Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I thought Obama said no more boots on the ground and our troops would not be in action?

No one cares?

Leave your worthless political opinions behind for a minute and provide a link.

Here

He's the 4th death so far since 2014. Gonna be a few more most like.

Four servicemen dead in going on three years, while still tragic, that's surprisingly low.

#thanksobama

He said there was no boots on the ground. So he lied and people died.

He was a casualty of Operation Inherent Resolve, which is fighting the evil that is ISIS.

Should we do absolutely nothing against ISIS now?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Inherent_Resolve

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
He said there was no boots on the ground. So he lied and people died. Yes, he did. What of it?

Originally posted by Robtard
He was a casualty of Operation Inherent Resolve, which is fighting the evil that is ISIS.

Should we do absolutely nothing against ISIS now?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Inherent_Resolve

He lied, people died.

There are WMDs in Iraq.

Where did I say that?

Just have to keep looking.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Where did I say that? You didn't, unless you're actually the president who said there was. He lied, and 4,497 U.S. service members died.

Hillary thought so, she voted for it.

If someone does something based on a lie, do we blame that person or the person who lied?

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
You didn't, unless you're actually the president who said there was. He lied, and 4,497 U.S. service members died.

4,497 > 4

/maths

Originally posted by Robtard
If someone does something based on a lie, do we blame that person or the person who lied? I blame Obama for changing his mind and sending in ground troops to fight the psychopathic c*nts the West helped create. How f*cking dare he.

Originally posted by Robtard
4,497 > 4

/maths I don't maths good. Too full of patriotism and rage.

Originally posted by Robtard
If someone does something based on a lie, do we blame that person or the person who lied?

She had access to all the Intel she defends her vote to this day.

the iraq resolution was not a direct declaration of war. it basically placed trust in president bush to make the right call if evidence proved that war was necessary. a shitty spineless act on hillary and fellow democrats who signed on, but still to simply say she supported the war is completely false. she just supported congress shrugging their responsibility and handing the bush administration a blank check.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I blame Obama for changing his mind and sending in ground troops to fight the psychopathic c*nts the West helped create. How f*cking dare he.

I don't maths good. Too full of patriotism and rage.

Well how about he not have created him them in the first place? The Iraq was was BS, but we saved a lot of people. Obama and Hillary undid everything we accomplished.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
She had access to all the Intel she defends her vote to this day.

Yes, the intel that was BS which lead not just Clinton to believe that there were WMDs in Iraq.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
the iraq resolution was not a direct declaration of war. it basically placed trust in president bush to make the right call if evidence proved that war was necessary. a shitty spineless act on hillary and fellow democrats who signed on, but still to simply say she supported the war is completely false. she just supported congress shrugging their responsibility and handing the bush administration a blank check. Which... you know, eww. F*ck her all the same.


Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Well how about he not have created him them in the first place? The Iraq was was BS, but we saved a lot of people. Obama and Hillary undid everything we accomplished. ...



wut?

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Which... you know, eww. F*ck her all the same.



yes. but here we are...we either get that, or we get twump.

Bernie Sanders didn't fall for the lies

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
yes. but here we are...we either get that, or we get twump. I know, I feel really bad for you guys.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Which... you know, eww. F*ck her all the same.


...



wut?

We saved all the people Sadam has massacring.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I know, I feel really bad for you guys.
I honestly feel Canada along with the rest of the world is ****ing laughing at us.

I doubt anyone in Germany is laughing

Germans have great senses of humor.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
We saved all the people Sadam has massacring. Except they're still dead from the massacres. Or, you mean... the survivors got to not be massacred... oh.


Now they're all ISIS'd up. Maybe the devil you knew (and once supported) would have been better in the long run. Or maybe not. I guess the centralized powerhouse in the Ba'ath kept the Sunnis from killing the Shia (ya know, like what ISIS is doing). They would have all been under Saddam's boot heel, but maybe that would have been better. Maybe.


Whatever, George needed a war. He got two for the price of one. And the price of two.

Originally posted by Robtard
I honestly feel Canada along with the rest of the world is ****ing laughing at us. We honestly are. It's a mixed laugh of derision for bringing this on yourselves, and sympathy that you brought this on yourselves.

It seems every president needs a war.

You'd need to be pretty naive to think the western nations haven't had troops in Iraq and Syria these last 5 years or so. There's plenty stories about operations being carried out by seal teams, SAS and even Russian Zaslon etc over the last few years. There's probably been members killed with zero publicity.

Im just saying he's lying, thats all.

"Boots on the ground" generally means a widescale ground operation with normal military soldiers. It could be argued that what we have now - special forces and some tacticians don't really count as what that term usually entails.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Im just saying he's lying, thats all.

Him saying "we have covert special forces operating in Syria and iraq" would kinda defeat the purpose of covert operations though.

Originally posted by jaden101
Him saying "we have covert special forces operating in Syria and iraq" would kinda defeat the purpose of covert operations though.

He already did that, don't you remember?

Originally posted by Robtard
Yes, the intel that was BS which lead not just Clinton to believe that there were WMDs in Iraq.

Her husband made declarations about Iraq and WMD's before Bush.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Here

Dont sully the deaths of servicemen by making it political. We know the sacrifice when we raise our right hand.

