BREAKING: US troops invading Syria

[williepete]

We have undeclared forces all over the globe.

"We?" There is only ONE Commander in Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces. He's had the job for 7 years.

We have Obama has undeclared forces all over the globe.

There. Fixed it for ya.

 

[depotoo]

You are so wrong. It is a way of containment, for the security of our country, and our allies. Nothing more.

U.S. to Deploy Special Operations Forces in Syria

Despite saying he wouldnt....Obama is going to war in Syria. Special Ops are being deployed. Boots on ground. With Russia and Iran flying overhead.

With this commander in chief...what could go wrong!!??

Like I've said numerous times, who the President is doesn't mean shit in this regard. Think tanks have come up with ways to do what defense contractors all want, have more wars. President can play along or either not become President, have some major scandal come up ala Clinton, or get Kennedy'd.

We're not spending all this money on DoD for secure our borders from tanks rolling across. We're spending it to take over the world.

 

[asaratis]

No matter what Obama starts, he'll fuck it up.

 

[theHawk]

This is going to be great watching progressives defend an unauthorized war.

 

[S.J.]

This is going to be great watching progressives defend an unauthorized war.

Unfortunately, good men will have to die because of Obama's fucking ego.

 

[BlindBoo]

I think what most Americans found objectionable was the way the Bush Administration used 911 and the al Qaeda threat in the propaganda leading up to the invasion of Iraq. When he gave that speech he had a 90%+ approval rating. It took several months after the invasion for the embedded ecstasy to wear off the press before they said "btw, wtf are the wmd"?

Invade Syria with a couple hundred thousand American troop and yes, I think there would be protest. Look what the SDS and other groups did to Johnson. Put in a few hundred Special Opps to help target the bad guys, nah, probably not too many protest, except from partisans.

Bush, but it was found objectionable by the Dem's when his Presidency was coming to a close so as their anti-war guy could be elected. It was a ploy, that succeeded. What do you bet most of the Dem's remain silent, no anti-war rallies every weekend with protesters bussed in, etc., like they did with Bush?

Glad you brought this up, as it is a reminder Bush did understand this was not the war of past, but a war of ideology, that could take decades to defeat, and its not being defeated by the end of his second term, did not mean he failed. It showed he was right. It will take years upon years to fight this new war of ideology..

We might be further along in accomplishing their defeat, if we had earnestly been continuing work toward the goal of their defeat, these last few years.

"Our war on terror begins with Al Qaeda, but it does not end there."

"It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated."

"Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes visible on TV and covert operations secret even in success."

"We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place until there is no refuge or no rest."

Guess who?



washingtonpost.com

 

[theHawk]

I think what most Americans found objectionable was the way the Bush Administration used 911 and the al Qaeda threat in the propaganda leading up to the invasion of Iraq. When he gave that speech he had a 90%+ approval rating. It took several months after the invasion for the embedded ecstasy to wear off the press before they said "btw, wtf are the wmd"?

Invade Syria with a couple hundred thousand American troop and yes, I think there would be protest. Look what the SDS and other groups did to Johnson. Put in a few hundred Special Opps to help target the bad guys, nah, probably not too many protest, except from partisans.

Bush, but it was found objectionable by the Dem's when his Presidency was coming to a close so as their anti-war guy could be elected. It was a ploy, that succeeded. What do you bet most of the Dem's remain silent, no anti-war rallies every weekend with protesters bussed in, etc., like they did with Bush?

Glad you brought this up, as it is a reminder Bush did understand this was not the war of past, but a war of ideology, that could take decades to defeat, and its not being defeated by the end of his second term, did not mean he failed. It showed he was right. It will take years upon years to fight this new war of ideology..

We might be further along in accomplishing their defeat, if we had earnestly been continuing work toward the goal of their defeat, these last few years.

"Our war on terror begins with Al Qaeda, but it does not end there."

"It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated."

"Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes visible on TV and covert operations secret even in success."

"We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place until there is no refuge or no rest."

Guess who?



washingtonpost.com

Special Ops to help target bad guys? Who are the "good guys" in Syria?

It's a Muslim civil war that we should stay the fuck out of. Let them kill each other.

I could understand using the military to help Christians and other non-Muslim groups in Iraq and Syria, but we all know that isn't what Obama has in mind.

 

[Steven_R]

since when does 50 ppl = an invasion force?

That's how the US intervention in Vietnam started.

And Kosovo. Our troops were gong to be home in time for Christmas Billy said.

We were there nearly a decade.

What can possibly go wrong?

 

[depotoo]

I see it as an opening for the DNC to destroy a Republican president for their own goals and fears of losses at the ballot box, because his approval was so high. He wanted to keep America safe and people knew it. They had to destroy that image.

