Go Back   Matt-Hughes.com Official Forums > General Discussions > Politics

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-31-2011, 11:39 AM
Tyburn's Avatar
Tyburn Tyburn is offline
Angry @ Injustice!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: England
Posts: 16,982
Default General David Petreus Retires from US Army Today

He is a Four Star General best known for Major Roles in the Central Governance of the US Army and involvement at a High level with coordinating the Coillition forces in both Iraq and Afghanistan post the Invasions of both.

I could be wrong...but I think he might be the Guy who said something public that was not quite in line with the Obama Administration and got bought back for a Bollocking and maybe moved on to a different command because of it...

...anyway, he is retired as from Tommorow and instead he is going to be the new Director of The Central Intelligence Agency. The Government have approved this appointment following recomendations from the President and the Secretary of Defence

Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 08-31-2011, 02:27 PM
Crisco
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyburn View Post
He is a Four Star General best known for Major Roles in the Central Governance of the US Army and involvement at a High level with coordinating the Coillition forces in both Iraq and Afghanistan post the Invasions of both.

I could be wrong...but I think he might be the Guy who said something public that was not quite in line with the Obama Administration and got bought back for a Bollocking and maybe moved on to a different command because of it...

...anyway, he is retired as from Tommorow and instead he is going to be the new Director of The Central Intelligence Agency. The Government have approved this appointment following recomendations from the President and the Secretary of Defence

A good man by most accounts.

And not he is not that guy.

He would not be being appointed to the CIA if he insulted the Messiah Dave.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08-31-2011, 04:33 PM
Tyburn's Avatar
Tyburn Tyburn is offline
Angry @ Injustice!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: England
Posts: 16,982
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crisco View Post
A good man by most accounts.

And not he is not that guy.

He would not be being appointed to the CIA if he insulted the Messiah Dave.
thats a Good point actually....

But I remember one of the Generals out in the war effort said something...and I havent heard anything about him since.

Someone said they thought that he might run for President...but I've seen his photo...and he looks too old...plus if he ran as Democratic he has to wait another terms even if Obama was to fail in re-ellection coz the party cant go fielding a candidate against a running President looking for re-ellection can they By which Time I really think he would be too old...From what I read about him he seemed to be very good...even had a habit of appologising for friendly fire accidents and the likes

I dont know what Director of the Central Intelligence Agency really entails though...but the account said that he had done a lot to do with the central running of the Army...so I imagine he might have to fall back on the sort of stuff he did there...

Its just being such a decorated Military Officer...would stand him well with being A President...because its not like he's just done a stint in the Army and switched to politics...it would be someone who has worked his way up through the ranks to commanding entire deployments...a person like that would have a whole different attitude to foreign policy and peace keeping...and war of course. Its funny because in lots of Asian Countries, its a Military Coup that lands a General in the position of President....Indeed...thats more or less exactly what happened in Englands Republic....so maybe he is over qualified for the position because he wouldnt be able to Command an Administration, as he might be able to Command a section of the Armed Forces....but I thought it was an interesting topic
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 08-31-2011, 04:54 PM
Crisco
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I actually like Petreus as a candidate for potus.

I think it's been far too long since we had a real soldier in office.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 08-31-2011, 05:17 PM
Tyburn's Avatar
Tyburn Tyburn is offline
Angry @ Injustice!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: England
Posts: 16,982
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crisco View Post
I actually like Petreus as a candidate for potus.

I think it's been far too long since we had a real soldier in office.
Ahh...but you see the worry with Peteus would be that he, in essence, is far more then a "real Soldier" and Commanding an Army, and Commanding a Nation are quite different.

Commanding an Army may take a lot of guts and knowledge, but if you are high enough up the chain of command...you basically dictate.

Commanding a Nation is non stop negotiation at best, and non stop backstabbing politics at worst. The President of the United States' only real power without coorperation is to say NO, via Veto. He must appease the Voters to keep him in, His party to keep his representation, his majority in congress and senate, so he can pass legislation, and cope with negative press at home, and criticisms abroad no matter what he does. He must maintain structure whilst always being extremely fluid so he can react to the national zeitgiest at any given moment.

The only thing that I will say about the different forms of command is...that a politician can commit henous crimes and get away with them by blaming others and shared responsibility. Now a Military Commander can NOT do that. if something goes wrong, He, personally he, is screwed

The real ballence would be to have someone in the Army up to Major General...maybe Petreus is over qualified...and might even struggle in an environment that is not structured for direct leadership. He might of course, if he is VERY good be able to revolutionize the Presidency...I say that...because some of your Earliest Presidents seemed to be almost commanding armies at the same time as the Nation...and when you read some of the things they said in their public speeches...you actually see that even Barack Obama is not that brilliant a speaker when it comes to US Presidents...but he lacks the experience to give him anything to talk so deeply about. (probably for the best considering how he's turned out )

I dont know...I'm split on whether I think such a high powered Military Officer would be good...or wether it would just be the other extreme...you know, Obama has never seen a Uniform...and Petreus sends the Senators to the Brigg for insubordination

I would have to do proper and full research.

