Boots on the ground.

[US Conservative]

My thoughts here. Even with all the new capability of our air assets (largely the result of the war on terror)-the fact remains that boots on the ground are the only way to neutralize an enemy. The US has had to learn this the hard way several times over the decades.

NOW, in ISIS held territory, while there is a token "coalition" if you look its more pathetic than a typical NATO or UN force-meaning its almost entirely American with token forces from other nations...

United States:
1,800 troops[50][51]
7,000 contractors[52][53]
USS George H.W. Bush carrier strike group
Australia:
600 troops[54]
8 Super Hornet fighters and a special forces contingent[55]
France:
Cargo aircraft, airstrikes by Rafale fighters [49][56]
Canada:
100 troops[29]

2014 American intervention in Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What this means, is that while ISIS forces rapidly increasing by forced conscription and an influx of other islamists-it will again fall on the US to meet the demands of the situation-the same old story.

The problem there-is we have a weak President who continues to box himself into a corner by saying "no boots on the ground". This is contradictory to his own military staff-just as it was when Obama lost the peace in iraq by pulling out and leaving it to terrorists. Its also contradictory to other coalition nations-who have clearly stated boots on the ground will be needed.

I think we are going to HAVE to commit ground forces, and we will have to leave a small presence there for decades to come, to keep the peace. I lso think Obama knows this, and is perhaps waiting for the elections in november to make a move-in other more politics first for obama.

 

[RDS]

Boots on the ground means back to a full-fledged war after pulling out which is kid's play. Betting take aim from the air pretending its not a war.

 

[Respecthelect]

Obama was elected on a promise to reduce "boots on the ground." But, why is the technicality of "boots on the ground" so important to Obama?

Osama bin Laden listed "boots on the ground" as Muslim's number one complaint against the West. Voters assumed, and Obama assured us, that if we only removed our boots off Muslim land, their ire would be quelled and we could make peace with Islam. Everyone assumed Obama was acting in America's interest when he wanted to take America's boots off Muslim ground. However, when American boots were removed from Muslim ground, the violence, terrorism and hate-rhetoric only increased. It turns out, removing "boots on the ground" had the opposite of the desired and expected effect. It turns out, more American "boots on the ground" creates stability, friendship and peace with the West.

So, why does Obama stick with the no "boots on the ground" policy? Why, when the only one's still arguing "no boots on the ground" are the terrorists and radical clerics? And keep in mind the significance of footwear to Muslims. Please don't discount how they view "boots" as an insult. Remember when the Iraqi reporter threw his shoes at president Bush? Muslims take the symbolic insult of footwear deadly seriously. Obama knows how important it is to his personal reputation with Islam, that he protect Islam from American boots. Note, how limited air-strikes are acceptable, but not "boots." Even when there are boots, Obama will deny it.

Virtually every general has risked their stars and their pensions pointing out that "boots on the ground" will be required. Clapper, the DNI has said the same thing. The government is in near mutiny, yet Obama sticks to a failing strategy, all to protect his no "boots on the ground" policy. Why?

Obama is siding with the radical Muslim clerics over America's military, intelligence community and against the will of the American people. Why?

When it is clearly in America's interest and in the interest of long-term stability and peace to put American "boots on the ground," Obama will not do it. Why?

Because Obama is protecting his image and his future with Islam. Obama doesn't care one whit about America or American interests. Obama's future lies with Muslims and Muslim clerics, not with the U.S..

The press calls Obama "aloof." They say he's more interested in golf. They say he "isn't engaged." Obama's aloof, because his future is Islam, not America. Because he's gotten all America has to offer him and will soon move on. Obama's aloof, because of his cognitive dissonance between acting in Islam's interest, when he knows he should be acting in America's interest. He can't close the circle and it makes him standoffish. Obama's closed the dissonance loop before, though. When Jeremiah Wright taught him how to appear Christian. Obama will rise to the media challenge, but he will not act in America's interest. He will admit no boots on Muslim ground.

 

[RDS]

"correction" Boots on the ground means back to a full-fledged war after pulling out which is kid's play. Better take aim from the air pretending its not a war.

 

[a351]

Obama was elected on a promise to reduce "boots on the ground." But, why is the technicality of "boots on the ground" so important to Obama?

Osama bin Laden listed "boots on the ground" as Muslim's number one complaint against the West. Voters assumed, and Obama assured us, that if we only removed our boots off Muslim land, their ire would be quelled and we could make peace with Islam. Everyone assumed Obama was acting in America's interest when he wanted to take America's boots off Muslim ground. However, when American boots were removed from Muslim ground, the violence, terrorism and hate-rhetoric only increased. It turns out, removing "boots on the ground" had the opposite of the desired and expected effect. It turns out, more American "boots on the ground" creates stability, friendship and peace with the West.

So, why does Obama stick with the no "boots on the ground" policy? Why, when the only one's still arguing "no boots on the ground" are the terrorists and radical clerics? And keep in mind the significance of footwear to Muslims. Please don't discount how they view "boots" as an insult. Remember when the Iraqi reporter threw his shoes at president Bush? Muslims take the symbolic insult of footwear deadly seriously. Obama knows how important it is to his personal reputation with Islam, that he protect Islam from American boots. Note, how limited air-strikes are acceptable, but not "boots." Even when there are boots, Obama will deny it.

Virtually every general has risked their stars and their pensions pointing out that "boots on the ground" will be required. Clapper, the DNI has said the same thing. The government is in near mutiny, yet Obama sticks to a failing strategy, all to protect his no "boots on the ground" policy. Why?

Obama is siding with the radical Muslim clerics over America's military, intelligence community and against the will of the American people. Why?

When it is clearly in America's interest and in the interest of long-term stability and peace to put American "boots on the ground," Obama will not do it. Why?

Because Obama is protecting his image and his future with Islam. Obama doesn't care one whit about America or American interests. Obama's future lies with Muslims and Muslim clerics, not with the U.S..

The press calls Obama "aloof." They say he's more interested in golf. They say he "isn't engaged." Obama's aloof, because his future is Islam, not America. Because he's gotten all America has to offer him and will soon move on. Obama's aloof, because of his cognitive dissonance between acting in Islam's interest, when he knows he should be acting in America's interest. He can't close the circle and it makes him standoffish. Obama's closed the dissonance loop before, though. When Jeremiah Wright taught him how to appear Christian. Obama will rise to the media challenge, but he will not act in America's interest. He will admit no boots on Muslim ground.

Just a breathtaking amount of craziness. It's almost surreal.

 

[American]

The throw around the phrase "boots on the ground" just like they did "shovel ready", it's like political spiel. They don't have a clue what they are doing.

 

[Rogue Valley]

What the US military is saying is that there is no way to defeat ISIS without boots on the ground and they are correct. What Obama is hoping for with his "coalition" is for those boots on the ground to be Arabic forces - Saudi, Lebanese, etc. while Western forces strike ISIS from above. Sensible, yet highly improbable.

 

[US Conservative]

What the US military is saying is that there is no way to defeat ISIS without boots on the ground and they are correct. What Obama is hoping for with his "coalition" is for those boots on the ground to be Arabic forces - Saudi, Lebanese, etc. while Western forces strike ISIS from above. Sensible, yet highly improbable.

And yet it leaves Obama stuck behind another line he himself has drawn. History has shown that arab's dont like openly fighting other arabs behind western forces. They at times will, but they appear to prefer financial and logistical support.

 

[Manc Skipper]

Tony Bliar is advocating for British boots on the ground too, so if you thought for a minute it might be a good idea, that should give anyone pause.

 

[US Conservative]

Tony Bliar is advocating for British boots on the ground too, so if you thought for a minute it might be a good idea, that should give anyone pause.

I dont know who Tony Bliar is. The current PM is advocating just that. The UK needs to get its priorities straight faster than the US.

 

[Reformedfindlay]

If we go in with the sole objective of destroying ISIS and everything related to ISIS I see no reason why a war would last any longer than a year or two.

I'm fine with "boots on the ground" it just has to be done correctly.

 

[Respecthelect]

What the US military is saying is that there is no way to defeat ISIS without boots on the ground and they are correct. What Obama is hoping for with his "coalition" is for those boots on the ground to be Arabic forces - Saudi, Lebanese, etc. while Western forces strike ISIS from above. Sensible, yet highly improbable.

Obama knows Muslims better than you, my friend. He knows there will be no effective force opposing ISIS from any Muslim quarter. Moreover, Obama doesn't want ISIS stopped. He created ISIS and he supports ISIS, although it's annoying him that he can't admit it.

 

[Respecthelect]

Front page article on Drudge. "Suspicions Run Deep in Iraq That C.I.A. and the Islamic State Are United." NY Times confirms.

This NY Times story demonstrates Obama created ISIS. I've been saying it for months, but now the leftist NY Times is saying it too.

Just a breathtaking amount of craziness. It's almost surreal.

