Aa
US general backs limited ground operations against ISIS if needed
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/17/world/middleeast/isis-airstrikes-united-states-coalition.html?_r=0
More and more people are becoming savvy to the "news" outlets. I don't know how much that will do to repair the divide between both major political parties though. Maybe in time there will be some reparations. Right now I think folks in both parties are still comfortable sticking to what they do know and are familiar with, in regards to party line ideals.
I am sure there are similarities, not only to Vietnam but to Iraqi as well. Back to the article. The title alone insinuates something that is not true. If we cannot count on our so called news sources to tell us the truth, does it really matter? We are never going to be able to make choices based on truth as long as this is going on? Does everything we hear have to be slanted in order to win over a vote or cause division amongst us? I dunno about the rest of ya, but Im sick of it. That is why I have gone to listening first hand on this stuff, cause if ya dont? This is just an example of what you get. And all sides and all news affliliates are guilty of it.
I watched an interesting documentary last night on youtube about all of the mercenaries that are currently employed as "private contractors" in Iraq and Afghanistan. It seems eerily similar to Viet Nam....
If we don't learn from history we are doomed to repeat it.
Are we talking about Vietnam or Iraq? My husband was a marine and served in Vietnam and my father in World War II. I also had a brother serve in Vietnam as military police.
That was then and this is now, and they are WORLDS apart.
That was then and this is now, and they are WORLDS apart.
Remember the "advisors" that were sent to Vietnam?
Word games. I think we all know what the difference is. But the politicians would like to keep us up in arms with this kind of thing. No fighting troops? No combat troops? Call it what you will, but I think we all know that he is saying he isnt sending in troops to fight ISIL, as that should and will be the part that the region should do. A must do, in order to keep it from becoming a US invasion deal for US interests alone. Republicans want us all in no matter what the cost, and of course its not politically correct to do anything other than take the opposite view as this president. Its an election year after all......imo
There are currently 750 troops on the ground in Iraq right now, or at least there have been since July.
“My view at this point is that this coalition is the appropriate way forward. I believe that will prove true,” he said. “But if it fails to be true, and if there are threats to the United States, then I of course would go back to the president and make a recommendation that may include the use of U.S. military ground forces.”
then I of course would go back to the president and make a recommendation that may include the use of U.S. military ground forces.”
Operative word? MAY! Not that he would or that he will, but may if the situation warrants it, just like we would expect him to do IF (operative word) IF this mission were to fail. And I am quite sure that IF this mission as planned did fail, even president obama would then, at that time, possibly, even himself committ to boots on the ground.
But not now, not intended for this mission as planned. No lie about it.
then I of course would go back to the president and make a recommendation that may include the use of U.S. military ground forces.”
Operative word? MAY! Not that he would or that he will, but may if the situation warrants it, just like we would expect him to do IF (operative word) IF this mission were to fail. And I am quite sure that IF this mission as planned did fail, even president obama would then, at that time, possibly, even himself committ to boots on the ground.
But not now, not intended for this mission as planned. No lie about it.
I watched this live while it was going down this am. What the general actually said, in response to a question about if this fails, then what? How can we win without boots on the ground? The general in his response said, he believed in the current mission as planned, but and but being the operative word here, that in the event that this mission failed as it is, and if at such time that he believed there to be a risk to the US he would at that time reassess and possibly mention the need for boots on the ground.
I have noticed ever since that the media is playing the (Obama lied card and) there is a possibility of boots on the ground.
Politics is so obviously at play here that it is ridiculous.
I have noticed ever since that the media is playing the (Obama lied card and) there is a possibility of boots on the ground.
Politics is so obviously at play here that it is ridiculous.
teeheehee
That statement speaks to the typical arrogance of liberals.
No he doesn't need to listen to generals - that's how it is when you're the President of the United States. The President calls the shots.........unless, of course, you're George Bush and then you have to listen to Cheney.
Nah, Obama is the Commander In Chief, he doesn't need to listen to Generals.
You must join this user group in order to participate in this discussion.
You are reading content posted in the Current Events . . . Group
A list of national and international resources and hotlines to help connect you to needed health and medical services.
Herpes sores blister, then burst, scab and heal.
Herpes spreads by oral, vaginal and anal sex.
STIs are the most common cause of genital sores.
Condoms are the most effective way to prevent HIV and STDs.
PrEP is used by people with high risk to prevent HIV infection.
