Meanwhile in Iraq & Syria

[skankhunt42]

So one of my best friends works for the Republican party and is close with some important people. Told me today literally a couple of hours ago that boots on the ground in Syria seems likely, troops are moving as we speak... This scares the fuck out of me. I don't like it.

[Speaker to Animals]

Embrace the suck, I guess. Trump fucked us.

[TheReal_ND]

We've always had troops there from time to time, like today. I think it's likely that we will be cordoning off the Iraqi border though.

[Smitty-48]

I don't know what it achieved other than pushing the narrative I explicitly voted against. It could be all right but I have a feeling we are going to be creating even more refugees soon. Does not bode well. Reminds me of the Bush era so far.

If nothing is going as planned, or there doesn't seem to be any plan, and the POTUS is taking a beating for it domestically, overseas military adventure is baked into the cake, there's only so long Trump can wait for his "Outsider" team to produce something that he can hang his hat on, before he's going to have to go overseas military adventure to shore up his "decisive leader" bona fides, the President is not the domestic Commander-in-Chief, so he's reliant on his Chief Political Strategist to come up with a game plan to move the domestic ball down the field, but if that fails, he has to go to the only place where he is actually Commander-in-Chief and in unitary control, and that's the military option.

[Smitty-48]

Embrace the suck, I guess. Trump fucked us.

Trump promised to "totally destroy ISIS" and then demanded that the Pentagon "give him a plan in 30 days", so clearly there was going to be some military action coming down the pike, and Trump made no bones about it, "totally destroy" is obviously rhetorical, but even if you're going to give them a bloody nose, it's going to take more than launching a few TLAM's in there, not telling you something you don't know.

[Speaker to Animals]

Embrace the suck, I guess. Trump fucked us.

Trump promised to "totally destroy ISIS" and then demanded that the Pentagon "give him a plan in 30 days", so clearly there was going to be some military action coming down the pike, and Trump made no bones about it, "totally destroy" is obviously rhetorical, but even if you're going to give them a bloody nose, it's going to take more than launching a few TLAM's in there, not telling you something you don't know.

Not opposed to destroying ISIS. I am opposed to creating another Iraq in Syria.

The Russians are right: restore the government. Stop toppling nation states.

[TheReal_ND]

Granted. Not exactly crippling IS here though.



The nature of the strike is the only thing I'm holding out hope over. It was purely cosmetic.

Video semi-unrelated

[Smitty-48]

ISIS is in eastern Syria, strongholded in Raqqa, and if you're going to destroy something, have to find and fix it first, I don't think that has to involve a full on nation building force, but can't be done entirely from the air, has to be some boots on the ground to find and fix em', my game plan, as I've said, would be a strategic raid, with XVIII Corps and 1 MEF.

[TheReal_ND]

I could rationalize that but basically bitch slapping Assad without trial or jury is sending the wrong message here. It sounds like more nation building rhetoric. I was fine with Hussein and ghadafi. They never called me white trash.

[SuburbanFarmer]

It's a lovely year for another war.