Tell it to the NY Times, my left-of-"centrist" friend. It's your newspaper, not mine.

 

[MMC]

Tony Bliar is advocating for British boots on the ground too, so if you thought for a minute it might be a good idea, that should give anyone pause.

Heya Skipper. :2wave: Almost all Military experts say Boots on the ground will be required. So looks like Blair joined in with those who know how to conduct war.

 

[MMC]

Front page article on Drudge. "Suspicions Run Deep in Iraq That C.I.A. and the Islamic State Are United." NY Times confirms.

This NY Times story demonstrates Obama created ISIS. I've been saying it for months, but now the leftist NY Times is saying it too.



Tell it to the NY Times, my left-of-"centrist" friend. It's your newspaper, not mine.

Well the NY Times.....didn't produce any evidence that the US created ISIS or that the CIA was working with them. All they managed to do was talk to some Arabs who as usual.....forgot a lot of the facts and history.

 

[Ockham]

The throw around the phrase "boots on the ground" just like they did "shovel ready", it's like political spiel. They don't have a clue what they are doing.

I watched Kerry on Morning Joe this morning - a nice pro-administration fluff interview. Kerry basically said he's been having meetings but none of this alleged coalition has approved ground troops. Not Turkey, not Qatar, not the Saudi's. Turkey isn't allowing the US military bases the US has to be used against ISIS. Turkey is a NATO country. What's obvious about this is these "coalition" countries do not want to fight ISIS. This coalition IMO will never get off the ground.

Front page article on Drudge. "Suspicions Run Deep in Iraq That C.I.A. and the Islamic State Are United." NY Times confirms.

This NY Times story demonstrates Obama created ISIS. I've been saying it for months, but now the leftist NY Times is saying it too.

The article as I read it is basically a view from the common man in Iraq. I wouldn't put much into it other than saying that this may be the common view - it doesn't mean it's the correct view. Best case scenario in my mind is this turns into a Shia vs. Shiite war and the US can contain the fighting or at least direct the fighting and keep these groups killing each other instead of Western interests.

 

[rocket88]

Just a breathtaking amount of craziness. It's almost surreal.

Boots are also very significant in Kenya, where many people don't wear shoes. Therefore, it's incontroverible proof that Obama was born in Singapore. Or something....

 

[Respecthelect]

US created ISIS

Bombing another country it is an act of war. We are bombing, therefore we are at war. We are at war, because the American people expressed their outrage. Yet, we have little, if any information about who we're at war with or what is the source of the conflict? We are being led around by the nose, like sheep. If the powers that created this mess refuse to give us answers, we must go with the information available. Decisions regarding war have already been made by the public without almost any information whatsoever. I'm merely attempting to process and collate the little information we have, into a coherent story. If Obama or the CIA wish to dispute my (and the NY Times) assessment, they are free to release more information regarding the creation of ISIS at any time.

Until then, we go with the facts at hand. Because wars are being decided with or without concrete evidence. People are dying, regardless whether our leaders deem us worthy of knowing the truth. All we have is analysis, so we make the best possible analysis with the meager facts they give us. And so far, the analysis shows Obama is working toward Muslim interests and against American interests. If it's not true, show us evidence?

Show us the creation of ISIS? Tell us what Ambassador Stevens was doing in Benghazi? Explain why the "Secretary disavowed all knowledge" of Benghazi? Explain how ISIS knew exactly where American weapons were hidden and how they happened to have the skills to drive and operate that sophisticated equipment? This information is all available within the walls of the federal government, yet they ask we the public to make decisions of war without telling us the facts. And make no mistake, it was public polling that drove this war. If we're making the decisions (as we must in a free society), then we need sufficient accurate source data.

 

[MMC]

Bombing another country it is an act of war. We are bombing, therefore we are at war. We are at war, because the American people expressed their outrage. Yet, we have little, if any information about who we're at war with or what is the source of the conflict? We are being led around by the nose, like sheep. If the powers that created this mess refuse to give us answers, we must go with the information available. Decisions regarding war have already been made by the public without almost any information whatsoever. I'm merely attempting to process and collate the little information we have, into a coherent story. If Obama or the CIA wish to dispute my (and the NY Times) assessment, they are free to release more information regarding the creation of ISIS at any time.

Until then, we go with the facts at hand. Because wars are being decided with or without concrete evidence. People are dying, regardless whether our leaders deem us worthy of knowing the truth. All we have is analysis, so we make the best possible analysis with the meager facts they give us. And so far, the analysis shows Obama is working toward Muslim interests and against American interests. If it's not true, show us evidence?

