View Full Version : Appointment of Chuck Hagel as Defence Secretary.
spankythehippo
01-11-2013, 11:35
So, it seems like Obama has made up his mind. It will be interesting to see an Israel supporter teaming up with someone who has been labelled an anti-Semite.
I think I just opened up a floodgate.
ICantSpellDawg
01-11-2013, 13:35
I'm in favor of Hagel for Secretary of Defense. Hagel is pro Israel in the way that rational people are pro Israel.
spankythehippo
01-11-2013, 13:43
Yeah. Apparently he isn't an anti-Semite, just extremely critical of the Israeli lobby, as people should be.
Hooahguy
01-11-2013, 14:25
Im excited for this nomination. He was also a grunt in Vietnam so that will bring only good things I believe. Also, :daisy: AIPAC.
Crazed Rabbit
01-11-2013, 21:13
This is probably the best choice in terms of toning down Obama's war-mongering and moving towards a rational relationship with Israel.
CR
Seamus Fermanagh
01-19-2013, 05:13
If he has ties to intelligence, i don't trust him. Otherwise, seems cool.
Rumors that are government officials are, in any way, tied to intelligence are clearly false.
I misread the title as "Chuck Norris" ...
Hagel should fit in well with Obama's plans for a smaller military that makes increased use of assassinations
and a cooling relationship with Israel....
Kralizec
01-25-2013, 09:29
Hagel should fit in well with Obama's plans for a smaller military that makes increased use of assassinations
and a cooling relationship with Israel....
You say that as if any of this is a bad thing...
a completely inoffensive name
01-25-2013, 10:00
This is a ping-pong game with American lives. These young men and women that we put in Anbar province, in Iraq, in Baghdad, are not beans. They're real lives. And we better be damn sure we know what we're doing, all of us, before we put 22,000 more Americans into that grinder.
I think I like this guy.
You say that as if any of this is a bad thing...In principal, I don't have a problem with any of it. But, I think Obama has gone a bit overboard on his assassination program. We can probably stand a slightly smaller military, but let's not delude ourselves about what's driving our debt problem- it's not the Pentagon.
This is a ping-pong game with American lives. These young men and women that we put in Anbar province, in Iraq, in Baghdad, are not beans. They're real lives. And we better be damn sure we know what we're doing, all of us, before we put 22,000 more Americans into that grinder.So Hagel was wrong on the surge too? That must be a requirement to get in the administration.
Montmorency
01-25-2013, 20:28
So Hagel was wrong on the surge too? That must be a requirement to get in the administration.
"Look before you leap" was a lesson I read in a Disney book at age 4...
gaelic cowboy
01-26-2013, 16:32
For what it's worth, i was part of the surge and it did work. The objective was to make the Baghdad area so uncomfortable for insurgents that they would leave and give up. From the beginning of my deployment to the end, violence in Baghdad went down considerably.
If you want to talk failure in Iraq, talk about the political process and government building. Talk about the total failure of all parties to adress long term grievances reasonably. Talk about how all we did was teach the insurgents to wait for us to leave.
The Surge, however, worked as intended.
I sorry but that is only half true the surge did not happen in a vacumn
gaelic cowboy
01-28-2013, 02:22
Your point is?
All military operations happen in a vacuum. That's why the Army is so good at doing things that make little strategic sense.
Your talking about an information vacumn and thats totaly differ.
Didnt the surge happen after the Sunnai Awakening which helped to reduce fatalities.
a completely inoffensive name
01-28-2013, 04:21
So Hagel was wrong on the surge too? That must be a requirement to get in the administration.
I don't understand how you can take a statement that emphasizes responsibility about sending American lives to fight and somehow come up with an insult from it.
So, did the Surge accomplish the goals that politicians wanted? Probably not. Did it achieve the Military Objectives? You bet.By and large, I'd say it was success on both fronts. The failure, or perhaps unwillingness to negotiate a status of forces agreement is mainly what has left Iraq as unstable as it is.
Did anyone see Hagel's confirmation hearings? They went great. And by great, I mean terrible.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_Xab2X_Yik
Silly Republican former Senator didn't realize he was auditioning for Defense Secretary of Israel. Whatta maroon!
https://i.imgur.com/FRdRsmQ.png
I'm not sure what you mean. A new status of forces agreement was agreed upon in June of '09. That's generally considered the end of the surge era and the start of pulling out.I was referring to this (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/23/world/middleeast/failed-efforts-of-americas-last-months-in-iraq.html?ref=statusofforcesagreement%2526pagewanted=all&reason=0&_r=0).
http://youtu.be/gynby-0kkTg
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.