US Forces....

Engage ISIS for first time in Iraq....."No boots on the ground" and no combat operations...cowh...

You heard it....no boots on the ground.

But more are being deployed to Iraq.

Joanimaroni wrote:

But more are being deployed to Iraq.

Anyone really surprised at more lies?.....

mediawatcher wrote:

Joanimaroni wrote:

But more are being deployed to Iraq.

     Anyone really surprised at more lies?.....

Oblamer already had the Lie of the Year - If you like your health insurance you can keep it. Even though he said that phrase numerous times ON THE RECORD he later claims that's not what he meant. Just like Syrias Red Line statement.

Same here, there was never any way to send troops somewhere and have them only in an "advisory" not combat capacity. Oblamer wouldn't know how to tell the truth if his miserable life depended on it.

nochain wrote:

mediawatcher wrote:

Joanimaroni wrote:

But more are being deployed to Iraq.

     Anyone really surprised at more lies?.....

Oblamer already had the Lie of the Year - If you like your health insurance you can keep it. Even though he said that phrase numerous times ON THE RECORD he later claims that's not what he meant. Just like Syrias Red Line statement.

Same here, there was never any way to send troops somewhere and have them only in an "advisory" not combat capacity. Oblamer wouldn't know how to tell the truth if his miserable life depended on it.

He and John Kerry are quite the comedic team!.... Well historically...it starts out as 'advisory' wink...wink...

Like the parable about slowly boiling the frog, maybe if Obama sends 1,500 troops here, then 1,500 troops there, nobody'll notice.

Eric wrote:

Like the parable about slowly boiling the frog, maybe if Obama sends 1,500 troops here, then 1,500 troops there, nobody'll notice.

Having been there and done that I'm sure there are more troops over there than he claims. And doing more than he claims.

Eric wrote:

Like the parable about slowly boiling the frog, maybe if Obama sends 1,500 troops here, then 1,500 troops there, nobody'll notice.

Trust me, their families notice.

Yes, they serve at the command of the President and they are a volunteer force. But walking into a situation without a game plan and no exit strategy??? Am I missing something???

SheWrites wrote:

Trust me, their families notice.

Yes, they serve at the command of the President and they are a volunteer force.  But walking into a situation without a game plan and no exit strategy???  Am I missing something???

You mean to say that they should have a game plan and an exit strategy?

Must they think of everything?

Nope, SheWrites, I don't think you're missing anything. I suspect your observation is sadly on target.

nochain wrote:

Eric wrote:

Like the parable about slowly boiling the frog, maybe if Obama sends 1,500 troops here, then 1,500 troops there, nobody'll notice.

Having been there and done that I'm sure there are more troops over there than he claims. And doing more than he claims.

If there is something that needs to be done....who do you think is going to do it?....Well at least he's in Hawaii for a MUCH needed vacation...

Plausible deniability. He never ordered boots on the ground so it was someone else's fault.

*****SARCASTIC CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UqprkIfJgu4

Damaged Eagle wrote:

Plausible deniability. He never ordered boots on the ground so it was someone else's fault.

*****SARCASTIC CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UqprkIfJgu4

Sadly that just may be the administration's line.....

What would a Republican POTUS have done? Do we really think John McCain wouldn't have sent troops over to fight ISIS already? The only difference is that Obama is not honest about it and also not honest about much else that he does.
Of course dems have figured out he's a liar too. Why else would we not have shown up at the polls in the mid-term? Being a democrat myself, I know 100% that's the answer. WE WERE DISGUSTED WITH OUR OWN PRESIDENT.

What I never understand is why Republicans hate this president for being such a good Republican. , Bush lied to get us into Iraq in the first place. The only difference in the two men is that Bush said he wanted war and Obama claimed he wanted peace. Both of them got Americans killed for no good reason. Both of them are also liars.

Obama gave Americans the same health insurance that Mitt Romney gave to the people of his state. One based on the whims of private insurance companies.  Now Republicans hate him for that too. The plan originally came from them back in the 90's.

I think Republicans need to get over the party label and love Obama for his Republicanness.  He should have been making y'all happy over the last 6 years because he sure hasn't made Democrats happy.  
As far as an exit strategy the only war we've had since WWII that had one of them was the first Gulf War and we didn't do that one by ourselves. Then we left troops in Mecca to make the folks over there so angry they planned 911.
Since WWII Americans don't plan exit strategies. It's a lot more empire building when you just leave your troops in occupied countries.
Excuse me, did I say since WWII. LOL  We're still in Germany, aren't we?
It's necessary to stay if we want to continue the empire. And we've got to continue the empire to keep calling ourselves the greatest country on earth, don't we? And we've definitely got to do that to keep our egos pumped.

Eddard wrote:

Obama gave Americans the same health insurance that Mitt Romney gave to the people of his state. One based on the whims of private insurance companies.  Now Republicans hate him for that too. The plan originally came from them back in the 90's.

.

One major difference is that is just one state and folks who don't want to play the game can move. The ACA is a national federal mandate and there is no getting away from it without leaving the country. Most folks don't like being TOLD they have to have health insurance and being fined if they don't play the federal game.

