Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Leaving the implied racism of you saying Obama is president because he is black aside, of course the general needed to be sacked- you cannot have a leading general in a war so openly critical of government policy; that is ridiculously undermining. Bigger men than him have had to be sacked that way before.

All public figures at that level have to be either supportive of government policy or resign. That's collective responsibility. Resigning over policy differences is mature. Discussing issues about policy in public is mature. Sniping to journalists about it is horiffic.

I think in reality Obama is just incensed that someone had the balls to call out his "plan" for what it really is, his ego got bruised, and so he fired McChrystal for saying it. Despite the fact that Karzai likes McChrystal and all the respect he commands among the fighting men and women there. Afterall, a general's job and purpose is fighting wars, Obama on the other hand knows jack-shit about war. Between this and the way he's handling the oil spill, I really can't see him getting re-elected in 2012.

It would have been wiser, strategically, to keep Gen. McChrystal, but then Obama would have looked like a pushover, and Lord knows he can't have that.

There is a level of professionalism expected from all military personnel, especially someone like a general who is leading a war. For him to go into an interview and start calling people clowns and the like is obviously not going to stand. It makes the man look foolish and careless, it makes the mission seem undermined and questionable, and it makes the commander and chief look like he has no control over the situation. Him being relieved of duty was the only possible outcome, and McChrystal knew it, which is why he resigned.

It wouldn't have been wiser for him to keep the General. Some may have liked it more, but the spin machine would have bitten him even harder. Where as now people might say he is trying to show his strength and decisiveness by ditching McChrystal, had he kept him many of these same people would be saying that it shows a lack of confidence in his ability to run the war if he is afraid of relieving a loud mouthed general who launched personal attacks against his administration. He made the right call here.

Why do people even care? It's not like the dude was getting the job done anyway. We're not any closer to "winning the war on terror".

Generals have the right to say whatever they want in private but they absolutely are not allowed to insult their superiors in an interview. McChrystal should have quit and then explained why Obama's plan is stupid, something that generals have done in the past when faced with commanders they couldn't work with.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Why do people even care? It's not like the dude was getting the job done anyway. We're not any closer to "winning the war on terror".

Let me correct you: "winning the war on man-made disasters".

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I think in reality Obama is just incensed that someone had the balls to call out his "plan" for what it really is, his ego got bruised, and so he fired McChrystal for saying it. Despite the fact that Karzai likes McChrystal and all the respect he commands among the fighting men and women there. Afterall, a general's job and purpose is fighting wars, Obama on the other hand knows jack-shit about war. Between this and the way he's handling the oil spill, I really can't see him getting re-elected in 2012.

It would have been wiser, strategically, to keep Gen. McChrystal, but then Obama would have looked like a pushover, and Lord knows he can't have that.

It's a lose-lose situation for Obama. You wouldn't keep your top mechanic if he talked shit about your managerial skills among the rest of your staff, even if it meant losing a high-level of expertise for your shop.

Concerning Afghanistan, even Gen. McChrystal can't win that, unless he's allowed to do whatever he deems needs to be done, which wouldn't have happened, ever. Last person to subjugate the Afghanistan region was Genghis Khan; those tactics aren't allowed by politics in a 21th century war.

how could anyone question whether obama's race had anything to do with his election?

otherwise, /thread. as much as people should be free to express themselves, mccrystal knew this would be the results of his words and obviously political institutions don't allow for a lot of internal debate

Originally posted by inimalist
how could anyone question whether obama's race had anything to do with his election?

Obviously it does, as did McCain's. While there were people who voted for Obama for no other reason than his skin-tone, there were people who voted against him for the exact same reason.

But do you think he won the election solely because of it? That the majority of voters simply voted for "the black guy." Think that is what some people think.

Originally posted by Robtard
Obviously it does, as did McCain's. While there were people who voted for Obama for no other reason than his skin-tone, there were people who voted against him for the exact same reason.

But do you think he won the election solely because of it? That the majority of voters simply voted for "the black guy." Think that is what some people think.

I think the issue is more complicated than conscious choices for or against a particular skin tone, but yes, mccain's race was also important, as were the races of all the people whom Obama offered a change from

Originally posted by inimalist
I think the issue is more complicated than conscious choices for or against a particular skin tone, but yes, mccain's race was also important, as were the races of all the people whom Obama offered a change from

Probably reading you wrong, but it sounds like you're implying that the fabled "white-guilt" was the deciding or in the very least a major important factor in the Obama win. No?

Originally posted by Robtard
Probably reading you wrong, but it sounds like you're implying that the fabled "white-guilt" was the deciding or in the very least a major important factor in the Obama win. No?

It was for my in-laws.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It was for my in-laws.

As said, I'm sure their were people that voted on nothing more than a skin color, for and against Obama. But I reject the notion that he won simply because he was 'the black guy'; it was hip and PC to vote black.

IMO, he won because of the "I'm not anything like George Bush" sentiment his campaign pushed, which was strongly helped by 5-6 years of the media portraying Bush negatively at every opportunity, sometimes warranted; sometimes not.

Make Obama white yet give him the same basic background; he still beats McCain in the 2008 atmosphere; for the same reasons. "Not Bush" and "McSame" angles.

Originally posted by Robtard
As said, I'm sure their were people that voted on nothing more than a skin color, for and against Obama. But I reject the notion that he won simply because he was 'the black guy'; it was hip and PC to vote black.

IMO, he won because of the "I'm not anything like George Bush" sentiment his campaign pushed, which was strongly helped by 5-6 years of the media portraying Bush negatively at every opportunity, sometimes warranted; sometimes not.

Make Obama white yet give him the same basic background; he still beats McCain in the 2008 atmosphere; for the same reasons.

However, I believe that McCain lost because he was white. I base that on the fact that I kept hearing and reading people say things like I will not vote for that white guy. There was even a rapper (I don't know who he was) who made a point about Palin being white and from Alaska, as if that was just lame.

So, if McCain lost because he was white, does that mean that Obama won because he was black?

However, we are going off topic now. Maybe this would be better in a new thread.

Maybe I wasn't clear; I don't think McCain lost because he was white, he lost because of the "McSame" sentiment and the atmosphere around Bush in 2008.

Even if we make Obama white and McCain black, Obama still wins in 2008, for reasons noted.

Originally posted by Robtard
Maybe I wasn't clear; I don't think McCain lost because he was white, he lost because of the "McSame" sentiment and the atmosphere around Bush in 2008.

Even if we make Obama white and McCain black, Obama still wins in 2008, for reasons noted.

Let us agree to disagree.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Let us agree to disagree.

So you think a black-McCain with the same background, polices and campaign stance could have beaten a white-Obama with the same background, polices and campaign stance in 2008?

Originally posted by Robtard
So you think a black-McCain with the same background, polices and campaign stance could have beaten a white-Obama with the same background, polices and campaign stance in 2008?

Hands down! A black McCain, who is more liberal then conservative, a war hero, and years of experience would have buried a white Obama.

Guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

Originally posted by Robtard
Probably reading you wrong, but it sounds like you're implying that the fabled "white-guilt" was the deciding or in the very least a major important factor in the Obama win. No?

no, I don't believe white guilt played a huge role in obama's victory

with regards to your and shakeya's convo, a white Obama may have done well against a black McCain (mccain's campaign was bad and bolstered in many ways by his whiteness), but would not have defeated Clinton, who I believe ultimately was hurt by the fact she was connected to bill, and thus part of the political institution

Obama and his team have created cult of personality around him - which personally creeps me out.

I don't see how you would think this is different than any other politician. campaign managers have known for decades that elections are won by the package and not the issues.

Originally posted by inimalist
I don't see how you would think this is different than any other politician. campaign managers have known for decades that elections are won by the package and not the issues.

To further that point, tell the masses what they want to hear, not what you intend to do or what is realistic. McCain's more honest approach to continuing the war cost him massively, while Obama's less honest vow to end the war gained him.

Originally posted by Robtard
To further that point, tell the masses what they want to hear, not what you intend to do or what is realistic. McCain's more honest approach to continuing the war cost him massively, while Obama's less honest vow to end the war gained him.

That is a dismal report card for America.

This says it all.

Originally posted by Robtard
To further that point, tell the masses what they want to hear, not what you intend to do or what is realistic. McCain's more honest approach to continuing the war cost him massively, while Obama's less honest vow to end the war gained him.

McCain had the balls to call military action in Pakistan "what shouldn't be talked about out loud" because Pakistan was ostensibly an ally. I don't know how honest that looks to you

Originally posted by inimalist
McCain had the balls to call military action in Pakistan "what shouldn't be talked about out loud" because Pakistan was ostensibly an ally. I don't know how honest that looks to you

Like I said, "more honest" to the American people in regards to the war; politicians are lying clowns by nature, all of them to a fault.

