On ‘Face the Nation,’ Senators Feinstein, McCain Call For More U.S. Troops In M.E.

Re: On ‘Face the Nation,’ Senators Feinstein, McCain Call For More U.S. Troops In M.E

Fletch said:

They were beaten badly and driven out of Iraq. If we went back in the same thing would happen to them.

Click to expand...

And when we left again, they'd just come back. The whole point of the "war on terror" was to chase them wherever they went until they were defeated. We have no interest in doing that.

Re: On ‘Face the Nation,’ Senators Feinstein, McCain Call For More U.S. Troops In M.E

Cephus said:

Which doesn't really help anyone outside of the ME. It wouldn't help the dead cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo, the victims of Muslim rape gangs in Sweden, etc. Extremist Islam exists outside of the Middle East, just walling it off and letting them kill each other isn't a solution.

Click to expand...

we have to start somewhere, why not where they come from?

Re: On ‘Face the Nation,’ Senators Feinstein, McCain Call For More U.S. Troops In M.E

UtahBill said:

we have to start somewhere, why not where they come from?

Click to expand...

I'm not saying not to start there, we just have to understand that while we're off bombing the crap out of them in the ME, they're likely to be shooting out own citizens in our own backyard. We didn't keep them in the ME like we should have, now there will be many, many times more casualties than had we done it right in the first place.

Re: On ‘Face the Nation,’ Senators Feinstein, McCain Call For More U.S. Troops In M.E

AmericanSpartan said:

We did not lose Vietnam, we left..Never confuse the two.

Click to expand...

And further we had it won and chose to throw in the towel. It was years ago, I remember an interview with a high ranking North Vietnamese officer who said we had them beaten in the Tet offensive and had we persevered, the North Vietnamese were ready to throw in the towel. But it was all those televised images of American war protesters rioting in the streets, burning flags, and giving our government the figurative finger that encouraged the Viet Cong to keep on fighting. And sure enough they guessed right. We blinked first. And we caved. And not only did we cave, we sneaked out of Saigon in the middle of the night leaving some of our staunchest Vietnamese allies behind to be slaughtered when the Viet Cong moved in. It absolutely was not America's finest hour.

Total estimated military and civilian deaths in the entire conflict are more than 3-1/2 million people. Total American deaths alone, more than 58,000, and the cost in the physically and mentally damaged people we managed to bring home is not possible to calculate.

And Vietnam to this day remains a totalitarian 'communistic' country that assigns the rights and privileges that the people will have and has a really dismal track record in human rights that are worsening year by year according to international reports.

So you tell me. Was the war worth it?

Re: On ‘Face the Nation,’ Senators Feinstein, McCain Call For More U.S. Troops In M.E

US Conservative said:

They impact our interests overseas. Oil. Our allies security. Our long term geopolitical allies in the region. Radical islam is a cancer and it needs to be treated like a highly invasive cancer-excised. Even the best drone program is ineffective without ground forces-thats what we are seeing in Iraq now.

Click to expand...

We have our own oil, our allies security is not out problem, if they want protection fine, in order to play they will pay, if not we leave.

Re: On ‘Face the Nation,’ Senators Feinstein, McCain Call For More U.S. Troops In M.E

AlbqOwl said:

And further we had it won and chose to throw in the towel. It was years ago, I remember an interview with a high ranking North Vietnamese officer who said we had them beaten in the Tet offensive and had we persevered, the North Vietnamese were ready to throw in the towel. But it was all those televised images of American war protesters rioting in the streets, burning flags, and giving our government the figurative finger that encouraged the Viet Cong to keep on fighting. And sure enough they guessed right. We blinked first. And we caved. And not only did we cave, we sneaked out of Saigon in the middle of the night leaving some of our staunchest Vietnamese allies behind to be slaughtered when the Viet Cong moved in. It absolutely was not America's finest hour.

Total estimated military and civilian deaths in the entire conflict are more than 3-1/2 million people. Total American deaths alone, more than 58,000, and the cost in the physically and mentally damaged people we managed to bring home is not possible to calculate.

And Vietnam to this day remains a totalitarian 'communistic' country that assigns the rights and privileges that the people will have and has a really dismal track record in human rights that are worsening year by year according to international reports.

So you tell me. Was the war worth it?

Click to expand...

