RE: A Dilemna For Obama

RE: A Dilemna For Obama (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Kana -> RE: A Dilemna For Obama (6/15/2013 7:25:27 AM)
Yeah, no ground based/inside knowledge whatsoever outside of, well, history, but I would be utterly shocked if we didn't have feet on the ground there somewhere. "Observers," or some such thing

mnottertail -> RE: A Dilemna For Obama (6/15/2013 7:31:14 AM)
How long would those troops have been there? Less than 30 days total, ever. If they are there, but they are not, and here is why? Teabaggers in the house doing a hush hush on it? Not happening. We are amassing troops in Turkey, our NATO partner, we have them in Afghanistan (and I bet we got weapons there too). So......Since Putin and Obama are gonna meet soon regarding Syria, and Afghanistan, I think events will explain themselves...cuz it is gonna be pretty plain what will be said.

SilverMark -> RE: A Dilemna For Obama (6/15/2013 7:58:25 AM)
Des, the 300 number comes from news articles from April, and I was wrong, it was only 200. So no, there is proof of my mis-statement, but no proof of American Soldiers within the borders of Syria. Unfortunately, with this pc cut and paste is not co-operating. but it was widely reported on April 18, 2013, you can take a look if you wish, but I have participated in the discussion on another board elsewhere, with that deployment being the topic.

mnottertail -> RE: A Dilemna For Obama (6/15/2013 8:10:00 AM)
Again, the troops on the ground triggers a war powers act..well, act.........even when the war powers act is not triggered, the teabaggers down there are making noise from day one, the very fact they are not (and hipshooter was there, he would know if there are troops there) says definitively and dismissively THERE ARE NO TROOPS IN SYRIA. END OF FUCKING JOKE.

DesideriScuri -> RE: A Dilemna For Obama (6/15/2013 8:15:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SilverMark Des, the 300 number comes from news articles from April, and I was wrong, it was only 200. So no, there is proof of my mis-statement, but no proof of American Soldiers within the borders of Syria. Unfortunately, with this pc cut and paste is not co-operating. but it was widely reported on April 18, 2013, you can take a look if you wish, but I have participated in the discussion on another board elsewhere, with that deployment being the topic. Mark, I'm not questioning your reported number. And, yes, that really is all we have to go on, until that time when "leaked" intel comes out. My point, however, is that you are completely dismissing the "unreported" troops. Obviously, we have no proof that they are there, and Michael may not have any "proof" he's allowed to give, either.

mnottertail -> RE: A Dilemna For Obama (6/15/2013 8:16:48 AM)
There are no troops in Syria.

vincentML -> RE: A Dilemna For Obama (6/15/2013 8:17:28 AM)
quote: Yes, I know war is different than military aid but I also know that we already have a few boots on the ground in Syria. Are we headed for more? Is Assad a "imminent and direct threat to the United States"? Assad is no threat to us. We see in Syria a sectarian struggle in which we have no dog. Hopefully, the president will tread carefully on that slippery slope. He will unlikely satisfy the warhawks (McCain) or the humanitarian interventionists (Clinton) Realistically, he is more likely to do just enough to grudgingly satisfy our Sunni oil partners (Saudis and Emerites) frustrate our Shia antagonist (Iran) and reassure the American people we will not endanger the lives of our own young people. Hopefully. Why the French and British continue to poke around in their old colonies is not understood by me.

vincentML -> RE: A Dilemna For Obama (6/15/2013 8:20:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SilverMark Des, the 300 number comes from news articles from April, and I was wrong, it was only 200. So no, there is proof of my mis-statement, but no proof of American Soldiers within the borders of Syria. Unfortunately, with this pc cut and paste is not co-operating. but it was widely reported on April 18, 2013, you can take a look if you wish, but I have participated in the discussion on another board elsewhere, with that deployment being the topic. In today's news there are reports of US troops engaging in training and 'war games' inside Jordan near the Syrian border. Not sure where I saw that and not sure how truthful the report.

mnottertail -> RE: A Dilemna For Obama (6/15/2013 8:25:24 AM)
There have been reports of troops in Jordan from several sources over the last couple weeks. Jordan is a NATO ally but not a member. We have treated Jordan rather shabbily over the years, btw.

