Trump as CINC

[Spirit]

It was nice seeing everyone honor Ryan's widow tonight. 

 

 

[Adam]

Trillion dollar infrastructure plan! How big are your boners, libs?

[Lou]

9 hours ago, Adam said:

Jokes aside about whether or not Trump is a good businessman, the problem with Entrepreneurs in general is they're way too optimistic. They always think their shit is gonna work. When it doesn't they think their next shit is gonna work. 

this is dead-on balls accurate 

[mulwin444]

As posted previously:

"

U.S. military officials told Reuters that Trump approved his first covert counterterrorism operation without sufficient intelligence, ground support or adequate backup preparations.

As a result, three officials said, the attacking SEAL team found itself dropping onto a reinforced al Qaeda base defended by landmines, snipers, and a larger than expected contingent of heavily armed Islamist extremists."

Obama vetoed the mission initially but Trump, or whoever was advising him, thought it would be a great idea.

If Trump and company want to honor Navy Seals and their families, start with gathering good intel and initiating missions that have high probability of succeeding and of yielding valuable assets/information.   But, hey, at least his widow got a 2-minute standing "O" and his party got to buzz about how "Presidential" he looked for a couple of hours.  

[Glen]

But hey, he exploited the widow for applause and spoke on behalf of the SEAL that died in the botched raid. It's all good.

[Adam]

That moment made Van Jones wet

[Jason]

5 minutes ago, Glen said:

But hey, he exploited the widow for applause and spoke on behalf of the SEAL that died in the botched raid. It's all good.

Then why did she even show up?

[mtangelsfan]

9 minutes ago, Glen said:

But hey, he exploited the widow for applause and spoke on behalf of the SEAL that died in the botched raid. It's all good.

this seems to be a petty argument from someone who is looking for anything he can to criticize.  

[Spirit]

He doesn't have someone like Ryan's wife there = he doesn't give a shit about the military, their families or their sacrifice. 

 

He has someone like Ryan's wife there = he's exploiting the family for his own gain.  

 

 

'merica 

 

 

[Make Angels Great Again]

15 minutes ago, Glen said:

But hey, he exploited the widow for applause and spoke on behalf of the SEAL that died in the botched raid. It's all good.

 

This is fucking pathetic.

[Thomas]

2 hours ago, mulwin444 said:

If Trump and company want to honor Navy Seals and their families, start with gathering good intel and initiating missions that have high probability of succeeding and of yielding valuable assets/information.   But, hey, at least his widow got a 2-minute standing "O" and his party got to buzz about how "Presidential" he looked for a couple of hours.  

It's now the POTUS's job to gather intelligence?  Man his secret service bill is already bad enough.

[mulwin444]

1 minute ago, Thomas said:

It's now the POTUS's job to gather intelligence?  Man his secret service bill is already bad enough.

Never implied he alone is responsible for gathering the intel, hence the "and company".  He did say he'd hire the bestest though...the truly bestest advisers ever...like they are really great.

[Thomas]

14 minutes ago, mulwin444 said:

Never implied he alone is responsible for gathering the intel, hence the "and company".  He did say he'd hire the bestest though...the truly bestest advisers ever...like they are really great.

So which suit in this administration is responsible for gathering said data in the field?

[mulwin444]

23 minutes ago, Thomas said:

So which suit in this administration is responsible for gather said data in the field?

The intelligence was gathered prior to his becoming President so those "suits", if they were even "suits" to begin with, were more than likely not consulted post-inauguration.  The intelligence gathered seemed to indicate, and further corroborated by the results of the operation, that, based on the amount of firepower and defensive alternatives available to Al Qaeda, the raid had a potential for, well, turning out the way it did.  Obviously, risk vs reward, if you are looking at raiding an entrenched Al Qaeda stronghold with potential for casualties on both sides, you'd at least hope the return would be significant.  Either way:      

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/02/trump-approved-yemen-raid-five-days-after-inauguration

"The mission was approved over dinner five days after the presidential inauguration by Trump and his closest advisers, including his son-in-law Jared Kushner and his special adviser and former Breitbart executive Stephen Bannon, as well as defence secretary General Jim Mattis."

To be fair, maybe Obama would have gone through with it had he been in office a few more weeks and it could have been his F*ck up.  Either way, it appears the operation was questionable from the get-go and should have been avoided. 

[Thomas]

32 minutes ago, mulwin444 said:

based on the amount of firepower and defensive alternatives available to Al Qaeda, the raid had a potential for, well, turning out the way it did. 