Show us the creation of ISIS? Tell us what Ambassador Stevens was doing in Benghazi? Explain why the "Secretary disavowed all knowledge" of Benghazi? Explain how ISIS knew exactly where American weapons were hidden and how they happened to have the skills to drive and operate that sophisticated equipment? This information is all available within the walls of the federal government, yet they ask we the public to make decisions of war without telling us the facts. And make no mistake, it was public polling that drove this war. If we're making the decisions (as we must in a free society), then we need sufficient accurate source data.

The results of BO peeps actions doesn't mean he is working with Muslim Interests. Moreover I already gave you the info on the Leadership of ISIS. Also we had up the History of ISIL.

Stevens met with a Turk Envoy.....it is believed he was conducting an Arms transfer of weapons to the Syrian Rebels. At that time we know a few days later a Libyan Freighter showed up off the Coast of Syria and not in any major docking.

ISIS and AL Nusra took the Weapons from the Syrian Rebels. I also had a piece of when 29 opposition groups Pledged to Al Nusra and against the US. Wherein the Rebel commanders admitted they would give the weapons to al Nusra freely. As Nusra was the Most aggressive in the fight against Assad.

Again I showed you the leadership of ISIS. They had former Saddam Hussein Commanders, they had some Baathist too. Moreover they had Sunni Iraqis that defected. They already had the training and know how in using US equipment.

 

[Perotista]

My thoughts here. Even with all the new capability of our air assets (largely the result of the war on terror)-the fact remains that boots on the ground are the only way to neutralize an enemy. The US has had to learn this the hard way several times over the decades.

NOW, in ISIS held territory, while there is a token "coalition" if you look its more pathetic than a typical NATO or UN force-meaning its almost entirely American with token forces from other nations...



What this means, is that while ISIS forces rapidly increasing by forced conscription and an influx of other islamists-it will again fall on the US to meet the demands of the situation-the same old story.

The problem there-is we have a weak President who continues to box himself into a corner by saying "no boots on the ground". This is contradictory to his own military staff-just as it was when Obama lost the peace in iraq by pulling out and leaving it to terrorists. Its also contradictory to other coalition nations-who have clearly stated boots on the ground will be needed.

I think we are going to HAVE to commit ground forces, and we will have to leave a small presence there for decades to come, to keep the peace. I lso think Obama knows this, and is perhaps waiting for the elections in november to make a move-in other more politics first for obama.

Perhaps military reality and political reality are two different things. Rasmussen had a poll recently which unfortunately I deleted all ready. It said something like 67% of all Americans favor continuing with the airstrikes while 70% oppose boots on the ground to fight ISIS. What you say is probably true, unless we have a capable ground force, whose troops they are does not matter, air strikes alone will not be enough to defeat ISIS.

Now remember Bosnia, air strikes alone worked there. But Clinton did not and never did rule out the introduction of ground forces. That threat was always there for slobodan milosevic to contemplate on and to fear.

But whichever way we go we must have the backing of the American people. If Vietnam taught us anything, it is without the backing and continued support of Americans, we cannot win.

 

[Respecthelect]

Stevens met with a Turk Envoy.....it is believed he was conducting an Arms transfer of weapons to the Syrian Rebels.

Baghdadi IS a Syrian rebel. Here are photos of McCain meeting with Baghdadi in Syria:

Senator McCain meets with ISIS leader Baghdadi, although McCain denies it.

Senator McCain meets with ISIS leader Baghdadi. Reasonably clear photo? Why do so many say it's Baghdadi?

McCain denies the meeting, but many are skeptical. McCain's stated purpose was to drum-up support for some faction or another. I doubt the crew he met with know where their own loyalties lie, much less what purposes others in the room had? Is it so hard to believe that's Baghdadi? It looks like Baghdadi? Many Muslims say it's Baghdadi. McCain hasn't identified who the person is, if it's not Baghdadi? Not indicting McCain for more than carrying Obama's water. How was he to know who'd be in the meeting?

The folks McCain met with have admitted to turning over the weapons America gave them to ISIS. McCain can't vouch for their loyalty, despite his protests to the contrary. The whole region is a den of snakes. The ISIS story simply doesn't wash.

Nusra was the Most aggressive in the fight against Assad.

