  There are established rules to abide by and should be followed.

If you are to lead you definitely want like minded people in your key positions, Biden is doing that.  Is Biden going off the rails by doing this?  I happen to think Biden, as shown by his withdrawal in Afghanistan, seemed to have more *yes* men installed than Trump did.

As to the entire lesson of “A Few Good Men”, did Trump lead us into any war?  In fact, he was the only President in a long time that didn’t lead us into war in his first term.  Trump was hand cuffed his entire term as President, to believe he went off the rails (except of course after his defeat in the election) is void of fact.  There would not be any Republican that would go along with a lame duck President in the last 4 months of his term to start a war.

It was a continuous theme during Trump’s Presidency that he was unfit, crazy and not intelligent enough to be President.  This view wall held by many, yet there was not enough evidence to remove him from office.  It seems a few around here would rather believe a General that, arguably, committed treason than any evidence to the contrary.

There was more proof of the offenses in the first impeachment trial than anything that took place during Watergate...... and there were audio tapes proving Nixon's knowledge of the criminal conduct.

[AU9377 4,914]

26 minutes ago, jj3jordan said:

I’m afraid you have missed the point my friend. Trump is not Jessup. Trump is the top of the chain of command. Jessup gave the order for the code red and it was followed. Then he lied about it. Millie is a traitor who instead of usurping the chain or command should have resigned if he felt he could not serve in his appointed post.  Trump had a very large contingent of the Washington establishment actively trying to destroy him and his presidency from the second he had the gall to beat Hillary in the 2016 election. I’m afraid you will have to forgive him for being a tad bit paranoid. Although when they actually are trying to destroy you and yes, spying on you with the fbi, it is not paranoia.  The “rules” as stated by Ltc Vindman are different from military chain of command so if the sitting president decides to skip the underlings and talk straight to another head of state as many other presidents have, it is not the same.

Millie was in a bad spot. He chose poorly even though it was at the obvious direction of the democrat party apparatchik.  
 

Obama vetted a bunch of generals and dismissed them if he thought they would not 100% support and implement his directives. Millie is one of his. 

Millie acted with the support of Republican leadership and others.  The last thing we needed was a rogue President giving illegal orders.

[I_M4_AU 7,772]

3 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

There was more proof of the offenses in the first impeachment trial than anything that took place during Watergate...... and there were audio tapes proving Nixon's knowledge of the criminal conduct.

If this was the case he would have been found guilty in the Senate.  If the Democrats had not overwhelming controlled the House, it would have never reached the Senate for trail.  Those two impeachments were used as a tool to get rid of a President the Democrats didn’t like.  That is not how it is suppose to work.

[AU9377 4,914]

2 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

If this was the case he would have been found guilty in the Senate.  If the Democrats had not overwhelming controlled the House, it would have never reached the Senate for trail.  Those two impeachments were used as a tool to get rid of a President the Democrats didn’t like.  That is not how it is suppose to work.

That is bull**** and you know it.  I suppose you also believe that Bill Clinton didn't get off in the Oval Office.  After all, he wasn't convicted of it... right?

 

A sitting U.S. President is not allowed to use his office and the power of the U.S. to bribe foreign governments to do an act with the sole purpose being to damage his domestic political rivals.  That concept is not hard to grasp.

Edited September 16, 2021 by AU9377

[I_M4_AU 7,772]

6 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

That is bull**** and you know it.  I suppose you also believe that Bill Clinton didn't get off in the Oval Office.  After all, he wasn't convicted of it... right?

Of course he *got off* in the Oval Office, but I believe Clinton was accused of perjury and obstruction and those could not be proven, therefore he was not guilty as seen by the Senate.

ETA: https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/president-clinton-impeached

Edited September 16, 2021 by I_M4_AU

[I_M4_AU 7,772]

9 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

A sitting U.S. President is not allowed to use his office and the power of the U.S. to bribe foreign governments to do an act with the sole purpose being to damage his domestic political rivals.  That concept is not hard to grasp.

Of course he is not and it didn’t happen, or at least it wasn’t proven to the Senate.  Is this concept hard to grasp.

[Leftfield 2,585]

5 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

If this was the case he would have been found guilty in the Senate.

And certainly had nothing to do with the fact that Republicans in the Senate were either in the tank for Trump or completely covering their political tails, right?

Considering that Romney was the first senator to vote for impeachment on a President in his own party in the first trial, and then seven senators did so in his second trial, I'm not sure you want to make this argument. Everyone knew impeachment was a long shot entirely because of partisanship.

Don't forget that in the first impeachment proceedings, the senate voted (by only two votes) to not even listen to additional evidence, which would have included Bolton's testimony.