We Tried To Tell You Democrats

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

And where does that article say that the majority of trainers are mercs?

Because I've given you 5 different examples spanning 50 years that demonstrates you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

And worse, republicans have called for boots on the ground in Syria. Exactly what you've already admitted means 'US military'. So you have no narrative, imaginary or otherwise, where Republicans *weren't* calling for US ground troop involvement in Syria.

Yet you've completely revised history and imagined that republicans have nothing to do with it.

Again.....wow.

I'm sure that just a couple of weeks ago Putin was showing Obama what a real leader looks like by sending troops into Syria.

Oh I want Putin to kill muslims. Key word...Putin not that rimmer for a leader we have.

Right now I'll be happy if WWIII doesn't start because we have Obama in the White House at a time the world needs a John F. Kennedy.

Well it was a socialist/communist democrat that shot him.

Anything but your bullshit claim that most trainers are mercs, huh?

You won't touch the repeated republican calls for boots on the ground in Syria, pretending it never happened. And then pretending, portraying boots on the ground in Syria as having nothing to do with Republicans.

Sigh.....you can't fix stupid.

I don't know about most, but there's been a marked increase in the use of private security and paramilitary operators since the Decider poured billions of dollars into contractor pockets. In true fashion, Bucky has been more of the same, not rolling back what has now become an industry. Blackwater was just the beginning.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

I'm sure that just a couple of weeks ago Putin was showing Obama what a real leader looks like by sending troops into Syria.

Oh I want Putin to kill muslims. Key word...Putin not that rimmer for a leader we have.

Right now I'll be happy if WWIII doesn't start because we have Obama in the White House at a time the world needs a John F. Kennedy.

JFK...the man who sent US military 'trainers' into Vietnam to train and equip the South Vietnamese?

The man who successfully steered us through a very dangerous time when US and Russian forces were in close proximity in a hostile standoff.

Like we are now.

So can I put you down as 'pro US military trainers to train and equip' foreign fighters?

Now you're lying. This is where we part ways. Goodbye.

 

[DarkFury]

I'm sure that just a couple of weeks ago Putin was showing Obama what a real leader looks like by sending troops into Syria.

Oh I want Putin to kill muslims. Key word...Putin not that rimmer for a leader we have.

Right now I'll be happy if WWIII doesn't start because we have Obama in the White House at a time the world needs a John F. Kennedy.

JFK...the man who sent US military 'trainers' into Vietnam to train and equip the South Vietnamese?

In truth he sent "Advisors" different from trainers.

Laughing....how? And according to who?

Remember, you're only quoting yourself. And you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

I've provided you with 5 separate examples spanning 4 wars and 50 years that demonstrates this fact. Worse, republicans are calling for 'boots on the ground in Syria'. Exactly what you admitted means US military. And exactly the opposite of your silly historical revision.

Keep running.

JFK put the war in high gear AND lied the day he was sworn it about it.

 

[Skylar]

I'm sure that just a couple of weeks ago Putin was showing Obama what a real leader looks like by sending troops into Syria.

Oh I want Putin to kill muslims. Key word...Putin not that rimmer for a leader we have.

Right now I'll be happy if WWIII doesn't start because we have Obama in the White House at a time the world needs a John F. Kennedy.

Well it was a socialist/communist democrat that shot him.

Anything but your bullshit claim that most trainers are mercs, huh?

You won't touch the repeated republican calls for boots on the ground in Syria, pretending it never happened. And then pretending, portraying boots on the ground in Syria as having nothing to do with Republicans.

Sigh.....you can't fix stupid.

I don't know about most, but there's been a marked increase in the use of private security and paramilitary operators since the Decider poured billions of dollars into contractor pockets. In true fashion, Bucky has been more of the same, not rolling back what has now become an industry. Blackwater was just the beginning.

You mean the same blackwater that killed 17 Iraqi civilians in.....

......in 2007?

Yeah, bad call by President Obama to hire those guys back in 07'. What was he thinking?

 

[Skylar]

Oh I want Putin to kill muslims. Key word...Putin not that rimmer for a leader we have.

Right now I'll be happy if WWIII doesn't start because we have Obama in the White House at a time the world needs a John F. Kennedy.