Eddard wrote:

What would a Republican POTUS have done? Do we really think John McCain wouldn't have sent troops over to fight ISIS already? The only difference is that Obama is not honest about it and also not honest about much else that he does.
Of course dems have figured out he's a liar too. Why else would we not have shown up at the polls in the mid-term? Being a democrat myself, I know 100% that's the answer. WE WERE DISGUSTED WITH OUR OWN PRESIDENT.

What I never understand is why Republicans hate this president for being such a good Republican. , Bush lied to get us into Iraq in the first place. The only difference in the two men is that Bush said he wanted war and Obama claimed he wanted peace. Both of them got Americans killed for no good reason. Both of them are also liars.

Obama gave Americans the same health insurance that Mitt Romney gave to the people of his state. One based on the whims of private insurance companies.  Now Republicans hate him for that too. The plan originally came from them back in the 90's.

I think Republicans need to get over the party label and love Obama for his Republicanness.  He should have been making y'all happy over the last 6 years because he sure hasn't made Democrats happy.  
As far as an exit strategy the only war we've had since WWII that had one of them was the first Gulf War and we didn't do that one by ourselves. Then we left troops in Mecca to make the folks over there so angry they planned 911.
Since WWII Americans don't plan exit strategies. It's a lot more empire building when you just leave your troops in occupied countries.
Excuse me, did I say since WWII. LOL  We're still in Germany, aren't we?
It's necessary to stay if we want to continue the empire. And we've got to continue the empire to keep calling ourselves the greatest country on earth, don't we? And we've definitely got to do that to keep our egos pumped.

No sense at all!....The cowh....his own words made the statement about no boots on the ground and no combat missions for American Troops...Doesn't matter what anyone else may have done but IF it had been a republican and they made the same statement and then did the opposite the media and political outrage would be 24/7....there has and will never be any accountability for the rhetoric from this cowh...

The test will be...with his newest statement about combat missions over in Afghanistan...will we make the same mistake and then have to repeat this Iraq policy?....

nochain wrote:

Eddard wrote:

Obama gave Americans the same health insurance that Mitt Romney gave to the people of his state. One based on the whims of private insurance companies.  Now Republicans hate him for that too. The plan originally came from them back in the 90's.

.

One major difference is that is just one state and folks who don't want to play the game can move. The ACA is a national federal mandate and there is no getting away from it without leaving the country. Most folks don't like being TOLD they have to have health insurance and being fined if they don't play the federal game.

Amazing that the 'mandate' still has to be explained....Right...wrong...the citizens of Mass voted FOR their healthcare and it was done through the state legislature...Not even comparable to the cowh [name] healthcare....

Most people don't want to be told they have to have health insurance. Those are the people who were previously filling up emergency rooms and surgical wards in a crisis and were letting YOUR insurance go higher and higher because you were ultimately paying the price for them.

Where's that different from being a welfare cheat?

Seems to me you'd resent those people, many of them young people who don't believe they will ever get sick or be in an accident. But when they did, you paid for it because hospitals couldn't legally turn them away. Now a lot of them have health insurance and are paying at least some of the cost themselves. That's a move in the right direction, IMO.

And many people have never been sick a day in their lives, Eddard.  It's not fair that they should be forced to subsidize medical insurance for others if they choose not to do so.

Eric wrote:

And many people have never been sick a day in their lives, Eddard.  It's not fair that they should be forced to subsidize medical insurance for others if they choose not to do so.

Think back.....in earlier years was healthcare a top priority?.....If this had been imposed when most of us were much younger would we have been so accepting about financing healthcare for a bunch of 'old geezers'?....Factoring in of what are perceptions of age were then and are current ages....gulp...we are the 'old geezers'!...And it's still not right to burden others....

Remember when the PLO was the "terrorist du jour?" As best I recall we had Kissinger in the Middle East all the time talking peace between the entities. When we made the statement that we would not deal/negotiate with terrorist nor the countries that harbor them we set our course.

These terrorists morph into newly named groups. We cannot continue to recognize them as a "new" threat. It's the same old threat.

We need foreign policy that works. We need peace talks that work. We need spot on sharpshooters to take out the Bin Laden's of the world.

Forces on the ground? No.

I realize this messes up the military "machine" and the contractors that supply them.

While I'm on my soap box, we don't need Jeb Bush to continue this "new world order." Cheney and Rove will move and shake him - keeping us embroiled more than ever in the Mid East.

SheWrites wrote:

Remember when the PLO was the "terrorist du jour?"  As best I recall we had Kissinger in the Middle East all the time talking peace between the entities.  When we made the statement that we would not deal/negotiate with terrorist nor the countries that harbor them we set our course.

These terrorists morph into newly named groups.  We cannot continue to recognize them as a "new" threat.  It's the same old threat.  

We need foreign policy that works.  We need peace talks that work.  We need spot on sharpshooters to take out the Bin Laden's of the world.  

Forces on the ground?  No.  

I realize this messes up the military "machine" and the contractors that supply them.  

While I'm on my soap box, we don't need Jeb Bush to continue this "new world order."  Cheney and Rove will move and shake him - keeping us embroiled more than ever in the Mid East.

As opposed to the cowh that said...no boots on the ground/no combat operations....

The Good Ole Days....The PLO Leader [Arafat] that could be a Ringo stand-in!....

Oh don't diss Ringo like that!

SheWrites wrote:

Oh don't diss Ringo like that!  

But... you gotta admit......