Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

american troops on the ground in syria and iraq


Recommended Posts

surely it is not necessary as obama has radiant energies of utopionic perfection emanating from him constantly. :lol:

 

I know you hate everything and anything that Obama does,  but haven't you been pushing for boots on the ground?

 

Anyhow,  things in Syria are moving in the right direction,  finally;  Ensure the government doesn't fall to stabilize the country,  Russia helping the Syrian army defeat radical Islamic folks,  not supporting the rebels (so they will have to make a deal with Assad) therefore freeing up US support for the Iraq military forces to attack the radicals.    Just what I have been saying I wanted at this forum for over a year.    

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know you hate everything and anything that Obama does,  but haven't you been pushing for boots on the ground?

 

Anyhow,  things in Syria are moving in the right direction,  finally;  Ensure the government doesn't fall to stabilize the country,  Russia helping the Syrian army defeat radical Islamic folks,  not supporting the rebels (so they will have to make a deal with Assad) therefore freeing up US support for the Iraq military forces to attack the radicals.    Just what I have been saying I wanted at this forum for over a year.    

but even our own msm will not deny that obama has contradicted himself. look, I doan think obama is a liar on this but rather a fool. he committed himself to no american boots on the ground in syria ever because he is such an egocentric he can't bring himself to not feed those who think of him as this perfect infallible being.

 

by the way, what good are only 50 special ops gonna do? :huh:

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Uh-oh. You start with a few troops, and, before you know it, you're up to 600,000.

obama decided to not deal with isis decisively and characterized the threat as something that could be dealt with years later by a successor and the man has unfortunately been engaging the isis berserkers ever since with insufficient forces and a kid gloves approach...

 

maybe barack obama has been just plain wrong about so many things.  after all the egocentric's background is law and not military stratagem.

Link to post
Share on other sites

obama decided to not deal with isis decisively and characterized the threat as something that could be dealt with years later by a successor and the man has unfortunately been engaging the isis berserkers ever since with insufficient forces and a kid gloves approach...

 

maybe barack obama has been just plain wrong about so many things.  after all the egocentric's background is law and not military stratagem.

 

obama decided to not deal with isis decisively and characterized the threat as something that could be dealt with years later by a successor and the man has unfortunately been engaging the isis berserkers ever since with insufficient forces and a kid gloves approach...

 

maybe barack obama has been just plain wrong about so many things.  after all the egocentric's background is law and not military stratagem.

that term sea lawyer? well folks, obama is what I would call a battlefield lawyer.

 

it shows. :P

Link to post
Share on other sites

is it any wonder that obama is now trying to change the subject to anything but his failed foreign policy mess...

 

like reforming our criminal laws. why? because his foreign policy is a testament to his great mistake...

 

his personal inability to restrain his own intellectual arrogance. syria and a large part of the middle east will pay the price as well as our own national security.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Still waiting for NipKow Disc to state what he/she did in the military - or why not.

Also, when can we see his/her boots on the ground in the Middle East?

irrelevant.

 

hey? why shouldn't I criticize obama? he is screwing up very, very badly and it is plainly visible...even to liberals.

 

the man said he would never put boots on the ground in syria and even the msm is holding him to it. :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

irrelevant.

 

hey? why shouldn't I criticize obama? he is screwing up very, very badly and it is plainly visible...even to liberals.

 

the man said he would never put boots on the ground in syria and even the msm is holding him to it. :lol:

 

The problem I see if that you believe what politicians say.   Look at all the things the GWB admin said about the Iraq invasion;  WMDs will be found. NOT.    We will be welcomed with open arms.  NOT.    The war wouldn't cost the US a dime since we will be paid from the Iraqi oil revenue.  NOT.    etc.... 

 

All administrations spin.    All change course.   All of them.     So to me it is a waste of time to focus on that.   Instead I try to focus on the actual policy being implement and if I feel that is the right course.    The policy in Syria is now moving in the right direction.  Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia,  the USA and other nations are meeting and I believe a truce between the Syria government and the rebels will come within 6 months.   This allows all forces to focus on ISIS.   About time.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Politics aside, the number of different parties with different objectives involved in Syria's civil war makes me wonder the following about the deployment of up to 50 American special op forces into that country:

 

How will America react if one or more of those 50 are killed or wounded (accidentally or not) by the Syrian military?

 

How will America react if one or more of those 50 are killed or wounded (accidentally or not) by the Iranian military?

 

How will America react if one or more of those 50 are killed or wounded (accidentally or not) by the Russian military?

 

How will America react if one or more of those 50 are killed or wounded (accidentally or not) by the Turkish military?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem I see if that you believe what politicians say.   Look at all the things the GWB admin said about the Iraq invasion;  WMDs will be found. NOT.    We will be welcomed with open arms.  NOT.    The war wouldn't cost the US a dime since we will be paid from the Iraqi oil revenue.  NOT.    etc.... 