JFK...the man who sent US military 'trainers' into Vietnam to train and equip the South Vietnamese?

In truth he sent "Advisors" different from trainers.

Laughing....how? And according to who?

Remember, you're only quoting yourself. And you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

I've provided you with 5 separate examples spanning 4 wars and 50 years that demonstrates this fact. Worse, republicans are calling for 'boots on the ground in Syria'. Exactly what you admitted means US military. And exactly the opposite of your silly historical revision.

Keep running.

JFK put the war in high gear AND lied the day he was sworn it about it.

Which doesn't answer, address, or have the slightest relevance to anything I just posted. Try again. This time reading for comprehension:

Laughing....how are 'advisors different from trainers'? And according to who?

Remember, you're only quoting yourself. And you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

I've provided you with 5 separate examples spanning 4 wars and 50 years that demonstrates this fact. Worse, republicans are calling for 'boots on the ground in Syria'. Exactly what you admitted means US military. And exactly the opposite of your silly historical revision.

Keep running, Dark. You're clearly out of your depth.

 

[Stephanie]

SNIP:
CommunityThe Bullpen
Obama Does Not Have Authority To Bomb Syria Without Congressional Approval
Dan Wright 2014-09-12
12Sep2014
Though President Obama made a number of absurd and unsupported claims in his address on ISIS, the one that already launched a thousands tweets is his assertion that he had the authority to bomb Syria without seeking congressional approval. In Obama’s distorted view of the constitution he can launch a military campaign against any country in the world with the justification that Al Qaeda – or some group he tries to tie to Al Qaeda like ISIS – operates within it. It is such an expansive view of the imperial presidency that not even George W. Bush and supporters were willing to claim it (at least publicly).

Obama does not have the authority to bomb Syria without Congress. Though Obama Administration officials such as John Kerry have claimed this is simply a “counter-terrorism operation, “ make no mistake, bombing another country is an act of war and acts of war require congressional approval. Of course, the Obama Administration has a few legal tricks to avoid this being “war” at all or at least one they do not already, somehow, have authorization for.

The administration has said since August that air strikes in Syria were justified under his constitutional power alone. But yesterday it switched course and maintained that Congress had authorized the 2014 campaign against the Islamic State in the 2001 law that President George W. Bush sought to fight the Taliban and al Qaeda.

The administration’s new approach allows it to claim that it is acting with congressional approval. It also lets it avoid the strictures of the War Powers Resolution because that law does not apply to wars approved by Congress.

Seriously? It’s 2014, it’s Syria not Afghanistan, and ISIS is not Al Qaeda. Applying the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force – an act President Obama once advocated repealing – to the present conflict with ISIS in Syria and Iraq is an attack on the rule of law and common sense. It is ham-handed tyranny.

An authorization passed near 13 years ago for a different enemy in a different conflict can not be applied to a new enemy in a new conflict. Sorry Mr. President you have to go to Congress no matter how annoying and frustrating it is to deal with them. In fact, having to go through the congressional gauntlet is kind of the point because the system was setup – in theory – to prevent rash military action. I know, I know.

ALL of it here:
Obama Does Not Have Authority To Bomb Syria Without Congressional Approval - Shadowproof

 

[DarkFury]

Right now I'll be happy if WWIII doesn't start because we have Obama in the White House at a time the world needs a John F. Kennedy.

JFK...the man who sent US military 'trainers' into Vietnam to train and equip the South Vietnamese?

In truth he sent "Advisors" different from trainers.

Laughing....how? And according to who?

Remember, you're only quoting yourself. And you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

I've provided you with 5 separate examples spanning 4 wars and 50 years that demonstrates this fact. Worse, republicans are calling for 'boots on the ground in Syria'. Exactly what you admitted means US military. And exactly the opposite of your silly historical revision.

Keep running.

JFK put the war in high gear AND lied the day he was sworn it about it.

Which doesn't answer, address, or have the slightest relevance to anything I just posted. Try again. This time reading for comprehension:

Laughing....how are 'advisors different from trainers'? And according to who?

Remember, you're only quoting yourself. And you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

I've provided you with 5 separate examples spanning 4 wars and 50 years that demonstrates this fact. Worse, republicans are calling for 'boots on the ground in Syria'. Exactly what you admitted means US military. And exactly the opposite of your silly historical revision.

Keep running, Dark. You're clearly out of your depth.

Advisors are military. Trainers are Mercs.

 

[Skylar]

SNIP:
CommunityThe Bullpen
Obama Does Not Have Authority To Bomb Syria Without Congressional Approval
Dan Wright 2014-09-12
12Sep2014
Though President Obama made a number of absurd and unsupported claims in his address on ISIS, the one that already launched a thousands tweets is his assertion that he had the authority to bomb Syria without seeking congressional approval. In Obama’s distorted view of the constitution he can launch a military campaign against any country in the world with the justification that Al Qaeda – or some group he tries to tie to Al Qaeda like ISIS – operates within it. It is such an expansive view of the imperial presidency that not even George W. Bush and supporters were willing to claim it (at least publicly).

Obama does not have the authority to bomb Syria without Congress. Though Obama Administration officials such as John Kerry have claimed this is simply a “counter-terrorism operation, “ make no mistake, bombing another country is an act of war and acts of war require congressional approval. Of course, the Obama Administration has a few legal tricks to avoid this being “war” at all or at least one they do not already, somehow, have authorization for.

The administration has said since August that air strikes in Syria were justified under his constitutional power alone. But yesterday it switched course and maintained that Congress had authorized the 2014 campaign against the Islamic State in the 2001 law that President George W. Bush sought to fight the Taliban and al Qaeda.

The administration’s new approach allows it to claim that it is acting with congressional approval. It also lets it avoid the strictures of the War Powers Resolution because that law does not apply to wars approved by Congress.

Seriously? It’s 2014, it’s Syria not Afghanistan, and ISIS is not Al Qaeda. Applying the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force – an act President Obama once advocated repealing – to the present conflict with ISIS in Syria and Iraq is an attack on the rule of law and common sense. It is ham-handed tyranny.

An authorization passed near 13 years ago for a different enemy in a different conflict can not be applied to a new enemy in a new conflict. Sorry Mr. President you have to go to Congress no matter how annoying and frustrating it is to deal with them. In fact, having to go through the congressional gauntlet is kind of the point because the system was setup – in theory – to prevent rash military action. I know, I know.

ALL of it here:
Obama Does Not Have Authority To Bomb Syria Without Congressional Approval - Shadowproof

Oh, no republican would EVER send in the US military without congressional approval. Perish the thought.

*Cough*

*Reagan!*

*Cough*

*Grenada!*

Sorry......allergies.

 

[Skylar]

JFK...the man who sent US military 'trainers' into Vietnam to train and equip the South Vietnamese?

In truth he sent "Advisors" different from trainers.

Laughing....how? And according to who?

Remember, you're only quoting yourself. And you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

I've provided you with 5 separate examples spanning 4 wars and 50 years that demonstrates this fact. Worse, republicans are calling for 'boots on the ground in Syria'. Exactly what you admitted means US military. And exactly the opposite of your silly historical revision.

Keep running.

JFK put the war in high gear AND lied the day he was sworn it about it.

Which doesn't answer, address, or have the slightest relevance to anything I just posted. Try again. This time reading for comprehension:

Laughing....how are 'advisors different from trainers'? And according to who?

Remember, you're only quoting yourself. And you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

I've provided you with 5 separate examples spanning 4 wars and 50 years that demonstrates this fact. Worse, republicans are calling for 'boots on the ground in Syria'. Exactly what you admitted means US military. And exactly the opposite of your silly historical revision.

Keep running, Dark. You're clearly out of your depth.

Advisors are military. Trainers are Mercs.

Says who? That would be you quoting yourself.

See above about you not knowing what the fuck you're talking about.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

The progressives and their Democrat leaders are proving to be more warmongers than the conservative right ever will be. They bomb sovereign nations murdering thousands without Congressional approval or even a Declaration Of War... Bunch of War Criminals.

*****CHUCKLE*****

Which is why republicans have insisted we get involved in like....7 different conflicts over the last 6 years? Including this one?

Which conflicts would those be?

The only ones I can immediately think of are the Libya, dronings (especially of wedding parties), and the red lines, your blood soaked Nobel Champion Of Peace has made as he builds 'Bridges Of Understanding' out of the mutilated bodies of those he bombs.

*****SMILE*****

 

[DarkFury]

In truth he sent "Advisors" different from trainers.

Laughing....how? And according to who?

Remember, you're only quoting yourself. And you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

I've provided you with 5 separate examples spanning 4 wars and 50 years that demonstrates this fact. Worse, republicans are calling for 'boots on the ground in Syria'. Exactly what you admitted means US military. And exactly the opposite of your silly historical revision.

Keep running.

JFK put the war in high gear AND lied the day he was sworn it about it.

Which doesn't answer, address, or have the slightest relevance to anything I just posted. Try again. This time reading for comprehension:

Laughing....how are 'advisors different from trainers'? And according to who?

Remember, you're only quoting yourself. And you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

I've provided you with 5 separate examples spanning 4 wars and 50 years that demonstrates this fact. Worse, republicans are calling for 'boots on the ground in Syria'. Exactly what you admitted means US military. And exactly the opposite of your silly historical revision.

Keep running, Dark. You're clearly out of your depth.

Advisors are military. Trainers are Mercs.

Says who? That would be you quoting yourself.

See above about you not knowing what the fuck you're talking about.

Its how the government sorts them, their terms NOT mine.
Government relies on certain terms to avoid questions.

 

[Skylar]

The progressives and their Democrat leaders are proving to be more warmongers than the conservative right ever will be. They bomb sovereign nations murdering thousands without Congressional approval or even a Declaration Of War... Bunch of War Criminals.

*****CHUCKLE*****

Which is why republicans have insisted we get involved in like....7 different conflicts over the last 6 years? Including this one?

Which conflicts would those be?

The only ones I can immediately think of are the Libya, dronings (especially of wedding parties), and the red lines, your blood soaked Nobel Champion Of Peace has made as he builds 'Bridges Of Understanding' out of the mutilated bodies of those he bombs.

*****SMILE*****

Lets see.....Crimea. Ukraine. Libya. Syria. Iran. Expansion in Iraq. Expansions in Afghanistan.

Off the top of my head.

 

[Skylar]

Laughing....how? And according to who?

Remember, you're only quoting yourself. And you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

I've provided you with 5 separate examples spanning 4 wars and 50 years that demonstrates this fact. Worse, republicans are calling for 'boots on the ground in Syria'. Exactly what you admitted means US military. And exactly the opposite of your silly historical revision.

Keep running.

JFK put the war in high gear AND lied the day he was sworn it about it.

Which doesn't answer, address, or have the slightest relevance to anything I just posted. Try again. This time reading for comprehension:

Laughing....how are 'advisors different from trainers'? And according to who?

Remember, you're only quoting yourself. And you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

I've provided you with 5 separate examples spanning 4 wars and 50 years that demonstrates this fact. Worse, republicans are calling for 'boots on the ground in Syria'. Exactly what you admitted means US military. And exactly the opposite of your silly historical revision.

Keep running, Dark. You're clearly out of your depth.

Advisors are military. Trainers are Mercs.

Says who? That would be you quoting yourself.

See above about you not knowing what the fuck you're talking about.

Its how the government sorts them, their terms NOT mine.

Its how the government sorts them....according to you.

See above about you not knowing what the fuck you're talking about.

Oh, and what do 'military advisors' do in your estimation? Equip and train troops perhaps?
Laughing.....just like republicans supporting 'boots on the ground', there's no way your narrative works.

 

[CremeBrulee]

WSJ...CIA backed Mercs
U.S. Sees Russian Drive Against CIA-Backed Rebels in Syria

And where does that article say that the majority of trainers are mercs?

Because I've given you 5 different examples spanning 50 years that demonstrates you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

And worse, republicans have called for boots on the ground in Syria. Exactly what you've already admitted means 'US military'. So you have no narrative, imaginary or otherwise, where Republicans *weren't* calling for US ground troop involvement in Syria.

Yet you've completely revised history and imagined that republicans have nothing to do with it.

Again.....wow.

I'm sure that just a couple of weeks ago Putin was showing Obama what a real leader looks like by sending troops into Syria.

Oh I want Putin to kill muslims. Key word...Putin not that rimmer for a leader we have.

Um, buddy......where does your article say that the majority of trainers are mercs?

Show me, don't tell me.

And republicans have called for boots on the ground in Syria. Exactly what you've already admitted means 'US military'. So you have no narrative, imaginary or otherwise, where Republicans *weren't* calling for US ground troop involvement in Syria.

Yet you've completely revised history and imagined that republicans have nothing to do with it.

CIA is Mercs.

It is interesting to note they are expendable mercenaries when training Syrians, but heroic private contractors when leading a terrorist attack back to a CIA annex in Libya.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

The progressives and their Democrat leaders are proving to be more warmongers than the conservative right ever will be. They bomb sovereign nations murdering thousands without Congressional approval or even a Declaration Of War... Bunch of War Criminals.

*****CHUCKLE*****

Which is why republicans have insisted we get involved in like....7 different conflicts over the last 6 years? Including this one?

Which conflicts would those be?

The only ones I can immediately think of are the Libya, dronings (especially of wedding parties), and the red lines, your blood soaked Nobel Champion Of Peace has made as he builds 'Bridges Of Understanding' out of the mutilated bodies of those he bombs.

*****SMILE*****

Lets see.....Crimea. Ukraine. Libya. Syria. Iran. Expansion in Iraq. Expansions in Afghanistan.

Off the top of my head.

Those are all on your boy the gore spattered Nobel Hero Of Peace as far as I can tell. Especially the over 25,000 that he murdered in Libya during his six month bombing spree that cost the United States billions... Then let's not forget the consulate in that same country that he left defenseless so the personnel there could be slaughtered in the governmentless country he left behind.

*****SMILE*****

 

[idb]

The progressives and their Democrat leaders are proving to be more warmongers than the conservative right ever will be. They bomb sovereign nations murdering thousands without Congressional approval or even a Declaration Of War... Bunch of War Criminals.

*****CHUCKLE*****

Which is why republicans have insisted we get involved in like....7 different conflicts over the last 6 years? Including this one?

Which conflicts would those be?

The only ones I can immediately think of are the Libya, dronings (especially of wedding parties), and the red lines, your blood soaked Nobel Champion Of Peace has made as he builds 'Bridges Of Understanding' out of the mutilated bodies of those he bombs.

*****SMILE*****

Lets see.....Crimea. Ukraine. Libya. Syria. Iran. Expansion in Iraq. Expansions in Afghanistan.

Off the top of my head.

Not Georgia though!

 

[Skylar]

The progressives and their Democrat leaders are proving to be more warmongers than the conservative right ever will be. They bomb sovereign nations murdering thousands without Congressional approval or even a Declaration Of War... Bunch of War Criminals.

*****CHUCKLE*****

Which is why republicans have insisted we get involved in like....7 different conflicts over the last 6 years? Including this one?

Which conflicts would those be?

The only ones I can immediately think of are the Libya, dronings (especially of wedding parties), and the red lines, your blood soaked Nobel Champion Of Peace has made as he builds 'Bridges Of Understanding' out of the mutilated bodies of those he bombs.

*****SMILE*****

Lets see.....

Off the top of my head.

View attachment 53784

Those are all on your boy the gore spattered Nobel Hero Of Peace as far as I can tell. Especially the over 25,000 that he murdered in Libya during his six month bombing spree that cost the United States billions... Then let's not forget the consulate in that same country that he left defenseless so the personnel there could be slaughtered in the governmentless country he left behind.

*****SMILE*****

So you're claiming that republicans *didn't* support military action in Crimea, Ukraine, Libya, Syria and Iran. That they *didn't* support the expansion of military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Laughing.....won't touch those with a 10 foot pole, will you?

*****snicker*****

So much for your narrative about 'war mongers'. Is there any claim I can't run you off of?

 

[Skylar]

The progressives and their Democrat leaders are proving to be more warmongers than the conservative right ever will be. They bomb sovereign nations murdering thousands without Congressional approval or even a Declaration Of War... Bunch of War Criminals.

*****CHUCKLE*****

Which is why republicans have insisted we get involved in like....7 different conflicts over the last 6 years? Including this one?

Which conflicts would those be?

The only ones I can immediately think of are the Libya, dronings (especially of wedding parties), and the red lines, your blood soaked Nobel Champion Of Peace has made as he builds 'Bridges Of Understanding' out of the mutilated bodies of those he bombs.

