Obama on why he didn't just up and send in the troops.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
The interesting thing is that Obama is condemned for doing what Trump claimed he would do, and Trump is praised for doing what Republicans were afraid that Obama would do.

Nah, there's nothing wrong with the logic there.

Like I said...flaky to a fault.

a reply to: Spider879

I do not think we should engage the region. Its a bankers issue, though. The reserve bank...if you have one, you are our friends. If you have a national bank, you are our enemies. Its just that simple.

There aren't many nations left. Russia, Iran, and Syria are current hotbeds for driving in the one world goverment (run by globalist bankers controlling assets between nations). This isn't to say they are good people....only that they are the 3 main targets of the "NWO" that everyone is always talking about.

That said....the US and its allies wouldn't need boots on the ground in Syria. Our reach is global and nearly instant. The only time the US has lost is when its tried to not obliterate civilian populations to get the soldiers standing behind them. This is a real problem for soldiers holding the guns. Not so much for a drone pilot who can't see the face of the children in the group.

Drone warfare depersonalizes engagement, reduces the psychological impact of warfare, and is likely to be the preferred method of engagement in the future.

a reply to: Gryphon66

This started in 2011. Syrian troops leave and become the FSA. It is infiltrated by jihadis and AQ. Iran steps in to back Assad. Saudi Arabia backs the rebels. Hezzbollah comes in from Iran. It is now a Sunni/Shia war like most wars in the Middle East.

In 2013 Obama sent CIA operatives to assist the FSA with a secret order. So he sent troops without authorization and sent money. This was 'before' the gas attack. After the attack we draw a red line. Nothing happens. Russia steps in.

This is when ISIS/ISIL breaks away. ISIS is not fighting against Assad but uses it as its way to grab a foothold in Syria and Iraq.

Then the US in 2014, a year later, sends US military troops on the ground spending 500 million to train less than 100 'rebels'. At this time, who is the enemy? ISIS who is not fighting Assad or Assad? Russia steps it up and bombs the FSA which is in a sense the US. If you think any part of that 500 million did not wind up in ISIS/ISIL hands you are deluded. So which side were we backing? How many sides? We were fighting each other.

So now here we are, 2 years later, and ISIS is carrying out attacks across the globe and Assad is still in power and 3 million people are displaced. Obama sent in troops 'twice'.

It was TIME for the US to step in and draw a line. It did.

a reply to: matafuchs

The missile strike was an act of war against a sovreign nation.

By international and US law, Trump's order was illegal.

Obama sought Congressional approval (legal authority) and was denied.

See COTUS Article I, Section 8, Clause 11.

That is my statement.

a reply to: Gryphon66

My response was for this thread which is about boots on the ground and why O didn't do it but he did.

Now, for your question, Obama fired away without approval....

www.washingtontimes.com...

Including killing a US citizen who was 16 with an unauthorized drone strike.If that would not be a 'war crime', a POTUS ordering the death of a US citizen by drone, I am not sure what is....so there is a lot I compare to this 'warning' from Trump.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Not by US law it isn't. Article 2 grants the POTUS wholesale authority to unilaterally use US military assets in defense of US interests abroad.

By international law? Who give a flip? What are we going to do, arrest ourselves? The US is the enforcement arm of international law, so your point is meaningless.

a reply to: mekhanics

as if we dont know only after elections you started to talk this way. jk.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
That said....the US and its allies wouldn't need boots on the ground in Syria. Our reach is global and nearly instant. The only time the US has lost is when its tried to not obliterate civilian populations to get the soldiers standing behind them.

Exactly. Fighting a war while trying to win hearts and minds makes zero sense. If we fight, we should fight, balls out, total war, no quarters asked or given, leave nothing behind but footprints through the ashes. Until the US wises up and re-embraces this concept of war, I am opposed to using US troops to fight any conflict that isn't on US soil. Missiles, however, we bought 'em, so we may as well use 'em.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

I'm just flat out opposed to any war that isn't a defensive one.

Obama didn't act in Syria because Iran threatened to pull out of his nuclear agreement if he did.

That's all there is to it, he had ever intent on doing it until Iran called him and told him not to, he caved to their demands and then sent them a few pallets of cash to apologize for stepping out of line.

Source:
Obama Backed Off Syrian Missile Strike Because Iran Threatened To Kill His Crappy Nuclear Deal
www.dailywire.com...

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: burdman30ott6

I'm just flat out opposed to any war that isn't a defensive one.

