(10-30-2015 02:52 PM)Ole Blue Wrote:  

(10-30-2015 02:46 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(10-30-2015 02:41 PM)Ole Blue Wrote:  Well, something has to be done. Before long ISIS may take over parts of Turkey if the Turkish far-right groups keep their anti-Kurd propaganda campaign going.

According to liberals, such justification is apparently only worth American life if Obama is president.

If a Republican was in office: OMG ******* WAR MONGER HE'S DOING THIS TO MAKE MONEY FROM HALLIBURTON, ANTI-ISLAMIC REPUBLICAN WAR MONGER

Blatantly untrue. You forget that we've had Democrats not named Obama in office before. Clinton led the NATO insurrection against Serbians who were committing genocide against the Albanians in Kosovo. These things happen. When you mislead a country into war, as happened in Iraq, the attitudes shift. When a country is in an unwinnable war like what happened in Vietnam, people get angry. We had Democrats in power back then - the reaction was quite different from how we react today to this news. And for good reason - times and enemies have changed.

so, are you claiming zerO didn't lie when he repeatedly said "no boots on the ground" and "no troops in combat roles"?

Cause we ALL know what and who would be doing all the hooting and hollering about those very things if it was ANY R in the White House.

To say otherwise is utterly disingenuous.

(10-30-2015 03:30 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(10-30-2015 03:00 PM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  Wait... will our Special Forces soldiers be teamed up with the US-backed rebels that Russia is currently annihilating in Syria, instead of ISIS?

We are going to rub shoulders with the Russians before it's over with. Will be interesting to see how that all plays out.

A deals been cut. Assad stays for the time being, to help "calm" the situation, and return it to "normal" whatever that is. Putin (who just days ago was supposedly gonna go broke in a matter of moments) is going to chase the anti-Assad forces back to Iraq and put down the Kurds, US and "rebels" get to go kill ISIS. Then they'll argue and fight a proxy war over who's gonna run the place/install their own puppet Government once Assad is shown the door, or killed by his own people.

In the end it'll be Iran running the show as they expand their sphere of influence even further and spread that 100 and a half billion dollars around that we "negotiated" with them. Meaning instability and a clear and present danger to Israel, Saudi and all the others for another generation or two.

It's gonna be terrific.

Iran's goal is the recreation of the ancient Persian empire, from Istanbul to Kabul to Aden to Cairo.

(10-30-2015 02:47 PM)VA49er Wrote:  This was inevitable if we want ISIS gone.

Wonder if any will get killed by Russian bombs.

Here's the catch; he will not allow the special ops forces to wear boots. Therefore, he will remain true to his word.

(10-30-2015 04:19 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Here's the catch; he will not allow the special ops forces to wear boots. Therefore, he will remain true to his word.

Or he can only deploy gays because they are all "light in the loafers" and therefore never will touch the ground.

(10-30-2015 03:44 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Boots on the ground in Syria, huh?

So, who's side are we on?

Great question. And how long until Russia accidentally attacks a U.S. Group?

(10-30-2015 04:09 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Iran's goal is the recreation of the ancient Persian empire, from Istanbul to Kabul to Aden to Cairo.

I don't know Owl. I think Isis wanted that more in order to re-create the Caliphate that existed prior to WWI. JMHO

Totally ******* stupid.

This just cements the fact he is the worst and most incompetent President we have ever had.

Good grief!

This here is what you call a cluster****

(10-30-2015 02:52 PM)Ole Blue Wrote:  

(10-30-2015 02:46 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(10-30-2015 02:41 PM)Ole Blue Wrote:  Well, something has to be done. Before long ISIS may take over parts of Turkey if the Turkish far-right groups keep their anti-Kurd propaganda campaign going.

According to liberals, such justification is apparently only worth American life if Obama is president.

If a Republican was in office: OMG ******* WAR MONGER HE'S DOING THIS TO MAKE MONEY FROM HALLIBURTON, ANTI-ISLAMIC REPUBLICAN WAR MONGER

Blatantly untrue. You forget that we've had Democrats not named Obama in office before. Clinton led the NATO insurrection against Serbians who were committing genocide against the Albanians in Kosovo. These things happen. When you mislead a country into war, as happened in Iraq, the attitudes shift. When a country is in an unwinnable war like what happened in Vietnam, people get angry. We had Democrats in power back then - the reaction was quite different from how we react today to this news. And for good reason - times and enemies have changed.

