Going back back, back to wait he said no ground....errr

[Ironcitysteelers]

Bo is a *****. Red line, errr check. No ground troops,....errrr.

What pisses me off if your going to do it do it. Don't sit around pulling each other's dicks. Russia, just shows up.


Washington (CNN)The U.S. is considering increasing its attacks on ISIS through more ground action and airstrikes, Defense Secretary Ashton Carter said Tuesday.

Carter told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the U.S. "won't hold back" from supporting partners carrying out such attacks or from "conducting such missions directly, whether by strikes from the air or direct action on the ground."


The White House, however, has yet to make a decision on the options for upping the campaign against ISIS, according to defense and administration sources. They said that further involvement on the ground was one of the possibilities being presented.

The ground option Carter mentioned to the committee was part of a three-prong effort -- which he dubbed the "three Rs" -- to adapt the U.S. policy on countering ISIS.

In addition to increased ground action and airstrikes, or "raids," Carter also spoke of the need to increase pressure around the ISIS stronghold of Raqqa in Syria, where "we will support moderate Syrian forces" fighting the terror organization there.

The last "R" is Ramadi, the capital of Iraq's Anbar province, where Carter said the U.S. would do more in terms of providing assistance and fire support to local Iraqi forces to take on ISIS.

RELATED: U.S. hits pause on plan to train Syrian rebels

But several GOP senators blasted what they heard from Carter and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Joseph Dunford, who also testified Tuesday.

"This is a half-assed strategy at best," South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, a Republican presidential candidate, said after a lengthy back-and-forth with Carter about how the U.S. is supporting fighters in Syria.

The U.S. earlier this month announced it was pausing its costly program to train and equip Syrian rebels that has resulted in limited gains, focusing instead on supplying military aid to opposition leaders.

Graham and committee Chairman John McCain of Arizona peppered Carter with questions about how the U.S. would protect forces as Russia carries out airstrikes that have been hitting forces opposed to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

"Are we going to protect them from being barrel bombed by Bashar Assad and protected from Russia?" McCain asked.

"We have an obligation to do that. We made that clear right from the beginning of the train-and-equip program," Carter said.

"We haven't done it. We haven't done it," McCain disagreed.

RELATED: Is the U.S. back in combat in Iraq?

Carter said to date, no forces that have been part of the U.S. training program have come under attack from Russian forces, but McCain once again disagreed.

"I promise you they have," McCain said. "You will have to correct the record. ... These are American-supported and coalition-supported men who are going in and being slaughtered."

Graham also drilled down on the new strategy, including whether U.S.-trained forces will continue to have the administration's support if they begin to fight Assad and not just ISIS.

One of the principal criticisms of the administration's train-and-equip plan has been that it only supports Syrian rebels in their fight against terrorism, but with the nation in the throes of a civil war, those rebels largely also want to take out Assad.

Assad's regime is supported by Russia, and U.S. officials have said that Moscow's military intervention in Syria appears more focused on protecting Assad than stopping ISIS.

"If I'm Assad, this is a good day for me, because the American government has just said, without saying it, that they're not going to fight to replace me. The Russians and the Iranians and Hezbollah, this is a really good day for them because their guy has no military credible threat," Graham said.

 

[Yinzerlyn]

He's a ******* idiot. He just vetoed a military funding bill yet wants boots on the ground. **** him.

 

[Steelr4evr]

Obama is NOT a leader! He prefers to dictate what he believes is right in his own twisted little leftist indoctrinated brainwash mind . He's a national embarrassment and a fragile little cupcake.

 

[IndySteel]

He wants our troops to go help ISIS fight Russia.

 

[MT~Forged]

With the rules of engagement as they are now, I want ALL of our troops brought home. Unless our troops are going to be turned loose, they need to come home FROM EVERYWHERe.

 

[hamster]

Since our lefty friends here cannot keep up, or are just overworked, let me fill in. I'm the guy you send out to right field of the other team, when not enough of their players show up. So here it goes....

Racist!....er.....Bush!....er.........Faux News!........er....Timothy McVeigh!.....er......Christians do it too!......er.....Koch Brothers!....er......Guns!....

