Users with <20 posts and ignored shitposters are automatically invisible. Find out how to do that here and help clean up MMO-OT!
PSA: Being a volunteer is no excuse to make a shite job of it.
Benghazi wasn't a military orchestrated US mission, that's the clear difference. It was a complete lapse in security that was exploited by Ansar al-Sharia. The issue was our Embassy received no aid from close US forces, and was overall ignored. A failed actual mission is just the gamble of war. They aren't related.
- - - Updated - - -
True, he gets the yes / no privilege for political reasons, I can get behind that. However, a man with zero military strategic / tactical / logistical experience, he ends up trusting his advisors. I can probably name the most important individuals who had eyes on the mission. Generally, if a mission of that magnitude gets to the President in the first place, the advisors believe its a good call. Now, if those same people thought it was a bad idea, it'd go back to the drawing board before its even presented to the President. The only knowledge he'd generally have prior to that is from the daily morning intelligence briefings. Military matters are not his lane, outside of putting a checkmark next to go / no go. Which, of course, when the mission was finalized was marked with a GO from the professionals of that field. Its easy to blame the president, but I see nobody blaming the NCPON or USSOCOM. BOTH who have to agree on the mission for SEALS to engage. (well the NCPON just advises the General / Admiral).
Last edited by AlphaOut; 2017-03-03 at 01:49 AM.
You're the one making the claim, you have to prove it beyond "I'm a retired Tier 1 Special Forces commando for realzies."
And before you try to just regurgitate this back as an attack on my claims, I'm not claiming anything other than simple facts. The President is the Commander-in-Chief, and therefore final decision maker, stands to reason he should be in the room when decisions might need to be made, provided he isn't preoccupied with something more important.
According to several news outlets (and his twitter feed) he was on the White House grounds, just not in the Situation Room.
Does this even hold a candle to the helicopter that was shot down, killing 30 Americans of which a number of Seal team 6 members?
All right, gentleperchildren, let's review. The year is 2024 - that's two-zero-two-four, as in the 21st Century's perfect vision - and I am sorry to say the world has become a pussy-whipped, Brady Bunch version of itself, run by a bunch of still-masked clots ridden infertile senile sissies who want the Last Ukrainian to die so they can get on with the War on China, with some middle-eastern genocide on the side
No, it can't. Some decisions may require Trump's direct authorization.
Again, you'll note that never have I said Trump should be sitting at the controls with a headset on calling out headshots and manning a drone. He should, however, be in the room, because he is in charge.
Yes it can. He's in fucking charge. Do you know what that means?
He is in charge so if he says "general you are in charge" then the general is in charge. It's called delegating responsibility. And in this case it's 10000% justified. Trump is not military man. Hell if you ask some folks here they will say Trump is not qualified to be a human being even. So everyone should commend him for stepping out in the matter and letting professional do their jobs to the best of their ability.
All right, gentleperchildren, let's review. The year is 2024 - that's two-zero-two-four, as in the 21st Century's perfect vision - and I am sorry to say the world has become a pussy-whipped, Brady Bunch version of itself, run by a bunch of still-masked clots ridden infertile senile sissies who want the Last Ukrainian to die so they can get on with the War on China, with some middle-eastern genocide on the side
You just don't know what chain of command is.
He already gave the order and then put generals in charge of the operation. I fail to see what situation during the operation might require an order that must be approved by the President ASAP. It's just asinine to imply that generals bear no responsibility in military matters and everything requires Presidential approval on tactical level (and thus he takes all the blame). If that was the case I would've made my life goal to be a general.
All right, gentleperchildren, let's review. The year is 2024 - that's two-zero-two-four, as in the 21st Century's perfect vision - and I am sorry to say the world has become a pussy-whipped, Brady Bunch version of itself, run by a bunch of still-masked clots ridden infertile senile sissies who want the Last Ukrainian to die so they can get on with the War on China, with some middle-eastern genocide on the side
But the PotUS is supposed to be ALL KNOWING. And can't make a single mistake without the internet going all a titter.
- - - Updated - - -
That's old news though.
Plus that is "not what this thread is about."
My answer would be: Of course it does not, but all lives matter.
