Trivial Inconsequential News: US sends hundreds of marines to Syria ....

reinoe said:

Are you kidding? The CIA is pretty much talking to everyone at this point. They're passing out classified information like it's candy.

Click to expand...

reinoe said:

While I think it's unfortunate that boots are on the ground, I always knew it was going to be required. This is a huge improvement over Obama's policy of arming and training ISIS and giving them money.

Click to expand...

Winston said:

Yes he does. His people are suffering at the hands of U.S. funded terrorist groups. If Hezbollah puts Syria on the state sponsors of terrorism, Al-Nusra puts the U.S. on that list as well.



I don't appreciate your tone. But, since you're determined to condescend to me, allow me to cast some stones as well. You're a sucker for taking the propaganda that your government spoonfeeds you. Because of the compliance of the American people, our government has meddled in ME affairs costing millions of lives going back to the 1950's. America is indirectly responsible for the carnage. Jihad plays a smaller role in Middle Eastern perception of Americans in the shade of the Syrian coup of 1949, the Iranian coup of 1953, the Iraq War, Gaddafi, the Israel-Palestine conflict, and the Syrian Civil War. My oil theory holds weight. People know about it and dismiss it because: A. They work for CNN and are paid to dismiss it or, B. They are citizens who experience cognitive dissonance. Considering that we overthrew Iran's government in 1953 because Mosaddegh was going to take back his oil reserves from British Petroleum it's not far fetched at all, to support the rebels for Saudi Arabia's Qatar-Turkey pipeline



Not sure what boogeyman you mean. We seem to be in agreement here that U.S. policy of supporting rebel groups absolutely blows up in our face. How'd that work out for us with the Mujahedin in Afghanistan?



The U.S. may not directly train ISIS but, it does arm Al-Nusra. Turkey lets ISIS use their territory because they have a common anti-Assad objective. Kuwait does play a part in this conflict too. Kuwait funds terrorists in the region, possibly ISIS. I was referring the the propaganda from the 1st gulf war. That Saddam's soldiers stormed a hospital and threw babies on the ground. That was totally made up but, our news media spread it.

U.S.-trained Syrian rebels gave equipment to Nusra: U.S. military | Reuters

Free your mind.

Click to expand...

Napoleon said:

Set aside the partisan commentary and consider what this really is. This is the military starting a ground war without authorization from Congress or the Commander-In-Chief. This is the military going rogue and it should send a chill down your spine.

Click to expand...

Praxas said:

And I'm sure we'll be hearing how bad this is from conservatives because when the idea of "boots on the ground" came up before, most were red veined in how that was illegal for Obama to do. Oh wait, this is from Trump so we'll be hearing the cheers from the right.

Click to expand...

tres borrachos said:

And I'm Angelina Jolie. Hi.

Click to expand...

Winston said:

I remain skeptical that we aren't just doing this for Saudi interests. The Saudi's are responsible for providing money and arms to the Syrian opposition. They want Assad gone. Why? What's in it for them? What's in it for us? Why does Saudi Arabia train rebels in Jordan to fight Assad?

Why is this so complicated? We are the bad guys here. Assad wants to fight terrorism. Saudi and U.S. interests run contrary to Assad. We can't defeat the Islamic terrorism in the region because we need it to take down Assad. The way we sell it to America is by telling them that Assad is a bad guy.

We want to do what we're most famous for, orchestrate a coup and install a puppet leader friendly to U.S. and U.S. ally interests. If you disagree show me evidence that Assad is an evil dictator bent on domination of the region, oppressing his people at every turn, and escalating conflict at every turn.

Click to expand...

Napoleon said:

Set aside the partisan commentary and consider what this really is. This is the military starting a ground war without authorization from Congress or the Commander-In-Chief. This is the military going rogue and it should send a chill down your spine.

Click to expand...

Tigerace117 said:

Poor, poor ISIS. They were just minding their own business wiping out everybody who disagrees with them, and the evul Americans started bombing them and now are putting boots on the ground.

Poor ISIS :roll:

Click to expand...

Napoleon said:

You can't see the forest for the trees either. The founders opposed the very idea of standing armies for a reason and now we have one that granted itself an unchecked power to wage war.

Click to expand...

Tigerace117 said:

And when we almost lost the War of 1812 they realized that not having a standing army was a bad idea. They also once thought having a pathetically weak government was a good idea. Just because somebody once thought something does not inherently make it the right idea.

Click to expand...

matchlight said:

Maybe someone here knows about how many artillery pieces a force of this size would have. I can see how even a couple dozen 155 mm. guns could be very useful against an enemy like this, which seems to be mostly individuals with small arms. Rifles and machine guns and RPG's don't mean a thing against artillery firing from five miles away. And once the target is located--probably with the help of drones and forward spotters--that fire is deadly accurate.