Dont tell me what to do

Originally posted by Sin I AM
Dont sully the deaths of servicemen by making it political. But how else am I going to prove how right I am?

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
But how else am I going to prove how right I am?

there's other ways. for one, you could have a complete meltdown and threaten people. look at how eloquently this trump supporter expresses his political views:

ups4FeSuHvY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ups4FeSuHvY

Democracy now started the fight

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
But how else am I going to prove how right I am?

It's a pathetic attempt to denigrate a Soldier's sacrifice by attaching a political spin. Simple as that.

It's pathetic you are going to vote for a crook that's going to get more people killed. Live with your sins and your upcoming vote for war.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
It's pathetic you are going to vote for a crook that's going to get more people killed. Live with your sins and your upcoming vote for war.

Time troll elsewhere. You have no idea to whom my vote will be cast. Quit deflecting an inane attempt at using a service members death to fuel your idiocy.

Okay so I want people to just reread this topic or at least the first page of it in order to recognize just how crazily things get out of hand here for no real reason.

So this topic obviously isn't just about a service member dying, but the fact that Obama lied about the fact there would be no boots on the ground.

So to me, I feel pointing out something like "the level of dead people is very low" is largely irrelevant to what was trying to be discussed. This wasn't about the fact Obama promised us very low casualties, but the fact he apparently said there would be no boots on the ground.

So under that specific narrative, whether 1 or 1,000 men have died isn't the point, even 1 should be too much if we were supposed to have no boots on the ground.

Likewise, what does fighting ISIS have to do with the narrative? Unless the implication is that Obama said the things about "no boots on the ground" prior to realizing ISIS was a threat, but then I don't think that is the case.

Finally: if someone points out a current president has lied, it really is of no benefit or consequence to bring up how other presidents have also lied in the past. Unless someone was acting as if Obama was literally the first president in the history of the country to be caught in a lie. Which to think that would involve a stunning level of ignorance that I wouldn't feel comfortable ascribing to even the most ignorant members here.

No boots on ground means no large scale military operation from traditional forces. Special ops units are a completely different entity entirely. Anyone with a remote understanding of the military would know that the these commands and units routinely engage in conflicts and counter terrorism campaigns that are completely separate from anything their parent organizations are currently doing. There is a huge difference between 250000 troops and a couple hundred or so SO guys. This is not a defense on Obama because he very plainly stated to have a "no boots on ground" policy. However covert small membered ops units are consistently employed for varying reasons in varying conflicts for decades.

Originally posted by Surtur
Okay so I want people to just reread this topic or at least the first page of it in order to recognize just how crazily things get out of hand here for no real reason.

So this topic obviously isn't just about a service member dying, but the fact that Obama lied about the fact there would be no boots on the ground.

So to me, I feel pointing out something like "the level of dead people is very low" is largely irrelevant to what was trying to be discussed. This wasn't about the fact Obama promised us very low casualties, but the fact he apparently said there would be no boots on the ground.

So under that specific narrative, whether 1 or 1,000 men have died isn't the point, even 1 should be too much if we were supposed to have no boots on the ground.

Likewise, what does fighting ISIS have to do with the narrative? Unless the implication is that Obama said the things about "no boots on the ground" prior to realizing ISIS was a threat, but then I don't think that is the case.

Finally: if someone points out a current president has lied, it really is of no benefit or consequence to bring up how other presidents have also lied in the past. Unless someone was acting as if Obama was literally the first president in the history of the country to be caught in a lie. Which to think that would involve a stunning level of ignorance that I wouldn't feel comfortable ascribing to even the most ignorant members here.

Originally posted by Sin I AM
No boots on ground means no large scale military operation from traditional forces. Special ops units are a completely different entity entirely. Anyone with a remote understanding of the military would know that the these commands and units routinely engage in conflicts and counter terrorism campaigns that are completely separate from anything their parent organizations are currently doing. There is a huge difference between 250000 troops and a couple hundred or so SO guys. This is not a defense on Obama because he very plainly stated to have a "no boots on ground" policy. However covert small membered ops units are consistently employed for varying reasons in varying conflicts for decades.

If this is true, I feel like he should have been more clear about what he is saying. Since to the average person "no boots on the ground" sounds different than "there will be no large military scale operations". The latter is a much less vague assertion.

You're saying the president used language open to interpretation so that he could change his mind later without having to confess that he changed his mind? I never.



Or are you saying that he had to spend the initial weeks of the ISIS offensive analyzing and consider what to do about the situation instead of just jumping in dick first and looking a war-crazy ******* like his predecessor. Maybe if he did that, all the people who voted him in on the promise that he'd pull out of Iraq wouldn't accuse him of being a liar if turned out the ISIS threat could be pushed back before American soldiers were needed.




Maybe it's complicated? Maybe it's about more than simplistic "Well you said!"

Originally posted by Surtur
If this is true, I feel like he should have been more clear about what he is saying. Since to the average person "no boots on the ground" sounds different than "there will be no large military scale operations". The latter is a much less vague assertion.

That's because most Americans lack basic knowledge of the abilities of the three branches. Potus can send troops anywhere he (or she) pleases without consent at a moments notice. The only thing he cant do is declare war. Which at that point is moot since even if congress was against such action would balk at defunding troops overseas.

Obama lied, people died.