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:
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.