Since we lost...Not a chance in hell..Should we have double down on bombing and not put in as many troops? Yes..Should we have not fought to begin with? Sure...

Re: On ‘Face the Nation,’ Senators Feinstein, McCain Call For More U.S. Troops In M.E

AmericanSpartan said:

We have our own oil, our allies security is not out problem, if they want protection fine, in order to play they will pay, if not we leave.

Click to expand...

Should our allies participate more in their own security and not depend on the military might from just a few of us to keep them secure? Yes. But to say their security is not our problem isn't really accurate. Would we want a Nazi Europe today? That was the way it was headed if Hitler was not stopped. Would we want a 'communist' Europe today? That was the way it was headed if the USSR had not been stopped. Would we want a Pacific under the control of the Imperial Japanese army? That was the way it was headed if Japan had not been stopped. Would we want an entire Middle East under control of Saddam Hussein and therefore able to hold much of the free world hostage? That is the way it was headed if he had not been stopped.

All these things are in America's interests as it is to our advantage to have allies instead of people intent on destroying or enslaving us. It is to our advantage to have free and prosperous trading partners who help us keep our economy strong. And from a purely aesthetic point of view, many of us enjoy traveling to and enjoying other places. Being an island unto ourselves and confined to our own space is not something I think desirable for anybody.

But. . . sacrificing our blood and treasure and bombing or killing some people just so politicians can feel they are doing something when they have no plan to win a war and no clue what winning would look like, is not something I see as profitable or morally justifiable for us to do.

Re: On ‘Face the Nation,’ Senators Feinstein, McCain Call For More U.S. Troops In M.E

AlbqOwl said:

Should our allies participate more in their own security and not depend on the military might from just a few of us to keep them secure? Yes. But to say their security is not our problem isn't really accurate. Would we want a Nazi Europe today? That was the way it was headed if Hitler was not stopped. Would we want a 'communist' Europe today? That was the way it was headed if the USSR had not been stopped. Would we want a Pacific under the control of the Imperial Japanese army? That was the way it was headed if Japan had not been stopped. Would we want an entire Middle East under control of Saddam Hussein and therefore able to hold much of the free world hostage? That is the way it was headed if he had not been stopped.

All these things are in America's interests as it is to our advantage to have allies instead of people intent on destroying or enslaving us. It is to our advantage to have free and prosperous trading partners who help us keep our economy strong. And from a purely aesthetic point of view, many of us enjoy traveling to and enjoying other places. Being an island unto ourselves and confined to our own space is not something I think desirable for anybody.

But. . . sacrificing our blood and treasure and bombing or killing some people just so politicians can feel they are doing something when they have no plan to win a war and no clue what winning would look like, is not something I see as profitable or morally justifiable for us to do.

Click to expand...

You fight it, you pay for it...I am done helping the world only to be bent over and ****ed by it...

Taking Euros for oil is not not holding the world hostage.

And to be honest as much as a monster as he was, he was a predictable monster.

Re: On ‘Face the Nation,’ Senators Feinstein, McCain Call For More U.S. Troops In M.E

fmw said:

I think there are only two rational approaches. Either we should have no troops in the middle east at all or we should have enough with a mission to destroy ISIS within a few months. To me anything else, including what we are doing and throwing more troops at the problem without the will to destroy ISIS, is political and irrational.

Click to expand...

Why should we lead the fight against Isis ourselves or alone? I don't think US citizens should have to pay all the bills to save the world.

Re: On ‘Face the Nation,’ Senators Feinstein, McCain Call For More U.S. Troops In M.E

MMC said:

Who else can take care of the problem? The Europeans don't have the heart nor the will. The Aussies can't do it alone with those in the ME.

Click to expand...

Americans don't like Isis, but committing our resources to a full fledged war against ISIS requires a better argument than "we hate those deranged assholes." We have to weigh the costs of war. We need a clear goal, and I want to know how it will benefit me and the United States?

We don't need an endless war, and especially not an endless war against ISIS.

Re: On ‘Face the Nation,’ Senators Feinstein, McCain Call For More U.S. Troops In M.E

Jetboogieman said:

So you have no answers to my questions?

Hardly surprising... shouldn't you still be freaking out over Ebola or something?

Click to expand...

Ebola, then black people shooting cops, and now it's back to Isis.