BUT

I do have thus far a perfect Cabinate forming. We'd have Condi Rice as President, Colin Powel as State, and General Petreus as Defence
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 08-31-2011, 06:38 PM
NateR's Avatar
NateR NateR is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,742
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyburn View Post
Ahh...but you see the worry with Peteus would be that he, in essence, is far more then a "real Soldier" and Commanding an Army, and Commanding a Nation are quite different.

Commanding an Army may take a lot of guts and knowledge, but if you are high enough up the chain of command...you basically dictate.

Commanding a Nation is non stop negotiation at best, and non stop backstabbing politics at worst. The President of the United States' only real power without coorperation is to say NO, via Veto. He must appease the Voters to keep him in, His party to keep his representation, his majority in congress and senate, so he can pass legislation, and cope with negative press at home, and criticisms abroad no matter what he does. He must maintain structure whilst always being extremely fluid so he can react to the national zeitgiest at any given moment.

The only thing that I will say about the different forms of command is...that a politician can commit henous crimes and get away with them by blaming others and shared responsibility. Now a Military Commander can NOT do that. if something goes wrong, He, personally he, is screwed

The real ballence would be to have someone in the Army up to Major General...maybe Petreus is over qualified...and might even struggle in an environment that is not structured for direct leadership. He might of course, if he is VERY good be able to revolutionize the Presidency...I say that...because some of your Earliest Presidents seemed to be almost commanding armies at the same time as the Nation...and when you read some of the things they said in their public speeches...you actually see that even Barack Obama is not that brilliant a speaker when it comes to US Presidents...but he lacks the experience to give him anything to talk so deeply about. (probably for the best considering how he's turned out )

I dont know...I'm split on whether I think such a high powered Military Officer would be good...or wether it would just be the other extreme...you know, Obama has never seen a Uniform...and Petreus sends the Senators to the Brigg for insubordination

I would have to do proper and full research.

BUT

I do have thus far a perfect Cabinate forming. We'd have Condi Rice as President, Colin Powel as State, and General Petreus as Defence
I don't like Colin Powell as Secretary of State. He's the one who convinced George Bush Sr. to pull out of the Gulf War too early, which led to the chaos in the Middle East that we are still paying for today. If we had just continued on until we had Saddam Hussein captured or killed in 1991, instead of withdrawing, then we would not have given the Middle East the impression that we were just a "paper tiger" and Saddam wouldn't have spent the next decade bragging about how he defeated the US. That alone could have prevented several terrorist attacks (possibly including 9/11) and it would have definitely prevented the current Iraq War.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 08-31-2011, 07:27 PM
Tyburn's Avatar
Tyburn Tyburn is offline
Angry @ Injustice!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: England
Posts: 16,982
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NateR View Post
I don't like Colin Powell as Secretary of State. He's the one who convinced George Bush Sr. to pull out of the Gulf War too early, which led to the chaos in the Middle East that we are still paying for today. If we had just continued on until we had Saddam Hussein captured or killed in 1991, instead of withdrawing, then we would not have given the Middle East the impression that we were just a "paper tiger" and Saddam wouldn't have spent the next decade bragging about how he defeated the US. That alone could have prevented several terrorist attacks (possibly including 9/11) and it would have definitely prevented the current Iraq War.
That greatly depends on what the true reason for the Iraq War was. Most recent suggestions say that the invasion of Iraq may have been to prevent Iran from invading a weak Iraq....and that Saddam was a two birds one stone ideal.

I dont know much about the Gulf War, it was way before I was interested in anything outside of my own sphere of influence I do know that I like Colin Powel, I liked how he dealt with the aftermath of 9/11, He is also a retired Four Star US Army General...and I had thought he would make a decent, though rather moderate President (I think Congress would have had their wicked way with him...that was my worry...good man...but I wondered if he was a bit to soft on the inside ) that is why I would make Condi President....I know that he can do State because he's done it before...even if Condi spoke right over him all the way through the first administration before she was in his job
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 08-31-2011, 07:41 PM
Tyburn's Avatar
Tyburn Tyburn is offline
Angry @ Injustice!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: England
Posts: 16,982
Default

The International Community liked Colin Powell...I accept that he wasnt liked in America...and he wasnt liked much in the Administration...but to Europeans and particularly the British, Colin Powell was sensible, and coorperative on an International Level. The thing with the State Position seems to be that two entirely different functions can be made from it. Colin Powel I think saw his Role as a Laison between the US and the Rest of the World...which is how the Europeans understand the title...Now Condi Rice saw the same role completely different. She saw herself as an Ambassidor to the rest of the World, and in a sense, someone who could be the mouth peice for the Administration.

The emphasis is different....Colin Powel saw his role as making Bush go to the United Nations in order to work with the rest of the world. Condi Rice wasnt a negotiator...she pretty much went in and told Al Jazzera Network what to do, and if they failed to do it...she threatened them. So for her, she was doing Opus Dei,

I have no idea what the Job Spec looks like...but the understanding of the role produces vastly different approaches, with totally different aims.

Colin Powel was more to our liking...I guess you can say, Culturally we found him acceptable...and its true...maybe because he was less intimidating, and appeared to wish dialogue and negotiation...and not arrive, brief us all, and expect imediate and unrequited loyalty.

Which is bizzare...coz Its the Former who is the Army General
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 09-01-2011, 12:38 PM
Crisco
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

someone please clone Teddy Roosevelt
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:32 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.