I think what most Americans found objectionable was the way the Bush Administration used 911 and the al Qaeda threat in the propaganda leading up to the invasion of Iraq. When he gave that speech he had a 90%+ approval rating. It took several months after the invasion for the embedded ecstasy to wear off the press before they said "btw, wtf are the wmd"?

Invade Syria with a couple hundred thousand American troop and yes, I think there would be protest. Look what the SDS and other groups did to Johnson. Put in a few hundred Special Opps to help target the bad guys, nah, probably not too many protest, except from partisans.

Bush, but it was found objectionable by the Dem's when his Presidency was coming to a close so as their anti-war guy could be elected. It was a ploy, that succeeded. What do you bet most of the Dem's remain silent, no anti-war rallies every weekend with protesters bussed in, etc., like they did with Bush?

Glad you brought this up, as it is a reminder Bush did understand this was not the war of past, but a war of ideology, that could take decades to defeat, and its not being defeated by the end of his second term, did not mean he failed. It showed he was right. It will take years upon years to fight this new war of ideology..

We might be further along in accomplishing their defeat, if we had earnestly been continuing work toward the goal of their defeat, these last few years.

"Our war on terror begins with Al Qaeda, but it does not end there."

"It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated."

"Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes visible on TV and covert operations secret even in success."

"We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place until there is no refuge or no rest."

Guess who?



washingtonpost.com

 

[Claudette]

We sure don't need any troops in Syria.

Let the Russians have that shit hole.

 

[Steven_R]

Last time I checked, Syria is a sovereign country with a functioning government. we have no authority to actually send troops except that Obama says go. What happens if the Syrians start killing US troops? It might be a third world shithole in the middle of a civil war, but they have a lot of Russian backing.

 

[depotoo]

I would love to know this administrations secret goal here.

 

[BlindBoo]

I think what most Americans found objectionable was the way the Bush Administration used 911 and the al Qaeda threat in the propaganda leading up to the invasion of Iraq. When he gave that speech he had a 90%+ approval rating. It took several months after the invasion for the embedded ecstasy to wear off the press before they said "btw, wtf are the wmd"?

Invade Syria with a couple hundred thousand American troop and yes, I think there would be protest. Look what the SDS and other groups did to Johnson. Put in a few hundred Special Opps to help target the bad guys, nah, probably not too many protest, except from partisans.

Bush, but it was found objectionable by the Dem's when his Presidency was coming to a close so as their anti-war guy could be elected. It was a ploy, that succeeded. What do you bet most of the Dem's remain silent, no anti-war rallies every weekend with protesters bussed in, etc., like they did with Bush?

Glad you brought this up, as it is a reminder Bush did understand this was not the war of past, but a war of ideology, that could take decades to defeat, and its not being defeated by the end of his second term, did not mean he failed. It showed he was right. It will take years upon years to fight this new war of ideology..

We might be further along in accomplishing their defeat, if we had earnestly been continuing work toward the goal of their defeat, these last few years.

"Our war on terror begins with Al Qaeda, but it does not end there."

"It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated."

"Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes visible on TV and covert operations secret even in success."

"We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place until there is no refuge or no rest."

Guess who?



washingtonpost.com

Special Ops to help target bad guys? Who are the "good guys" in Syria?

It's a Muslim civil war that we should stay the fuck out of. Let them kill each other.

I could understand using the military to help Christians and other non-Muslim groups in Iraq and Syria, but we all know that isn't what Obama has in mind.

The Kurds.

Oil and Why America Is Dropping Bombs to Defend Erbil - The New Yorker

 

[rcfieldz]

Why do I have this feeling, the sh*ts gonna hit the fan?

 

[rcfieldz]

I would love to know this administrations secret goal here.

Make Obama a hero...bigger than any black man before him.

 

[williepete]

Why do I have this feeling, the sh*ts gonna hit the fan?

Because the Obidiot is calling the shots?

----------

 

[BlindBoo]

I would love to know this administrations secret goal here.

I don't think our goals in the ME have changed.

 

[depotoo]

Youare probably right, when it comes to this administration. I guess my question should be what is their real goal, as I don't believe there has been complete transparency there.

I would love to know this administrations secret goal here.

I don't think our goals in the ME have changed.

 

[Dot Com]

We have undeclared forces all over the globe.

"We?" There is only ONE Commander in Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces. He's had the job for 7 years.

We have Obama has undeclared forces all over the globe.

There. Fixed it for ya.

Through every Admin asswipe. You're welcome. You ever serve. Looking at your user nic and was wondering. I have and its common knowledge that troops are deployed, off the record, all over the world.

Its just like we don't spy on our allies lol. How naive are you?

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Anyone remember when the media didn't announce how many soldiers were taking the field? Heard 20-30. As did ISIS. That used to be a secret. If you know your enemy only has x number of people, you throw y amount to overwhelm and usually win. So why are we making it easier for the enemy?