1) Load the amount of weight I would deadlift onto the bench
2) Unrack
3) Crank out 15 reps
4) Be ashamed of constantly skipping leg day
You keep making these statements with absolutely no verifiable citation.
This wasn't a peace keeping mission to deliver rice to hungery people in Africa. It was a clandestine operation in a sovereign nation to potentially kill the leader of AQAP.
If you think for one second Trump didn't want to have his own "special operations have conducted a mission in Yemen and assassinated the leader of AQAP, Qassim al-Rimi" moment to top Obama's bin Laden speech in his first 100 days...
puh-fucking-lease.
Citation of what? that's what happened. That's what Trump is being crucified here for.
Exactly. It was a military operation ran by military and approved by the president
I don't even care about that as it is not relevant. he might have had a bad day and wanted to kill someone for a laugh and lo'n'behold pentagon came up with a military operation right on cue.
All right, gentleperchildren, let's review. The year is 2024 - that's two-zero-two-four, as in the 21st Century's perfect vision - and I am sorry to say the world has become a pussy-whipped, Brady Bunch version of itself, run by a bunch of still-masked clots ridden infertile senile sissies who want the Last Ukrainian to die so they can get on with the War on China, with some middle-eastern genocide on the side
LOL - Trump the president who no one riots over.... right. The right doesn't riot, they're not idiots, that's a left quality and they've been doing it damn near every day starting on Trumps election win night, his Inauguration day, the day after his inauguration, etc etc etc.
You're right about one thing though, people do riot and not riot over the same things based simply who does it, but you have the reverse of what you described, where if it's Trump, it will be rioted.
You keep saying "this is how the military works" and are contradicting commonly available facts without backing up your claims. It's lazy and tiresome.
My point was that this was a serious military operation, involving UAE special forces, a lot of resources and was clandestine in nature. A lot of shit could have gone wrong that could have required the President's approval.
If this was a peace keeping mission, who cares, the likelihood of anything happening is pretty low. This was a major operation, a lot of shit could (and did) go wrong, and hand waiving Trump's responsibility and role in this kind of mission is pathetic Trumpidity.
Had the leader of AQAP been killed, people would have been tripping over each other lining up to kiss Trump's ass, but because the operation was a colossal fuck up, everyone is acting like the President has no role or responsibility in major military operations, which is quite frankly, the dumbest shit I have heard in a long time.
Do you really want to go down the road of things Obama or Hilary approved that went wrong or took American lives? Just chill out a while dude. Stop overreacting over everything Trump does. Hillary is the same person who as sec of state wondered aloud why we couldn't just do a drone strike on Assange while he was living in London.
I never said "this is how military works".
I explained to you what chain of command is and what commander in chief means. I don't remember contradicting any facts.
Name one such shit, that would've required an ADDITIONAL and IMMEDIATE presidential approval. I don't want to talk about spherical horses in a vacuum.
All right, gentleperchildren, let's review. The year is 2024 - that's two-zero-two-four, as in the 21st Century's perfect vision - and I am sorry to say the world has become a pussy-whipped, Brady Bunch version of itself, run by a bunch of still-masked clots ridden infertile senile sissies who want the Last Ukrainian to die so they can get on with the War on China, with some middle-eastern genocide on the side
You know, the most egregious thing about Trump's part in this is the Commander-in-Chief putting a clear line between himself and the military. Trump saying "they lost him" is such a succinct indictment of how he sees himself and the role he is now playing. And it is just a role for him. Someone who is worth a shit and sees himself as a Commander-In-Chief would inherently feel that we lost him. Trump so clearly lacks a core.
Military personal should be outraged, but ultimately the overriding feeling they should have is...concern.
Last edited by NYC17; 2017-03-03 at 04:28 PM.
If oking a failed mission isn't the POTUS's fault...what is?
I mean all he does is order this to happen and that to happen. Following the logic here, no POTUS is at fault for anything since they aren't the ones taking the specific actions decreed.
ACA is called Obamacare even though Obama didn't draft it, didn't set up the website, etc. Not his fault.
Benghazi is not Hillary's fault because she doesn't actually draft security plans nor does she use a weapon to protect embassies.
Same logic.
"When Facism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross." - Unknown