Saudi Arabia and Qatar Supporting ISIS...

[sheltiedave]

No boots on the ground is an euphemism for "only a limited number of advisors," much like how Vietnam started. We did not have troops in the front lines, but we did have advisers that participated in limited staff functions and strategy. Then, later, the boots came.

For maintaining a limited status quo in Syria, carrying out limited air strikes, setting up and maintaining safe zones, and interdicting hostile military forays by ISIS, Syria, and Russian jets are all possible utilizing air superiority and drones, with very few boots on the ground - that is an achievable goal with current resources.

[Dondilion]

Originally Posted by sheltiedave

setting up and maintaining safe zones,

Requires mucho boots.

[whell]

Originally Posted by sheltiedave

No boots on the ground is an euphemism for "only a limited number of advisors," much like how Vietnam started. We did not have troops in the front lines, but we did have advisers that participated in limited staff functions and strategy. Then, later, the boots came.

For maintaining a limited status quo in Syria, carrying out limited air strikes, setting up and maintaining safe zones, and interdicting hostile military forays by ISIS, Syria, and Russian jets are all possible utilizing air superiority and drones, with very few boots on the ground - that is an achievable goal with current resources.

Back to the WaPo article: "But that's not what Clinton said. Her language clearly took the option of ground troops — however you define that — off the table in both Iraq and Syria."

So that's why we're in Syria? To maintain a "limited status quo"? I thought we were there to defeat ISIS in Syria. There are already plenty of news reports that our special ops fighters have been involved in combat. These fighters - who originally there to (as purposefully vague as this statement was) to "retool and ramp up our efforts to support and equip viable Syrian opposition units" - are already in harms way, and Clinton wants to put more there.

Sounds like "boots on the ground" to me, however you or Clinton want to spin that. And we leave them in harms way while our supposed "fiends" in the area provide aid and support to ISIS, and we don't do much about that either.

Your comparison to Vietnam above might actually be quite accurate.

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by whell

What I get is this - no one in the US gov't security community is pinning the Wikileaks data on Moscow. Until that happens, the media can try to conflate the DNC hack and Wikileaks in Op Ed pieces all they want - in what appears to be obvious service to the Dems - but there's no proof of any of their allegations.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...3c4_story.html

Don't get out much these days?

[whell]

Originally Posted by merrylander

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...3c4_story.html

Don't get out much these days?

Don't read with compression? The subject of this thread is what appeared in Wikileaks, not the DNC hack.

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by whell

Don't read with compression? The subject of this thread is what appeared in Wikileaks, not the DNC hack.

And where do you suppose ASSange got those e-mails? Oh I know the eledctrons just floated down into his PC from somewhere in the ether. Grow up.

[Pio1980]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...55319?section=

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk