US Sending Troops to Syria

Originally posted by no1marauder
Nutty conspiracy theories like Obama is a secret Islamist aside the involvement in Vietnam started with a few hundred advisers.

That guy is a coward, he only hurts those that cannot fight back. He is spineless when it
comes to others. He will make it so bad the next guy is going have a bad mess in front of
him since Obama managed to lose a war that was already won.

Originally posted by KellyJay
That guy is a coward, he only hurts those that cannot fight back. He is spineless when it
comes to others. He will make it so bad the next guy is going have a bad mess in front of
him since Obama managed to lose a war that was already won.

Nothing like ridiculous revisionist history. The Iraq war was far from won plus Obama's actions there were in accordance with the agreements already made by GWB.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Your lame attempts at humor notwithstanding, Bernie has been the only candidate for President from the two major parties who has consistently opposed further US involvement in Middle Eastern wars.

Gail Collins said of Lindsey Graham (I know he's not going to be President but his views are typical of the Republican candidates) "He wants to put boots on the ground everywhere there is ground".

Although that is true, his overall stance on foreign policy is questionable. Better than Hillary though.
(edit: forgot to post the link)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/zahra-haider/bernie-sanders-stand-for-_b_8142236.html

Obama lied at least 16 times about going into Syria.

◾So again, I repeat, we’re not considering any open-ended commitment. We’re not considering any boots-on-the-ground approach.” – Remarks before meeting with Baltic State leaders, Aug. 30, 2013
◾“We would not put boots on the ground. Instead, our action would be designed to be limited in duration and scope.” – Remarks in the Rose Garden, Aug. 31, 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.” – Statement before meeting with congressional leaders, Sept. 3, 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 Stockholm, Sweden, Sept. 4, 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.” – News conference in St. Petersburg, Russia, Sept. 6, 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.” – Weekly radio address, Sept. 7, 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.” – Interview with the PBS Newshour, 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.” – Interview with CBS Evening News, Sept. 9, 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.” – Address to the Nation, Sept. 10, 2013
◾“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.” – Interview on Bloomberg View, Feb, 27, 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.” – News conference in Newport, Wales, Sept. 5, 2014
◾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.” – Interview with Meet the Press, Sept. 7, 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.” – Address to the Nation on Syria, Sept. 10, 2014
◾“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.” – News conference in Brisbane, Australia, Nov. 16, 2014
◾“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.” – Remarks at the White House, Feb. 11, 2015
◾“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.” – Remarks at the Pentagon, July 6, 2015

Originally posted by no1marauder
Nothing like ridiculous revisionist history. The Iraq war was far from won plus Obama's actions there were in accordance with the agreements already made by GWB.

I'm interested to know whether you consider it appropriate that America retreat to a more isolationist foreign policy stance, given that much of the instability on display in the world today can be traced back to US meddling with the balance of power in many regions as it has used its military might to back up its resource exploitation in establishing its Empire during the 20th Century.
Given the sheer scale of egg cracking involved in the making of its Imperial omlette, isn't it high time it took responsibility for the mess its made and dug in and thoroughly cleaned up its messes, instead of would be politicians playing populist games and promise and end to war, when in reality doing nothing at this stage given the state of certain regions only guarentees the continuance of instability?

Originally posted by whodey
Hilarious

Thanks, I needed a good laugh. 😵

Sadly, many think of what is going on as good for a good laugh.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Nothing like ridiculous revisionist history. The Iraq war was far from won plus Obama's actions there were in accordance with the agreements already made by GWB.

Liberal Democrats continue to excuse their own leaders faults by trying to put the blame on Bush. I think it is about time for them to accept the fact that Bush is not the cause of the world's evils.

I believe Obama and Hillary need to take responsibility for their own failures sometime soon. I am not going to count on it though because they have too many liberal supporters that don't care how much they deceive as long as they seem to be on their side.

Originally posted by kmax87
I'm interested to know whether you consider it appropriate that America retreat to a more isolationist foreign policy stance, given that much of the instability on display in the world today can be traced back to US meddling with the balance of power in many regions as it has used its military might to back up its resource exploitation in establishing its Emp ...[text shortened]... at this stage given the state of certain regions only guarentees the continuance of instability?

Obama is treating the world like he is US streets, blaming the US power that was helping
keep the peace in other countries once the war was over. So he takes the US troops out
leaving everyone to fend for themselves so you see the beheadings, rapes, and slavery
running wide now. His response to all of this is a good golf game with friends as goes
about his life, his Nobel peace prize not withstanding he is a joke for peace.