That Vietnam was unwinnable is a pillar of liberal myth..

Attitude turned after the media talked about the Tet disaster... Upon reflection

US / Allies (9,078 killed, 35,212 wounded, 1,530 missing)
VC / North Vietnam (45,267 killed, 61,267 wounded, 5,070 missing)

In every way but PR the US was winning the war and that was *with* on hand tied behind their backs.

The VC was so decimated after Tet that the North Vietnamese had to take on an ever bigger role in their southern campaign.

(10-30-2015 02:40 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  But.... he promised.... 8 different times!

It was actually 16

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/polit.../74869884/

Quote:Here's a recap of Obama's no-boots pledge:


Remarks before meeting with Baltic State leaders, Aug. 30, 2013

"In no event are we considering any kind of military action that would involve boots on the ground, that would involve a long-term campaign. But we are looking at the possibility of a limited, narrow act that would help make sure that not only Syria, but others around the world, understand that the international community cares about maintaining this chemical weapons ban and norm. So again, I repeat, we're not considering any open-ended commitment. We're not considering any boots-on-the-ground approach."


Remarks in the Rose Garden, Aug. 31, 2013

"After careful deliberation, I have decided that the United States should take military action against Syrian regime targets. This would not be an open-ended intervention. We would not put boots on the ground. Instead, our action would be designed to be limited in duration and scope."


Statement before meeting with congressional leaders, Sept. 3, 2013

"So the key point that I want to emphasize to the American people: The military plan that has been developed by our Joint Chiefs — and that I believe is appropriate — is proportional. It is limited. It does not involve boots on the ground. This is not Iraq, and this is not Afghanistan."


News conference in Stockholm, Sweden, Sept. 4, 2013

"I think America recognizes that, as difficult as it is to take any military action — even one as limited as we're talking about, even one without boots on the ground — that's a sober decision."


News conference in St. Petersburg, Russia, Sept. 6, 2013

"The question for the American people is, is that responsibility that we'll be willing to bear? And I believe that when you have a limited, proportional strike like this — not Iraq, not putting boots on the ground; not some long, drawn-out affair; not without any risks, but with manageable risks — that we should be willing to bear that responsibility."


Weekly radio address, Sept. 7, 2013

"What we're not talking about is an open-ended intervention. This would not be another Iraq or Afghanistan. There would be no American boots on the ground. Any action we take would be limited, both in time and scope, designed to deter the Syrian Government from gassing its own people again and degrade its ability to do so."


Interview with the PBS Newshour, Sept. 9, 2013

"Tomorrow I'll speak to the American people. I'll explain this is not Iraq; this is not Afghanistan; this is not even Libya. We're not talking about — not boots on the ground. We're not talking about sustained airstrikes. We're talking about a very specific set of strikes to degrade his chemical weapons capabilities in terms of delivery."


Interview with CBS Evening News, Sept. 9, 2013

"What I'm going to try to propose is that we have a very specific objective, a very narrow military option, and one that will not lead into some large-scale invasion of Syria or involvement or boots on the ground; nothing like that. This isn't like Iraq. It's not like Afghanistan. It's not even like Libya. Then hopefully people will recognize why I think this is so important."


Address to the Nation, Sept. 10, 2013

"Many of you have asked, won't this put us on a slippery slope to another war? One man wrote to me that we are 'still recovering from our involvement in Iraq.' A veteran put it more bluntly: 'This nation is sick and tired of war.' My answer is simple: I will not put American boots on the ground in Syria. I will not pursue an open-ended action like Iraq or Afghanistan. I will not pursue a prolonged air campaign like Libya or Kosovo. This would be a targeted strike to achieve a clear objective: deterring the use of chemical weapons and degrading Assad's capabilities."


Interview on Bloomberg View, Feb, 27, 2014

"We are doing everything we can to see how we can do that and how we can resource it. But I've looked at a whole lot of game plans, a whole lot of war plans, a whole bunch of scenarios, and nobody has been able to persuade me that us taking large-scale military action even absent boots on the ground, would actually solve the problem."


