Groups

    US Chief Petty Officer William "Ryan" Owens Death

    US President Trump has paid tribute to the fallen operator - is he using the death of the decorated officer for his own gain? He has blamed the military for the death.

    Given the criticism of the go ahead order given by Trump. Do you think the operation should have gone ahead?

    It's quite a leap on my part but I'm going to be bold and say that I think it's a worrying sign of the US Presidents attitude to special operations abroad. He did say 'We're going to kill the bad guys, we're going to lock them up" - perhaps this is how it is done?

    Trump traveled to greet Owens's body when it was returned to U.S. soil. Later, Owens's father said that he refused to meet Trump that day and has called for an investigation into the decision-making that led to the operation.


    bbc.co.uk/new…679

    27 Comments

    "is he using the death of the decorated officer for his own gain?"

    Is the pope Catholic?!

    But let's not pretend that Trump isn't doing what almost every other politician routinely does.

    Only one thing for it

    March, I will never vote for Trump again, who's with me?

    https://media.giphy.com/media/RJyevv7jCDsqY/giphy.gif

    Original Poster

    Absolutely, it's a given, I'm just shocked at how transparent he is about it, I don't think he cares.

    He didnt even watch the raid whilst it was taking place unlike his predecessor.
    https://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/styles/story_medium/public/thumbnails/image/2017/02/03/09/situation-room-binladen.jpg
    Edited by: "archer1204" 1st Mar

    what if we all join forces together?

    https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/52/65/69/526569c7e8962f0f1ec0a30e409390fe.jpg

    archer1204

    He didnt even watch the raid whilst it was taking place unlike his … He didnt even watch the raid whilst it was taking place unlike his predecessor.


    so what?

    the intel was way off, Trump can only give the go ahead based on what is presented to him by the CIA etc.
    the Osprey malfunctioning didn't help either, put them knee deep in the brown stuff from the off
    RIP Ryan
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C3_n9UOVMAAJYLZ.jpg

    Original Poster

    archer1204

    He didnt even watch the raid whilst it was taking place unlike his … He didnt even watch the raid whilst it was taking place unlike his predecessor.


    Interesting - Is it the same thing? Was Obama planning to exploit the photos and success? or do you think things were different in that Obama seemed, in my opinion, concerned for the team on the ground and gave the impression that he would have owned any operational mistakes as the commander-in-chief.

    alltaken123

    Interesting - Is it the same thing? Was Obama planning to exploit the … Interesting - Is it the same thing? Was Obama planning to exploit the photos and success? or do you think things were different in that Obama seemed, in my opinion, concerned for the team on the ground and gave the impression that he would have owned any operational mistakes as the commander-in-chief.


    Well that's understandable when you know someones thoughts as well as you know Obama's?

    Original Poster

    DarkEnergy2012

    the intel was way off, Trump can only give the go ahead based on what is … the intel was way off, Trump can only give the go ahead based on what is presented to him by the CIA etc.the Osprey malfunctioning didn't help either, put them knee deep in the brown stuff from the off :(RIP Ryan


    I agree - the planning was likely poor. I think the way in which Trump is exploiting the death so flamboyantly, with the aid of the widow... that's all Trump.

    I'm not anti-Trump - not that it is an issue either way, but I believe he has to own situations like this and act as president, a certain air of respect is missing. If he ave the go ahead on bad intel, then he needs to accept it was a whole group decision with his sign off being the highest, not blaming - The Military.
    Edited by: "alltaken123" 1st Mar

    Original Poster

    davewave

    Well that's understandable when you know someones thoughts as well as you … Well that's understandable when you know someones thoughts as well as you know Obama's?



    I am going off the impression I have of the ex-president over his 8 years in that office, his decorum in military matters, especially those of special operations that were spoken about publicly. Hence - IMO. You may perceive his behaviours differently, enrich the discussion.

    Trump is dammed if he does and dammed if he doesn't, bit like Obama when he first got into Office.

    Everything will call down soon, it's just the death throws of the Democrats and Labour who like to stir it up for him on this side of the pond.
    Edited by: "rodders443" 1st Mar

    alltaken123

    I am going off the impression I have of the ex-president over his 8 years … I am going off the impression I have of the ex-president over his 8 years in that office, his decorum in military matters, especially those of special operations that were spoken about publicly. Hence - IMO. You may perceive his behaviours differently, enrich the discussion.


    So Obama cut funding for the military and Trump has opted to request a larger budget and you have assumed he displays a disinterest in the military?

    Original Poster

    davewave

    So Obama cut funding for the military and Trump has opted to request a … So Obama cut funding for the military and Trump has opted to request a larger budget and you have assumed he displays a disinterest in the military?


    I've stated what I think in regards to the topic at hand and the death of the soldier. I think it's rather disingenuous to imply I have assumed anything based on budgets, or for that matter, that you suggest giving an increased budget to the military absolves the presidents apparent disconnect from his position as commander-in-chief.

    Trump - 'They lost Ryan. The buck stops with 'them'.

    Edited by: "alltaken123" 1st Mar

    alltaken123

    I've stated what I think in regards to the topic at hand and the death of … I've stated what I think in regards to the topic at hand and the death of the soldier. I think it's rather disingenuous to imply I have assumed anything based on budgets, or for that matter, giving an increased budget to the military absolves the presidents disconnect from his position as commander-in-chief.


    but that's just your opinion.

    Original Poster

    davewave

    but that's just your opinion.



    Welcome to a discussion.

    alltaken123

    Welcome to a discussion.


    is it though, resembles a circle jerk for people who dislike Trump?

    davewave

    is it though, resembles a circle jerk for people who dislike Trump?


    What do you think will be the effect on the world if he cuts the foreign aid budget.

    As per rodders443 comment #12

    And it doesn't matter if it was totally successful or not the fact that Trump was president and gave the go ahead meant he was going to get backlash. Even if he gets caught on camera taking the wrong type of breath some press and "his other enemies" will use it against him.

    Me, myself, sees nothing wrong with what he's done it's only the biased fake news supported by millennials/SJW's who use every way possible to undermine and discredit him.

    Original Poster

    I love a good circle jerk almost as much as you love posting flippant remarks X)

    I do agree about the media attacking at every opportunity, that's something that they are losing ground on whenever a new story breaks. The media is running stories written by a certain aging population, I'm not sure if the demographic of Trump supporters is mainly millennial or older... (_;)

    philphil61

    As per rodders443 comment #12And it doesn't matter if it was totally … As per rodders443 comment #12And it doesn't matter if it was totally successful or not the fact that Trump was president and gave the go ahead meant he was going to get backlash. Even if he gets caught on camera taking the wrong type of breath some press and "his other enemies" will use it against him.Me, myself, sees nothing wrong with what he's done it's only the biased fake news supported by millennials/SJW's who use every way possible to undermine and discredit him.


    He's the commander-in-chief, ultimately everything the US military does is his responsibility. The fact he's trying to pass the blame onto others is typical Trump, he's incapable of ever admitting fault.

    archer1204

    What do you think will be the effect on the world if he cuts the foreign … What do you think will be the effect on the world if he cuts the foreign aid budget.



    ​on which country?

    archer1204

    What do you think will be the effect on the world if he cuts the foreign … What do you think will be the effect on the world if he cuts the foreign aid budget.


    You may as well ask your dog. Well that's if you'd decided to train your dog to hate certain groups as well, like that White Dog movie?

    On Monday, 121 retired US generals and admirals, including Ret. General David Petraeus, the former CIA director, signed a letter to Congress calling for foreign aid to be ring-fenced in the budget.

    "The State Department, USAid, Millennium Challenge Corporation, Peace Corps and other development agencies are critical to preventing conflict and reducing the need to put our men and women in uniform in harm's way," they wrote. - CNN

    Trump's Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, when head of U.S. Central Command said: “If you don’t fund the State Department fully, then I need to buy more ammunition.”

    Edited by: "Cr0m" 1st Mar

    davewave

    ​on which country?


    lets start with all the countries in africa that are currently getting US aid

    archer1204

    lets start with all the countries in africa that are currently getting US … lets start with all the countries in africa that are currently getting US aid



    in a variety of ways probably, you have to start with the question over who is actually getting the money in this notoriously corrupt continent. Below article outlines the problems with the ineffective sticking plaster that UK and US govts love so dearly.

    spectator.co.uk/201…ls/

    The British government is strikingly generous in foreign aid donations. It spent £8.7 billion on foreign aid in 2012 — which is 0.56 per cent of national income. This is to rise to £11.7 billion, or 0.7 per cent of national income, next year. But if money alone were the solution we would be along the road not just to ameliorating the lives of poor people today but ending poverty for ever.

    The idea that large donations can remedy poverty has dominated the theory of economic development — and the thinking in many international aid agencies and governments — since the 1950s. And how have the results been? Not so good, actually. Millions have moved out of abject poverty around the world over the past six decades, but that has had little to do with foreign aid. Rather, it is due to economic growth in countries in Asia which received little aid. The World Bank has calculated that between 1981 and 2010, the number of poor people in the world fell by about 700 million — and that in China over the same period, the number of poor people fell by 627 million.

    In the meantime, more than a quarter of the countries in sub-Saharan Africa are poorer now than in 1960 — with no sign that foreign aid, however substantive, will end poverty there. Last year, perhaps the most striking illustration came from Liberia, which has received massive amounts of aid for a decade. In 2011, according to the OECD, official development aid to Liberia totalled $765 million, and made up 73 per cent of its gross national income. The sum was even larger in 2010. But last year every one of the 25,000 students who took the exam to enter the University of Liberia failed. All of the aid is still failing to provide a decent education to Liberians.

    One could imagine that many factors have kept sub-Saharan Africa poor — famines, civil wars. But huge aid flows appear to have done little to change the development trajectories of poor countries, particularly in Africa. Why? As we spell out in our book, this is not to do with a vicious circle of poverty, waiting to be broken by foreign money. Poverty is instead created by economic institutions that systematically block the incentives and opportunities of poor people to make things better for themselves, their neighbours and their country.

    Let us take for Exhibit A the system of apartheid in South Africa, which Nelson Mandela dedicated himself to abolishing. In essence, apartheid was a set of economic institutions — rules that governed what people could or could not do, their opportunities and their incentives. In 1913, the South African government declared that 93 per cent of South Africa was the ‘white economy’, while 7 per cent was for blacks (who constituted about 70 per cent of the population). Blacks had to have a pass, a sort of internal passport, to travel to the white economy. They could not own property or start a business there. By the 1920s the ‘Colour Bar’ banned blacks from undertaking any skilled or professional occupation. The only jobs blacks could take in the white economy were as unskilled workers on farms, in mines or as servants for white people. Such economic institutions, which we call ‘extractive’, sap the incentives and opportunities of the vast mass of the population and thereby keep a society poor.

    davewave

    in a variety of ways probably, you have to start with the question over … in a variety of ways probably, you have to start with the question over who is actually getting the money in this notoriously corrupt continent. Below article outlines the problems with the ineffective sticking plaster that UK and US govts love so dearly.http://www.spectator.co.uk/2014/01/why-aid-fails/The British government is strikingly generous in foreign aid donations. It spent £8.7 billion on foreign aid in 2012 — which is 0.56 per cent of national income. This is to rise to £11.7 billion, or 0.7 per cent of national income, next year. But if money alone were the solution we would be along the road not just to ameliorating the lives of poor people today but ending poverty for ever.The idea that large donations can remedy poverty has dominated the theory of economic development — and the thinking in many international aid agencies and governments — since the 1950s. And how have the results been? Not so good, actually. Millions have moved out of abject poverty around the world over the past six decades, but that has had little to do with foreign aid. Rather, it is due to economic growth in countries in Asia which received little aid. The World Bank has calculated that between 1981 and 2010, the number of poor people in the world fell by about 700 million — and that in China over the same period, the number of poor people fell by 627 million.In the meantime, more than a quarter of the countries in sub-Saharan Africa are poorer now than in 1960 — with no sign that foreign aid, however substantive, will end poverty there. Last year, perhaps the most striking illustration came from Liberia, which has received massive amounts of aid for a decade. In 2011, according to the OECD, official development aid to Liberia totalled $765 million, and made up 73 per cent of its gross national income. The sum was even larger in 2010. But last year every one of the 25,000 students who took the exam to enter the University of Liberia failed. All of the aid is still failing to provide a decent education to Liberians.One could imagine that many factors have kept sub-Saharan Africa poor — famines, civil wars. But huge aid flows appear to have done little to change the development trajectories of poor countries, particularly in Africa. Why? As we spell out in our book, this is not to do with a vicious circle of poverty, waiting to be broken by foreign money. Poverty is instead created by economic institutions that systematically block the incentives and opportunities of poor people to make things better for themselves, their neighbours and their country.Let us take for Exhibit A the system of apartheid in South Africa, which Nelson Mandela dedicated himself to abolishing. In essence, apartheid was a set of economic institutions — rules that governed what people could or could not do, their opportunities and their incentives. In 1913, the South African government declared that 93 per cent of South Africa was the ‘white economy’, while 7 per cent was for blacks (who constituted about 70 per cent of the population). Blacks had to have a pass, a sort of internal passport, to travel to the white economy. They could not own property or start a business there. By the 1920s the ‘Colour Bar’ banned blacks from undertaking any skilled or professional occupation. The only jobs blacks could take in the white economy were as unskilled workers on farms, in mines or as servants for white people. Such economic institutions, which we call ‘extractive’, sap the incentives and opportunities of the vast mass of the population and thereby keep a society poor.


    So thanks for the spectator article but what does in a variety of ways probably actually mean in real terms

    archer1204

    So thanks for the spectator article but what does in a variety of ways … So thanks for the spectator article but what does in a variety of ways probably actually mean in real terms



    ​it means a variety of ways depending on the specific government within the continent and how they would respond.

    what do you think would happen?
    Post a comment
    Avatar
    @
      Text
      Top Discussions
      1. Do you have one of these 2.1 million 50p's selling for 20x its value?917
      2. The obvious next step become Ken then become Barbie911
      3. love affairs912
      4. word association Game73844475

      See more discussions