• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Are Republicans for or against sending US ground troops back to Iraq and also Syria?

theeedude

theeedude

Lifer
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/republicans-still-want-more-from-obama-on-isis/

"There is no way in hell you can form an army on the ground to go into Syria, to destroy ISIL without a substantial American component. And to destroy ISIL, you have to kill or capture their leaders, take the territory they hold back, cut off their financing and destroy their capability to regenerate. This is a war we're fighting, it is not a counterterrorism operation," said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, on "Fox News Sunday. "Our strategy will fail yet again. This president needs to rise to the occasion before we all get killed back here at home."

Graham said be "disingenuous and delusional" to pretend that American air power will suffice, and he suggested that American special forces would ultimately need to be sent in to "dig these guys out."
Click to expand...

Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, suggested on CBS' "Face the Nation" that it was "unwise" of the Secretary of State John Kerry to say the U.S. was not asking other countries in the region to commit ground troops. He also said the U.S. would eventually need "advisers and special forces" to guide an air campaign in Syria.
Click to expand...

Seems kind of crazy that they want to send US ground troops back into that mess we just extricated ourselves from.
 
DominionSeraph said:
As long as there's a black man in the Oval Office, Republicans aren't for anything except getting him out.
Click to expand...

Whatever Obama is for, they're against. So he should claim he wants the exact opposite of what he really wants, then reluctantly give in to their demands.
 
Its quite the conundrum. They want to appear to be pro-war buy they don't want Obama to succeed either.
 
Our peace prize warmonger is now using ISIS as an excuse to bomb the Syrian military / government. Apparently Obama didn't take "no" for an answer when Putin squashed his "red line" war last year. Obama is still determined to hand Syrian WMDs over to terrorists.

P.S. we're threatening action, it hasn't happened yet.
 
Last edited:
Matt1970 said:
Still playing that race card I see.
Click to expand...

Card? They have their whole F-ing race card deck to still go thru.
And no doubt, a marked deck at that.

Me thinkist little Lindsey has his own personal issues to address, before getting into an area he knows squat about.
 
Republicans are anti-Obama, and thus their position on Iraq and Syria is the polar opposite of whatever Obama's position happens to be.
 
her209 said:
Its quite the conundrum. They want to appear to be pro-war but they don't want Obama to succeed either.
Click to expand...

It's almost as fun to watch as it was to watch the wrangling of Fox News post- Gulf spill as they continued to have to spin for BP even after their viewers had turned against them.

It's the only time Fox News doesn't pander to their viewers biases. Big Business ALWAYS takes precedence.

Kadarin said:
Republicans are anti-Obama, and thus their position on Iraq and Syria is the polar opposite of whatever Obama's position happens to be.
Click to expand...

Position? Oh no, they don't limit themselves to one opposing position! They take them all!
Obama will of course be too hasty while taking too long, he'll be picking the wrong allies while not enough of the "right" ones and if he gets them he'll have sacrificed too much to get them when he should be like Putin but there's no way we should be doing this all on our own! We should of course be limiting our involvement, while any limit will be foolishly jeopardizing the mission but that's what you get when you have a President with no military experience!
 
Last edited:
Jhhnn said:
Explain how Syrian air defense missiles keep WMD's out of the hands of terrorists.

I'm curious how that works.
Click to expand...

Are you ignorant of what our administration has promised to do in Syria?

We're going to arm the "good" terrorists. The ones fighting to kill Assad. We'll be escalating our support for them more than we already have. This is life or death for the Syrian government, the best thing they can do is defend themselves by attacking us - and draw in both our retaliation and then Russia's pact.

Remember what Obama swore to do last year on his "red line" march to war. Nothing has changed, he still wants Assad's head on a platter. This is his excuse to officially do it. If we topple Syria, their chemical weapons will be up for grabs. In a last act of vengeance it would make perfect sense for Assad to give them to ISIS.

Obama is poised to do something horrible here.
 
Jaskalas said:
Our peace prize warmonger is now using ISIS as an excuse to bomb the Syrian military / government. Apparently Obama didn't take "no" for an answer when Putin squashed his "red line" war last year. Obama is still determined to hand Syrian WMDs over to terrorists.
Click to expand...
just wow......did Obama crap in your Cherrio`s?
 
So Lindsey has the same level of access to top secret intel, confidential communications with other world leaders and all the other data that the president uses to make life giving/taking decisions wrt defeating the Islamic State?

If not, which I think is more than likely, then how can he shoot his mouth off with such inflammatory fear mongering commentary without the knowledge that is needed to make an informed and reasoned decision on whether to send troops back into the meat grinder, when to send them, how many to send, what types to send?

And lest we forget, before he utters another hissy fit for sending in troops to die for his ideologically inspired agenda, I'd like to hear what kind of exit strategy he has all planned and figured out. You know, like the one Bush and Cheney didn't have when these two high-powered profiteering businessmen sent in our beloved brothers, sisters, husbands and wives to get rid of those WMD's, those centrifuge pipes to be used for developing nuclear weapons, those multitudes of al Qaeda terrorists that Saddam was playing host to and all of those other ghosts and boogymen that these two idiots dreamed up to get us in the "right mood".
 
I realize that "hate the Republicans" is strong here, but what is suggested is something Obama cannot afford to rule out and indeed has has used, or do you people think Bin Laden was spirited away by a drone? Note that "rule out" isn't "use". Another thing is that once we go down this road there is nothing that is off the table, and I guarantee that you folks may be here in a year justifying a land war with "well the Republicans wanted this" and "he had no choice". The sole difference right now is how Obama and the Republicans in the article are selling this action.
 
I say we stick to limited air support to protect the Kurds only. As much as I hate to see innocent people die, for the future of the others, the Middle East needs to resolve their own civil war. I say civil war because really this is just a gigantic Sunni and Shi'a conflict; they're all Arabs. If we go in and wipe the floor clean, another hate group will rise to fill the place of ISIS. If the Middle East resolves their own problems and learns that these groups are unacceptable, then they'll be squashed at the tribal level before they even have a chance to get off the ground.

People forget that part of the price Americans paid for our freedom included a very terrible and destructive civil war. That's the perspective we have. We don't want to go through that again. But other parts of the world haven't learned that yet. Despite their hatred towards us, every Middle Eastern country is expecting the United States to waltz in and resolve their problems. Do you see Saudi Arabia mobilizing to handle save their Arab brethren from ISIS? What's Jordan doing? Of course Iran and Turkey are going to stand on the sidelines, because they're not stupid. They're also not predominantly Arab.

Eventually they'll realize that this sectarian violence isn't worth it anymore. It's too bad they had to bring an actual demon in the midst to realize it.
 
tweaker2 said:
So Lindsey has the same level of access to top secret intel, confidential communications with other world leaders and all the other data that the president uses to make life giving/taking decisions wrt defeating the Islamic State?
Click to expand...
You do know that he serves on the Armed Services Committee? I'm thinking not.
 
And the first 'sane post of the thread' award goes to.....

Hayabusa Rider said:
I realize that "hate the Republicans" is strong here, but what is suggested is something Obama cannot afford to rule out and indeed has has used, or do you people think Bin Laden was spirited away by a drone? Note that "rule out" isn't "use". Another thing is that once we go down this road there is nothing that is off the table, and I guarantee that you folks may be here in a year justifying a land war with "well the Republicans wanted this" and "he had no choice". The sole difference right now is how Obama and the Republicans in the article are selling this action.
Click to expand...

This guy!!! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I love waking up to a good liberal circle-jerk thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top