So Obama repeatedly says no boots on the ground until...

a reply to: BrokedownChevy

So the article I read said 50 commandos to target the regime (assuming Assad, Russian backed at the moment). Makes you wonder if now that we saw we could share the air space with no conflict, maybe we're disappointed. Almost like we're trying to have a slip up with Russia. They wanna tackle Syria and Iraq I say go for it. Less debt my taxes will have to pay after fifteen years of endless war.

Let me sum this up..

Pick a given day over the past 7 years and Obama says the sky is blue.
The weather changes and things get cloudy.
So now he says the sky is grey and people want to rave about the evil of the US because he is no longer saying the sky is blue.

It's not like every country doesnt change their strategy based on developing scenarios.

The real world doesnt happen in these neat little sequential timelines that the Obama is the devil crowd seem to think it does.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: Cygnis

Anytime people with jobs protest it gets things done.

Not many pay attention to jobless people in the streets.

And in the current job market, those with jobs are too busy to have much time for anything else.

Those with jobs are more interested in keeping their heads down too, so they don't loose their job.

Two-thirds of the workers are only 1 or 2 paychecks away from being homeless. (info provided for this comment upon request).

It would take a critical mass to get people to throw away what has been ingrained in them from the beginning. "Work hard, and you will get ahead".. In the current setting, I don't see it working out very well for the people like it used to.

Why are we involved in a sovereign nations civil war?

a reply to: DBCowboy

Haha good one man.

a reply to: BrokedownChevy

The president is nothing more than a mouth piece. He does what he's told, more or less. Blame the people who don't leave DC every 4-8 years and continue to grind the gears of war no matter who is in the oval office whether it be a democrat or republican.

All politicians lie. There are a few good ones in the bunch but they are powerless against the corrupt collective.

originally posted by: Cygnis

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: Cygnis

Anytime people with jobs protest it gets things done.

Not many pay attention to jobless people in the streets.

And in the current job market, those with jobs are too busy to have much time for anything else.

Those with jobs are more interested in keeping their heads down too, so they don't loose their job.

Two-thirds of the workers are only 1 or 2 paychecks away from being homeless. (info provided for this comment upon request).

It would take a critical mass to get people to throw away what has been ingrained in them from the beginning. "Work hard, and you will get ahead".. In the current setting, I don't see it working out very well for the people like it used to.

Agreed

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969
So Americans where mad when troops where in irak, he takes them out, people get mad.

Americans didint want boots in syria so he didint send any, americans start calling him weak, then he sends in the troops.

Dont change people, its comedy hour at its best.

Obama does take credit for pulling troops out of Iraq but it was Bush who took them out. We should have never been in Iraq to begin with.

People say all types of things. Those that called him weak always did and those that supported him will always say the opposite so I don't know who all these people you speak of are. Unless, your source is the MSN which we know is full of poop and always gets the fear train rolling.

a reply to: Swills

When pushed repeatedly about the Iran deal, in an effort to look bad ass Obama bragged about bombing several countries. The only change he's brought as far as foreign policy is a different face on the TV talking about it now.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Typical politician, taking credit for everything and anything. We're still bombing the Middle East right now as you read this post brought to you by drones, who seem to do a really good job killing civilians. Drones started under Bush, grew exponentially under Obama, and will continue to grow under the next guy. And this is all because the same agenda will always be on going.

I compare politics to the WWE. Behinds the scenes, when the cameras are off, they all continue to work on an agenda. The agenda is clear but never broadcasted to the public. Lies, disinformation, and fear is what they give us instead.

a reply to: Swills

Yea and interest only lies in countries with resources that political donors want. Civil War has been happening in a lot of Africa for some time but we don't take much of an interest to them.

This may not be the best idea.

Russia wants to prop up assad and the usa wants him to go.

Now both have assets in his country.

It just shows that the list of presidents that the nwo wanted to remove will be fulfilled at any cost even if it means using a president that was elected to do exactly opposite of this.

a reply to: Drinking I thought The United States needed congressional approval to send troops to war, or is this more Nato shenanigans?

a reply to: opethPA

President Obama had a super majority in Congress when elected.....why did he not close Gitmo???
He promised to do it in his first 100 days....so do words matter or not?

-Christosterone

Of course the right wing propaganda machine would never take Obama's words out of context. At the time he made the statement he was referring to removing Assad.

This is a deeply concerning development and one that puts the USA on a direct course for confrontation with Russia on Syrian soil.

There is absolutely no need for this to happen but after failing spectacular fashion to achieve any results the USA is yet again acting like a spoiled brat because Russia has decided to step in and take some action.

As I have said all along, the USA does not own the sovereign territory of Syria and Russia was invited by the current and still in power government of the nation to help end the war. Which is what it is intending to do. America on the other hand is only interested in regime change at any cost......

originally posted by: kenzohattori69
a reply to: Drinking I thought The United States needed congressional approval to send troops to war, or is this more Nato shenanigans?

ditto

They just manipulate the system just like they do on every other decision.

They learned long ago that if they talk in circles then everyone will get dizzy and ignore them.

a reply to: markosity1973

This is a deeply concerning development and one that puts the USA on a direct course for confrontation with Russia on Syrian soil.

That's true. 50 special ops forces will be "advising" the Syrian rebels on paper. But in reality their job will be to undermine the Russian efforts including shooting down a plane or two of the RuAF, even using the Soviet ManPads that rebels are supposed to have. Stringers are not officially in the ring yet, alteast officially.

As soon as these Spec Ops land in Syria the battle behind the scenes between US and Russian spec ops begins. The side taking the losses will press on with furthering the numbers of men and machines.

If US spec ops are killed as a result of RuAF bombing then we are talking some mess on the menu.

originally posted by: victor7
a reply to: markosity1973

This is a deeply concerning development and one that puts the USA on a direct course for confrontation with Russia on Syrian soil.

If US spec ops are killed as a result of RuAF bombing then we are talking some mess on the menu.

Probably the point, they're trying to help and we're trying to war monger.

The US isn't leaving the mid east any time in the next few decades. Hawks in Congress are pushing fear of ISIS and every one else to keep the war machine running for 'US defense'. 600 billion a year for the military and rising.

The majority seem to be buying into it.