We Tried To Tell You Democrats

[Skylar]

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?

The majority of trainers are Mercs.

Prove it.

Because recent history is not your friend.

President Barack Obama will send as many as 450 more U.S. military personnel to train Iraqi forces combating Islamic State militants, as his administration adjusts its strategy to contain the extremist group.

Obama Sending 450 Military Trainers to Base in Iraq’s Anbar

U.S. Army trainers instruct Iraqi Army recruits at a military base on April 12, 2015 in Taji, Iraq.

Can the U.S. Military Train the Iraqi Army to Victory Over ISIS?

But as the U.S. aims to wrap up its military mission in Afghanistan, Campbell said U.S. military trainers may have to accept that those weaknesses will not be entirely eliminated.

Top general in Afghanistan considers 2016 troop levels

When the Salvadorans called for U.S. assistance, the U.S. Army focused on training El Salvadoran Army units using a variety of methods. The Americans trained a series of immediate reaction battalions (IRBs) in 1981 and 1982 to help stem the tide. Many of the trainers of these units included members of the newly revitalized Army Special Forces that had almost been eliminated after Vietnam.

Chapter 12: American Military History, Volume II

In May 1961, Kennedy sent 400 U.S. Army Special Forces (Green Beret) troops into South Vietnam's Central Highlands to train Montagnard tribesmen in counterinsurgency tactics. He also tripled the level of aid to South Vietnam.

The Military and Diplomatic Course of the Vietnam War

Trainers means US troops. And has for a very, very long time.

And Republicans have been calling for equipping, training and boots on the ground. All of which is US military. That you didn't get that only means you're not informed enough to participate in your own thread.

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.

 

[Skylar]

I thought Putin was the right-wing hero du jour.
Has he fallen out of favour already?

Many conservatives suffer from 'Obama Derangement Syndrome'. If Putin opposes Obama, they support Putin. If Putin and Obama are working toward similiar goals, they oppose Putin.

At this point these conservatives are little more than automatons whose position is dictated to them by the President. Whatever position he takes they're bound to the exact opposite.

 

[idb]

I thought Putin was the right-wing hero du jour.
Has he fallen out of favour already?

Many conservatives suffer from 'Obama Derangement Syndrome'. If Putin opposes Obama, they support Putin. If Putin and Obama are working toward similiar goals, they oppose Putin.

At this point these conservatives are little more than automatons whose position is dictated to them by the President. Whatever position he takes they're bound to the exact opposite.

No wonder they seem so confused.

 

[idb]

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?

The majority of trainers are Mercs.

Prove it.

Because recent history is not your friend.

President Barack Obama will send as many as 450 more U.S. military personnel to train Iraqi forces combating Islamic State militants, as his administration adjusts its strategy to contain the extremist group.

Obama Sending 450 Military Trainers to Base in Iraq’s Anbar

U.S. Army trainers instruct Iraqi Army recruits at a military base on April 12, 2015 in Taji, Iraq.

Can the U.S. Military Train the Iraqi Army to Victory Over ISIS?

But as the U.S. aims to wrap up its military mission in Afghanistan, Campbell said U.S. military trainers may have to accept that those weaknesses will not be entirely eliminated.

Top general in Afghanistan considers 2016 troop levels

When the Salvadorans called for U.S. assistance, the U.S. Army focused on training El Salvadoran Army units using a variety of methods. The Americans trained a series of immediate reaction battalions (IRBs) in 1981 and 1982 to help stem the tide. Many of the trainers of these units included members of the newly revitalized Army Special Forces that had almost been eliminated after Vietnam.

Chapter 12: American Military History, Volume II

In May 1961, Kennedy sent 400 U.S. Army Special Forces (Green Beret) troops into South Vietnam's Central Highlands to train Montagnard tribesmen in counterinsurgency tactics. He also tripled the level of aid to South Vietnam.

The Military and Diplomatic Course of the Vietnam War

Trainers means US troops. And has for a very, very long time.

And Republicans have been calling for equipping, training and boots on the ground. All of which is US military. That you didn't get that only means you're not informed enough to participate in your own thread.

