[PrestonSturges]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SeaGypsy', ' ')IS campaign of sponsoring global terrorism is either very stupid or a sham- certain to bring fire on their quasi- Kalifa. The process makes little sense.

[AgentR11]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PrestonSturges', 'I')ndeed, so the American politicians demanding boots on the ground are laying right into ISIS' hands, yes?
I the sword of Allah a katana? I've ssen that on US "patriot" sites also.

[PrestonSturges]

If you have never killed a couple hours on the TVTropes web site, you are missing out.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/M ... JustBetter
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '[')b]Katanas Are Just Better

Japan is the country of origin of a large number of games, movies, TV shows, myths, and legends. Rule of Cool says swords are cooler than guns and tends to also hold the katana to be the coolest sword.

Of course, in real life, a katana isn't inherently better than any other type of bladed weapon. Different areas of the world developed and used different weapons to fit their unique situations, and for the most part, they were all pretty balanced compared with each other. A katana in fiction (and on film, Every Japanese Sword Is a Katana) can slice through anything as if it were butter. Further, merely wielding a katana makes one a superhuman fighter. A skilled fictional katana wielder can slice bullets in mid air, chop gun barrels off and even slice other swords not as cool as the katana off at the hilt. The katana wielder him/herself will also be considerably more agile and skilled than any other weapon wielder. If on the enemy side, expect a katana wielder to at least be an Elite Mook, if not a Big Bad or The Dragon.

[Plantagenet]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PrestonSturges', 'A')merican politicians demanding boots on the ground are laying right into ISIS' hands, yes?

[careinke]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PrestonSturges', 'A')merican politicians demanding boots on the ground are laying right into ISIS' hands, yes?

[SeaGypsy]

How long before 6 is blathering here about wasting precious American blood in an impossible quagmire?

[EdwinSm]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', '
')..... This battle is supposed to occur near Raqqa Syia. That prophecy is why the Caliphate choose Raqqa for its capital. The Moslems in the Caliphate believe that are living out that prophecy and that Allah is working his magic to bring about the battle between all the armies of the world and the Caliphate. Every time another country joins in the attack on them it simply confirms the prophecy.

[Subjectivist]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EdwinSm', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', '
')..... This battle is supposed to occur near Raqqa Syia. That prophecy is why the Caliphate choose Raqqa for its capital. The Moslems in the Caliphate believe that are living out that prophecy and that Allah is working his magic to bring about the battle between all the armies of the world and the Caliphate. Every time another country joins in the attack on them it simply confirms the prophecy.

[Cid_Yama]

We will send troops to Iraq, but none for Syria.

First, the rebels our special forces were supposed to train are the same ones being bombed by Russia along the Turkish border.

Second, Assad doesn't want us there. There are now tens of thousands of Iranian (and Iraqi) troops helping Assad along with the Russians. And the Cuban tank crews.

Third, the quickest way to WWIII would be to cross the Syrian border now with US troops. We have not been invited, and it would be considered an invasion.

The only reason McCain and Graham are calling for sending troops to Syria is because the Russians are moving in and beat them to it.

The US plans to topple Assad and put in a US friendly government is the same wrong thinking that got us what exists in Iraq.

They just can't seem to get it through their heads that the people DON'T rise up and treat us as liberators. They don't believe the nonsense about the US being 'the good guys'. To them we are Evil invaders to be fought by whatever means.

You would have thought they would have learned that one in Vietnam.

[Plantagenet]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Cid_Yama', 'W')e will send troops to Iraq, but none for Syria..... the quickest way to WWIII would be to cross the Syrian border now with US troops. We have not been invited, and it would be considered an invasion.

[Cid_Yama]

Referring to a previously announced planned deployment and deploying them are two different things.

They have not been deployed.

[Keith_McClary]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Cid_Yama', 'T')he US plans to topple Assad and put in a US friendly government is the same wrong thinking that got us what exists in Iraq.

They just can't seem to get it through their heads that the people DON'T rise up and treat us as liberators.