Click to expand...

beerftw said:

The war of 1812 was against britain and canada, with the us devastated just barely winning independance against the most powerful country on earth then vastly outnumbering them. Then britain and canada fought the us, already battered from the previous war, yet the war ended in a stalemate.

If the most powerful country on the planet and canada combined could not beat a barely formed govt that just barely beat them a little over a decade prior, the us has nothing to fear from the militia system over the standing army. If anything the war of 1812 was a slap in the face of the british, twice they could not defeat an enemy they vastly outnumbered, outfunded, and out trained.

Click to expand...

beerftw said:

The problem with artillery is the enemies we fight, unless we focused on assads forces only, they would not only be innefective but counteractive. Isis al nursa and the rebel fighters do not actively wave a countries flag or wear a uniform representing them, they hide behind the civilian population, meaning attacking them often means attacking innocent civilians. Terrorists like isis use this to recruit more members, if just using artillery were that simple, we would have won the war on terror long ago.

Click to expand...

matchlight said:

If jihadists are not to be attacked because they are sheltering among civilians, I don't see how it matters what weapons we might use. Just let them be, I guess, because the killing of civilians that usually results from attacking them only creates more jihadists.

Heavy weapons can/I] be useful against our jihadist enemies. A couple months ago, for example, the U.S. killed more than 100 of them by bombing a jihadist headquarters in a remote area near Sirte, Libya. The centerpiece of the air attack was two B-2's which had flown from Missouri, each carrying about fifty bombs. The jihadists who survived those bombs were killed with missiles fired from drones as they ran out of buildings.

Click to expand...

Tigerace117 said:

We had already won independence by 1812. But you do realize the militia performed abysmally throughout the war, right?

For example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Bladensburg

That defeat was what slapped people awake and made them realize that they needed professionals who knew what they were doing.

Click to expand...

beerftw said:

They performed so bad that the MOST POWERFUL NATION ON EARTH AT THAT TIME COULD NOT DEFEAT THEM! add into this it was a two against one war with canada also fighting america. At best it just shown how bad the most powerfull nation on earth was at beating ragtag militiamen who still had not recovered from a recent war against england for independance.

Click to expand...

Tigerace117 said:

You do realize the English were fighting with one hand behind their back, right? They were slightly more concerned with this French guy named Napoleon at the time.

The militia performed abysmally. They were utterly routed during the fiasco that was their attempt to defend the capital of the United States. You have to perform especially badly to earn the title of the "greatest disgrace ever dealt to American arms".

The Canadian militia weren't worth much either. They had their heads handed to them fifty years or so later by a bunch of Fenian raiders. This wasn't "two on one"---- it was "one on one and and quarter".

Oh, and by the way the "ragtag militias" weren't very effective in the Revolution either. It was the professionals in rhe Continental Army--- the guys who were willing to fight outside on their own backyard and who actually stayed in the army--- that won the war for us.

Click to expand...

beerftw said:

Lake erie and the battle of new orleans disagrees, both left the british running, against a much smaller ragtag force. Fyi those militias still performed well in the revolution, infact they often outperformed the regulars pund for pound because the regulars fought similiar to the british, while the militias used cover instead of firing in volleys, a tactic they learned from the native americans.

Greatest disgrace is the british unable to defeat us combined with another country(which was british owned) to the extent the british offered a peae treaty not america. It was bad enough the british ended all efforts to reclaim america or prevent westward expansion after the war of 1812, they simply could not beat them, no matter how hard they tried.


Fyi the land battles were only a small part of the war of 1812, much of it was fought over sea, where the british realized their superior navy was easily countered by american fastboats that countered their battleships.

Click to expand...

Tigerace117 said:

Luck played a huge role in the Battle of New Orleans. If the British had moved just a little bit faster.....

The Battle of Lake Erie took place a long way away from the full might of the Royal Navy.

Yes, the militias did well when they were able to take advantage of the terrain, but time and again the British regulars were still able to rout the ill trained militias once they were able to force a direct battle. Sniping is all well and good, but there was a reason the colonial era Native Americans were never able to win a war against a European power without the aid of another European power.

Up until the latter half of the war, the militia lost the vast bulk of the stand up fights to the British regulars. Arguing that untrained militia performed better than professionals is largely inaccurate.

I don't think anybody thinks it's a disgrace that the Brits were "only" able to fight the US to a draw when they were already tied down dealing with Napoleon.

The British were able to defeat the US time and again. They burnt Washington to the ground. The War of 1812 was a a draw, not a US victory like you seem to think.

The Royal Navy was overstretched--- once again, Napoleon--- and even so, the best warships in the Royal Navy never got into the War of 1812.

Click to expand...