Oh Snap Obama - Boots on the Ground??

[JakeStarkey]

Bush et al got us in this mess, Obama got us out of the mess with help from the GOP and Dems, and now some Dems and GOP are helping Obama to get us back in the mess.

Iraqi and Kurdish and Syrian troops have to secure the land on the ground. American troops cannot, and they will not stay there.

Bush didn't get us into this mess but O is pushing to get us into this mess. Your statement had to be corrected.

Stop the OSD. In reality on Earth in 2003, he sure did, and the crap is still going on.

 

[kaz]

Elements of both parties are not happy with the recommendation of Obama, supported by Biden, Hagel, and Kerry.

Obama just ass fucked the far right and the far left.

This will allow him to do just as he wants while Congress quarrels, since we already have the Spec Ops troops in Iraq and Kuwait.

Watch what the far right reactionary drones like Kosh are going to say,now that they are trapped.

Flip, flop, flip, flop...

 

[nodoginnafight]

"Obama just ass fucked the far right and the far left."

That cool by me

 

[Mad Scientist]

Make sure you guys get your sons and grandsons to sign up for this.

They'll be defending "freedom" you know.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

That's what they do.

So you don't want to talk about prominent Republican Senators calling for ground war in the ME?
I don't blame you. It doesn't fit in very well with your fantasy.

How about talking about prominent Democrat Senators who have concerns and reservations about entering into a long drawn out war like Bush got us into? You want to talk about those people? You support them right? Lets talk about Dems that you support.

Why do I need to talk about a bunch of worthless senators. You'll support the war when O calls for it. Period.

 

[Kosh]

Bush et al got us in this mess, Obama got us out of the mess with help from the GOP and Dems, and now some Dems and GOP are helping Obama to get us back in the mess.

Iraqi and Kurdish and Syrian troops have to secure the land on the ground. American troops cannot, and they will not stay there.

Bush didn't get us into this mess but O is pushing to get us into this mess. Your statement had to be corrected.

Stop the OSD. In reality on Earth in 2003, he sure did, and the crap is still going on.

See the far left shows once again their history of Iraq starts in 2003..

 

[Kosh]

"Obama just ass fucked the far right and the far left."

That cool by me

Just like it was cool by you to support the illegal wars of Obama..

If the far left was still in charge of the senate I doubt that he would even bother seeking authorization..

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Elements of both parties are not happy with the recommendation of Obama, supported by Biden, Hagel, and Kerry.

Obama just ass fucked the far right and the far left.

This will allow him to do just as he wants while Congress quarrels, since we already have the Spec Ops troops in Iraq and Kuwait.

Watch what the far right reactionary drones like Kosh are going to say,now that they are trapped.

Flip, flop, flip, flop...

Like a fish out of water.....

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yup, the far right and the far left are flopping, both suffering form ODS.

 

[kaz]

Yup, the far right and the far left are flopping, both suffering form ODS.

From flip flopping you go Playground.

And seriously, I oppose being in the middle east, explain the flip flopping in that. At the same time, you're for what Obama does, except when you're not, but then it's the Republicans fault. Nothing but flip flopping. I agreed with you and called you a flip flopper on the same page.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yup, the left and the right and the libertarians are flipping and a flopping.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

I'm telling you, JS. You'd better get ahead of these disorders and seek some electro therapy immediately before they go all out with a lobotomy.

 

[JakeStarkey]

LBT continues flipping and flopping.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Just trying to help, JS.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The deranged like you, LBT, are truly helpful, making us who are normal feel better about our lives, when comparing ours to yours.

 

[Pheonixops]

That's their playbook; "oppose everything he does and act like it's an 'outrage' even if you agree with it.". John Stewart had an excellent retort for the dolts on Foxnews. He pointed out that America is responsible for over 80% of the airstrikes against those bastards.

See how the far left will justify the illegal wars of Obama..

No, I don't see that. For starters, I don't agree with American "boots on the ground". secondly, if the situation is so dire, I think their should be a press for a United Nations "peace keeping" (made up of other countries besides the United States) force to enter the region and stop ISIS, the same with the animals in Nigeria.
Finally,I agree that he should do what he has done by officially asking for that AUM from Congress. We also should not have interfered with the Syrian problem in the first place.

Firstly we should have put boots on the ground to begin with
Second, Obama's strategy was directed more to his domestic audience than solving any problem
Third, the UN are a bunch of pussies.
Fourth, Obama supposedly assembled a coalition. Which isnt working
Fifth, why did he wait until now? Wasnt his initial strategy good enough?
Sixth Obama's policy was that Assad had to go. Now he's helping him. How's that for flip flop?

If we hadn't meddled with the Syrian situation in the first place, we probable wouldn't have to put any boots on the ground. The same could be said about the previous Administration and Iraq. I think it's time to convince the UN to "man up", the same goes for some of our NATO allies (Turkey). Those sorties are hurting ISIS, we need to stop the flow of new people from foreign countries who are joining them. We need to find out how they recruit people and run a sting operation of sorts. Strategy and tactics are fluid. We should have let Assad handle them in the first place.