[Cid_Yama]

Ash Carter today told Congress that those special forces would now be deployed in Iraq, 'semi-permanently' stationed at a Kurdish base in Iraq, and at some future time, if warranted, 'may' conduct 'raids' against ISIS leaders in Syria and Iraq. But for now would not engage in combat operations but will advise Kurdish forces entering Syria, while not entering Syria themselves.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')keptical Republicans pushed Carter to respond to allegations they are being given a "rosy picture" of how well the fight is going against ISIS. Pressed to say if they were winning, Carter said, "We're going to win."

[Plantagenet]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Cid_Yama', 'W')e will send troops to Iraq, but none for Syria.....

[Cid_Yama]

Again you are wrong. they 'intend'. They 'plan'. They HAVEN'T, and they WON'T.

It's all bluster while they backtrack. Sure we will place them in Iraq, and we will fight the Islamic State there.

We will advise Kurdish troops fighting in Syria, but WE won't fight in Syria.

When US troops ACTUALLY set foot in Syria, then you can call me wrong.

But they won't, because they don't want to start WWIII.

In that same article PRESIDENT Obama was talking about the Russian timeline in Syria, which sounded like, "This is going to take some time guys. The Russians are there right now." In other words don't expect us to do anything in Syria anytime soon.

Which will prove to be never, unless Assad invites us in, which I don't expect to see happening. And the Russians are currently making themselves comfortable for a long stay, as we did in Iraq. They won't be leaving.

Politicians lie to cover their asses politically. Surely not news to you. They even go as far as making it sound like they are doing one thing, when they are actually doing another, or not really doing anything at all.

You have to listen very carefully to hear what they are actually saying, or not saying.

Go to what Ash Carter ACTUALLY said, in context. And pay attention to what he DOESN'T actually say. I'm sure you can find it on Youtube.

I don't really believe you believe your own blather. It's just more trolling.

[Cid_Yama]

Apparently nobody thought to ask Iraq. Iraq just said definitely NO to additional US troops.

[AgentR11]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Cid_Yama', 'A')pparently nobody thought to ask Iraq. Iraq just said definitely NO to additional US troops.

[dissident]

http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/12/23/ ... d-nations/

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '[')b]Putin’s Progress in Syria Sends Kerry Scampering to the United Nations

magine if the American people elected a president who was much worse than George W. Bush or Barack Obama. A real tyrant. Would that be sufficient justification for someone like Vladimir Putin to arm and train Mexican and Canadian mercenaries to invade America, kill US civilians, destroy cities and critical infrastructure, seize vital oil refineries and pipeline corridors, behead government officials and prisoners they’d captured, declare their own independent state, and do everything in their power to overthrow the elected-government in Washington?

Of course not. The question is ridiculous. It wouldn’t matter if the US president was a tyrant or not, that doesn’t justify an invasion by armed proxies from another country. And yet, this is precisely the policy that US Secretary of State John Kerry defended at the United Nations on Friday. Behind all the political blabber about a “roadmap to peace”, Kerry was tacitly defending a policy which has led to the deaths of 250,000 Syrians and the destruction of the country.

And, keep in mind, Kerry didn’t drag his case before the UN Security Council because he’s serious about a negotiated settlement or peace. That’s baloney. What Kerry wants is a resolution that will protect the groups of US-backed jihadis on the ground from the Russian-led offensive. That’s what’s really going on. The Obama administration sees the handwriting on the wall. They know that Russia is going to win the war, so they’ve settled on a plan for protecting their agents in the field. That’s why the emphasis is on a ceasefire; it’s because Kerry wants a “Timeout” so his Sunni militants can either regroup or retreat.

[GHung]

Dissident seeks therapy for Anger Management

[AgentR11]

Russian anti terrorist operation in Syria will continue regardless of deals reached in the UN. The bombing of NUSRA/ISIS/FSA/WahabiNutbars will continue until moral improves!

http://www.alraimedia.com/ar/article/sp ... 6/nr/syria