News conference in Newport, Wales, Sept. 5, 2014

"With respect to the situation on the ground in Syria, we will not be placing U.S. ground troops to try to control the areas that are part of the conflict inside of Syria. I don't think that's necessary for us to accomplish our goal. We are going to have to find effective partners on the ground to push back against ISIL."


Interview with Meet the Press, Sept. 7, 2014

"(You) cannot, over the long term or even the medium term, deal with this problem by having the United States serially occupy various countries all around the Middle East. We don't have the resources. It puts enormous strains on our military. And at some point, we leave. And then things blow up again. So we've got to have a more sustainable strategy, which means the boots on the ground have to be Iraqi. And and in Syria, the boots on the ground have to be Syrian. ... I will reserve the right to always protect the American people and go after folks who are trying to hurt us wherever they are. But in terms of controlling territory, we're going to have to develop a moderate Sunni opposition that can control territory and that we can work with. The notion that the United States should be putting boots on the ground, I think would be a profound mistake. And I want to be very clear and very explicit about that."


Address to the Nation on Syria, Sept. 10, 2014

"I want the American people to understand how this effort will be different from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It will not involve American combat troops fighting on foreign soil. This counterterrorism campaign will be waged through a steady, relentless effort to take out ISIL wherever they exist, using our air power and our support for partner forces on the ground."


News conference in Brisbane, Australia, Nov. 16, 2014

"Yes, there are always circumstances in which the United States might need to deploy U.S. ground troops. If we discovered that ISIL had gotten possession of a nuclear weapon, and we had to run an operation to get it out of their hands, then, yes, you can anticipate that not only would Chairman Dempsey recommend me sending U.S. ground troops to get that weapon out of their hands, but I would order it. So the question just ends up being, what are those circumstances? I'm not going speculate on those. Right now we're moving forward in conjunction with outstanding allies like Australia in training Iraqi security forces to do their job on the ground."


Remarks at the White House, Feb. 11, 2015

"The resolution we've submitted today does not call for the deployment of U.S. ground combat forces to Iraq or Syria. It is not the authorization of another ground war, like Afghanistan or Iraq. ... As I've said before, I'm convinced that the United States should not get dragged back into another prolonged ground war in the Middle East. That's not in our national security interest, and it's not necessary for us to defeat ISIL. Local forces on the ground who know their countries best are best positioned to take the ground fight to ISIL, and that's what they're doing."


Remarks at the Pentagon, July 6, 2015

"There are no current plans to do so. That's not something that we currently discussed. I've always said that I'm going to do what's necessary to protect the homeland. One of the principles that we all agree on, though, and I pressed folks pretty hard because in these conversations with my military advisers I want to make sure I'm getting blunt and unadulterated, uncensored advice. But in every one of the conversations that we've had, the strong consensus is that in order for us to succeed long-term in this fight against ISIL, we have to develop local security forces that can sustain progress. It is not enough for us to simply send in American troops to temporarily set back organizations like ISIL, but to then, as soon as we leave, see that void filled once again with extremists."

Obama always plays from behind. He is Not a leader at anything !

Count me as opposing this.

Wow, some of you guys act as if the president rolled over in bed one morning and decided this himself. More than one person was involved in this decision....... Including military leadership.

Why are you all not targeting the people who fight for our country?

(11-02-2015 06:41 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  Wow, some of you guys act as if the president rolled over in bed one morning and decided this himself. More than one person was involved in this decision....... Including military leadership.

Why are you all not targeting the people who fight for our country?

Probably because they weren't the ones saying 16 times that there would be "No boots on the ground".

(11-02-2015 06:41 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  Wow, some of you guys act as if the president rolled over in bed one morning and decided this himself. More than one person was involved in this decision....... Including military leadership.

Why are you all not targeting the people who fight for our country?

Because Obama is the one who played politics with Syria, not the military advisers.

Reurrect the Knights Templar and let them deal with ISIS.

The old Caliphate used to stretch from France to Asia Minor before the Franks and Byzantines blunted the edges.

(11-03-2015 01:18 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  Reurrect the Knights Templar and let them deal with ISIS.

The old Caliphate used to stretch from France to Asia Minor before the Franks and Byzantines blunted the edges.

Can you imagine the outrage over a religious war that pits Christianity against Islam? It's a controversial enough topic even with the media and non-muslim leaders pretending this isn't essentially a Holy way.