Elfie, you can thank me later.

 

[Steeltime]

Since our lefty friends here cannot keep up, or are just overworked, let me fill in. I'm the guy you send out to right field of the other team, when not enough of their players show up. So here it goes....

Racist!....er.....Bush!....er.........Faux News!........er....Timothy McVeigh!.....er......Christians do it too!......er.....Koch Brothers!....er......Guns!....

Elfie, you can thank me later.

Pffft. You forgot global warming, err, cooling, uhhh, climate change.

 

[Spike]

B B B B Boosh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Obama said there would be no ground troops or no combat mission in Syria

Aug. 20, 2013

"Again, I repeat: We’re not considering any open-ended commitment. We’re not considering any boots-on-the-ground approach."


Aug. 30, 2013

"And in no event are we considering any kind of military action that would involve boots on the ground; that would involve a long-term campaign."


Aug. 31, 2013

"Now, after careful deliberation, I have decided that the United States should take military action against Syrian regime targets. This would not be an open-ended intervention. We would not put boots on the ground."


Sept. 7, 2013

"What we’re talking about is not an open-ended intervention. This would not be another Iraq or Afghanistan. There would be no American boots on the ground."


Sept. 9, 2013

"This will not be Iraq or Afghanistan. There will be no American boots on the ground — period."


Sept. 10, 2013

"I will not put American boots on the ground in Syria."


Sept. 5, 2014

"With respect to the situation on the ground in Syria, we will not be placing U.S. ground troops to try to control the areas that are part of the conflict inside of Syria."


Sept. 10, 2014

"I want the American people to understand how this effort will be different from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It will not involve American combat troops fighting on foreign soil."


Sept. 19, 2014

"The president has ruled out the option of deploying American boots on the ground in Iraq and in Syria in a combat role."


Sept. 20, 2014

"I won’t commit our troops to fighting another ground war in Iraq, or in Syria."


-------------------------

Liar

 

[deljzc]

I don't understand why our country doesn't commit to ending Sharia Islamic Law like it committed to ending communism.

In context, I think the threat of Islamic extremism is no different to our country's security than the threat of communism in the 1950's and 1960's. In fact, I think it's worse. This is not about religion. It is about law and ideology and governance.

When the battle was over communism our country's support seemed limitless. We created NATO. We kept over 1.5 million troops abroad from the end of WWII through 1950 (note at the end of WWII we have 12 million troops abroad). We placed 50,000 troops in Germany and 35,000 troops in South Korea PERMANENTLY for over a generation all in the name of the cold war and containment of communism and in support of our allies. We created the Marshall Plan which pumped billions of dollars into democratic economies.

This should be our Middle East policy. Contain and economically destroy Sharia Law. Create democracies through sheer force of will and military/economic strength. It could have started in Iraq, but instead we pussied out, let the religious zealots start running the government with Sharia Law RIGHT UNDER OUR GUIDANCE and created any/all excuse to pull every ******* boot on the ground out of the region. That didn't happen in Europe. That wasn't the plan in Korea or Japan.

People say the Arab people are "different". That they are barbaric and can't relate to democracy. I say that's crazy. No two cultures were more different than Western Culture and Japan and yet we built Japan up, invested in them. Force democratic change and they practically revolutionized manufacturing for three decades.

But it will take that type of commitment. From both the left and the right and from the masses of our society. Someone strong-willed has to sell the American people that our PERMANENT military presence in the Middle East is a necessity toward democracy building in the region. That we need to disarm those cultures at first, but have their back completely and utterly in the event of any/all aggression.

This idea we can withdraw and arm them so they can protect themselves is the worst foreign policy "idea" I've ever heard. All that's going to happen in the strong (bullies) will come in, take the weapons we provide and use them to establish dictatorial control (and in the case of Muslim nations, dictatorial also means religious control).

That is what we are up against. There are no "friends". There is no one to "trust". WE have to force the right thing and not be so afraid of being politically incorrect that we can't even say what is right anymore. We all know Iraq's government is a ******* mess. It's racist. It's too religious. It's practically mini-Iran at this point (or will be if we leave for good). Instead of saying "this is wrong" we continue to hide behind some false ideology of "let them learn on their own" and it will be the downfall of the region into another 50 years of exactly what we've had the last 25.