Re: On ‘Face the Nation,’ Senators Feinstein, McCain Call For More U.S. Troops In M.E

Fletch said:

That is a different argument. There is a difference between ISIS wanting a ground war against us and us wanting a ground war against them. I am addressing the former and you are addressing the latter. I know why we don't want it. What I am asking is why do they want to tangle with a force that would wipe them out.

Click to expand...

We haven't wiped out Al Qaeda in 10 plus years, what makes you think we can wipe out ISIS?

Re: On ‘Face the Nation,’ Senators Feinstein, McCain Call For More U.S. Troops In M.E

MMC said:

Well whaddya know.....Diane Feinstein with McCain are out publicly challenging BO and his mental issues of his ideology. This is indeed a good day to Start a Monday. Another Democrat telling BO how he has got it wrong. What say ye?




Two influential senators are calling on President Barack Obama to send more U.S. ground troops to hotspots around the Middle East.

The suggestion by Republican John McCain and Democrat Dianne Feinstein is a direct challenge to the president, who has said he doesn’t want to increase the U.S. military presence in Yemen despite the deteriorating security condition in that country.

Feinstein, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, says the U.S. needs more human intelligence in the region and to not rely so heavily on intelligence gathered by technical means.....snip~

On ‘Face the Nation,’ Senators Feinstein, McCain Call For More U.S. Troops In Middle East « CBS San Francisco

Click to expand...

Dianne Feinstein is a chicken hawk war profiteer. enough said.

Re: On ‘Face the Nation,’ Senators Feinstein, McCain Call For More U.S. Troops In M.E

CanadaJohn said:

I can't agree with your position at all. The Iraqis - the Kurds in particular - have asked for our assistance and you want to just go in and kill all of them, our friends as well. That's about as stupid as burning down your house to get rid of some cockroaches.

Click to expand...

You are misstating my position. I doubt very much that all but a few of the inhabitants of Mosul, Raqqa, Tikrit, Ramadi, and other cities these war criminals are sheltering in--or even a majority of them--are "our friends." A few thousand jihadists could not possibly hold sway over a population hundreds of times their number unless much of that population acquiesced in or even actively supported what they are up to. Despite that, I never even implied that the U.S. "just go in and kill all of them." Nor did I ever imply the U.S. should kill even a single Kurd. It would be both wrong and stupid to do that, because the Kurds are our best potential ally in the region. Any of them who did live in Mosul certainly are not living there any more.

I suggested that it is foolish to be overly fastidious about killing civilians to get at these jihadists--not only in Iraq and Syria, but in other countries also. The very reason they are sheltering in cities is that they are sure the U.S. is so soft and decadent it lacks the will to cause heavy civilian casualties to get at them, no matter how horrific the atrocities they continue to commit. They are convinced Americans are so fastidious we simply can't bear causing civilian casualties, and they are using that weakness against us.

Under the laws of war, if civilians are killed in the course of attacking armed enemies who have taken cover among them, those enemies--and not the people attacking them--are unlawful combatants and responsible for killing those civilians. Fighting from amongst civilians, using them as human shields, is a war crime, just like fighting out of hospitals, schools, churches, or residences. The laws of war do not require the U.S. to let war criminals have a safe haven from which to plot the murders of more Americans, just because attacking them is likely to cause civilian deaths.

Re: On ‘Face the Nation,’ Senators Feinstein, McCain Call For More U.S. Troops In M.E

iguanaman said:

The question is why would we use conventional weapons to do the same thing that a nuclear blast would do quicker and cheaper? Victory on your terms would mean near total annihilation of the native population of Iraq and Syria and Iran and Yemen and Libya and on and on .............. You also forget we dropped more bomb tonnage on Vietnam that all of Germany in WWII and still lost.

Click to expand...

No, the question is why you are so willing to let the ISIS jihadists do whatever they please. What you clearly hope, although you will not acknowledge it, is that the U.S. will not use any effective force against them. To let these people continue to be as free to act as they now are is to openly invite a major attack on this country. They are just as determined to kill Americans as the jihadists behind 9/11 were, they have just as safe a base of operations, and they have even more resources.

Re: On ‘Face the Nation,’ Senators Feinstein, McCain Call For More U.S. Troops In M.E

AmericanSpartan said:

We have our own oil, our allies security is not out problem, if they want protection fine, in order to play they will pay, if not we leave.