*****SMILE*****

Lets see.....Crimea. Ukraine. Libya. Syria. Iran. Expansion in Iraq. Expansions in Afghanistan.

Off the top of my head.

Not Georgia though!

Nope. Not Georgia. Though in their defense, they'd already bogged us down with two land wars in Asia at that point.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

The progressives and their Democrat leaders are proving to be more warmongers than the conservative right ever will be. They bomb sovereign nations murdering thousands without Congressional approval or even a Declaration Of War... Bunch of War Criminals.

*****CHUCKLE*****

Which is why republicans have insisted we get involved in like....7 different conflicts over the last 6 years? Including this one?

Which conflicts would those be?

The only ones I can immediately think of are the Libya, dronings (especially of wedding parties), and the red lines, your blood soaked Nobel Champion Of Peace has made as he builds 'Bridges Of Understanding' out of the mutilated bodies of those he bombs.

*****SMILE*****

Lets see.....

Off the top of my head.

View attachment 53784

Those are all on your boy the gore spattered Nobel Hero Of Peace as far as I can tell. Especially the over 25,000 that he murdered in Libya during his six month bombing spree that cost the United States billions... Then let's not forget the consulate in that same country that he left defenseless so the personnel there could be slaughtered in the governmentless country he left behind.

*****SMILE*****

So you're claiming that republicans *didn't* support military action in Crimea, Ukraine, Libya, Syria and Iran. That they *didn't* support the expansion of military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Laughing.....won't touch those with a 10 foot pole, will you?

*****snicker*****

So much for your narrative about 'war mongers'. Is there any claim I can't run you off of?

Like the last president any military action that's taken while your Nobel Champion Of Peace or any Democratic successor will take the credit for the havoc and destruction they cause...

Shall I use some of the standard lines that you progressives used to remove the Democratic leadership from responsibility for voting to go to war in Afghanistan and Iraq?..... Wait! You already know them so I really don't need too provide those excuses.

How does it feel to have a real live War Criminal in the White House, who's a progressive BTW, who glorifies in the destruction and mutilation that he creates without even a Declaration Of War from Congress?

*****SMILE*****

 

[westwall]

What is in Syria for you? I have nothing there.

So this *didn't* happen?

“This idea we’ll never have any boots on the ground to defeat them in Syria is fantasy,” he said Sunday on TV.

At Tuesday’s hearing, Graham practically pleaded with Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to endorse the use of U.S. ground troops against the Islamic State. “Do you agree that somebody’s got to go in on the ground?” he asked. “Can you envision a coalition of Arab states that have the capabilities . . . without substantial U.S. military support?”

Dana Milbank: Republicans gallop toward ground war in Syria and Iraq

Or this...

In the frequently-gridlocked Senate, both party's leaders predicted lawmakers would swing behind the president's request. "Not the least of which is the authority to equip and train Syrian troops to fight these ... evil terrorists," said Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada.

His Republican counterpart, Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, said: "Over the next week, following a series of briefings, Congress will work with the administration to ensure that our forces have the resources they need to carry out these missions," he said.

Congress voices support for Obama's call to battle Islamic state militants

Or this...

The Republicans were almost unanimous in wanting a broader war than Obama outlined. Sen. Jim Inhofe (Okla.), called it “foolhardy” for Obama to rule out ground troops. “There was a collective sigh of relief at ISIS headquarters in Syria when they heard him say that,” Inhofe alleged, using an acronym for the terrorist group.

Dana Milbank: Republicans gallop toward ground war in Syria and Iraq

But now training and equipping the rebels has nothing to do with republicans?

Wow. Just......wow.

Equipping is NOT putting boots on the ground. Not even close.

Equipping and *training*. How do you think we train them, slick? Air drop links to youtube tutorials?

We have been using CIA backed Mercs. NOT our military.

"Trainers" has been synonymous with US military on the ground for more than half a century.

What dream land are you in that when republicans are demanding 'boots on the ground to defeat them in Syria', 'substantial US military involvement' and 'ground troops in Syria' that they WEREN'T referring to the US military?

Over the last 2 decades that role has been taken over by private merc companies such as Blackwater.