Every raid has that potential. Every SWAT operation in this country could go seriously wrong. Sending troops to the opposite end of the Earth against much harder adversaries than a neighborhood dope slinger by nature implies this. If the dice had rolled different on Obama's call to snuff Bin Laden and it led to the death of everyone on the team, would that have meant that he had made the wrong call given the information he had prior to making the decision? If the goal is to completely avoid civilian casualties how can this be accomplished besides avoiding these strikes entirely? Obviously neither the previous or current administration have chosen to do this. These targets are well aware of the strategic value of using human shields. Yet for some reason the majority of American's still support these strikes to make us "safer". The military brass and at least some of the intelligence leaders clearly supported this plan. They pushed it on two administrations. However if you listen to mainstream arguments, yours included, you'd get the impression that he mangled this like a noob playing a combat video game.

[mulwin444]

4 minutes ago, Thomas said:

Every raid has that potential. Every SWAT operation in this country could go seriously wrong. Sending troops to the opposite end of the Earth against much harder adversaries than a neighborhood dope slinger by nature implies this. If the dice had rolled different on Obama's call to snuff Bin Laden and it led to the death of everyone on the team, would that have meant that he had made the wrong call given the information he had prior to making the decision? If the goal is to completely avoid civilian casualties how can this be accomplished besides avoid this strikes entirely? Obviously neither the previous or current administration have chosen to do this. These targets are well aware of the strategic value of using human shields. Yet for some reason the majority of American's still support these strikes to make us "safer". The military brass and the at some of the intelligence leaders clearly supported this plan. They pushed it on two administrations. However if you listen to mainstream arguments, yours included, you'd get the impression that he mangled this like a noob playing a combat video game.

Every raid may have the potential but not every raid has the same details, goals or combatants.  Fact is, as civilians, we don't know the true goal of these raids in some cases...even the official reason may not be the real reason.  However, despite the fact that every raid has the potential for failure, preparation, intelligence gathering and access to resources can up the odds in your favor.  In regards to the Bin Laden raid, it "was so extensive and costly that the CIA went to Congress in December [2010] to secure authority to reallocate tens of millions of dollars within assorted agency budgets to fund it" (quoted from Washington Post Article).  In this instance, Obama and company left nothing to chance, gathered superior intel, felt confident in its success and provided the Seals with the best opportunity to succeed.  In this Yemen raid, it didn't appear to the same confidence of success.  Fair or not, in the end, it was Trump's call and it blew up.   

[Tank]

6 hours ago, mulwin444 said:

As posted previously:

"

U.S. military officials told Reuters that Trump approved his first covert counterterrorism operation without sufficient intelligence, ground support or adequate backup preparations.

As a result, three officials said, the attacking SEAL team found itself dropping onto a reinforced al Qaeda base defended by landmines, snipers, and a larger than expected contingent of heavily armed Islamist extremists."

i'm a little baffled at the idea that whoever put this plan together failed to have adequate intel on what was waiting for them on the ground. POTUS deserves crap over approving an incomplete plan, but those who put it together deserve just as much, if not more, blame for submitting a half-assed plan to the president. this isn't out typical SOP.

[Thomas]

3 minutes ago, Tank said:

i'm a little baffled at the idea that whoever put this plan together failed to have adequate intel on what was waiting for them on the ground. POTUS deserves crap over approving an incomplete plan, but those who put it together deserve just as much, if not more, blame for submitting a half-assed plan to the president. this isn't out typical SOP.

The problem is that we don't (and very likely will never) know what was presented to the POTUS both times and if it really was outside the norm or if this was pretty typical and he rolled snake eyes. However expecting any politician, let alone one 5 days into the job, to understand the nuances of a military operation is a little silly and reeks of political opportunism.

[Vegas Halo Fan]

On 2/2/2017 at 0:38 PM, mtangelsfan said:

Wait a minute, this mission was conceived by the Obama administration.

Who decided not to carry it out because of insufficient underlying intelligence. Of course, our current President knows more about ISIS than the generals do.

[Blarg]

You guys are acting like this was a Blackhawk Down level catastrophic event. It wasn't. 

[Vegas Halo Fan]

I would say that dropping a SEAL team into a heavily-defended area with heavier than expected opposition is at the very least inexcusable. we have a President who signed off on the action after expressing disdain for the intelligence community and who has shown an aversion for briefings.

[Lou]

4 hours ago, Vegas Halo Fan said:

I would say that dropping a SEAL team into a heavily-defended area with heavier than expected opposition is at the very least inexcusable. we have a President who signed off on the action after expressing disdain for the intelligence community and who has shown an aversion for briefings.

in that case, how can you put the blame on him if there was actually "heavier than expected opposition" ?

 

[tdawg87]

I blame Scioscia.

[Lou]

5 hours ago, Vegas Halo Fan said:

Who decided not to carry it out because of insufficient underlying intelligence. Of course, our current President knows more about ISIS than the generals do.

what does ISIS have to do with this?

[Lou]

7 minutes ago, tdawg87 said:

I blame Scioscia.

another failed hit and run attempt