Thank you, General Clueless.
I personally blame WInston Churchill.
The whole "if this then that" line of excuses is plain stupid. We have the situation we have. Now what do we do to achieve our aims?
The UN isnt going to do anything. The last time they sent peacekeepers the terrorists kicked their asses and took their guns. No help there.
NATO? Forget it. Maybe Greece will send troops. It isnt a NATO issue anyway.
No, leading from behind is a losing strategy.

I not a general and I am not clueless. You just lack objectivity, your anger blinds you as well as your biases. That really sucks dude!
I didn't make any excuses, I stated facts. I put some of the suggestions I made in bold, so you could possibly read it again with a more sober mindset. We should not have to be in the forefront of all of these "coalitions" , other countries should pull more of their weight. The last time I checked, Turkey was a NATO nation and some of these conflicts are right on their doorstep, so in that sense it is a NATO issue.

 

[The Rabbi]

See how the far left will justify the illegal wars of Obama..

No, I don't see that. For starters, I don't agree with American "boots on the ground". secondly, if the situation is so dire, I think their should be a press for a United Nations "peace keeping" (made up of other countries besides the United States) force to enter the region and stop ISIS, the same with the animals in Nigeria.
Finally,I agree that he should do what he has done by officially asking for that AUM from Congress. We also should not have interfered with the Syrian problem in the first place.

Firstly we should have put boots on the ground to begin with
Second, Obama's strategy was directed more to his domestic audience than solving any problem
Third, the UN are a bunch of pussies.
Fourth, Obama supposedly assembled a coalition. Which isnt working
Fifth, why did he wait until now? Wasnt his initial strategy good enough?
Sixth Obama's policy was that Assad had to go. Now he's helping him. How's that for flip flop?

If we hadn't meddled with the Syrian situation in the first place, we probable wouldn't have to put any boots on the ground. The same could be said about the previous Administration and Iraq. I think it's time to convince the UN to "man up", the same goes for some of our NATO allies (Turkey). Those sorties are hurting ISIS, we need to stop the flow of new people from foreign countries who are joining them. We need to find out how they recruit people and run a sting operation of sorts. Strategy and tactics are fluid. We should have let Assad handle them in the first place.

Thank you, General Clueless.
I personally blame WInston Churchill.
The whole "if this then that" line of excuses is plain stupid. We have the situation we have. Now what do we do to achieve our aims?
The UN isnt going to do anything. The last time they sent peacekeepers the terrorists kicked their asses and took their guns. No help there.
NATO? Forget it. Maybe Greece will send troops. It isnt a NATO issue anyway.
No, leading from behind is a losing strategy.

I not a general and I am not clueless. You just lack objectivity, your anger blinds you as well as your biases. That really sucks dude!
I didn't make any excuses, I stated facts. I put some of the suggestions I made in bold, so you could possibly read it again with a more sober mindset. We should not have to be in the forefront of all of these "coalitions" , other countries should pull more of their weight. The last time I checked, Turkey was a NATO nation and some of these conflicts are right on their doorstep, so in that sense it is a NATO issue.

You are clueless.
Turkey is helping arm the ISIS against the Kurds, their enemies. We wont get any cooperation from them at all.

 

[Pheonixops]

No, I don't see that. For starters, I don't agree with American "boots on the ground". secondly, if the situation is so dire, I think their should be a press for a United Nations "peace keeping" (made up of other countries besides the United States) force to enter the region and stop ISIS, the same with the animals in Nigeria.
Finally,I agree that he should do what he has done by officially asking for that AUM from Congress. We also should not have interfered with the Syrian problem in the first place.

Firstly we should have put boots on the ground to begin with
Second, Obama's strategy was directed more to his domestic audience than solving any problem
Third, the UN are a bunch of pussies.
Fourth, Obama supposedly assembled a coalition. Which isnt working
Fifth, why did he wait until now? Wasnt his initial strategy good enough?
Sixth Obama's policy was that Assad had to go. Now he's helping him. How's that for flip flop?

If we hadn't meddled with the Syrian situation in the first place, we probable wouldn't have to put any boots on the ground. The same could be said about the previous Administration and Iraq. I think it's time to convince the UN to "man up", the same goes for some of our NATO allies (Turkey). Those sorties are hurting ISIS, we need to stop the flow of new people from foreign countries who are joining them. We need to find out how they recruit people and run a sting operation of sorts. Strategy and tactics are fluid. We should have let Assad handle them in the first place.

Thank you, General Clueless.
I personally blame WInston Churchill.
The whole "if this then that" line of excuses is plain stupid. We have the situation we have. Now what do we do to achieve our aims?
The UN isnt going to do anything. The last time they sent peacekeepers the terrorists kicked their asses and took their guns. No help there.
NATO? Forget it. Maybe Greece will send troops. It isnt a NATO issue anyway.
No, leading from behind is a losing strategy.

