It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Graham: Military leaders ‘need to be fired’ if they don’t support my plan for war in Iraq

page: 1
8
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 11:55 AM
link   
www.rawstory.com...




Republican presidential candidate Lindsey Graham suggested over the weekend that he would fire military leaders who did not support his plan to send 10,000 troops back to Iraq.

The Washington Post reported on Saturday that military officials had cautioned President Barack Obama against sending combat troops to fight the radical Islamic group ISIS in Iraq.


This should help Lindsey's presidential bid. Everyone I know wants more war..../sarc.




“I’m dying to hear from our military leadership on how we degrade and destroy ISIL with the current strategy,” Graham opined. “So now would be a good time to call [Defense Secretary] Ash Carter and our military leaders to our Capitol Hill and say, ‘If you’ve got a problem with what we’re doing, let me know. But tell me how this is working.'”

“Because if our military leadership thinks we’re on path to degrade and destroy ISIL, they need to be fired.”


I question who the big campaign contributors are to Grahams pres. bid.




posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 11:57 AM
link   
Term limits.



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 12:00 PM
link   
Its a stupid idea.
If the military planners say no it's UUALLY because they haven't got the assets to put there.
If we start deploying without sould military leadership or support THAT will get a great deal of people killed.
Take out ISIS, the LEAVE I raq to melt down and figure it out,we had to to the SAME in Veitnam when the south couldn't or wouldn't fight for itself.



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 12:00 PM
link   
Sadly, I hear more and more that the people are itching for a President like that in 2016.

Remember your Media manipulation training, kids!

If they say "hawkish" on the MSM, they really mean "war-monger"!



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 12:10 PM
link   
If the people elected Lindsay Graham into the oval office I'd renounce my citizenship. That would mean I had lost all faith in the American people now and for my lifetime. An atheist begging, please god don't let this wacko into office. Don't tell me we're THAT far gone.

For the record, I don't think he has a chance.



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 12:32 PM
link   
a reply to: olaru12

Ya don't think we have to worry about him following through with what he is saying.
Snowballs chance in hell he makes it to the oval office.

Still kinda disturbing to see him say something like that.



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 12:42 PM
link   
a reply to: pl3bscheese

a reply to: olaru12

Lindsay Graham, you mean the guy who called for a "religious war" or should I say his own jihad? (Shudders)



Reminds me of this


edit on 15-6-2015 by starwarsisreal because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 12:42 PM
link   
Graham has been the biggest war monger of the lot. He has some DEEP ties to the military industrial complex, apparently.

Luckily, there's a better chance that I will be elected president than Lindsey Graham.



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 12:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Answer
Graham has been the biggest war monger of the lot. He has some DEEP ties to the military industrial complex, apparently.

Luckily, there's a better chance that I will be elected president than Lindsey Graham.

I'd vote for you.

Hell, I'd vote for a purple marital aid before this Graham yahoo.



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 12:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Answer
Graham has been the biggest war monger of the lot. He has some DEEP ties to the military industrial complex, apparently.

Luckily, there's a better chance that I will be elected president than Lindsey Graham.



He won't make it through the primaries.



Nothing wrong with the CIC firing military leaders who do not share his vision--every president restructures--however, I think that the populace is tired of war and the economy is a wreck and saber rattling is exactly the wrong tack to take.



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 01:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc

Nothing wrong with the CIC firing military leaders who do not share his vision--every president restructures


Which is exactly the opposite of how it should be. If the military leaders are in lock-step with the President, that's how bad things happen.

There should always be a system of checks and balances in place.



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 01:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: NavyDoc

Nothing wrong with the CIC firing military leaders who do not share his vision--every president restructures


Which is exactly the opposite of how it should be. If the military leaders are in lock-step with the President, that's how bad things happen.

There should always be a system of checks and balances in place.


Oh, I agree. A wise leader listens to the subject matter experts. One of Hitler's (for example) greatest failings was failing to listen to the generals and admirals who were not "yes men"--lucky for humanity that he didn't.

Regrettably, senior leadership in the US Military tend to be political animals.



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 01:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Answer

Yea but if you're in charge of 300+ million, and SHTF, checks and balances is death when decisions must be made pronto. Definitely agree in theory, unfortunately it would be a known weakness to our enemies if a reality. They would advance on this weakness.
edit on 15-6-2015 by pl3bscheese because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 01:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: pl3bscheese
a reply to: Answer

Yea but if you're in charge of 300+ million, and SHTF, checks and balances is death when decisions must be made pronto. Definitely agree in theory, unfortunately it would be a known weakness to our enemies if a reality. They would advance on this weakness.


When SHTF the most, is exactly the time when one wants to hear the counsel of men who know what they are talking about.



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 01:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: pl3bscheese
a reply to: Answer

Yea but if you're in charge of 300+ million, and SHTF, checks and balances is death when decisions must be made pronto. Definitely agree in theory, unfortunately it would be a known weakness to our enemies if a reality. They would advance on this weakness.


When SHTF the most, is exactly the time when one wants to hear the counsel of men who know what they are talking about.


Exactly.

There needs to be men with stars on their shoulders and a chest full of bling to say "no, Mr. President, that's an incredibly stupid idea."
edit on 6/15/2015 by Answer because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 01:34 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

I can agree with that. I guess what I meant was that you can't be perceived as an impotent decisionless man in charge and not have the backbone to take control when necessary.

Having council is good, but you also need a "commander in chief".

If the CIC is incompetent, then the generals can override his commands. That's pretty much always been a reality, and there's no need for a bunch of red-tape to get it done.
edit on 15-6-2015 by pl3bscheese because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 01:36 PM
link   
I just wonder how many progressives and liberals here would suddenly go "hawkish" if Hillary suggests the same thing.



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 01:41 PM
link   
a reply to: olaru12

I've already accepted that if we end up with a Republican in office, it is likely that we are going back to war in the Middle East. I have also seen that statistically, when a 2 term President leaves office, the opposite party almost always wins. In other words, expect a war in about 2 or 3 years from now.



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 01:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
I just wonder how many progressives and liberals here would suddenly go "hawkish" if Hillary suggests the same thing.


How many liberals and progressives went "hawkish" when Obama wanted to put troops on the ground in Syria? Oh that's right, the country stood up as one and told Obama no until he backed down.
edit on 15-6-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 01:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

It was hardly a united front against war.

Most will follow their ideological leaders though, regardless of where it goes.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join