Does anyone else find this strange? Do you think we are going to focus on Iran?
Here is an article about it: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/01/replacements_fo.html
Also, do you think it has to do with this carrier group going to Iran???
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003509155_webstennis04.html
Or does it have to do with North Korea?????
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=2771492
What do you think?
2007-01-07 14:50:57 · 8 answers · asked by Justin 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
#1 Wow, you are all out of diplomacy and ideas? Force is your ONLY solution? Einstein said "peace cannot be kept with force, it can only be kept with understanding."
2007-01-07 14:57:19 · update #1
Well, the sanctions have not worked nor has negotiations in regards to Iran. The only that will solve the problem is force. It has been and will continue to be the only way to deal with aggressors who have openly declared war on us.
2007-01-07 14:53:50 · answer #1 · answered by Chainsaw 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Admirals have extensive training and in order to get promoted to that rank they know the system. At this point in Iraq and Afghanistan it is more about running a security force and not launching a large scale land war. At the level that this man will be making decisions there will be little difference in the actual branch of service. Most tactical decisions should be generated from colonels and one stars. It is really insignificant which branch of the service this guy came from but his ability to listen and make decisions based on the input of his subordinates.
2007-01-07 23:06:41 · answer #2 · answered by C B 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Any military commander can run any type of war.
Sending the Eisenhower is to relieve the Enterprise which has been there a year already....and the Stennis is just there as a show of force being that the enemy thinks we are stretched and lack forces.
2007-01-07 23:01:09 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
There's only one war in the Middle East that's in Iraq. Afghanistan is in central asia..
And the admiral is in charge because the army can see that the whole thing is a huge mistake.
2007-01-08 02:34:34 · answer #4 · answered by brainstorm 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He is putting them there because the other two Generals that is ask to come home would not agree with what Bush wanted, Otherwise they weren't, yes men. The navy Man knows nothing about combat, so take it for what it's worth.
2007-01-07 23:08:04 · answer #5 · answered by Nicki 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Because he is telling Bush what he wants to hear! Nothing strange about it, when you compare it to the 9/11 inside job. It's what Bush does.
2007-01-07 23:47:00 · answer #6 · answered by protocols 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
seriously laterly many navy admiral kiss too much ***, navy is downsize, cutting a carrier. sametime they want more operation in the gulf and africa is that sound crazy, u know navy admiral would do anything to pleased them look good for their eval. they don't really card about the sailor itself, all they care about is mission and mission.
2007-01-08 02:34:25 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
WHAT ARE YOUR MILITARY CREDENTIALS?
STUPID HOUSEWIFE WITH STUPID KIDS?
2007-01-07 23:49:47 · answer #8 · answered by seans brother 1 · 0⤊ 3⤋