Sharia Islamic Law is the communism of the 21st century. It is spreading. It is destructive. It condemns those that are ruled by it into poverty, despair, persecution, violence and control. It is not anti-Muslim saying these things. It is just a fact that Muslim either evolve, learn and understand or they stagnate and rebel and become this country's enemy. Those are the choices they should face.

 

[Omar10213245]

I don't understand why our country doesn't commit to ending Sharia Islamic Law like it committed to ending communism.

In context, I think the threat of Islamic extremism is no different to our country's security than the threat of communism in the 1950's and 1960's. In fact, I think it's worse. This is not about religion. It is about law and ideology and governance.

When the battle was over communism our country's support seemed limitless. We created NATO. We kept over 1.5 million troops abroad from the end of WWII through 1950 (note at the end of WWII we have 12 million troops abroad). We placed 50,000 troops in Germany and 35,000 troops in South Korea PERMANENTLY for over a generation all in the name of the cold war and containment of communism and in support of our allies. We created the Marshall Plan which pumped billions of dollars into democratic economies.

This should be our Middle East policy. Contain and economically destroy Sharia Law. Create democracies through sheer force of will and military/economic strength. It could have started in Iraq, but instead we pussied out, let the religious zealots start running the government with Sharia Law RIGHT UNDER OUR GUIDANCE and created any/all excuse to pull every ******* boot on the ground out of the region. That didn't happen in Europe. That wasn't the plan in Korea or Japan.

People say the Arab people are "different". That they are barbaric and can't relate to democracy. I say that's crazy. No two cultures were more different than Western Culture and Japan and yet we built Japan up, invested in them. Force democratic change and they practically revolutionized manufacturing for three decades.

But it will take that type of commitment. From both the left and the right and from the masses of our society. Someone strong-willed has to sell the American people that our PERMANENT military presence in the Middle East is a necessity toward democracy building in the region. That we need to disarm those cultures at first, but have their back completely and utterly in the event of any/all aggression.

This idea we can withdraw and arm them so they can protect themselves is the worst foreign policy "idea" I've ever heard. All that's going to happen in the strong (bullies) will come in, take the weapons we provide and use them to establish dictatorial control (and in the case of Muslim nations, dictatorial also means religious control).

That is what we are up against. There are no "friends". There is no one to "trust". WE have to force the right thing and not be so afraid of being politically incorrect that we can't even say what is right anymore. We all know Iraq's government is a ******* mess. It's racist. It's too religious. It's practically mini-Iran at this point (or will be if we leave for good). Instead of saying "this is wrong" we continue to hide behind some false ideology of "let them learn on their own" and it will be the downfall of the region into another 50 years of exactly what we've had the last 25.

Sharia Islamic Law is the communism of the 21st century. It is spreading. It is destructive. It condemns those that are ruled by it into poverty, despair, persecution, violence and control. It is not anti-Muslim saying these things. It is just a fact that Muslim either evolve, learn and understand or they stagnate and rebel and become this country's enemy. Those are the choices they should face.

Del, this was absolutely perfect, I could not agree more.

 

[Spike]

Obama's crew wants what they want - the death of all Jews.

Just like Pittsburgh.


Foundation Run by Kerry's Wife Funds Anti-Israel Eatery

A foundation chaired by Teresa Heinz Kerry, wife of Secretary of State John Kerry, who is deeply involved in negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians, is funding a radical anti-Israel, anti-American snack bar near the Carnegie Mellon and Pittsburgh University campuses.

The restaurant, Conflict Kitchen, which proudly boasts that it serves food only from countries with which the U.S. is in conflict, received a $50,000 grant from the Heinz Endowment in April to assist it in moving locations.

However, the restaurant lately has been serving its hummus and baba ghanoush sandwiches in propaganda wrappers that carry quotes from Palestinians opposing the existence of the state of Israel and has hosted panel discussions featuring pro-Palestinian speakers, in which supporters of the Jewish community and Israel have not been allowed to participate by the restaurant's owners

The wrappers call the establishment of Israel "an intentional and ongoing offensive."

http://www.newsmax.com/US/Teresa-Heinz-Kerry-Conflict-Kitchen/2014/10/24/id/602991/

 

[Rod Farva]

I don't understand why our country doesn't commit to ending Sharia Islamic Law like it committed to ending communism.

In context, I think the threat of Islamic extremism is no different to our country's security than the threat of communism in the 1950's and 1960's. In fact, I think it's worse. This is not about religion. It is about law and ideology and governance.

When the battle was over communism our country's support seemed limitless. We created NATO. We kept over 1.5 million troops abroad from the end of WWII through 1950 (note at the end of WWII we have 12 million troops abroad). We placed 50,000 troops in Germany and 35,000 troops in South Korea PERMANENTLY for over a generation all in the name of the cold war and containment of communism and in support of our allies. We created the Marshall Plan which pumped billions of dollars into democratic economies.

This should be our Middle East policy. Contain and economically destroy Sharia Law. Create democracies through sheer force of will and military/economic strength. It could have started in Iraq, but instead we pussied out, let the religious zealots start running the government with Sharia Law RIGHT UNDER OUR GUIDANCE and created any/all excuse to pull every ******* boot on the ground out of the region. That didn't happen in Europe. That wasn't the plan in Korea or Japan.

People say the Arab people are "different". That they are barbaric and can't relate to democracy. I say that's crazy. No two cultures were more different than Western Culture and Japan and yet we built Japan up, invested in them. Force democratic change and they practically revolutionized manufacturing for three decades.

But it will take that type of commitment. From both the left and the right and from the masses of our society. Someone strong-willed has to sell the American people that our PERMANENT military presence in the Middle East is a necessity toward democracy building in the region. That we need to disarm those cultures at first, but have their back completely and utterly in the event of any/all aggression.

This idea we can withdraw and arm them so they can protect themselves is the worst foreign policy "idea" I've ever heard. All that's going to happen in the strong (bullies) will come in, take the weapons we provide and use them to establish dictatorial control (and in the case of Muslim nations, dictatorial also means religious control).

That is what we are up against. There are no "friends". There is no one to "trust". WE have to force the right thing and not be so afraid of being politically incorrect that we can't even say what is right anymore. We all know Iraq's government is a ******* mess. It's racist. It's too religious. It's practically mini-Iran at this point (or will be if we leave for good). Instead of saying "this is wrong" we continue to hide behind some false ideology of "let them learn on their own" and it will be the downfall of the region into another 50 years of exactly what we've had the last 25.

Sharia Islamic Law is the communism of the 21st century. It is spreading. It is destructive. It condemns those that are ruled by it into poverty, despair, persecution, violence and control. It is not anti-Muslim saying these things. It is just a fact that Muslim either evolve, learn and understand or they stagnate and rebel and become this country's enemy. Those are the choices they should face.

I'm pretty much in agreement with most of this. But two reasons it won't happen are because the majority of Americans have become spineless, politically correct, coexisting idiots.

And, yes, we changed Japan's way of thinking. But it took 2 nuclear holocausts to "get their minds right" before that could happen. We aren't nuking any ME (or other )countries.

I'm also a little confused that you feel that arabs aren't able to defend themselves if properly armed........the shitbags in Afghanistan have proven otherwise. Unfortunately they're the sharia types. Seems to be only type of arab with any fight in them, which is why they end up with the arms we provide to the others. That being the case I say leave them to their own problems but somehow guarantee them that should sharia ever threaten our security ( which it will.....their goal is world domination) it's game on. Then when it does unleash flaming, generations lasting pestilence all over that shithole.

 

[hamster]

I don't understand why our country doesn't commit to ending Sharia Islamic Law like it committed to ending communism.

In context, I think the threat of Islamic extremism is no different to our country's security than the threat of communism in the 1950's and 1960's. In fact, I think it's worse. This is not about religion. It is about law and ideology and governance.