SilverMark -> RE: A Dilemna For Obama (6/15/2013 8:31:01 AM)
There are indeed war games, but those are temporary, not stationed troops. War games are a great way to sabre rattle under the auspices of the host government, and they seem to always be scheduled around the time we have issues with a government, IE North Korea, now Syria. In May when the North Korean Moron was threatening the US and South Korea we did the same thing, much as we often do with Naval maneuvers in the Persian Gulf when Ahmadinejad's rhetoric gets too verbose or threatening.

mnottertail -> RE: A Dilemna For Obama (6/15/2013 8:33:22 AM)
We have troops to the North of Syria in Turkey, and troops to the West in Jordan, for quick moves, and don't forget Afghanistan where we could pull equipment and troops on a quick timeline. Yeah, we are some bully motherfuckers. We got em surrounded.

SilverMark -> RE: A Dilemna For Obama (6/15/2013 8:46:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: SilverMark Des, the 300 number comes from news articles from April, and I was wrong, it was only 200. So no, there is proof of my mis-statement, but no proof of American Soldiers within the borders of Syria. Unfortunately, with this pc cut and paste is not co-operating. but it was widely reported on April 18, 2013, you can take a look if you wish, but I have participated in the discussion on another board elsewhere, with that deployment being the topic. Mark, I'm not questioning your reported number. And, yes, that really is all we have to go on, until that time when "leaked" intel comes out. My point, however, is that you are completely dismissing the "unreported" troops. Obviously, we have no proof that they are there, and Michael may not have any "proof" he's allowed to give, either. Des, that is IF there is intel leaked and IF it's true, so therefore a declarative statement is still incorrect, and reeks of nothing more than baseless conspiracy rhetoric. Unreported troops would mean that somehow Congress is aware of those troops and not a single member leaked the information. We as a country don't normally deploy combat troops without Congressional input, we learned that lesson a long time ago, hence the war powers act. Now, perhaps there are operatives within Syria, but we do not have a good track record of infiltration within the rather closed Arab countries. Not to mention we would be able to see John McCain's hard on from throughout the United States! No one wants to go there any more than the old Maverick himself!

dcnovice -> RE: A Dilemna For Obama (6/15/2013 9:00:19 AM)
quote: Why the French and British continue to poke around in their old colonies is not understood by me. Guilt maybe?

mnottertail -> RE: A Dilemna For Obama (6/15/2013 9:00:19 AM)
http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/europe/305649-obama-to-press-putin-on-syria-when-they-meet-monday and probably a little more. I wouldnt think that Putin would go to war over Syria. They do have a naval base there. I expect there will be gauging about what Russia will do, but my bets is if it is made into a NATO beef, Russia wont want to go to war against all those countries and their allies. not a very big 'dilemna' in my estimation.

SpanishMatMaster -> RE: A Dilemna For Obama (6/15/2013 11:24:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr I know for a FACT that we have... And still no proof. I see.

TheHeretic -> RE: A Dilemna For Obama (6/15/2013 6:55:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster And still no proof. I see. At least not from sources he's willing to compromise for the sake of internet snarky-type jabs. We have been monitoring things in a civil war, and providing aid. We have been talking about, and planning for the possibility of, arming rebels in that civil war. Of course we have military members in there. Surely not in uniform, and most likely nowhere too close to the direct fighting, but it is far more ignorant to assume we don't, than to recognize the realities. Again, we should send a stern note here and there, make the right noises at the UN when appropriate, and stay the fuck out of it. Others are far more invested in Assad staying, than we are in seeing him come down.

