Hate to see more guys ordered to Irag!

I don't know what their orders entail, But I sure hope they take it as foremost to keep themselves safe. Until someone defines victory and how to achieve said victory, I think sending more people there is a gross error.

 

I know, I have read that sort of shit before.

Advising to do what? Sort of bothers me having that undefined and how it is they are non-combat. Who the fuck agreed to leave them be?

 

As someone who has served in the United States Military could you please explain what exactly a "non-combat Advisors" is. It seems like even if they are not sent there for combat purposes they will still be in areas were it is extremely dangerous and will be under fire at times.

 

Didn't Kennedy do that in Vietnam?

 

It's no explanation at all.

"So it’s a relatively tiny force. But just what are these troops doing? More importantly, what are they not doing?"

Nothing about what victory is or how we are going to achieve it. What we have is a few hundred , then some more troops , now some more. Not a damn thing about how many it is going to take to do what ever.

This is just as much bullshit as ObamaCare saving you something or Vietnam with just a few advisors.

Would your Senator, or mine support this crap? We have a right to know. No I take it back, they have an obligation to tell us, Just as the President has an obligation to confer with them and then to approve or not.

 

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=12239

 

One Democrat knew how to do it. The current should also, or be schooled.

Bush #1 was pretty clear also. Saddam will not have Kuwait. This will not stand! Or something very close.

 

Looks like 43 day did the trick. Not much to bitch about.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/index/iraq/nirq050.htm

 

Dang I have to bump this, it was a first.

 

Marazul, did you demand the same answers when the President was a Republican? Many of us did, and he had only jingoistic answers.

This board had a thread about the famed woman who moved to Portland to get her recent assisted suicide. Compared to her, the media hid news of the following Portland antiwar demonstrator's death. For background, watch the article's 9-minute video from the ABC program Nightline, made a year before he died 2 days ago from pain, not suicide.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/tomas-youn...tivist-dead/story?id=26846330&singlePage=true

 

During my life, most wars of any significance have started with a Democrat Commander in Chief. The exceptions the two Irag wars and I have no problem with the first. The second, I though went off the track when the mission became creating a Democracy. That is not our job.

Page one of the Art of War has some truths I think should be noted:

"The Moral Law Causes the people to be in complete accord with their ruler; so that they will follow him regardless of their lives undismayed by any danger."
Obama is and utter failure right out of the gate. The people do not know the mission nor how we will be successful.

"The Commander" is the example of our power in his wisdom, courage, command presences. The best Commander usually win if the cause is moral.

We have no Commander identified, no Stormin Norman! As far as I can see, Valerie Jarrett is advising the President on troop levels necessary for this unknown mission. You can name the Commander(s) of every war we have ever had, except this one. I don't think this Commander in Chief places any value on any Commander except self.

 

When Bush became (he wasn't elected) President in 2001, in his first week he bombed some Iraqi stations just to tell Saddam, I'm coming for you. Bush then spent a year and a half trying to justify why we should start a war with a country which was no threat to anyone, not even Israel.

The best theory for why he started the war is that in the 1980s, with the U.S. helping Iraq fight Iran with the purpose of them mutually destructing, his oilman father made some secret deal with Saddam for more U.S. assistance, and Saddam reneged on his end of the deal.

All we know is that Big Bush was mighty bitter against Saddam. The best theory for Little Bush's war is that he was salvaging Big's reputation after he wisely held back from marching to Baghdad in 1991.

You say you want a clear purpose before initiating a war. Did you say that in 2001-03 when Bush went through about 5 reasonings for his Iraq war, persuading no one but war lovers who needed no reasons anyway?

 

Back in my day, we made Democratic presidents justify their wars.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/this-day-in-politics-henry-clay-112842.html?ml=tl_10_b