So, this doesn't mean they don't fight Assad one day and the U.S. the next? I still haven't heard a credible story why Obama wants Assad ousted? Assad sides with Putin, fine. But, is that a reason to oust him? Assad used chemical weapons? I say no; Putin used chemical weapons. Those chemicals were produced by Russia and Putin exercises complete control over them. I also believe they are the very same weapons Saddam used twenty years earlier and were shipped to Syria, weeks before the Iraq invasion. Clapper (now DNI) said as much at the time (2003-ish).

Again I showed you the leadership of ISIS.

Baghdadi is the leader of ISIS and he has Obama's fingerprints all over him.

Without better evidence than you and more importantly, the U.S. government, have provided, I stand by my analysis. Obama released ISIS leader Baghdadi, who was almost certainly involved in Benghazi, who then took McCain's arms, which eventually led to beheadings and then war.

 

[MMC]

Baghdadi IS a Syrian rebel. Here are photos of McCain meeting with Baghdadi in Syria:

Senator McCain meets with ISIS leader Baghdadi. Reasonably clear photo? Why do so many say it's Baghdadi?

McCain denies the meeting, but many are skeptical. was to drum-up support for some faction or another. I doubt the crew he met with know where their own loyalties lie, much less what purposes others in the room had? Is it so hard to believe that's Baghdadi? It looks like Baghdadi? Many Muslims say it's Baghdadi. McCain hasn't identified who the person is, if it's not Baghdadi? Not indicting McCain for more than carrying Obama's water. How was he to know who'd be in the meeting?

The folks McCain met with have admitted to turning over the weapons America gave them to ISIS. McCain can't vouch for their loyalty, despite his protests to the contrary. The whole region is a den of snakes. The ISIS story simply doesn't wash.




So, this doesn't mean they don't fight Assad one day and the U.S. the next? I still haven't heard a credible story why Obama wants Assad ousted? Assad sides with Putin, fine. But, is that a reason to oust him? Assad used chemical weapons? I say no; Putin used chemical weapons. Those chemicals were produced by Russia and Putin exercises complete control over them. I also believe they are the very same weapons Saddam used twenty years earlier and were shipped to Syria, weeks before the Iraq invasion. Clapper (now DNI) said as much at the time (2003-ish).




Baghdadi is the leader of ISIS and he has Obama's fingerprints all over him.

Without better evidence than you and more importantly, the U.S. government, have provided, I stand by my analysis. Obama released ISIS leader Baghdadi, who was almost certainly involved in Benghazi, who then took McCain's arms, which eventually led to beheadings and then war.

I doubt it is the Invisible Sheik.....my reasoning is due to the length of the beard he has. When McCain met the Syrian Rebels, I doubt Baghdadi could have grown a beard of this length with the time period of when he broke apart Iraq and Syria. He is an Iraqi.

 

[Respecthelect]

Really? I grow that in a week? ...OK, maybe a few months.

It looks like Baghdadi to me. It wouldn't be PC to say they all look alike? With all McCain's protestations, one would think he could produce the man in the photo, if it weren't Baghdadi?

 

[Ikari]

My thoughts here. Even with all the new capability of our air assets (largely the result of the war on terror)-the fact remains that boots on the ground are the only way to neutralize an enemy. The US has had to learn this the hard way several times over the decades.

NOW, in ISIS held territory, while there is a token "coalition" if you look its more pathetic than a typical NATO or UN force-meaning its almost entirely American with token forces from other nations...



What this means, is that while ISIS forces rapidly increasing by forced conscription and an influx of other islamists-it will again fall on the US to meet the demands of the situation-the same old story.

The problem there-is we have a weak President who continues to box himself into a corner by saying "no boots on the ground". This is contradictory to his own military staff-just as it was when Obama lost the peace in iraq by pulling out and leaving it to terrorists. Its also contradictory to other coalition nations-who have clearly stated boots on the ground will be needed.

I think we are going to HAVE to commit ground forces, and we will have to leave a small presence there for decades to come, to keep the peace. I lso think Obama knows this, and is perhaps waiting for the elections in november to make a move-in other more politics first for obama.

Boot on the ground allowed the ISIS thing to develop in the first place. Boots on the ground are not always the best or desired solution. Boot on the ground can cause severe blowback if we are not intelligent and moral about the use of our military as force intervention into the affairs of other sovereign nations.

 

[Manc Skipper]

Heya Skipper. :2wave: Almost all Military experts say Boots on the ground will be required. So looks like Blair joined in with those who know how to conduct war.

Bliar the adventurist who should be at the Hague instead of making millions as the "Middle East Envoy"...No Thanks