• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Trump's Cabinet -- Serious Speculation

"We are going to appoint 'Mad Dog' Mattis as our secretary of defence. They say he's the closest thing to General George Patton that we have."

The Republican-controlled Congress will need to approve legislation bypassing the requirement so he can take up the role.

But at least one Democratic senator, Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, says she will not approve a waiver.

"Civilian control of our military is a fundamental principle of American democracy," Ms Gillibrand said in a statement, "and I will not vote for an exception to this rule."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38178625
 
He seems taken with the ' Mad Dog' name, I wonder if that's one of the reasons for picking him? He probably thinks the Secretary of Defence should look like this.

His policy being "If it bleeds, we can kill it"


 
Last edited:
Captain_Swoop said:
"We are going to appoint 'Mad Dog' Mattis as our secretary of defence. They say he's the closest thing to General George Patton that we have."
Click to expand...
Looks like Trump and Mattis will get along just fine...

From: http://money.cnn.com/2016/12/02/technology/james-mattis-trump-theranos/
After retiring in 2013, Mattis became a board director at Theranos, a company founded in 2003... The blood-testing startup was billed as a classic industry disruptor -- offering a cheaper, more efficient alternative to traditional medical tests.
...
Holmes (The company founder) reportedly reached out to Mattis in 2012, after a military official flagged Theranos' technology to the FDA. She wanted Mattis to use his authority to dispel any concerns. Mattis forwarded the emails internally, indicating a sense of urgency in moving forward with the technology, but it never took off.
...
In the past year, Theranos has voided two years of blood tests, faced federal probes, pivoted away from blood testing -- and Holmes has been banned from owning or operating a lab for two years. Most recently, it's been sued by investors and Walgreens, once its biggest partner.
 
Argumemnon said:
The Wiki page on him doesn't make him look too bad. What are his skeletons?
Click to expand...

None known. He's considered a squared away professional soldier who cares about the troops in his command.

I have mixed feelings about him exclusively due to the time out of service waiver. The ten years normally required ensures that the chain of command a former service person was part of will have changed enough that the service person will be unlikely to have undue influence on or from uniformed personnel, among other things.

In this case surrounding Trump with adults may outweigh that consideration.
 
Jrrarglblarg said:
The Wiki page on him doesn't make him look too bad. What are his skeletons?
Click to expand...
None known.
Click to expand...
Ummm.. hello? Do you have me on ignore?

I've already posted one significant skeleton... his ties to a shady tech company that he championed while a general, and now sits on their board of directors. Some people may consider that suspicious... doubly so when the company in question is being sued.

Then there are also his comments about it being "fun to shoot people". Or his dismissal of charges against soldiers involved in killing unarmed Iraqis.
 
Segnosaur said:
Ummm.. hello? Do you have me on ignore?

I've already posted one significant skeleton... his ties to a shady tech company that he championed while a general, and now sits on their board of directors. Some people may consider that suspicious... doubly so when the company in question is being sued.

Then there are also his comments about it being "fun to shoot people". Or his dismissal of charges against soldiers involved in killing unarmed Iraqis.
Click to expand...

I haven't looked into the tech company issue but if you want a SECDEF who doesn't think it fun to shoot people don't nominate a United States Marine. The basic military mission of Marines is "Get off the boat, go over there, kill people and break things until we tell you to stop. The sooner you get done the sooner Seabees can get a chow tent and showers set up, so don't **** around."

The job of the Marine Corp is tactical, not strategic. Despite this, Marine leadership is often very savvy about strategic thinking. The Marines are treated like the Navy's red headed stepchild, so they get used to doing more with less and not being as dependent on deep resource chains and help from other branches, while easily getting involved with joint operations because they're already in a joint op with the Navy just standing around. It's a culture, a mindset.

The Army's overall strategic mission, surprisingly, is to end conflict. Seriously. The Army's job is to take land and pacify the occupants. The army runs the guardposts, checkpoints and prisons that keep the peace once the combatants have been taken down. See how that failed in Iraq?

I'll look into his corporate ties.
 
Last edited:
Jrrarglblarg said:
I haven't looked into the tech company issue but if you want a SECDEF who doesn't think it fun to shoot people don't nominate a United States Marine. The basic military mission of Marines is "Get off the boat, go over there, kill people and break things until we tell you to stop. The sooner you get done the sooner Seabees can get a chow tent and showers set up, so don't **** around."
Click to expand...
Ok, lets assume what you said is complete correct. (I do recognize that Marines fill a different role than other branches of the military, although I don't really know how many really think killing is "fun", and not just a necessary evil.)

In the worst case, they have appointed a secretary of defense who is more interested in breaking things than putting them back together. Given the various conflicts that the U.S. has been in lately, that might not be a good thing (since that type of attitude may cause the U.S. to be involved in new conflicts with little regard to stabilizing things after.)

In the best case (i.e. he turns out to be competent, using force when warranted but not going overboard), its still really bad optics. Trump and the U.S. are going to be under a microscope. (Between Trump's talk of allowing torture and killing families of terrorists, and past history of the U.S. causing upheaval in places like the middle east.) The U.S government will have to work with various countries throughout the world. A secretary of defense who is on record as saying "fun to kill people" sends the wrong message.
 
Or maybe it sends the right message, meaning, the message he wants to send. The world and the American people should consider every one of these appointments "fair warning."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom