Obama decides to invade 3 more countries.

[Wolfmoon]

But wait there's more!!! If you buy this amazing deal we'll throw in FREE war with IRAN!

 

[Conservative]

 

[Conservative]

lol @ all the RW fanatical faux outrage

Considering the wars we are in now are breaking us......considering the left are the ones beating the come home drum the loudest.... i sure hope there is quite a lot of real outrage over this.

if we have no business in the wars we are in now... we have no business "advising" anyone anymore.

there will be no outrage from the left in here. They are too busy letting Obama do them up the ass.

 

[Amelia]

We need a bigger army to keep up with all our involvements.

How many actions are we taking part in now?

 

[paulitician]

Will there ever be an end to all these foreign interventions? You would think this nation would have tired of war by now. I mean isn't 70 straight years of war enough? Maybe it's time to try peace instead? It couldn't hurt.

 

[Charles_Main]

lol @ all the RW fanatical faux outrage

LOL @ the Massive Hypocrisy of the LW. Something tells me if a Republican Sent 100 Advisers into a possible conflict with out consulting Congress, you just might be in here demanding they be Impeached.

lol

 

[Charles_Main]

Will there ever be an end to all these foreign interventions? You would think this nation would have tired of war by now. I mean isn't 70 straight years of war enough? Maybe it's time to try peace instead? It couldn't hurt.

Some would argue that it is precisely because we have engaged in little conflicts pretty much Nonstop for so long, that we have not had to engage in any Large Conflicts. Despite you saying we have been at war for 70 years, the truth is since WWII we have experienced a Relatively Peaceful time in the world. A big part of the Reason for that is the USA and the threat of US action.

 

[Immanuel]

I guess Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, and Libya are not enough if you win a Nobel Peace Prize. Can anyone explain why we are fighting a group that has never attacked us? Other than them being really really bad there is no reason for us to be there at all.

I have authorized a small number of combat-equipped U.S. forces to deploy to central Africa to provide assistance to regional forces that are working toward the removal of Joseph Kony from the battlefield. I believe that deploying these U.S. Armed Forces furthers U.S. national security interests and foreign policy and will be a significant contribution toward counter-LRA efforts in central Africa.
On October 12, the initial team of U.S. military personnel with appropriate combat equipment deployed to Uganda. During the next month, additional forces will deploy, including a second combat-equipped team and associated headquarters, communications, and logistics personnel. The total number of U.S. military personnel deploying for this mission is approximately 100. These forces will act as advisors to partner forces that have the goal of removing from the battlefield Joseph Kony and other senior leadership of the LRA. Our forces will provide information, advice, and assistance to select partner nation forces. Subject to the approval of each respective host nation, elements of these U.S. forces will deploy into Uganda, South Sudan, the Central African Republic, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The support provided by U.S. forces will enhance regional efforts against the LRA. However, although the U.S. forces are combat-equipped, they will only be providing information, advice, and assistance to partner nation forces, and they will not themselves engage LRA forces unless necessary for self-defense. All appropriate precautions have been taken to ensure the safety of U.S. military personnel during their deployment.

http://www.lawfareblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/uganda-WPR.pdf

100 Advisers = Invading? You do realize we were asked to come by the Governments of those countries right?

That said, It is always troubling to me when a President says he is sending troops somewhere, But they are only advisers and will only fight in Self Defense.

Can anyone say Vietnam? The Vietnam war was what we got the last time a President(Democrat) sent "advisers" somewhere, who were only going to fight in Self Defense.

I am not a big Fan of Half Assed Military Actions, I Have always been of the school that if you are going to go at all, go Big. I don't like the idea of 100 US troops alone out there, and subject to possibly being over run. If we are not going to send everything, so our boys and girls in uniform have every bit of support they can get, then I say don't send anything.

Advisers?

Is that like keeping 40,000 U.S. soldiers in Iraq and renaming them "non-combat" troops while they're still getting their asses shot at?

Immie

 

[Full-Auto]

100 Advisers = Invading? You do realize we were asked to come by the Governments of those countries right?

That said, It is always troubling to me when a President says he is sending troops somewhere, But they are only advisers and will only fight in Self Defense.

Can anyone say Vietnam? The Vietnam war was what we got the last time a President(Democrat) sent "advisers" somewhere, who were only going to fight in Self Defense.

I am not a big Fan of Half Assed Military Actions, I Have always been of the school that if you are going to go at all, go Big. I don't like the idea of 100 US troops alone out there, and subject to possibly being over run. If we are not going to send everything, so our boys and girls in uniform have every bit of support they can get, then I say don't send anything.

And so it begins,,,,,,,,,,,,,again................

really? we are going down this extreme slope because why?
You cant be this stupid

Just get over it. You guys have reclaimed the crown of War Party.

 

[Charles_Main]

100 Advisers = Invading? You do realize we were asked to come by the Governments of those countries right?

That said, It is always troubling to me when a President says he is sending troops somewhere, But they are only advisers and will only fight in Self Defense.

Can anyone say Vietnam? The Vietnam war was what we got the last time a President(Democrat) sent "advisers" somewhere, who were only going to fight in Self Defense.

I am not a big Fan of Half Assed Military Actions, I Have always been of the school that if you are going to go at all, go Big. I don't like the idea of 100 US troops alone out there, and subject to possibly being over run. If we are not going to send everything, so our boys and girls in uniform have every bit of support they can get, then I say don't send anything.

Vietnam started with 400 advisers. Maybe we will get lucky and end up with a quarter of the Vietnam War.

its interesting, It was said that the Quagmire in Iraq was like Nam, and the cons cried it wasnt. Obama sends 100 people to Africa and its Nam all over again.

this, this is why you people are a fucking joke.

No this is why you people are a joke. You defend Obama for actions you would attack any Republican For taking.

Hippocrates the lot of ya.

 

[Immanuel]

100 Advisers = Invading? You do realize we were asked to come by the Governments of those countries right?

That said, It is always troubling to me when a President says he is sending troops somewhere, But they are only advisers and will only fight in Self Defense.

Can anyone say Vietnam? The Vietnam war was what we got the last time a President(Democrat) sent "advisers" somewhere, who were only going to fight in Self Defense.

I am not a big Fan of Half Assed Military Actions, I Have always been of the school that if you are going to go at all, go Big. I don't like the idea of 100 US troops alone out there, and subject to possibly being over run. If we are not going to send everything, so our boys and girls in uniform have every bit of support they can get, then I say don't send anything.

Advisers?

Is that like keeping 40,000 U.S. soldiers in Iraq and renaming them "non-combat" troops while they're still getting their asses shot at?

Immie

no, no its not.

Yes, yes it is.

Perhaps you would like to explain why you don't think it is?

Maybe you don't think the 100 advisers are putting their lives on the line? Or maybe even more foolishly you think the "non-combat" troops in Iraq really are non-combat troops?

Immie

 

[FactFinder]

I guess Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, and Libya are not enough if you win a Nobel Peace Prize. Can anyone explain why we are fighting a group that has never attacked us? Other than them being really really bad there is no reason for us to be there at all.

I have authorized a small number of combat-equipped U.S. forces to deploy to central Africa to provide assistance to regional forces that are working toward the removal of Joseph Kony from the battlefield. I believe that deploying these U.S. Armed Forces furthers U.S. national security interests and foreign policy and will be a significant contribution toward counter-LRA efforts in central Africa.
On October 12, the initial team of U.S. military personnel with appropriate combat equipment deployed to Uganda. During the next month, additional forces will deploy, including a second combat-equipped team and associated headquarters, communications, and logistics personnel. The total number of U.S. military personnel deploying for this mission is approximately 100. These forces will act as advisors to partner forces that have the goal of removing from the battlefield Joseph Kony and other senior leadership of the LRA. Our forces will provide information, advice, and assistance to select partner nation forces. Subject to the approval of each respective host nation, elements of these U.S. forces will deploy into Uganda, South Sudan, the Central African Republic, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The support provided by U.S. forces will enhance regional efforts against the LRA. However, although the U.S. forces are combat-equipped, they will only be providing information, advice, and assistance to partner nation forces, and they will not themselves engage LRA forces unless necessary for self-defense. All appropriate precautions have been taken to ensure the safety of U.S. military personnel during their deployment.

http://www.lawfareblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/uganda-WPR.pdf

Let's see...I don't rememer Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Yemen, and Libya ever attacking us. I do remember us being somehow negatively engaged with each of them for decades now. Now why is that? 1st of all it is well beyond Obama's time and I don't remember you complaining about it before then. So if yo do not want to have such engagements be consistent and show pure motive that is detached from any president or political party. If you do that I stand with ya.

 

[GHook93]

Let's be honest! He is sending in 100 special force troops for training. African countries are a mess! The worst atrocities in the world are happening there. A 100 SF troops are not going to fight. If they might help the country's dictator stabilize the shitholes a little bit than I don't see the issue.

I guess Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, and Libya are not enough if you win a Nobel Peace Prize. Can anyone explain why we are fighting a group that has never attacked us? Other than them being really really bad there is no reason for us to be there at all.

I have authorized a small number of combat-equipped U.S. forces to deploy to central Africa to provide assistance to regional forces that are working toward the removal of Joseph Kony from the battlefield. I believe that deploying these U.S. Armed Forces furthers U.S. national security interests and foreign policy and will be a significant contribution toward counter-LRA efforts in central Africa.
On October 12, the initial team of U.S. military personnel with appropriate combat equipment deployed to Uganda. During the next month, additional forces will deploy, including a second combat-equipped team and associated headquarters, communications, and logistics personnel. The total number of U.S. military personnel deploying for this mission is approximately 100. These forces will act as advisors to partner forces that have the goal of removing from the battlefield Joseph Kony and other senior leadership of the LRA. Our forces will provide information, advice, and assistance to select partner nation forces. Subject to the approval of each respective host nation, elements of these U.S. forces will deploy into Uganda, South Sudan, the Central African Republic, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The support provided by U.S. forces will enhance regional efforts against the LRA. However, although the U.S. forces are combat-equipped, they will only be providing information, advice, and assistance to partner nation forces, and they will not themselves engage LRA forces unless necessary for self-defense. All appropriate precautions have been taken to ensure the safety of U.S. military personnel during their deployment.

http://www.lawfareblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/uganda-WPR.pdf

 

[Charles_Main]

This is also more proof Obama is a lying asshole. Attacked Bush and said the US should only ever use Military force and commit US troops to Conflicts if direct us National Interested are at stake.

Then he proceeds to take 2 Actions now based solely on Humanitarian Reasons when there is NO CLEAR threat to US national Interests or security at all.

Don't get me wrong, I am not opposed to taking Action based on Humanitarian Reasons, I just think it is incredibly Hypocritical of Obama and those who support him, to be behind 2 actions now for "Humanitarian" Reasons, When there were plenty of humanitarian Reasons, and National Security Interests involved in Iraq, and they despised that war.

 

[Charles_Main]

Advisers?

Is that like keeping 40,000 U.S. soldiers in Iraq and renaming them "non-combat" troops while they're still getting their asses shot at?

Immie

no, no its not.

Yes, yes it is.

Perhaps you would like to explain why you don't think it is?

Maybe you don't think the 100 advisers are putting their lives on the line? Or maybe even more foolishly you think the "non-combat" troops in Iraq really are non-combat troops?

Immie

I am starting to think Obama is using our Troops as Bait. Now he wants to cut the Troops in IRAQ to 3000. Which would mean they basically could do nothing but hide in their base and hope not to be over run. What's the point?

lol

 

[Charles_Main]

Let's be honest! He is sending in 100 special force troops for training. African countries are a mess! The worst atrocities in the world are happening there. A 100 SF troops are not going to fight. If they might help the country's dictator stabilize the shitholes a little bit than I don't see the issue.

I guess Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, and Libya are not enough if you win a Nobel Peace Prize. Can anyone explain why we are fighting a group that has never attacked us? Other than them being really really bad there is no reason for us to be there at all.

I have authorized a small number of combat-equipped U.S. forces to deploy to central Africa to provide assistance to regional forces that are working toward the removal of Joseph Kony from the battlefield. I believe that deploying these U.S. Armed Forces furthers U.S. national security interests and foreign policy and will be a significant contribution toward counter-LRA efforts in central Africa.
On October 12, the initial team of U.S. military personnel with appropriate combat equipment deployed to Uganda. During the next month, additional forces will deploy, including a second combat-equipped team and associated headquarters, communications, and logistics personnel. The total number of U.S. military personnel deploying for this mission is approximately 100. These forces will act as advisors to partner forces that have the goal of removing from the battlefield Joseph Kony and other senior leadership of the LRA. Our forces will provide information, advice, and assistance to select partner nation forces. Subject to the approval of each respective host nation, elements of these U.S. forces will deploy into Uganda, South Sudan, the Central African Republic, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The support provided by U.S. forces will enhance regional efforts against the LRA. However, although the U.S. forces are combat-equipped, they will only be providing information, advice, and assistance to partner nation forces, and they will not themselves engage LRA forces unless necessary for self-defense. All appropriate precautions have been taken to ensure the safety of U.S. military personnel during their deployment.