DesideriScuri -> RE: A Dilemna For Obama (6/15/2013 8:43:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SilverMark quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: SilverMark Des, the 300 number comes from news articles from April, and I was wrong, it was only 200. So no, there is proof of my mis-statement, but no proof of American Soldiers within the borders of Syria. Unfortunately, with this pc cut and paste is not co-operating. but it was widely reported on April 18, 2013, you can take a look if you wish, but I have participated in the discussion on another board elsewhere, with that deployment being the topic. Mark, I'm not questioning your reported number. And, yes, that really is all we have to go on, until that time when "leaked" intel comes out. My point, however, is that you are completely dismissing the "unreported" troops. Obviously, we have no proof that they are there, and Michael may not have any "proof" he's allowed to give, either. Des, that is IF there is intel leaked and IF it's true, so therefore a declarative statement is still incorrect, and reeks of nothing more than baseless conspiracy rhetoric. Unreported troops would mean that somehow Congress is aware of those troops and not a single member leaked the information. We as a country don't normally deploy combat troops without Congressional input, we learned that lesson a long time ago, hence the war powers act. Now, perhaps there are operatives within Syria, but we do not have a good track record of infiltration within the rather closed Arab countries. Not to mention we would be able to see John McCain's hard on from throughout the United States! No one wants to go there any more than the old Maverick himself! So, you agree that there may be unreported troops in Syria. Thanks for that. I harbor no ill will towards McCain, nor do I hold any belief that there is enough Viagra in the world for him...

cloudboy -> RE: A Dilemna For Obama (6/15/2013 8:45:14 PM)
Maybe we should look to Sarah Palin for foreign policy guidance or how about Dick Chaney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Co? This is a bit off the subject, but it defies all logic how Conservatives shake into seizures over Libya after the debacles they started in Afghanistan and IRAQ.

SilverMark -> RE: A Dilemna For Obama (6/15/2013 8:54:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: SilverMark quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: SilverMark Des, the 300 number comes from news articles from April, and I was wrong, it was only 200. So no, there is proof of my mis-statement, but no proof of American Soldiers within the borders of Syria. Unfortunately, with this pc cut and paste is not co-operating. but it was widely reported on April 18, 2013, you can take a look if you wish, but I have participated in the discussion on another board elsewhere, with that deployment being the topic. Mark, I'm not questioning your reported number. And, yes, that really is all we have to go on, until that time when "leaked" intel comes out. My point, however, is that you are completely dismissing the "unreported" troops. Obviously, we have no proof that they are there, and Michael may not have any "proof" he's allowed to give, either. Des, that is IF there is intel leaked and IF it's true, so therefore a declarative statement is still incorrect, and reeks of nothing more than baseless conspiracy rhetoric. Unreported troops would mean that somehow Congress is aware of those troops and not a single member leaked the information. We as a country don't normally deploy combat troops without Congressional input, we learned that lesson a long time ago, hence the war powers act. Now, perhaps there are operatives within Syria, but we do not have a good track record of infiltration within the rather closed Arab countries. Not to mention we would be able to see John McCain's hard on from throughout the United States! No one wants to go there any more than the old Maverick himself! So, you agree that there may be unreported troops in Syria. Thanks for that. I harbor no ill will towards McCain, nor do I hold any belief that there is enough Viagra in the world for him... No, but we could possibly agree to the definition of IF, after that we agree on nothing on this subject. I bet Ol' John has enough Viagra, for a short old guy, he has a great looking wife!

SpanishMatMaster -> RE: A Dilemna For Obama (6/15/2013 9:01:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic Of course we have military members in there. And you also can provide no proof, correct? Because this is what I was asking all the time. Proof which can be provided here. Everybody can say or suggest that he has secret knowledge. And the first time I asked I did not get a "I cannot say" but an absurd argument ("we have troops in every problematic region, therefore we must have troops there"). But all this is besides the point. I could suggest that I have proof that there are no US troops in Syria. But everything I am asking is, if any of you can provide any proof of what you are saying. And you cannot. That's the point. Period. Thank you.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875