 

All administrations spin.    All change course.   All of them.     So to me it is a waste of time to focus on that.   Instead I try to focus on the actual policy being implement and if I feel that is the right course.    The policy in Syria is now moving in the right direction.  Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia,  the USA and other nations are meeting and I believe a truce between the Syria government and the rebels will come within 6 months.   This allows all forces to focus on ISIS.   About time.  

but you see, jamesjazzguitar, I remember barack obama early in his 2008 candidacy going out of his way to say he was going to be different than the politician we were used to. specifically on nbc nightly news I remember a videobyte of him saying to a cheering crowd of people...

 

"I know that the american people are tired of the same ol' politics as usual..."...

 

which spurred even more cheering.

 

he specifically as a candidate made an issue of conditions in the VA... then nominates his buddy 'rick' shinseki.

 

from the start obama made a point of indicting 'politics as usual' and since becoming potus has completely failed to set himself apart from that which he once upon a time indicted out of his own mouth.

 

in late 2007 senator john mccain said that "senator obama doesn't seem to understand that words have meaning."

 

he started his advent by claiming that he was going to be so much better than bush.

 

honest people of integrity find it most difficult to ignore such a level of deceptive hypocrisy.

 

I know I do. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

irrelevant.

 

hey? why shouldn't I criticize obama? he is screwing up very, very badly and it is plainly visible...even to liberals.

 

the man said he would never put boots on the ground in syria and even the msm is holding him to it. :lol:

Not stating your military or foreign affairs experience or specific education/training tends to confirm that your posts are "irrelevant" and unfounded.

Oh, just noticed your military experience according to one of your posts was being a "cub scout."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not stating your military or foreign affairs experience or specific education/training tends to confirm that your posts are "irrelevant" and unfounded.

Oh, just noticed your military experience according to one of your posts was being a "cub scout."

I was very proud of my cub scout uniform. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Inheriting someone else's war is a horrible thing for an American President, as LBJ and Nixon found out.  Only when Congress forced him to did Gerald Ford end support for the war in Vietnam.

George W. Bush's new biography is out and appears he does not have much use for Cheney or Rumsfield under G.W.'s reign, but George W. is the one who said let's go to war in Iraq.

George HW Bush stopped once Saddam Hussein had been thrown out of Kuwait - the mission the world agreed to when they sent troops.  There were political considerations as well, of course-100 hour war, victory with little loss of American lives, etc.  But there were also those who knew that Saddam was a counter to Iran and that taking over a Middle Eastern country created by and for Britain, France and their oil companies was a recipe for disaster.  Cheney ( Bush 41's Sec. Def.) more or less deferred to those who knew more than he did. 

Regardless, it is George W. Bush, Rumsfield and Cheney's war, not Obama's.

It is easy to say I am going to drive to the store, but have an accident on the way and never get there.  Same as "no boots on the ground."  Things change and shot happens.  Obama is just trying to extricate the US from a disaster his predecessor created while hopefully protecting the people of the "new" Iraq created by G.W. Bush, Cheney, Rumsield, et. al. 

50 Spec. Ops. troops won't be enough though.  500,000 troops, no fly zones, etc. probably would not be enough either.  Of course, how many for Syria vs. Iraq vs. Afghanistan vs. wherever Isis pops up next?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Inheriting someone else's war is a horrible thing for an American President, as LBJ and Nixon found out.  Only when Congress forced him to did Gerald Ford end support for the war in Vietnam.

George W. Bush's new biography is out and appears he does not have much use for Cheney or Rumsfield under G.W.'s reign, but George W. is the one who said let's go to war in Iraq.

George HW Bush stopped once Saddam Hussein had been thrown out of Kuwait - the mission the world agreed to when they sent troops.  There were political considerations as well, of course-100 hour war, victory with little loss of American lives, etc.  But there were also those who knew that Saddam was a counter to Iran and that taking over a Middle Eastern country created by and for Britain, France and their oil companies was a recipe for disaster.  Cheney ( Bush 41's Sec. Def.) more or less deferred to those who knew more than he did. 

Regardless, it is George W. Bush, Rumsfield and Cheney's war, not Obama's.

It is easy to say I am going to drive to the store, but have an accident on the way and never get there.  Same as "no boots on the ground."  Things change and shot happens.  Obama is just trying to extricate the US from a disaster his predecessor created while hopefully protecting the people of the "new" Iraq created by G.W. Bush, Cheney, Rumsield, et. al. 

50 Spec. Ops. troops won't be enough though.  500,000 troops, no fly zones, etc. probably would not be enough either.  Of course, how many for Syria vs. Iraq vs. Afghanistan vs. wherever Isis pops up next?

then obama should stop pussyfooting around and realize that there is a danger in doing too little in the short term. obama should be just as worried about what happens if isis is not stopped NOW as he is of being called a hypocrite, a phony and a warmonger by his worshippers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Inheriting someone else's war is a horrible thing for an American President, as LBJ and Nixon found out.  Only when Congress forced him to did Gerald Ford end support for the war in Vietnam.

George W. Bush's new biography is out and appears he does not have much use for Cheney or Rumsfield under G.W.'s reign, but George W. is the one who said let's go to war in Iraq.

George HW Bush stopped once Saddam Hussein had been thrown out of Kuwait - the mission the world agreed to when they sent troops.  There were political considerations as well, of course-100 hour war, victory with little loss of American lives, etc.  But there were also those who knew that Saddam was a counter to Iran and that taking over a Middle Eastern country created by and for Britain, France and their oil companies was a recipe for disaster.  Cheney ( Bush 41's Sec. Def.) more or less deferred to those who knew more than he did. 

Regardless, it is George W. Bush, Rumsfield and Cheney's war, not Obama's.

It is easy to say I am going to drive to the store, but have an accident on the way and never get there.  Same as "no boots on the ground."  Things change and shot happens.  Obama is just trying to extricate the US from a disaster his predecessor created while hopefully protecting the people of the "new" Iraq created by G.W. Bush, Cheney, Rumsield, et. al. 

50 Spec. Ops. troops won't be enough though.  500,000 troops, no fly zones, etc. probably would not be enough either.  Of course, how many for Syria vs. Iraq vs. Afghanistan vs. wherever Isis pops up next?

 

The problem with Syria is that the Obama Admin followed the same lame neo-con strategy used by GWB and his fellow clowns in Iraq; trying to remove a strong arm government.     The west needs to give up on the concept of 'moderate' rebels,  advise the rebels to make a truce with Assad (which we are finally doing) and put all of the west resources supporting Iraq's weak government so that they can remove ISIS from Iraq.  Russia will help the Syrian army clean up Syria. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with Syria is that the Obama Admin followed the same lame neo-con strategy used by GWB and his fellow clowns in Iraq; trying to remove a strong arm government.     The west needs to give up on the concept of 'moderate' rebels,  advise the rebels to make a truce with Assad (which we are finally doing) and put all of the west resources supporting Iraq's weak government so that they can remove ISIS from Iraq.  Russia will help the Syrian army clean up Syria. 

accepting a continuing existence of a virulent entity like isis is not the way. isis should and must be destroyed...just like the third reich.

 

you have a weak potus and european leaders straining to not recognize the obvious and also lacking the fundamental fortitude to do the obvious.

 

destroy isis by whatever means is required...and NOW, not years from now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

accepting a continuing existence of a virulent entity like isis is not the way. isis should and must be destroyed...just like the third reich.

 

you have a weak potus and european leaders straining to not recognize the obvious and also lacking the fundamental fortitude to do the obvious.

 

destroy isis by whatever means is required...and NOW, not years from now.

just what the bleep does obama expect from 50 special ops?...

 

suicide?

 

"well, ain't that pretty? -earl hooker (richard jordan), chato's land

Link to post
Share on other sites

accepting a continuing existence of a virulent entity like isis is not the way. isis should and must be destroyed...just like the third reich.

 

you have a weak potus and european leaders straining to not recognize the obvious and also lacking the fundamental fortitude to do the obvious.

 

destroy isis by whatever means is required...and NOW, not years from now.

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

accepting a continuing existence of a virulent entity like isis is not the way. isis should and must be destroyed...just like the third reich.

 

you have a weak potus and european leaders straining to not recognize the obvious and also lacking the fundamental fortitude to do the obvious.

 

destroy isis by whatever means is required...and NOW, not years from now.

 

You're confused yet again.  I'm for the west taking out ISIS.   Nowhere have I ever said otherwise.   This is why I do NOT support trying to removal of the Syrian Government.  Removing Assad is the main goal of ISIS!     The main people in DC that wish to get rid of Assad are neo-con members of the GOP.   These folks are bigger fools than Obama when it comes to the middle east.

 

I agree with 'by whatever means';  this is why the west needs to work with Russia and Iran.    Like I said Russia and Iran can take care of ISIS in Syria while the west does so in Iraq.   

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just like the Soviet Union helped Afghanistan with their rebel problem?  And US helped South Vietnam?

 

With Iran and Russia assisting the Syrian Army in Syria and the west assisting Iraqi forces in Iraq ISIS can be "defeated" (I.e. not able to hold on to any territory).    Of course racial Islamic fighters will always exist in these countries.  So the goal is just to ensure they don't gain control of territory (like they have today).

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
© 2021 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...