No Boots? Just Another Exposed Lie

Discussion in 'Todays Battlegrounds' started by Kate, Sep 25, 2014.

  1. Kate

    Kate Active Member

    The new ArmyTimes reports today that "The Big Red One" (Fort Riley, KS, 1st Infantry Division) will be the first headquarters to deploy. Pentagon says around 500 men and women (note that's 1000 boots :( ) will head out in about a month.

    Around 200 of them will be there as the 475 person increase. Uh wait... was I dreaming about the grand "no boots on the ground!" presidential speech when trying to get Congress on his side?? Okay, so blatant lies from the White House shouldn't shock us... Obama's already sent 1,600 troops... all wearing boots I presume. I hadn't known that. Maybe ignorance *is* bliss.

    Only there's a difference this time. Someone I love who's already done 7 deployments will most likely be going. I'm trying to remember if that "no boots" garbage was any kind of a comfort to the family in the past few weeks. I think it was... how fast we all forget.

    Wonder how THIS lie will be covered up? Maybe send them all in Salvatore Ferragamo and Jimmy Choo shoes so that it can be claimed "there are no boots!"

    Godspeed, Big Red One. Here we go again.
  2. gmckee1985

    gmckee1985 Member

    I think it's pretty silly to think that we can defeat the ISIS threat without putting boots on the ground in some form or fashion. Obama wasn't being realistic when he said he wasn't going to put boots on the ground. As Americans we need to realize in order to defeat radical islamists we're going to have to unfortunately put some of our sons and daughters in harms way.
  3. gmckee1985

    gmckee1985 Member

    It appears as though the Obama administration still hasn't come up with a viable strategy for dealing with ISIS. That's depressing to me as an America. Apparently the plan is just to let this problem fester and grow until there is a new president.
  4. gmckee1985

    gmckee1985 Member

    Looks as though we have sent another 1,500 ground troops to the area. They are not going to engage in battle but are going to train others. I hope this helps the situation but my expectations are very low at this point. We haven't waited too long to get involved. It feels like too little too late to me.
  5. Kate

    Kate Active Member

    That sounds mighty dire there, @gmckee1985 ... but sadly I suspect you're right. The current admin seems to be so worried about not offending *some* groups while totally spitting on others, that there isn't much hope for resolution anytime soon.

    I hope it can all lie dormant for that amount of time, but it's a loooong way to a Jan 2017 inauguration. :( Well, depending on who wins and if they realize the current non-existent foreign policies, that is.
  6. gmckee1985

    gmckee1985 Member

    I would say Hillary Clinton would be a tiny bit better on foreign affairs than Barack Obama, but not much better. They have very similar if not identical world views. They are internationalist progressives who generally shy away from conflict. They don't believe in bold use of the military. They believe in international coalitions that generally don't get anything done. I'm not optimistic about improvements in our foreign policy if she wins.
  7. Gin0710

    Gin0710 Member

    Honey, the "no boots" bullshit was just a lie for someone to get re-elected. And it doesn't matter whether it was a republican or a democrat who promised it, every politician is full of garbage and every politician will do whatever it takes to take power. I am so sick of the government in this country. I'm sick of how they use people to get what they want and how they neglect to help people when they truly need it. I side with neither democrat or republican. Not until I see a true leader who is willing to set their views aside do what's best for this country and not for themselves!
  8. gmckee1985

    gmckee1985 Member

    I definitely agree that polticians are looking out for themselves above all else. When conducting our nations foreign policy, politics should not even enter the equation. Thats what I'm looking for in the next president. Someone who puts America's national interests above all else. Especially politics.
  9. Interrogator#6

    Interrogator#6 Active Member

    The last word I heard regarding the redeployment of American troops to Iraq was for the purpose of TRAINing the Shi'ite Iraqi 'troops' to become an effective military units. Am I mistaken in this?

    That is crazy. We have been training Iraqi for a decade or more, with reports of "They will be ready in six months." In six months time the word is that another six months is needed.

    The ISIS troops are effective. Why? Because we trained them. Some we trained with the Shi'ite troops. Some were trained back when the Ba'ath Party was in charge of the Iraqi government. Back then Saddem Huessen was in charge, things were relatively stable, the economy worked eve though the US did all it could to stop it.

    So why keep trying to do the same thing which hasn't worked in the past?
  10. jrj1701

    jrj1701 Member

    This is no surprise, the amount of press that ISIS has been given causes a demand that they be stopped, yet we keep messing thing up more than we help. We are not committed to a permanent occupancy of the middle east, and that is what will have to happen to achieve stability on our terms when we keep taking out the leaders in the area that are doing what we will end up having to do and we have not proven to be able to stabilize foreign areas, just escalate the problem and waste more of our valuable resources, and cause the ranks of the terrorist to grow.
  11. Interrogator#6

    Interrogator#6 Active Member

    What!? We are growing the raanks of terrorists?

    Surprize. This is exactly what the opponents of the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq predicted would happen, despite the Junior Bush GANG said would happen. The Junior Bush Gang lied, most Americans swallowed the lie, and allowed this cancer to grow.
    jrj1701 likes this.
  12. nailah783

    nailah783 Member

    I would like to hope that not all politicians are liars. I would like to believe that they truly mean what they say when they say it, but things happen and we have to make adjustments to fix the issues as they come. I would like to believe that these aren't lies when they are being said because if that's the case some of these politicians are great actors and they need to be in the movies somewhere.
  13. Interrogator#6

    Interrogator#6 Active Member

    Nailah, I too wish to believe that some politicians actually speak truth on at least a regular basis. Several of my elected representatives have seemed to be truthful, at least most of the time.

    I live in Minnesota. We have a reputation of a high voter turnout state, which have yielded Jessie Ventura as Govenor (Independent), Al Franken (dem) as Senator, and Keith Ellison (dem, muslim) as Rep., and Paul Wellstone (dem.) late Senator. Those seem as mostly truthful and honest, though I understand Ventura himself used his stagename rather than his private legal name.
  14. Kate

    Kate Active Member

    Oh Nailah, Nailah! The truth you have spoken here! Wouldn't it be nice (and bizarre after what we all know and have seen in the past!) to have politicians who are trustworthy?! :eek:

    I guess not many of them actually come up with the ludicrous lies themselves... always someone "advising" who think they know everything. Newsflash... they don't! All they know is the art of manipulation but they always eventually get busted.

    Wouldn't it be refreshing (after the shock wears off) to see a politician with some backbone who puts a foot down and says "NOOOOOOOO! I will NOT go that route. I will do what's best for the people!"

    Kate! Kate! Wake up, Kate... you're having another one of your dreams. :(

Share This Page