Also, again with the hair splitting. In what universe is "boots on the ground" not a ground war?

Posted by bad_luck on 9/5/2014 11:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 9/5/2014 10:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 9/5/2014 9:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 9/5/2014 9:10:00 PM (view original):
Please quote the post where I suggested that "we engage in a ground war that will cost us hundreds or thousands of people".

I'll wait here while you look for it.

You suggested a ground war. I guess in your world no one dies in those.

Quote the post where I suggested a "ground war".

Here's a clue . . . I didn't.  "Ground war" was your (mis)interpretation, not mine.

I said "boots on the ground".  I later clarified that as special forces, with surgical air strikes.

Somehow, you turned that into "a ground war that will cost us hundreds or thousands of people".

So you want what we're already doing? What are you complaining about? You and Obama agree.

I know, right? Nothing quite like railing against Obama's foreign policy only to find out you support it. Hell, at least bistiza knew what side he was arguing.

Posted by bad_luck on 9/5/2014 11:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 9/5/2014 10:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 9/5/2014 9:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 9/5/2014 9:10:00 PM (view original):
Please quote the post where I suggested that "we engage in a ground war that will cost us hundreds or thousands of people".

I'll wait here while you look for it.

You suggested a ground war. I guess in your world no one dies in those.

Quote the post where I suggested a "ground war".

Here's a clue . . . I didn't.  "Ground war" was your (mis)interpretation, not mine.

I said "boots on the ground".  I later clarified that as special forces, with surgical air strikes.

Somehow, you turned that into "a ground war that will cost us hundreds or thousands of people".

So you want what we're already doing? What are you complaining about? You and Obama agree.

So we have forces on the ground in Iraq and Syria right now specifically going after ISIS and killing them?

Have you been authorized by the Obama administration to release that kind of information?

Posted by mchalesarmy on 9/6/2014 4:32:00 AM (view original):
Just a few points reacting to comments already made:

The US has ALWAYS been a target of these groups, even before we were "involved so heavily in the Middle East". The reason is because we have, historically at least, been a very strong ally of Israel. The vast majority (if not all) Muslim extremists have a very narrow end game, which is gain power, establish a caliphate, and rid the Earth of the Jewish race. Period. 

That is a VERY unstable part of the world and a new democracy in its infancy cannot be expected to handle all the terrorists alone. Anybody with any sense knew this is exactly what would happen if we pulled out so prematurely. The fact that anyone is surprised is laughable. Especially considering the announcement of the exact timing of our final withdrawal. It is nothing more than common sense, awareness of the enemy and knowledge of history.

The biggest problem with the Iraq war was that we half-assed it. We wanted to limit the amount of boots we put there and kept increasing the amount little by little and it dragged on and on. The war mongers PREFER a long and drawn out war. The defense contractors make tons more money if you can drag it out for 10 + years. Realistically we could have gone in there strong and accomplished what we did in 20% of the time or less.

Finally , bad_luck asked: Do you really believe that we could go into the middle east and sort out the tribal and religious battles that have been going on for 4000 years in a reasonable amount of time and miraculously void the area of the sentiment that leads to terror groups?

The definition of a "reasonable amount of time" is something no one will agree on. How long did we keep a military base in Germany after WWII?
I don't think the goal was to "sort out" anything or "miraculously blah blah blah", but rather use our military presence to allow democracy to take root. (Kind of like having a teacher outside watching the kids at recess. The bullies are less apt to punch anyone in the face while the teacher is out there) We did not do that. Obama couldn't pull the troops out fast enough. AWESOME IDEA!

Well said.

The one missing point here is that all of this could have been avoided if GWB had not decided to go into Iraq in the first place.  Hussein was a brutal dictator, but he posed no harm to the US.  The disastrous decision to invade Iraq, remove Hussein, and create a clusterfuck of a situation in that country diverted focus from finishing the job correctly in Afghanistan and eradicating al-Qaeda and getting Bin Laden a lot sooner than we did.  Obama's doubling down on bad decisions by a mishandled and premature withdrawal to pander to his electorate left that country ripe for what we're dealing with today.

Bush lied people died

Posted by tecwrg on 9/6/2014 7:35:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 9/5/2014 11:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 9/5/2014 10:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 9/5/2014 9:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 9/5/2014 9:10:00 PM (view original):
Please quote the post where I suggested that "we engage in a ground war that will cost us hundreds or thousands of people".

I'll wait here while you look for it.

You suggested a ground war. I guess in your world no one dies in those.

Quote the post where I suggested a "ground war".

Here's a clue . . . I didn't.  "Ground war" was your (mis)interpretation, not mine.

I said "boots on the ground".  I later clarified that as special forces, with surgical air strikes.

Somehow, you turned that into "a ground war that will cost us hundreds or thousands of people".

So you want what we're already doing? What are you complaining about? You and Obama agree.

So we have forces on the ground in Iraq and Syria right now specifically going after ISIS and killing them?

Have you been authorized by the Obama administration to release that kind of information?

You don't think we have special forces already there?

Do you know for a fact that we do?  If so, how are they doing?

We often hear something about successful missions after they've been carried out.  I haven't heard of any yet.

Do you know for a fact that we don't?

I wouldn't expect that info to be public until after the fact.

Posted by bad_luck on 9/6/2014 1:38:00 PM (view original):
Do you know for a fact that we don't?

I wouldn't expect that info to be public until after the fact.

SHUT UP!

We had 10,000 plus air support and allies willing to stick their necks out and CRUSH any retarded goat fukers until Obama pulled them out to satisfy his stupid *** politics and idiot election promises and keep his retarded pop culture base in check. THAT'S  YOU!  Now we are paying for it.  And Europe.  And the Middle East.  Everybody is paying for the prom queen we told you wasn't ready for prime time.  Never held a job. Never made a payroll.  A book smart who read the wrong books and got the wrong smart. Some guy with a blank slate you and the lame stream media filled in with pure junk you pulled out of your *****. The teleprompter failure allowing the world to slip into another dark age instead a the leader we promised our children. It's all on you. You got your way. So SHUT UP!

Posted by tecwrg on 9/6/2014 7:53:00 AM (view original):

Posted by mchalesarmy on 9/6/2014 4:32:00 AM (view original):
Just a few points reacting to comments already made:

The US has ALWAYS been a target of these groups, even before we were "involved so heavily in the Middle East". The reason is because we have, historically at least, been a very strong ally of Israel. The vast majority (if not all) Muslim extremists have a very narrow end game, which is gain power, establish a caliphate, and rid the Earth of the Jewish race. Period. 

That is a VERY unstable part of the world and a new democracy in its infancy cannot be expected to handle all the terrorists alone. Anybody with any sense knew this is exactly what would happen if we pulled out so prematurely. The fact that anyone is surprised is laughable. Especially considering the announcement of the exact timing of our final withdrawal. It is nothing more than common sense, awareness of the enemy and knowledge of history.

The biggest problem with the Iraq war was that we half-assed it. We wanted to limit the amount of boots we put there and kept increasing the amount little by little and it dragged on and on. The war mongers PREFER a long and drawn out war. The defense contractors make tons more money if you can drag it out for 10 + years. Realistically we could have gone in there strong and accomplished what we did in 20% of the time or less.

Finally , bad_luck asked: Do you really believe that we could go into the middle east and sort out the tribal and religious battles that have been going on for 4000 years in a reasonable amount of time and miraculously void the area of the sentiment that leads to terror groups?

The definition of a "reasonable amount of time" is something no one will agree on. How long did we keep a military base in Germany after WWII?
I don't think the goal was to "sort out" anything or "miraculously blah blah blah", but rather use our military presence to allow democracy to take root. (Kind of like having a teacher outside watching the kids at recess. The bullies are less apt to punch anyone in the face while the teacher is out there) We did not do that. Obama couldn't pull the troops out fast enough. AWESOME IDEA!

Well said.

The one missing point here is that all of this could have been avoided if GWB had not decided to go into Iraq in the first place.  Hussein was a brutal dictator, but he posed no harm to the US.  The disastrous decision to invade Iraq, remove Hussein, and create a clusterfuck of a situation in that country diverted focus from finishing the job correctly in Afghanistan and eradicating al-Qaeda and getting Bin Laden a lot sooner than we did.  Obama's doubling down on bad decisions by a mishandled and premature withdrawal to pander to his electorate left that country ripe for what we're dealing with today.

Finally, a somewhat sensible post from tec. But I'm stunned he acknowledged Dubya's role in this.

Why are you "stunned"?

Posted by bad_luck on 9/6/2014 1:38:00 PM (view original):
Do you know for a fact that we don't?

I wouldn't expect that info to be public until after the fact.

"We don't have a strategy yet" seems to be kind of a clue.

Posted by tecwrg on 9/6/2014 5:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 9/6/2014 1:38:00 PM (view original):
Do you know for a fact that we don't?

I wouldn't expect that info to be public until after the fact.

"We don't have a strategy yet" seems to be kind of a clue.

I don't think anyone has the answer to this problem but I'd be willing to bet just about anything that there are special forces soldiers in Iraq right now.

I asked before, do you not think that there are already special forces in Iraq?