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.

 

[DarkFury]

"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?

The majority of trainers are Mercs.

Prove it.

Because recent history is not your friend.

President Barack Obama will send as many as 450 more U.S. military personnel to train Iraqi forces combating Islamic State militants, as his administration adjusts its strategy to contain the extremist group.

Obama Sending 450 Military Trainers to Base in Iraq’s Anbar

U.S. Army trainers instruct Iraqi Army recruits at a military base on April 12, 2015 in Taji, Iraq.

Can the U.S. Military Train the Iraqi Army to Victory Over ISIS?

But as the U.S. aims to wrap up its military mission in Afghanistan, Campbell said U.S. military trainers may have to accept that those weaknesses will not be entirely eliminated.

Top general in Afghanistan considers 2016 troop levels

When the Salvadorans called for U.S. assistance, the U.S. Army focused on training El Salvadoran Army units using a variety of methods. The Americans trained a series of immediate reaction battalions (IRBs) in 1981 and 1982 to help stem the tide. Many of the trainers of these units included members of the newly revitalized Army Special Forces that had almost been eliminated after Vietnam.

Chapter 12: American Military History, Volume II

In May 1961, Kennedy sent 400 U.S. Army Special Forces (Green Beret) troops into South Vietnam's Central Highlands to train Montagnard tribesmen in counterinsurgency tactics. He also tripled the level of aid to South Vietnam.

The Military and Diplomatic Course of the Vietnam War

Trainers means US troops. And has for a very, very long time.

And Republicans have been calling for equipping, training and boots on the ground. All of which is US military. That you didn't get that only means you're not informed enough to participate in your own thread.

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.

 

[Skylar]

The majority of trainers are Mercs.

Prove it.

Because recent history is not your friend.

President Barack Obama will send as many as 450 more U.S. military personnel to train Iraqi forces combating Islamic State militants, as his administration adjusts its strategy to contain the extremist group.

Obama Sending 450 Military Trainers to Base in Iraq’s Anbar

U.S. Army trainers instruct Iraqi Army recruits at a military base on April 12, 2015 in Taji, Iraq.

Can the U.S. Military Train the Iraqi Army to Victory Over ISIS?

But as the U.S. aims to wrap up its military mission in Afghanistan, Campbell said U.S. military trainers may have to accept that those weaknesses will not be entirely eliminated.

Top general in Afghanistan considers 2016 troop levels

When the Salvadorans called for U.S. assistance, the U.S. Army focused on training El Salvadoran Army units using a variety of methods. The Americans trained a series of immediate reaction battalions (IRBs) in 1981 and 1982 to help stem the tide. Many of the trainers of these units included members of the newly revitalized Army Special Forces that had almost been eliminated after Vietnam.

Chapter 12: American Military History, Volume II

In May 1961, Kennedy sent 400 U.S. Army Special Forces (Green Beret) troops into South Vietnam's Central Highlands to train Montagnard tribesmen in counterinsurgency tactics. He also tripled the level of aid to South Vietnam.

The Military and Diplomatic Course of the Vietnam War

Trainers means US troops. And has for a very, very long time.

And Republicans have been calling for equipping, training and boots on the ground. All of which is US military. That you didn't get that only means you're not informed enough to participate in your own thread.

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.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

The majority of trainers are Mercs.

Prove it.

Because recent history is not your friend.

President Barack Obama will send as many as 450 more U.S. military personnel to train Iraqi forces combating Islamic State militants, as his administration adjusts its strategy to contain the extremist group.

Obama Sending 450 Military Trainers to Base in Iraq’s Anbar

U.S. Army trainers instruct Iraqi Army recruits at a military base on April 12, 2015 in Taji, Iraq.

Can the U.S. Military Train the Iraqi Army to Victory Over ISIS?

But as the U.S. aims to wrap up its military mission in Afghanistan, Campbell said U.S. military trainers may have to accept that those weaknesses will not be entirely eliminated.

Top general in Afghanistan considers 2016 troop levels

When the Salvadorans called for U.S. assistance, the U.S. Army focused on training El Salvadoran Army units using a variety of methods. The Americans trained a series of immediate reaction battalions (IRBs) in 1981 and 1982 to help stem the tide. Many of the trainers of these units included members of the newly revitalized Army Special Forces that had almost been eliminated after Vietnam.

Chapter 12: American Military History, Volume II

In May 1961, Kennedy sent 400 U.S. Army Special Forces (Green Beret) troops into South Vietnam's Central Highlands to train Montagnard tribesmen in counterinsurgency tactics. He also tripled the level of aid to South Vietnam.

The Military and Diplomatic Course of the Vietnam War

Trainers means US troops. And has for a very, very long time.

And Republicans have been calling for equipping, training and boots on the ground. All of which is US military. That you didn't get that only means you're not informed enough to participate in your own thread.

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.

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.

 

[DarkFury]

Prove it.

Because recent history is not your friend.

Trainers means US troops. And has for a very, very long time.

And Republicans have been calling for equipping, training and boots on the ground. All of which is US military. That you didn't get that only means you're not informed enough to participate in your own thread.

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.

 

[Stephanie]

But you would not listen and Obama and Hillary are going to war. You kept saying Putin is the "rights" hero and we kept saying let him have the mess. Well as WE on the right predicted its coming home to haunt him. Maybe you SHOULD listen BEFORE you get us into that alright?

"President Vladimir Putin, Russia’s most notorious gambler, has rolled the dice in Syria’s civil war. At first glance, he seems to have come up with a seven: By boldly deploying the newest weapons in his arsenal in order to save Bashar al-Assad’s tottering regime, he has swiftly transformed the Kremlin into the center of Middle East diplomacy. His message is simple: Russia is back as a major power and a solution to this deadly, depressing war runs through Moscow."

So it looked good for him at the start. Just as WE on the right predicted but now things are changing.

"Can Putin succeed where others have failed? It’s possible, but unlikely. The Russian president has opened a hornet’s nest in Syria, and everyone, including Putin, is being stung again and again."

Islamic heat and backlash and NOT just there but home as well.

"A closer look at Putin’s gamble shows that his seven may, in fact, end up as snake eyes — a losing gamble that fails for reasons uniquely Russian, relating to the often ignored but crucial fact that more than 20 million of Russia’s 144 million people are Sunni Muslims, who naturally sympathize with the Sunni Muslims currently being bombed and killed by Russians in Syria. Any Russian miscalculation in Syria could therefore severely undermine Putin’s political power base at home."

Russia home to 20 million upset Muslims oh what a joy eh?

"For Putin, this poses an existential challenge from which there is no escape — a dilemma rooted in Russian demography and history. Most of Russia’s Sunni Muslims live in the Northern Caucasus, historically the scene of anti-Russian Islamist upheavals. Chechnya was the scene not long ago of two bloody wars pitting Muslims against Slavs. Neighboring Dagestan is another powder keg, part of the jihadists’ self-proclaimed caliphate of the Caucasus. Clerics there deliver sermonsconsidered sympathetic to the goals of the Islamic State — and as many as 2,400 young Muslims across Russia have answered the call, a development that sends chills up and down Putin’s spine."

A call to arms INSIDE his country by Islam. Just what you democrats want. Civil war INSIDE your country. And THIS is the VERY lesson you democrats fail to see.

"That is why Putin’s gamble in Syria is so risky. He may be further alienating Russia’s own Sunni Muslim population, and inciting the very violence he had hoped to avoid."

Its NOT our war democrats and does NOT need to start being "OURS" and IF its yours I suggest you go there. WE Republicans have an economy to fix and a border to secure. So WE are busy right now but if you have the time well grab your Daddy's shotgun and have at it. And remember write now and then okay?

Putin’s Muslim Nightmare

Wait....now republicans are *against* the use of US military force?

just wow, so that is your answer for Obama LYING to you. Republicans are for the use of military force when it is presented to Congress and they VOTE ON IT like Bush did with Iraq. If I recall Obama had a lot to say about that, how it was stupid and blaa blaa blaaa NOW LOOK at him. the peace prize winner

 

[Skylar]

Prove it.