Click to expand...

We are also fighting the war on terror, even if we dont want to and even if we think its over. This is a long-haul war, there wont be a VE-day, and the longer we pretend we aren't fighting it-the worse it will be for us.

Re: On ‘Face the Nation,’ Senators Feinstein, McCain Call For More U.S. Troops In M.E

SheWolf said:

Americans don't like Isis, but committing our resources to a full fledged war against ISIS requires a better argument than "we hate those deranged assholes." We have to weigh the costs of war. We need a clear goal, and I want to know how it will benefit me and the United States?

We don't need an endless war, and especially not an endless war against ISIS.

Click to expand...

Again who said it was just an American problem......oh and not all former Military just make decisions solely by Hate. Seems like that would be an emotion played off of by those who lean left and are usually from the brand, civilian sheep.

Re: On ‘Face the Nation,’ Senators Feinstein, McCain Call For More U.S. Troops In M.E

MMC said:

Again who said it was just an American problem......oh and not all former Military just make decisions solely by Hate. Seems like that would be an emotion played off of by those who lean left and are usually from the brand, civilian sheep.

Click to expand...

Why else should we fight ISIS on the ground, if not because we don't like them? They don't have the ability to reach us on ground over here. They are largely hurting people on the other side of the world. Why should that be our fight?

I could understand assisting Arab nations in fight ISIS, but I don't understand why we should make a huge commitment and send ground troops over... :shrug:

Re: On ‘Face the Nation,’ Senators Feinstein, McCain Call For More U.S. Troops In M.E

SheWolf said:

Why else should we fight ISIS on the ground, if not because we don't like them? They don't have the ability to reach us on ground over here. They are largely hurting people on the other side of the world. Why should that be our fight?

I could understand assisting Arab nations in fight ISIS, but I don't understand why we should make a huge commitment and send ground troops over... :shrug:

Click to expand...

What part about them did you forget.....with them declaring War on Americans and Others? What do you mean they don't have the ability to reach us over here. They have access to US Visas. They are moving West.

The Arab Nations are to incompetent to deal with the problem. Which is why they have to rely on others to solve the problem.

Re: On ‘Face the Nation,’ Senators Feinstein, McCain Call For More U.S. Troops In M.E

SheWolf said:

Why else should we fight ISIS on the ground, if not because we don't like them? They don't have the ability to reach us on ground over here. They are largely hurting people on the other side of the world. Why should that be our fight?

I could understand assisting Arab nations in fight ISIS, but I don't understand why we should make a huge commitment and send ground troops over... :shrug:

Click to expand...

I suppose Al Qaeda didn't have the ability to reach us here on U.S. soil, either, since they were operating out of Afghanistan, clear on the other side of the world. The U.S. only murdered millions of them because we didn't like them--not because of 9/11. When will this horrible, evil country stop hating on poor Muslims, just because they're brown and not Xtian???

Re: On ‘Face the Nation,’ Senators Feinstein, McCain Call For More U.S. Troops In M.E

matchlight said:

No, the question is why you are so willing to let the ISIS jihadists do whatever they please. What you clearly hope, although you will not acknowledge it, is that the U.S. will not use any effective force against them. To let these people continue to be as free to act as they now are is to openly invite a major attack on this country. They are just as determined to kill Americans as the jihadists behind 9/11 were, they have just as safe a base of operations, and they have even more resources.

Click to expand...

Where do you live? On the moon? Coalition airstrikes have kill 1000's of ISIS fighters. Since those strikes began, ISIS has failed to take any more cities in Iraq and have been driven back by Kurdish and Iraqi forces in several areas. If you are volunteering to go over there yourself, I say go for it. Oherwise it is wiser to let us help the Iraqi's take back their own country and give them the pride of ownership that our invasion took from them. We have seen first hand that conquering a country is far easier than occupying one. And installing Maliki was the worst possible choice of action, I doubt they want us meddling there again.

A senior US official said Isis had suffered particularly high casualties as a result of its determination to capture Kobani, sending many fighters to the border town, where they could easily be targeted by US planes. As a result, the official claimed, Isis fighters in the Isis Syrian stronghold of Raqqa were increasingly reluctant to go to Kobani and were growing disillusioned with the leadership.

