Mike.Redd
Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2013
- Messages
- 57
- Reaction score
- 24
- Location
- Atlanta, Ga
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
That is not that many troops...
The Pentagon has estimated it would take “over 75,000 troops” to secure Syria’s chemical weapons.
Even just 1 U.S. service member in Syria is too many. We need to learn to leave global actions to the UN. We should put more of our time and energy into working to help others that would not put our service members in harms way.
This is crossing the "Red Line"
Source: Rare.us | Why 75,000 U.S. troops could be needed in Syria
AMEN !!
If only the idiots in charge would realize this !!!
That is not that many troops...
The Pentagon has estimated it would take “over 75,000 troops” to secure Syria’s chemical weapons.
Even just 1 U.S. service member in Syria is too many. We need to learn to leave global actions to the UN. We should put more of our time and energy into working to help others that would not put our service members in harms way.
This is crossing the "Red Line"
Source: Rare.us | Why 75,000 U.S. troops could be needed in Syria
I don't disagree with your position, I disagree with you calling them idiots. If you voted for either Barack Obama or Mitt Romney YOU are part of the problem. If you voted for a democrat or a republican in the senate or house election YOU are the problem. Don't blame this on the "idiots" in Washington when you might be contributing to the problem.
That is not that many troops...
The Pentagon has estimated it would take “over 75,000 troops” to secure Syria’s chemical weapons.
Even just 1 U.S. service member in Syria is too many. We need to learn to leave global actions to the UN. We should put more of our time and energy into working to help others that would not put our service members in harms way.
This is crossing the "Red Line"
Source: Rare.us | Why 75,000 U.S. troops could be needed in Syria
Interesting how an original promise of "no boots in Syria" and action limited to only "targeted air and missile strikes" has now turned into discussions of troop estimates to secure the chemical weapons in Syria.
Our government leadership is un-effin-believable!!
This is the kind of insanity that drives me up the wall. This is exactly why I oppose armchair generals pushing for military intervention. It always ends with American's fighting in places we don't belong, and making more enemies whenever we do.
That is not that many troops...
The Pentagon has estimated it would take “over 75,000 troops” to secure Syria’s chemical weapons.
Even just 1 U.S. service member in Syria is too many.We should put more of our time and energy into working to help others that would not put our service members in harms way.We need to learn to leave global actions to the UN.
This is crossing the "Red Line"
Source: Rare.us | Why 75,000 U.S. troops could be needed in Syria
Whatever.
Here's some more of what Rare thinks everyone needs to see:Politico slams Rare for click bait then runs post about underwear models | Rare
Like I said above - whatever.
"Better days are coming." ~ But not for today's out of touch, running out of time, GOP.
Because the UN has such a great record of getting things done,eh?
I like the one second from the left and the one at the end of the right.
Because the UN has such a great record of getting things done,eh?
Getting picky in your old age, eh?
They all look like keepers to me.
I'm amazed that Politico is against underwear models.
Go figure.
That is not that many troops...
The Pentagon has estimated it would take “over 75,000 troops” to secure Syria’s chemical weapons.
Even just 1 U.S. service member in Syria is too many. We need to learn to leave global actions to the UN. We should put more of our time and energy into working to help others that would not put our service members in harms way.
This is crossing the "Red Line"
Source: Rare.us | Why 75,000 U.S. troops could be needed in Syria
As I've said previously, no President should contemplate an act of war unless he/she is prepared to go all the way. Make no mistake, bombing targets within the sovereign territory of Syria is a declaration of war on the part of the US against Syria and any and all actions Syria may take in response must be expected and plans must be in place to activate those plans. And those plans MUST include an invasion of the sovereign territory you are bombing if circumstances dictate.
I don't disagree with you position however, ones recourse seems limited when you throw out the election process.
Got any other suggestions on ways to manage this country?
Yes. Vote third party. A third party candidate is assured not to have these "scandals" under their name because if they do, their party would be totally wiped out of the political landscape. They would have to make good decisions for the country or they would be wiped out. Obama has made very few positive moves as President, we can all agree on that. But the Democrats have a solid shot at getting the White House again in 2016.....how does that make sense? While we don't hold the major parties accountable, we would hold third parties accountable, forcing them to do a better job. If Gary Johnson, Jill Stein, Rocky Anderson, or Virgil Goode (among others) would have been elected to the White House, we would be better off than with the Obamanation we have. And same goes if Romney had been elected. No scandals, no standoffs, no international outcries.
I doubt the Democrats will retain the White house in 2016, They made a lot of people mad in these past five years. Conservatives more than likely taking the White House, with Third parties taking Senate and House of Rep spots.
I doubt the Democrats will retain the White house in 2016, They made a lot of people mad in these past five years. Conservatives more than likely taking the White House, with Third parties taking Senate and House of Rep spots.
As I've said previously, no President should contemplate an act of war unless he/she is prepared to go all the way. Make no mistake, bombing targets within the sovereign territory of Syria is a declaration of war on the part of the US against Syria and any and all actions Syria may take in response must be expected and plans must be in place to activate those plans. And those plans MUST include an invasion of the sovereign territory you are bombing if circumstances dictate.
Anyone who is cheering on the President, encouraging congress to approve his proposals, on the assumption that this will begin and end with a couple of nights of off-shore bombing and then we'll all go home and rejoin our normal lives are fools. You have to either accept that the Syrian people are in the midsts of a civil war and you have no control over how it will end or you must accept that you are in the early stages of an invasion of Syria. You may think that won't happen, but Syria and the proxies all over the region supporting the Syrian regime will see to it that America is dragged into ground force deployment.No American facility or ally in the region will be safe until you end the Assad regime once you take action and even then they will not be safe.
As I've said previously, no President should contemplate an act of war unless he/she is prepared to go all the way. Make no mistake, bombing targets within the sovereign territory of Syria is a declaration of war on the part of the US against Syria and any and all actions Syria may take in response must be expected and plans must be in place to activate those plans. And those plans MUST include an invasion of the sovereign territory you are bombing if circumstances dictate.
Anyone who is cheering on the President, encouraging congress to approve his proposals, on the assumption that this will begin and end with a couple of nights of off-shore bombing and then we'll all go home and rejoin our normal lives are fools. You have to either accept that the Syrian people are in the midsts of a civil war and you have no control over how it will end or you must accept that you are in the early stages of an invasion of Syria. You may think that won't happen, but Syria and the proxies all over the region supporting the Syrian regime will see to it that America is dragged into ground force deployment. No American facility or ally in the region will be safe until you end the Assad regime once you take action and even then they will not be safe.
That is not that many troops...
The Pentagon has estimated it would take “over 75,000 troops” to secure Syria’s chemical weapons.
Even just 1 U.S. service member in Syria is too many.We should put more of our time and energy into working to help others that would not put our service members in harms way.We need to learn to leave global actions to the UN.
This is crossing the "Red Line"
Source: Rare.us | Why 75,000 U.S. troops could be needed in Syria
Yes. Vote third party. A third party candidate is assured not to have these "scandals" under their name because if they do, their party would be totally wiped out of the political landscape. They would have to make good decisions for the country or they would be wiped out. Obama has made very few positive moves as President, we can all agree on that. But the Democrats have a solid shot at getting the White House again in 2016.....how does that make sense? While we don't hold the major parties accountable, we would hold third parties accountable, forcing them to do a better job. If Gary Johnson, Jill Stein, Rocky Anderson, or Virgil Goode (among others) would have been elected to the White House, we would be better off than with the Obamanation we have. And same goes if Romney had been elected. No scandals, no standoffs, no international outcries.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?