I not a general and I am not clueless. You just lack objectivity, your anger blinds you as well as your biases. That really sucks dude!
I didn't make any excuses, I stated facts. I put some of the suggestions I made in bold, so you could possibly read it again with a more sober mindset. We should not have to be in the forefront of all of these "coalitions" , other countries should pull more of their weight. The last time I checked, Turkey was a NATO nation and some of these conflicts are right on their doorstep, so in that sense it is a NATO issue.

You are clueless.
Turkey is helping arm the ISIS against the Kurds, their enemies. We wont get any cooperation from them at all.

Besides infowars, worldnutdaily, and the like, do you have a citation from say Foxnews that states that Turkey is arming ISIS? Don't you think that their NATO allies would take some measures against Turkey for allegedly doing so?

 

[Kosh]

Firstly we should have put boots on the ground to begin with
Second, Obama's strategy was directed more to his domestic audience than solving any problem
Third, the UN are a bunch of pussies.
Fourth, Obama supposedly assembled a coalition. Which isnt working
Fifth, why did he wait until now? Wasnt his initial strategy good enough?
Sixth Obama's policy was that Assad had to go. Now he's helping him. How's that for flip flop?

If we hadn't meddled with the Syrian situation in the first place, we probable wouldn't have to put any boots on the ground. The same could be said about the previous Administration and Iraq. I think it's time to convince the UN to "man up", the same goes for some of our NATO allies (Turkey). Those sorties are hurting ISIS, we need to stop the flow of new people from foreign countries who are joining them. We need to find out how they recruit people and run a sting operation of sorts. Strategy and tactics are fluid. We should have let Assad handle them in the first place.

Thank you, General Clueless.
I personally blame WInston Churchill.
The whole "if this then that" line of excuses is plain stupid. We have the situation we have. Now what do we do to achieve our aims?
The UN isnt going to do anything. The last time they sent peacekeepers the terrorists kicked their asses and took their guns. No help there.
NATO? Forget it. Maybe Greece will send troops. It isnt a NATO issue anyway.
No, leading from behind is a losing strategy.

I not a general and I am not clueless. You just lack objectivity, your anger blinds you as well as your biases. That really sucks dude!
I didn't make any excuses, I stated facts. I put some of the suggestions I made in bold, so you could possibly read it again with a more sober mindset. We should not have to be in the forefront of all of these "coalitions" , other countries should pull more of their weight. The last time I checked, Turkey was a NATO nation and some of these conflicts are right on their doorstep, so in that sense it is a NATO issue.

You are clueless.
Turkey is helping arm the ISIS against the Kurds, their enemies. We wont get any cooperation from them at all.

Besides infowars, worldnutdaily, and the like, do you have a citation from say Foxnews that states that Turkey is arming ISIS? Don't you think that their NATO allies would take some measures against Turkey for allegedly doing so?

Yes this is further proof that the far left likes to hide behind terms like "Liberal", but they are clearly far left.

Activists ISIS Is Now Launching Attacks From Inside Turkey - The Atlantic

Here is a far left source that you may believe..

 

[The Rabbi]

If we hadn't meddled with the Syrian situation in the first place, we probable wouldn't have to put any boots on the ground. The same could be said about the previous Administration and Iraq. I think it's time to convince the UN to "man up", the same goes for some of our NATO allies (Turkey). Those sorties are hurting ISIS, we need to stop the flow of new people from foreign countries who are joining them. We need to find out how they recruit people and run a sting operation of sorts. Strategy and tactics are fluid. We should have let Assad handle them in the first place.

Thank you, General Clueless.
I personally blame WInston Churchill.
The whole "if this then that" line of excuses is plain stupid. We have the situation we have. Now what do we do to achieve our aims?
The UN isnt going to do anything. The last time they sent peacekeepers the terrorists kicked their asses and took their guns. No help there.
NATO? Forget it. Maybe Greece will send troops. It isnt a NATO issue anyway.
No, leading from behind is a losing strategy.

I not a general and I am not clueless. You just lack objectivity, your anger blinds you as well as your biases. That really sucks dude!
I didn't make any excuses, I stated facts. I put some of the suggestions I made in bold, so you could possibly read it again with a more sober mindset. We should not have to be in the forefront of all of these "coalitions" , other countries should pull more of their weight. The last time I checked, Turkey was a NATO nation and some of these conflicts are right on their doorstep, so in that sense it is a NATO issue.

You are clueless.
Turkey is helping arm the ISIS against the Kurds, their enemies. We wont get any cooperation from them at all.

Besides infowars, worldnutdaily, and the like, do you have a citation from say Foxnews that states that Turkey is arming ISIS? Don't you think that their NATO allies would take some measures against Turkey for allegedly doing so?

Yes this is further proof that the far left likes to hide behind terms like "Liberal", but they are clearly far left.

Activists ISIS Is Now Launching Attacks From Inside Turkey - The Atlantic

Here is a far left source that you may believe..

I heard it on NPR's On Point this morning while I was driving.