That's fine, many folks are. I'm not. I'm only opposed to half assing it, especially if that half-assing ends up producing results like most wars the US has involved itself in since WW2. I don't care so much that the US is fighting wars, I only care whether we're fighting them to flat out win them. If not, then it is unacceptable in every way.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Here's the thing, public opinion is going to be a driver or warfare going forward. This is thanks to the Vietnam war and then the subsequent attention we paid to Iraq and Afghanistan. The only way public opinion is going to mostly behind a war going forward is if it is defensive.

We have no business fighting wars that aren't defensive. Hell that was one supposed to be one of Trump's appeals. No new wars.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: burdman30ott6

I'm just flat out opposed to any war that isn't a defensive one.

Im, too.

But if we evaluate the following 2 evils, one seems slightly more palatable than the other:

- we go into a war half assed, protracting it for a decade (and dumping trillions in tax dollars into the process) and spilling the blood of 150k people
- we go into a war like the vengeful warbird we pretend to be, obliterate any hope of resistance quickly, spend a few billion on the rocketry to do so, and spill the blood of 50k people

I prefer neither. BUt if "none of the above" is not an option...ill take the latter over the former anyday.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Well there are never just two choices. The government is going to do what the government is going to do, but when I look at a situation between half-assed war and full on war, if it isn't a defensive one I'll just side with peace. I'm A-OK with having the unpopular decision, and I know where my morals lie. I won't bend or break them to support whatever bogeyman the US has cooked up to attack today. Even if there is bi-partisan support for war I would still be on the side of peace.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Silence is not consent. Not always, anyway.

For the sake of humanity, ill support whatever option results in the lowest number of casualties. If the lunatics in DC want to march, i can only say "March strong!" and pray for it to end quickly.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

If the lunatics in Congress say to march, I'll be on the other side calling them lunatics and demanding that the marching ends yesterday. The quickest way to minimize causalities is to stop fighting.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
We have no business fighting wars that aren't defensive. Hell that was one supposed to be one of Trump's appeals. No new wars.

I don't disagree. Then again, I don't see Syria or North Korea as being either "new" nor "non-defensive" in nature. Trump didn't start a war in Syria on Friday, he bitchslapped a loud mouthed jackass in the bar... let's not turn it into more than it was.

As far as North Korea goes, we have been directly threatened (numerous times) by a country which is openly hostile against us AND has the motivations and the capacity (at least according to everything we know) to strike the United States directly with a nuclear weapon. The only reason we haven't already addressed this threat has been the belief that China would interject against the US for doing so and a general lack of interest in getting involved in hostilities with them. It is starting to look like even China has now grown tired of North Korea and their portly chimpanzee of a leader running his mouth. If Pyongyang can be corrected (and I use that word in the same sense as Delbert Grady from The Shining used the word 'corrected') without China escalating matters, then now is the perfect time to send a few hundred whistling, rocket propelled 'corrections' right down on top of the fat primate's palace.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
I don't disagree. Then again, I don't see Syria or North Korea as being either "new" nor "non-defensive" in nature. Trump didn't start a war in Syria on Friday, he bitchslapped a loud mouthed jackass in the bar... let's not turn it into more than it was.

I really don't think he even did that... The airfield we hit is already being used again. That attack was a waste of tax payer money and mostly symbolic.

As far as North Korea goes, we have been directly threatened (numerous times) by a country which is openly hostile against us AND has the motivations and the capacity (at least according to everything we know) to strike the United States directly with a nuclear weapon. The only reason we haven't already addressed this threat has been the belief that China would interject against the US for doing so and a general lack of interest in getting involved in hostilities with them. It is starting to look like even China has now grown tired of North Korea and their portly chimpanzee of a leader running his mouth. If Pyongyang can be corrected (and I use that word in the same sense as Delbert Grady from The Shining used the word 'corrected') without China escalating matters, then now is the perfect time to send a few hundred whistling, rocket propelled 'corrections' right down on top of the fat primate's palace.

So? I was very clear about my usage of the word "defensive". Let N. Korea # up first and actually attack someone then ask me about this again.

originally posted by: xstealth
Obama didn't act in Syria because Iran threatened to pull out of his nuclear agreement if he did.

Yeah, the nuke deal... We should all take a moment to thank Bill Clinton for his nuke deal with North Korea and how wonderfully that worked out before we turn, present middle fingers, and tell Iran what they can do with that past deal Obama got us into.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
So? I was very clear about my usage of the word "defensive". Let N. Korea # up first and actually attack someone then ask me about this again.

I live in the most likely, and reachable US city Un would target with his opening move. I have little to no desire to sit around with DC's thumb up their ass waiting on NK to physically attack. Threats are good enough to demand full retaliation.