Because recent history is not your friend.

Trainers means US troops. And has for a very, very long time.

And Republicans have been calling for equipping, training and boots on the ground. All of which is US military. That you didn't get that only means you're not informed enough to participate in your own thread.

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.

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?

 

[DarkFury]

Prove it.

Because recent history is not your friend.

Trainers means US troops. And has for a very, very long time.

And Republicans have been calling for equipping, training and boots on the ground. All of which is US military. That you didn't get that only means you're not informed enough to participate in your own thread.

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.

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.

 

[Skylar]

But you would not listen and Obama and Hillary are going to war. You kept saying Putin is the "rights" hero and we kept saying let him have the mess. Well as WE on the right predicted its coming home to haunt him. Maybe you SHOULD listen BEFORE you get us into that alright?

"President Vladimir Putin, Russia’s most notorious gambler, has rolled the dice in Syria’s civil war. At first glance, he seems to have come up with a seven: By boldly deploying the newest weapons in his arsenal in order to save Bashar al-Assad’s tottering regime, he has swiftly transformed the Kremlin into the center of Middle East diplomacy. His message is simple: Russia is back as a major power and a solution to this deadly, depressing war runs through Moscow."

So it looked good for him at the start. Just as WE on the right predicted but now things are changing.

"Can Putin succeed where others have failed? It’s possible, but unlikely. The Russian president has opened a hornet’s nest in Syria, and everyone, including Putin, is being stung again and again."

Islamic heat and backlash and NOT just there but home as well.

"A closer look at Putin’s gamble shows that his seven may, in fact, end up as snake eyes — a losing gamble that fails for reasons uniquely Russian, relating to the often ignored but crucial fact that more than 20 million of Russia’s 144 million people are Sunni Muslims, who naturally sympathize with the Sunni Muslims currently being bombed and killed by Russians in Syria. Any Russian miscalculation in Syria could therefore severely undermine Putin’s political power base at home."

Russia home to 20 million upset Muslims oh what a joy eh?

"For Putin, this poses an existential challenge from which there is no escape — a dilemma rooted in Russian demography and history. Most of Russia’s Sunni Muslims live in the Northern Caucasus, historically the scene of anti-Russian Islamist upheavals. Chechnya was the scene not long ago of two bloody wars pitting Muslims against Slavs. Neighboring Dagestan is another powder keg, part of the jihadists’ self-proclaimed caliphate of the Caucasus. Clerics there deliver sermonsconsidered sympathetic to the goals of the Islamic State — and as many as 2,400 young Muslims across Russia have answered the call, a development that sends chills up and down Putin’s spine."

A call to arms INSIDE his country by Islam. Just what you democrats want. Civil war INSIDE your country. And THIS is the VERY lesson you democrats fail to see.

"That is why Putin’s gamble in Syria is so risky. He may be further alienating Russia’s own Sunni Muslim population, and inciting the very violence he had hoped to avoid."

Its NOT our war democrats and does NOT need to start being "OURS" and IF its yours I suggest you go there. WE Republicans have an economy to fix and a border to secure. So WE are busy right now but if you have the time well grab your Daddy's shotgun and have at it. And remember write now and then okay?

Putin’s Muslim Nightmare

Wait....now republicans are *against* the use of US military force?

just wow, so that is your answer for Obama LYING to you. Republicans are for the use of military force when it is presented to Congress and they VOTE ON IT like Bush did with Iraq. If I recall Obama had a lot to say about that, how it was stupid and blaa blaa blaaa NOW LOOK at him. the peace prize winner

Republicans are for boots on the ground in Syria. And now your ilk is trying to pretend that Republicans aren't for boots on the ground in Syria.

Pretend all you like. History doesn't change match your narrative. That's what your willful blindness is for.

 

[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*****

 

[Skylar]

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.

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.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

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.

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.

 

[DarkFury]

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.

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.

 

[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?

 

[Skylar]

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.

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?

 

[DarkFury]

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.

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.

He would be a Republican today. In his day democrats STILL cared about the country.

 

[Skylar]

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.

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.