When the battle was over communism our country's support seemed limitless. We created NATO. We kept over 1.5 million troops abroad from the end of WWII through 1950 (note at the end of WWII we have 12 million troops abroad). We placed 50,000 troops in Germany and 35,000 troops in South Korea PERMANENTLY for over a generation all in the name of the cold war and containment of communism and in support of our allies. We created the Marshall Plan which pumped billions of dollars into democratic economies.

This should be our Middle East policy. Contain and economically destroy Sharia Law. Create democracies through sheer force of will and military/economic strength. It could have started in Iraq, but instead we pussied out, let the religious zealots start running the government with Sharia Law RIGHT UNDER OUR GUIDANCE and created any/all excuse to pull every ******* boot on the ground out of the region. That didn't happen in Europe. That wasn't the plan in Korea or Japan.

People say the Arab people are "different". That they are barbaric and can't relate to democracy. I say that's crazy. No two cultures were more different than Western Culture and Japan and yet we built Japan up, invested in them. Force democratic change and they practically revolutionized manufacturing for three decades.

But it will take that type of commitment. From both the left and the right and from the masses of our society. Someone strong-willed has to sell the American people that our PERMANENT military presence in the Middle East is a necessity toward democracy building in the region. That we need to disarm those cultures at first, but have their back completely and utterly in the event of any/all aggression.

This idea we can withdraw and arm them so they can protect themselves is the worst foreign policy "idea" I've ever heard. All that's going to happen in the strong (bullies) will come in, take the weapons we provide and use them to establish dictatorial control (and in the case of Muslim nations, dictatorial also means religious control).

That is what we are up against. There are no "friends". There is no one to "trust". WE have to force the right thing and not be so afraid of being politically incorrect that we can't even say what is right anymore. We all know Iraq's government is a ******* mess. It's racist. It's too religious. It's practically mini-Iran at this point (or will be if we leave for good). Instead of saying "this is wrong" we continue to hide behind some false ideology of "let them learn on their own" and it will be the downfall of the region into another 50 years of exactly what we've had the last 25.

Sharia Islamic Law is the communism of the 21st century. It is spreading. It is destructive. It condemns those that are ruled by it into poverty, despair, persecution, violence and control. It is not anti-Muslim saying these things. It is just a fact that Muslim either evolve, learn and understand or they stagnate and rebel and become this country's enemy. Those are the choices they should face.

Sharia Law is fundamental to the religion of Islam. It is God's Law, and should dominate all other forms of law and government, as taught by Islam. To rid the world of Sharia, would be ridding the world of Islam. you cannot have one without the other. Welcome to the 7th century.

You may have forgotten, Muslims are the newest victim class, and are to be protected and deferred to. You can thank our President, and his lefty friends for that. Get used to the term....Dhimmi.

 

[deljzc]

Sharia Law is fundamental to the religion of Islam. It is God's Law, and should dominate all other forms of law and government, as taught by Islam. To rid the world of Sharia, would be ridding the world of Islam. you cannot have one without the other. Welcome to the 7th century.

You may have forgotten, Muslims are the newest victim class, and are to be protected and deferred to. You can thank our President, and his lefty friends for that. Get used to the term....Dhimmi.

Sharia Law doesn't have to be fundamental to Islam. It CAN and SHOULD be modernized. Other religions do it (not enough in my opinion). Even our Constitution has gone through "modernization" (to the dislike of some). Any religion that thinks books written 2000 years ago are to be take so literally that no common sense interpretation to the "Now" needs to exist is stupid.

Sharia isn't Islam when it becomes a government. That's where we need to draw the line. You want to hide behind religious freedom to persecute and segregate your population? Then you get treated like that type of government diplomatically and militarily when necessary.

That's the difference. We can't be afraid to criticise Sharia like we criticized communism, dictatorships, fascism or monarchies (in fact, I would argue Sharia extremism is much closer to fascism than anything else). Just because it hides itself as a religion, doesn't mean it can't be criticised as a legal, political system.

And again, this should be our nation's foreign policy against Saudi Arabia, Iran, Egypt, Jordan and whoever else tries to do it. We will let you get only so close before we should diplomatically demand changes for the better. And we should have no issues in striking hard and striking decisively against Sharia governments that use "religious freedom" as a method to aid-and-abet criminal, terror activities against western democracies.

Strict Sharia Law is a backwards, dark ages interpretation of Islam that should be rooted out and condemned like snake charmers, witch killers, the KKK and neo-nazis. We don't feel guilty saying Neo-Nazism is wrong. We don't feel guilty saying dictatorships or communism is wrong or flawed. We shouldn't feel guilty saying backwards, strict interpretation of Sharia law and its use as a tool or basis of government/law is wrong too. It is not bigoted or racist to say these things.

 

[hamster]

Sharia Law doesn't have to be fundamental to Islam. It CAN and SHOULD be modernized. Other religions do it (not enough in my opinion). Even our Constitution has gone through "modernization" (to the dislike of some). Any religion that thinks books written 2000 years ago are to be take so literally that no common sense interpretation to the "Now" needs to exist is stupid.

Sharia isn't Islam when it becomes a government. That's where we need to draw the line. You want to hide behind religious freedom to persecute and segregate your population? Then you get treated like that type of government diplomatically and militarily when necessary.

That's the difference. We can't be afraid to criticise Sharia like we criticized communism, dictatorships, fascism or monarchies (in fact, I would argue Sharia extremism is much closer to fascism than anything else). Just because it hides itself as a religion, doesn't mean it can't be criticised as a legal, political system.

And again, this should be our nation's foreign policy against Saudi Arabia, Iran, Egypt, Jordan and whoever else tries to do it. We will let you get only so close before we should diplomatically demand changes for the better. And we should have no issues in striking hard and striking decisively against Sharia governments that use "religious freedom" as a method to aid-and-abet criminal, terror activities against western democracies.

Strict Sharia Law is a backwards, dark ages interpretation of Islam that should be rooted out and condemned like snake charmers, witch killers, the KKK and neo-nazis. We don't feel guilty saying Neo-Nazism is wrong. We don't feel guilty saying dictatorships or communism is wrong or flawed. We shouldn't feel guilty saying backwards, strict interpretation of Sharia law and its use as a tool or basis of government/law is wrong too. It is not bigoted or racist to say these things.

You. ..preacher.
Me.....choir.

 

[Rod Farva]

Sharia Law doesn't have to be fundamental to Islam. It CAN and SHOULD be modernized. Other religions do it (not enough in my opinion). Even our Constitution has gone through "modernization" (to the dislike of some). Any religion that thinks books written 2000 years ago are to be take so literally that no common sense interpretation to the "Now" needs to exist is stupid.

Sharia isn't Islam when it becomes a government. That's where we need to draw the line. You want to hide behind religious freedom to persecute and segregate your population? Then you get treated like that type of government diplomatically and militarily when necessary.

That's the difference. We can't be afraid to criticise Sharia like we criticized communism, dictatorships, fascism or monarchies (in fact, I would argue Sharia extremism is much closer to fascism than anything else). Just because it hides itself as a religion, doesn't mean it can't be criticised as a legal, political system.

And again, this should be our nation's foreign policy against Saudi Arabia, Iran, Egypt, Jordan and whoever else tries to do it. We will let you get only so close before we should diplomatically demand changes for the better. And we should have no issues in striking hard and striking decisively against Sharia governments that use "religious freedom" as a method to aid-and-abet criminal, terror activities against western democracies.

Strict Sharia Law is a backwards, dark ages interpretation of Islam that should be rooted out and condemned like snake charmers, witch killers, the KKK and neo-nazis. We don't feel guilty saying Neo-Nazism is wrong. We don't feel guilty saying dictatorships or communism is wrong or flawed. We shouldn't feel guilty saying backwards, strict interpretation of Sharia law and its use as a tool or basis of government/law is wrong too. It is not bigoted or racist to say these things.

The problem with what you're saying is that you refer to sharia LAW as if it is something that, if modernized, should be tolerated as part of islam. We can NOT tolerate any other law than our own. Those who wish to practice islam are free to do so but they MUST submit to US laws, therefore islam and America can never be sympatico.