In the US streets he has taken more stances against police than for law enforcement so
now the blood baths are getting worse and everyone is now going after law enforcement
instead respecting authority. If all authority becomes something to dismiss our whole
culture will soon be under attack which is where I see us heading.

In my opinion our streets are going to turn into war zones thanks to this guy and those that
think like he does.

Originally posted by kmax87
I'm interested to know whether you consider it appropriate that America retreat to a more isolationist foreign policy stance, given that much of the instability on display in the world today can be traced back to US meddling with the balance of power in many regions as it has used its military might to back up its resource exploitation in establishing its Emp ...[text shortened]... at this stage given the state of certain regions only guarentees the continuance of instability?

If the choice is isolationism or continued complicity in mass murder, I'll take Door #1.

How can these historical miscalculations and outright crimes i.e. messes in your formulation be neatly "cleaned up"?

Originally posted by no1marauder
If the choice is isolationism or continued complicity in mass murder, I'll take Door #1.

How can these historical miscalculations and outright crimes i.e. messes in your formulation be neatly "cleaned up"?

If the choice is isolationism or continued complicity in mass murder, I'll take Door #1.

Me too.

How can these historical miscalculations and outright crimes i.e. messes in your formulation be neatly "cleaned up"?

Best we can do is the right thing now. Complicating the problem is how we cut down the US military to size. Everywhere we have bases, foreign and domestic, the bases are big contributors to the economy. If half of our men and women in armed forces were civilian, who would employ them?

Originally posted by no1marauder
If the choice is isolationism or continued complicity in mass murder, I'll take Door #1.

How can these historical miscalculations and outright crimes i.e. messes in your formulation be neatly "cleaned up"?

Like South Africa post apartheid had its truth and reconciliation commission, America needs to have a similar moment of honesty with the peoples of the world it has exploited, or by its silence allowed its corporations to exploit.
Maintaining a Bart Simpson like stance of move it along nothing to see type attitude and continually sweeping its history and culpibility under the rug only serves to make matters worse.
It seems because an incident or approach was taken 4 or 5 administrations ago the average American no longer sees their country as being responsible for a current situation in a resource rich foreign region. However, most of those regions have not had the luxury of America's diversionary political cycle to confuse them in terms of the basic unfairness of their economic relationship with US entities.
And this in my opinion is how it cleans up its mess. Make sure that every political and economic relationship it enters into or continues to have with any people or region on the globe passes a fairness test. Would it be able to do the same thing in its own back yard or with any British Commonwealth or EU nation. That would be a good start!

Originally posted by kmax87
Like South Africa post apartheid had its truth and reconciliation commission, America needs to have a similar moment of honesty with the peoples of the world it has exploited, or by its silence allowed its corporations to exploit.
Maintaining a Bart Simpson like stance of move it along nothing to see type attitude and continually sweeping its history and cu ...[text shortened]... in its own back yard or with any British Commonwealth or EU nation. That would be a good start!

Reform the government?

Nonsense. All government needs is mo money.

Have they raised taxes yet?

Originally posted by RJHinds
Liberal Democrats continue to excuse their own leaders faults by trying to put the blame on Bush. I think it is about time for them to accept the fact that Bush is not the cause of the world's evils.

I believe Obama and Hillary need to take responsibility for their own failures sometime soon. I am not going to count on it though because they have too ma ...[text shortened]... beral supporters that don't care how much they deceive as long as they seem to be on their side.

Strictly speaking, it wasn't GWB who got us to attack Saddam, it was Chaney. Chaney was the real president, GW was a puppet. We should never have attacked Iraq in the first place, bad as Saddam was, the quagmire we are in now is far worse and the blame for that is clearly GW and his masters. Chaney went total hardball after 9-11 and THAT is why we killed Saddam, who in absolute fact was the enemy of Al Quida but Chaney could have cared less about that fact.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Strictly speaking, it wasn't GWB who got us to attack Saddam, it was Chaney. Chaney was the real president, GW was a puppet. We should never have attacked Iraq in the first place, bad as Saddam was, the quagmire we are in now is far worse and the blame for that is clearly GW and his masters. Chaney went total hardball after 9-11 and THAT is why we killed ...[text shortened]... who in absolute fact was the enemy of Al Quida but Chaney could have cared less about that fact.

Everybody knew Saddam was a bad guy anyway, so he should have been taken out as most of the Republicans and Democrats agreed at the time. So it really doesn't matter who was the real leader. 😏

Originally posted by whodey
Reform the government?

Nonsense. All government needs is mo money.

Have they raised taxes yet?

The majority of the people would be happy to raise the taxes on the rich 1% that pay most of the taxes, and also take away all those corporate tax loopholes we keep hearing about. 😏