http://www.lawfareblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/uganda-WPR.pdf

Yeah, Back in the early 60's nobody saw a problem with Advisers in nam either. It was not like we were going to get into a war or anything right?

New Flash, just how hard do you think it would be for Obama to convince us we need to invade the Congo or some shit, if our 100 Advisers get over run and killed?

lol

 

[FactFinder]

Let's be honest! He is sending in 100 special force troops for training. African countries are a mess! The worst atrocities in the world are happening there. A 100 SF troops are not going to fight. If they might help the country's dictator stabilize the shitholes a little bit than I don't see the issue.

I guess Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, and Libya are not enough if you win a Nobel Peace Prize. Can anyone explain why we are fighting a group that has never attacked us? Other than them being really really bad there is no reason for us to be there at all.



http://www.lawfareblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/uganda-WPR.pdf

Yeah, Back in the early 60's nobody saw a problem with Advisers in nam either. It was not like we were going to get into a war or anything right?

New Flash, just how hard do you think it would be for Obama to convince us we need to invade the Congo or some shit, if our 100 Advisers get over run and killed?

lol

Actually with the scepticism today, pretty damned hard.

 

[Immanuel]

Let's be honest! He is sending in 100 special force troops for training. African countries are a mess! The worst atrocities in the world are happening there. A 100 SF troops are not going to fight. If they might help the country's dictator stabilize the shitholes a little bit than I don't see the issue.

Yeah, Back in the early 60's nobody saw a problem with Advisers in nam either. It was not like we were going to get into a war or anything right?

New Flash, just how hard do you think it would be for Obama to convince us we need to invade the Congo or some shit, if our 100 Advisers get over run and killed?

lol

Actually with the scepticism today, pretty damned hard.

Not as hard as you think for the side that supports Obama but absolutely impossible for the other side, but that is not all that different from Presidents of the past with a few exceptions such as Bush 43 after 9/11 when America really did come together albeit for too brief a period.

Immie

 

[FactFinder]

Yeah, Back in the early 60's nobody saw a problem with Advisers in nam either. It was not like we were going to get into a war or anything right?

New Flash, just how hard do you think it would be for Obama to convince us we need to invade the Congo or some shit, if our 100 Advisers get over run and killed?

lol

Actually with the scepticism today, pretty damned hard.

Not as hard as you think for the side that supports Obama but absolutely impossible for the other side, but that is not all that different from Presidents of the past with a few exceptions such as Bush 43 after 9/11 when America really did come together albeit for too brief a period.

Immie

Actually the side that supports Obama is very unlikely to support even another war. Geez, we are just another country in the world. What the F are we doing involving ourselves in such a negative way with others? Who made us the world's supposed saviour and what gives use the right to think we know better than others? Like we have it all together.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

100 Advisers = Invading? You do realize we were asked to come by the Governments of those countries right?

That said, It is always troubling to me when a President says he is sending troops somewhere, But they are only advisers and will only fight in Self Defense.

Can anyone say Vietnam? The Vietnam war was what we got the last time a President(Democrat) sent "advisers" somewhere, who were only going to fight in Self Defense.

I am not a big Fan of Half Assed Military Actions, I Have always been of the school that if you are going to go at all, go Big. I don't like the idea of 100 US troops alone out there, and subject to possibly being over run. If we are not going to send everything, so our boys and girls in uniform have every bit of support they can get, then I say don't send anything.

Vietnam started with 400 advisers. Maybe we will get lucky and end up with a quarter of the Vietnam War.

its interesting, It was said that the Quagmire in Iraq was like Nam, and the cons cried it wasnt. Obama sends 100 people to Africa and its Nam all over again.

this, this is why you people are a fucking joke.

The difference between Iraq and Nam is we did not send advisers into Iraq, we sent troops in to win.