Sign in to follow this  
NipkowDisc

american troops on the ground in syria and iraq

67 posts in this topic

Great!  When are joining up and asking for an infantry assignment in Iraq?  Heck, just go buy a gun and go on over there.

When are you going to ask the federal government to increase your taxes by 40% and cut your benefits (and you do have them) by 30+%?

Oh, and we and Europe will need to begin the draft again so we can have a standing military of about 750,000 in the Middle East for next 50 years.

and just how does progressivism know that 750,000 troops would not translate into stability and civilization during the next 50 years???

 

perhaps it is liberals who are failing to perceive the obvious. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and just how does progressivism know that 750,000 troops would not translate into stability and civilization during the next 50 years???

 

perhaps it is liberals who are failing to perceive the obvious. :D

 

750,000 troops acting as a type of military police force would lead to stability but is this something you really would want the US to do?   As with all of your post it is difficult to tell when you're being serious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

750,000 troops acting as a type of military police force would lead to stability but is this something you really would want the US to do?   As with all of your post it is difficult to tell when you're being serious.

peace and stability doan happen by itself, that's all I know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

peace and stability doan happen by itself, that's all I know.

 

Many people living in these country don't want peace and stability.   Control and power is more important to them.    I see no reason for the USA to help people like that.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many people living in these country don't want peace and stability.   Control and power is more important to them.    I see no reason for the USA to help people like that.

is isis a threat to U.S. national security and our domestic well-being?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

is isis a threat to U.S. national security and our domestic well-being?

Depends.  If we get out of their area and religions, probably not.  After all, Isis was a creation of the George W. Bush invasion of Iraq and toppling of an evil, but stable government.

 In 1950 or so, US said Communism in Viet Nam and South East Asia was a threat to our national security.  We didn't stop it and now they are our trading partners. So is China.  So, the Communists are producing cheap goods that contribute to our well-being?

If we normalized relations with Cuba, Americans would flock to the country for our "well-being."  We sell them billions of dollars in US products.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Depends.  If we get out of their area and religions, probably not.  After all, Isis was a creation of the George W. Bush invasion of Iraq and toppling of an evil, but stable government.

Right. them decapitating numerous innocent persons is a very good reason for us western bullies to stop crowding them.

 

and what about that woman who was held, raped and then forced to marry her rap ist?

 

two things, what about human justice? and your reasoning reeks of a mindset that jeanne kirkpatrick in her speech at the 1980 republican national convention indicted.

 

of all the worlds social and economic ills, she said, the left's reaction is always the same...

 

"they blame America first!" -jeanne kirkpatrick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right. them decapitating numerous innocent persons is a very good reason for us western bullies to stop crowding them.

 

and what about that woman who was held, raped and then forced to marry her rap ist?

 

two things, what about human justice? and your reasoning reeks of a mindset that jeanne kirkpatrick in her speech at the 1980 republican national convention indicted.

 

of all the worlds social and economic ills, she said, the left's reaction is always the same...

 

"they blame America first!" -jeanne kirkpatrick

they cut off people's heads and hold them in captivity for years degrading them but we're the bad guys? that brand of hs was old in 1980 and it is just plain dispicable now.....

 

depends?   on what? how many more times obama thinks he can get away with reacting to decapitation beyond doing nothing more than giving a worthless speech???

 

outstanding! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right. them decapitating numerous innocent persons is a very good reason for us western bullies to stop crowding them.

 

and what about that woman who was held, raped and then forced to marry her rap ist?

 

two things, what about human justice? and your reasoning reeks of a mindset that jeanne kirkpatrick in her speech at the 1980 republican national convention indicted.

 

OK, let's send another 700,000 troops and couple of trillion dollars to Africa.  Same thing is happening there and probably worse.  Oh, they either don't have oil or we already get it.

So, now we cut your pension, raise your taxes and cut your medical benefits by 40%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

is isis a threat to U.S. national security and our domestic well-being?

 

ISIS is a minor national security threat but they are a threat to our well-being in that if they take over Iraq and other oil producing middle eastern countries it would be a major disruption to the world oil market.  

 

ISIS is a security threat to European countries.    This is why I use the term the West instead of the USA;  the EU should supply a majority of the resources instead of the USA,   to assist those governments fighting ISIS. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ISIS is a minor national security threat but they are a threat to our well-being in that if they take over Iraq and other oil producing middle eastern countries it would be a major disruption to the world oil market.  

 

ISIS is a security threat to European countries.    This is why I use the term the West instead of the USA;  the EU should supply a majority of the resources instead of the USA,   to assist those governments fighting ISIS. 

Yeah, well I would say they're a major threat to the physical well-being of any unfortunate they can get their murderous hands on for decapitation.

 

I'm not one to minimalize evil.

 

ask yourself this...

 

suppose the allies had stamped a time schedule on just when and how they would combat and defeat nazi germany? hitler was an immediate threat and had to be dealt with on those terms.

 

but today we have a bunch of chicken-bleepers who wanna pussyfoot around with isis because they think they're such great geniuses. I would suggest that the united states presidential oath of office was not meant to be a pathway to exalted self-aggrandizement by any one person. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, well I would say they're a major threat to the physical well-being of any unfortunate they can get their murderous hands on for decapitation.

 

I'm not one to minimalize evil.

 

ask yourself this...

 

suppose the allies had stamped a time schedule on just when and how they would combat and defeat nazi germany? hitler was an immediate threat and had to be dealt with on those terms.

 

but today we have a bunch of chicken-bleepers who wanna pussyfoot around with isis because they think they're such great geniuses. I would suggest that the united states presidential oath of office was not meant to be a pathway to exalted self-aggrandizement by any one person. :)

 

The question was is ISIS a direct security threat to the USA.    They are not.    Anyhow,  I'm aware of your stance on foreign policy; constant war, fighting the battles of every other nation.     The majority of voters do NOT support this stance.   Those that do should send their own sons and daughters.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The question was is ISIS a direct security threat to the USA.    They are not.    Anyhow,  I'm aware of your stance on foreign policy; constant war, fighting the battles of every other nation.     The majority of voters do NOT support this stance.   Those that do should send their own sons and daughters.  

but by not dealing more decisively with isis in the short term we may be putting ourselves more greatly at risk in relation to isis later on.

 

is it not possible for obama by being so arbitrary about not putting american boots on the ground to aid the kurds because he wants to avoid being called a phony by extreme leftists, he is violating the basic obligations of his oath of office?...

 

and if at present isis is not a direct threat to u.s. national security, they may become so if we pussyfoot around with them berserkers for too long.

 

if obama is having trouble choosing between his oath of office and his personal ideological requirements than the man never had any business running for potus in the first place!

 

the man obligated himself to the terms of that oath...which he freely took twice. :angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but by not dealing more decisively with isis in the short term we may be putting ourselves more greatly at risk in relation to isis later on.

 

is it not possible for obama by being so arbitrary about not putting american boots on the ground to aid the kurds because he wants to avoid being called a phony by extreme leftists, he is violating the basic obligations of his oath of office...

 

and if at present isis is not a direct threat to u.s. national security, they may become so if we pussyfoot around with them berserkers for too long.

 

if obama is having trouble choosing between his oath of office and his personal ideological requirements than the man never had any business running for potus inn the first place.

 

the man obligated himself to the terms of that oath...which he freely took twice. :angry:

 

Read what I have posted.   I agree the west should help Iraq take out ISIS.   Your only interest here is putting down all things Obama. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Read what I have posted.   I agree the west should help Iraq take out ISIS.   Your only interest here is putting down all things Obama. 

if obama is opting for his personal ideological beliefs over the interests of america he dam well should be found to be at fault.

 

I'm no seer but I knew the man was full of it back in late 2007 on the day he announced his run when he paused 4 or 5 times during the course of a 50-minute speech to say in a tone dripping with false humility "it's not about me." :wub:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Read what I have posted.   I agree the west should help Iraq take out ISIS.   Your only interest here is putting down all things Obama. 

that is quite true because I think the man is bleeping up so badly that even long time supporters should not blind themselves to the obvious.  that certainly was not my attitude during the bush years. I hadda lot of problems with the way bush conducted himself. I woulda preferred another candidate back in 2000 and florida easily confirmed that he was a poor choice.

 

if I can be intellectually honest about george w. bush than the other side can be just as intellectually honest about what a bleep-up barack obama has proven himself to be.

 

that to me is certainly not unreasonable. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that is quite true because I think the man is bleeping up so badly that even long time supporters should not blind themselves to the obvious.  that certainly was not my attitude during the bush years. I hadda lot of problems with the way bush conducted himself. I woulda preferred another candidate back in 2000 and florida easily confirmed that he was a poor choice.

 

if I can be intellectually honest about george w. bush than the other side can be just as intellectually honest about what a bleep-up barack obama has proven himself to be.

 

that to me is certainly not unreasonable. :)

 

Both sides are intellectually dishonest because they are on a side.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please note that as of today, Congress has not taken action on a bill that has been before them for quite a while to grant powers to the President to fight ISIS.

While there are some Democrats, it is primarily the Republicans (including Radicals) who are blocking this.

Why?  Because they would rather criticize Obama than do what is best for the nation and the world.  It is easy to say the strategy isn't working or Obama is wrong, rather than actually specifying what to do, raise taxes to support it, activate thousands of Reserve and National Guard troops, etc.  THEN, take responsibility when it fails.  And commit to a 20 year struggle to include financial support for the military and the VA for 50 years.  Any combat action is a 50 year committment.  Retirement and medical care for military and dependents and huge VA costs.  We are still paying for WW II!

Incidentally, still have not changed my opinion that the US acting alone or with token support from a few allies is going to defeat ISIS, if can be done at all by the West.

As for Obama, he is a good person who inherited a lot of problems with no good solutions. Additionally, he was inexperienced in large scale government.  Just as Trump, Carson, Fiorino, Cruze, Paul and Rubio are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please note that as of today, Congress has not taken action on a bill that has been before them for quite a while to grant powers to the President to fight ISIS.

While there are some Democrats, it is primarily the Republicans (including Radicals) who are blocking this.

Why?  Because they would rather criticize Obama than do what is best for the nation and the world.  It is easy to say the strategy isn't working or Obama is wrong, rather than actually specifying what to do, raise taxes to support it, activate thousands of Reserve and National Guard troops, etc.  THEN, take responsibility when it fails.  And commit to a 20 year struggle to include financial support for the military and the VA for 50 years.  Any combat action is a 50 year committment.  Retirement and medical care for military and dependents and huge VA costs.  We are still paying for WW II!

Incidentally, still have not changed my opinion that the US acting alone or with token support from a few allies is going to defeat ISIS, if can be done at all by the West.

As for Obama, he is a good person who inherited a lot of problems with no good solutions. Additionally, he was inexperienced in large scale government.  Just as Trump, Carson, Fiorino, Cruze, Paul and Rubio are.

 

Again, Russia and Iran also want to see ISIS defeated.    The west only needs to support the Iraqi military forces and the separate non government fighting forces (E.g. the Kurd forces).    Russia and Iran are already supporting the Syrian army.   

 

Russia, Iran and the US are in talks right now to pull this off since the US has finally given up the lame strategy of supporting Syrian 'moderate' rebels.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, Russia and Iran also want to see ISIS defeated.    The west only needs to support the Iraqi military forces and the separate non government fighting forces (E.g. the Kurd forces).    Russia and Iran are already supporting the Syrian army.   

 

Russia, Iran and the US are in talks right now to pull this off since the US has finally given up the lame strategy of supporting Syrian 'moderate' rebels.  

Congress still has not given Obama power to legally do anything.

Regardless,  The West has been supporting the Iraqi military since GW Bush created it 10+ years ago.  Other than the Kurds, there is no Iraqi military that can even defend against ISIS, much less defeat them.

Assuming a coalition of Asad's forces and the Syrian rebels could be created by US, Russia and Iran to defeat ISIS, within 12-24 months there would be the same civil war in Syria we have now.  Assad, Russia and Iran on one side, US in the middle and Saudia Arabia, Israel, rebels, et. al on other side.

Bigger problem is whose side will the Iraqi government and military be on?  Right now, they lean toward Iran.

So your plan is to have Syria under Assad, Russia, Iran and Iraq on one side and Saudia Arabia, Israel and US on the other side after ISIS is defeted?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Congress still has not given Obama power to legally do anything.

Regardless,  The West has been supporting the Iraqi military since GW Bush created it 10+ years ago.  Other than the Kurds, there is no Iraqi military that can even defend against ISIS, much less defeat them.

Assuming a coalition of Asad's forces and the Syrian rebels could be created by US, Russia and Iran to defeat ISIS, within 12-24 months there would be the same civil war in Syria we have now.  Assad, Russia and Iran on one side, US in the middle and Saudia Arabia, Israel, rebels, et. al on other side.

Bigger problem is whose side will the Iraqi government and military be on?  Right now, they lean toward Iran.

So your plan is to have Syria under Assad, Russia, Iran and Iraq on one side and Saudia Arabia, Israel and US on the other side after ISIS is defeted?

 

Yes, my plan (if one wishes to call it that) is that Syria REMAINS under Assad with a transition agreement being worked out by the various parties for him to step aside after a few years (which may be a decade or longer). 

 

The Iraqi army is indeed weak but the non army armed forces are fairly strong.    They are motivated to defeat ISIS since ISIS will surely kill a majority of them if they gain power.    Of course the Iraqi government leans towards Iran.   This is why the Iraq invasion was the worst mistake in US history.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please note that as of today, Congress has not taken action on a bill that has been before them for quite a while to grant powers to the President to fight ISIS.

While there are some Democrats, it is primarily the Republicans (including Radicals) who are blocking this.

Why?  Because they would rather criticize Obama than do what is best for the nation and the world.  It is easy to say the strategy isn't working or Obama is wrong, rather than actually specifying what to do, raise taxes to support it, activate thousands of Reserve and National Guard troops, etc.  THEN, take responsibility when it fails.  And commit to a 20 year struggle to include financial support for the military and the VA for 50 years.  Any combat action is a 50 year committment.  Retirement and medical care for military and dependents and huge VA costs.  We are still paying for WW II!

Incidentally, still have not changed my opinion that the US acting alone or with token support from a few allies is going to defeat ISIS, if can be done at all by the West.

As for Obama, he is a good person who inherited a lot of problems with no good solutions. Additionally, he was inexperienced in large scale government.  Just as Trump, Carson, Fiorino, Cruze, Paul and Rubio are.

inexperienced in large scale governing? whatta phony red herring. that isn't why obama has screwed up. he obviously does not have the brand of personal judgment necessary to be potus in the first place.

 

if obama can't handle isis just what could he handle?

 

midget wrestlers armed with toy RPGs made by hasbro? :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

inexperienced in large scale governing? whatta phony red herring. that isn't why obama has screwed up. he obviously does not have the brand of personal judgment necessary to be potus in the first place.

 

if obama can't handle isis just what could he handle?

 

midget wrestlers armed with toy RPGs made by hasbro? :lol:

obama is a disgracefully weak potus and it is not necessary for his worshippers to acknowledge it as it is plainly seeable to the masses.

 

if obama had been calling the shots in howard hawks' the thing we'd all be dessert fodder to a race of super-intelligent carrots right now. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess if you like great recessions and dumb wars,

you won't like Obama.

but the obvious evidence of the past six and a half years is that obama, who advertised himself back in 2008 as an alternative to all that, has not demonstrated himself to be any better than bush.

 

now today he's back on his lets close gitmo kick despite isis not obsessing on that issue at all of late. so why does obama wanna start talking about gitmo again for? to focus attention away from his totally bleeped-up foreign policy mess??? :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but the obvious evidence of the past six and a half years is that obama, who advertised himself back in 2008 as an alternative to all that, has not demonstrated himself to be any better than bush.

 

now today he's back on his lets close gitmo kick despite isis not obsessing on that issue at all of late. so why does obama wanna start talking about gitmo again for? to focus attention away from his totally bleeped-up foreign policy mess??? :huh:

 

but the obvious evidence of the past six and a half years is that obama, who advertised himself back in 2008 as an alternative to all that, has not demonstrated himself to be any better than bush.

 

now today he's back on his lets close gitmo kick despite isis not obsessing on that issue at all of late. so why does obama wanna start talking about gitmo again for? to focus attention away from his totally bleeped-up foreign policy mess??? :huh:

and let me just say this about my bashing obama...

 

I'm not holding obama to any higher bars than the ones he set for himself back in 2008.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

New Members:

Register Here

Learn more about the new message boards:

FAQ

Having problems?

Contact Us