Post-Saudi Arabia trip, Obama pledges more American troops to fight in Syria

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by aaronvan, Apr 25, 2016.

  1. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #1
    After insulting the United States by sending some local governor to greet Obama upon his arrival, it seems that King Salman read Obama the riot act over the Iran deal and reminded Obama who was boss. To appease the Saudis, Obama is sending more U.S. soldiers to fight in Syria and "keep up the momentum against ISIL." (As if there is any momentum).
     
  2. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #2
    And the neocon plan continues to hum along....
     
  3. Meister Suspended

    Meister

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2013
    #3
    If you want to stop them, vote Trump!
     
  4. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #4
    Every one of Trumps advisors is in the same camp. Don't be stupid. War for business.
     
  5. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #5
    we are sending in the troops for the children. not enough are dying at sea when they flee so Obama needs to bomb them at home.
    never ending war with stupid red lines is business for sure.
     
  6. thermodynamic Suspended

    thermodynamic

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #6
    Didn't know Trump wasn't a neoconservative. Do tell us more.

    If Trump backtracks, will you take his responsibility for him?
     
  7. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #7
    Yes, let's support the dolt who wants to torture and commit war crimes, go after terrorists families, carpet bomb the **** out of the ME and take their oil. Neocons masturbate to those thoughts.
     
  8. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #8
    Hillary masturbates at the thought?
    what does the M-E respect? dictators who hold them under the thumb. so yeah Trump might actually end things over there by not painting stupid red lines or by financing & arming the enemies like Obama has & hillary has supported.
     
  9. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #9
    Russian actions in Syria are at the behest of the Syrian government. Ours are not. We are functioning as invaders. Consider the words "illegal" and "unconstitutional". Regardless of the yap-yap against Assad, the purpose of our actions is to enable a natural gas pipeline through Syria from Qatar to Europe. Part of the NeoCon Wolfowitz Doctrine against Russia.

    Trump? He has publicly stated that he would work with Putin, not fight him. Cruz and Hillary do the macho-talk nonsense.
     
  10. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #10
    Obama & Hillary are war mongers :D
     
  11. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #11
    There are so many non sequiturs contained in one paragraph, I don't quite know where to begin.

    There is no indication whatsoever that the Saudis demanded, requested, or even hinted at the idea of the US sending additional troops. The New York Times reported on plans to increase the number of Special Operations advisers in Syria back on April 16 - more than a week prior to his visit to Saudi Arabia.

    Quite how the overall battle against ISIL is proceeding is difficult to say comprehensively. But at the very least, the amount of territory controlled by them has stopped expanding. Key villages and towns are being retaken by democratic rebels in Syria and by Iraqi government and other groups in Iraq. Key economic assets controlled by ISIL have been destroyed by targeted airstrikes. All this has been accomplished, might I add, at a remarkably small cost in US casualties.

    ISIL poses a serious threat to the security and prosperity of the entire world. The American people have a vocal "zero tolerance" attitude towards Islamic terrorism, and so we must take every reasonable step towards destroying the group, its leadership, and the toxic message it promulgates to disaffected young people in Europe and America.

    Would you do nothing about ISIL?

    Pacifism is all well and good. But when you have determined group of individuals, with access to considerable resources, using 21st century social media and electronic tools to recruit disaffected youth to commits acts of terror and outrage - it seems more than rational to use a tiny fraction of the capabilities of the United State military to combat them.
     
  12. aaronvan thread starter Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #12
    ISIS was a regional threat at best. The craven cowards in Brussels made it a threat to Europe. And ISIS is still not a direct threat to the United States.

    I wouldn't carry on Obama's endless and futile pinprick bombing/droning campaign. I might provide some air power to support a serious Arab-led effort to combat ISIS in Syria and Iraq.
     
  13. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #13
    You mean, like Hillary Clinton advocated when the Libyan people were fighting to overthrow Muamar Ghadaffi?
     
  14. aaronvan thread starter Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #14
    No. I'm thinking of a coalition of professional Arab armies who could put their boots on the ground (for once) and combat ISIS. I'm not talking about a unilateral air campaign to effect regime change on a sovereign nation.
     
  15. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #15
    But thats not what happened in Libya. The Libyan people themselves were changing the Gaddafi regime. And US efforts were only part of a multinational force, operating under the authority of UN Security Council Resolution 1973.

    This only happened five years ago. I hope you haven't let your obsessive hatred of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama cloud your memory.
     
  16. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #16
    oh please, we had to send freedom bombs there for the "people" to change things, funny how they fled becoming "Refugees" after Obama "Freed" them :rolleyes:
    http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49e485f36.html

    so who the hell did we "free" the Libyan people if they are fleeing Libya? didn't the Muslim brotherhood get "elected" there?
     
  17. aaronvan thread starter Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #17
    see below
     
  18. aaronvan thread starter Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #18
     
  19. DrewDaHilp1 macrumors 6502a

    DrewDaHilp1

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    All Your Memes Are Belong to US
    #19
    Sure. Let the Sauds pay for it and pay the troops on top of their regular pay.
     
  20. Jess13 Suspended

    Jess13

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2013
    #20
    You mean: when Islamists and jihadists, including al-Qaeda, were fighting to overthrow Qaddafi, and Obama, Hillary, with certain Nato partners provided those terrorists assistance and destroyed Libya.


    Clinton Emails on Libya Expose The Lie of ‘Humanitarian Intervention’

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-kovalik/clinton-emails-on-libya-e_b_9054182.html

    Thus, while Clinton was able to obtain passage of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973 - a resolution which authorized a no-fly zone to protect civilians - on March 17, 2011, those civilians that Clinton claimed needed most urgent protection (the civilians in the town of Benghazi) were relatively safe by this time. Thus, Hillary’s assistant, Huma Abedin, in an email (Doc No. C05778494) dated February 21, 2011 - that is, just a mere 4 days after the initial anti-government protests broke out in Libya — explains:​


    Killary’s War (Warning Graphic)



    Before Hillary lead the US charge to destroy Libya, it had: free healthcare, free college/university, free housing, many other free and
    subsidized programs and things that were beneficial to the Libyan people. And it was all financed through oil revenues (it truly was free). And fairly strong rights for women.

    Now al-Qaeda, ISIS and warring factions control the destroyed country. Obama and Hillary: war criminals.
     
  21. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #21
    Yeah, we supported that Libyan "revolution", all right. Net result? Beaucoup dead. Armaments to ISIS. Armaments to Al Qaeda. Armaments to Boko Haram. ISIS now in control of some Libyan territory. Refugees out the wazoo. More dead bodies.

    All hail the Administration and our NATO allies! What we need is more dead wogs! We come, we see, they die and die and die! Glory to Obama and Hillary!
     
  22. Meister Suspended

    Meister

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2013
    #22
    I'd never do that.
    I'd always plead insanity.
     
  23. Robisan macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2014
    #23
    Assertion pulled straight out of your ass with no supporting documentation.

    Also, too, correlation ≠ causation.
     
  24. Solomani macrumors 68030

    Solomani

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2012
    Location:
    Alberto, Canado
    #24
    Except that Trump would likely ignite 3x more wars than the current NeoCon-LiberoWarmonger establishment that has been in power since the Clinton/Bush era.

    Plus let's add another dozen "diplomatic wars" and "economic wars" that Trump promises to start with trade partners like Mexico and China.
     
  25. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #25
    I think we all understand by now the fact that the OP has a pathological hatred for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. I don't know why, but he does.

    Count me out of participating any further in threads like this. Its pointless.
     

Share This Page