Originally posted by Robtard
Like I said, "more honest" to the American people in regards to the war; politicians are lying clowns by nature, all of them to a fault.

fair enough. outside of gitmo, what do you think obama was dishonest about with regards to the war.

I always found that it was obama supporters who sort of set up all of these expectations that where wholly unreasonable rather than things Obama said. IMHO, he had the uncanny ability to not have people make him articulate policy, and he wouldn't because people created his support base by imagining change to mean what they wanted

Originally posted by inimalist
fair enough. outside of gitmo, what do you think obama was dishonest about with regards to the war.

I always found that it was obama supporters who sort of set up all of these expectations that where wholly unreasonable rather than things Obama said. IMHO, he had the uncanny ability to not have people make him articulate policy, and he wouldn't because people created his support base by imagining change to mean what they wanted

That he would end the war and send all the troops home. Now I know what you are going to say, that's not exactly what he said. However, to me, if you say something that you know people will misinterpret, then you might as well be lying.

Originally posted by inimalist
I don't see how you would think this is different than any other politician. campaign managers have known for decades that elections are won by the package and not the issues.

It is VERY different. Obama has the rock star status, or rather cult of personality, something other presidents before him have not enjoyed, which to me is reminiscent of something Stalin would do. It took a while for anyone to say something about Obama in a fear of being labelled racist - as far as mass media is concerned, this still the case in certain circumstances.

I really fail to see how anything Obama did is any different to what Bush did before him, or Clinton before him? When the face changes but the polices remain exactly the same, that is a major indicator one is living in a tyranny.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That he would end the war and send all the troops home. Now I know what you are going to say, that's not exactly what he said. However, to me, if you say something that you know people will misinterpret, then you might as well be lying.

awesome. by not lying obama is lying. I was born in 1984 btw, it's like an automatic doublespeak detector

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
It is VERY different. Obama has the rock star status, or rather cult of personality, something other presidents before him have not enjoyed, which to me is reminiscent of something Stalin would do. It took a while for anyone to say something about Obama in a fear of being labelled racist - as far as mass media is concerned, this still the case in certain circumstances.

I really fail to see how anything Obama did is any different to what Bush did before him, or Clinton before him? When the face changes but the polices remain exactly the same, that is a major indicator one is living in a tyranny.

I'm sorry, you think there is some value in comparing Obama to Stalin?

Originally posted by inimalist
awesome. by not lying obama is lying. I was born in 1984 btw, it's like an automatic doublespeak detector

Sorry, but I don't get that. I simply consider deception to be a lie. And yes, I do consider most politicians to be liars.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Sorry, but I don't get that. I simply consider deception to be a lie. And yes, I do consider most politicians to be liars.

your argument is that, even if Obama were to have told us the truth about his military policy, it would be a lie

Originally posted by inimalist
your argument is that, even if Obama were to have told us the truth about his military policy, it would be a lie

No, that is not my point at all.

I said:

"That he would end the war and send all the troops home. Now I know what you are going to say, that's not exactly what he said. However, to me, if you say something that you know people will misinterpret, then you might as well be lying."

I never said that Obama ever told the truth.

Originally posted by inimalist
fair enough. outside of gitmo, what do you think obama was dishonest about with regards to the war.

I always found that it was obama supporters who sort of set up all of these expectations that where wholly unreasonable rather than things Obama said. IMHO, he had the uncanny ability to not have people make him articulate policy, and he wouldn't because people created his support base by imagining change to mean what they wanted

I don't believe he was completely naive and actually thought that "ending the war and bringing our troops home" was a fully realistic reach for him, especially within four years. Was it a bold-faced flat out lie? Not likely, but he was playing to what the crowd wanted to hear moreso than what was likely possible.

While McCain's commitment to the war was something he wholeheartedly believed in and he would have done, imo.

This is true too, Obama supporters instead of reading between the lines (lies?) added themselves what they wanted to hear. They got change; probably not what they wanted according to the polls.

I only ever remember him saying he would draw down troops, and isn't he?

I could be totally off, I got most of my election coverage from the debates.

like, there was never any question about his stance on military bases, oil, and contractors. I always thought people just imagined him being anti-war to that degree