“It was presenting itself as an unstoppable movement,” he said. “That kind of unstoppable momentum has been blunted, to say the least. We have killed over 1,000 of their fighters, particularly in Kobani, and that gets to Raqqa because they wanted to take Kobani and had been making the biggest flag they had ever made and they were going to put it up there because to them this is a war of flags.

“They were committed to this and we could see fighters flooding in from Raqqa and we saw that as an opportunity to attrit their manpower,” he said. “Fighters now don’t want to go to Kobani. There are similar accounts in Mosul, people not getting paid what they thought they’d get paid, not living the life they thought they’d promised … So the mood has changed.”

Click to expand...

US claims Isis demoralised by heavy losses from air strikes | World news | The Guardian

Re: On ‘Face the Nation,’ Senators Feinstein, McCain Call For More U.S. Troops In M.E

iguanaman said:

Where do you live? On the moon? Coalition airstrikes have kill 1000's of ISIS fighters. Since those strikes began, ISIS has failed to take any more cities in Iraq and have been driven back by Kurdish and Iraqi forces in several areas. If you are volunteering to go over there yourself, I say go for it. Oherwise it is wiser to let us help the Iraqi's take back their own country and give them the pride of ownership that our invasion took from them. We have seen first hand that conquering a country is far easier than occupying one. And installing Maliki was the worst possible choice of action,



US claims Isis demoralised by heavy losses from air strikes | World news | The Guardian

Click to expand...

The source you quoted claimed that "we have killed over 1,000 of their fighters." "Over 1,000" is not the "1000's"--plural--that you assert. About all that's been accomplished is to prevent the jihadists from seizing more territory in Iraq. They control much more of Syria than they did when the U.S. strikes began late last summer. The anonymous "senior official" your leftist piece of fish wrap quotes seems to be one of many who are willing to carry water for this sorry administration.

You yourself seem to be a faithful member of President Pinprick's rear guard. You've made clear you don't want this country do anything effective to stop these bastards, any more than he does. Your drivel about helping "the Iraqi's (sic) take back their own country" and giving "them the pride of ownership that our invasion took from them" has a "blame Bush" ring to it that fits right in with your support of Mr. Obama's feckless policy toward these jihadists. Did you get those trite phrases from Mother Jones, or do you want to admit they're all your doing?

I doubt they want us meddling there again.

Click to expand...

I don't give a righteous flying ---- what they want, or don't want. The United States does not need to ask permission from piss-ant countries like Iraq to act in the interests of its national security.

We have seen first hand that conquering a country is far easier than occupying one.

Click to expand...

Speak for yourself. I don't accept that the United States ever intended to "occupy" Iraq.

Re: On ‘Face the Nation,’ Senators Feinstein, McCain Call For More U.S. Troops In M.E

matchlight said:

The source you quoted claimed that "we have killed over 1,000 of their fighters." "Over 1,000" is not the "1000's"--plural--that you assert. About all that's been accomplished is to prevent the jihadists from seizing more territory in Iraq. They control much more of Syria than they did when the U.S. strikes began late last summer. The anonymous "senior official" your leftist piece of fish wrap quotes seems to be one of many who are willing to carry water for this sorry administration.

You yourself seem to be a faithful member of President Pinprick's rear guard. You've made clear you don't want this country do anything effective to stop these bastards, any more than he does. Your drivel about helping "the Iraqi's (sic) take back their own country" and giving "them the pride of ownership that our invasion took from them" has a "blame Bush" ring to it that fits right in with your support of Mr. Obama's feckless policy toward these jihadists. Did you get those trite phrases from Mother Jones, or do you want to admit they're all your doing?



I don't give a righteous flying ---- what they want, or don't want. The United States does not need to ask permission from piss-ant countries like Iraq to act in the interests of its national security.



Speak for yourself. I don't accept that the United States ever intended to "occupy" Iraq.

Click to expand...

So I take it you are volunteering for frontline duty. Someone who talks so tough wouldn't be a coward would he?

Re: On ‘Face the Nation,’ Senators Feinstein, McCain Call For More U.S. Troops In M.E

iguanaman said:

So I take it you are volunteering for frontline duty. Someone who talks so tough wouldn't be a coward would he?

Click to expand...

What a silly logical fallacy.

Re: On ‘Face the Nation,’ Senators Feinstein, McCain Call For More U.S. Troops In M.E

The neocon bible: