Nothing simple in the Middle East.

Several leading candidates for POTUS have made remarks about how, when THEY become POTUS, THEY will "take out ISIS!" It's just not that simple.
Turkey is an independent nation. The Turkish government wants Syrian President Assad gone. At the same time, most Turks hate the idea of growing power for Kurds in the region. A large section of Turkey has a large number of Kurds, most of whom want an independent state of Kurdistan created from parts of Turkey, Iraq, and Syria, with perhaps a little of Iran to boot. Consequently, for at least a few years now, it appears that the government of Turkey has been surreptitiously helping ISIS, whom they saw as a force to weaken both the Assad government in Syria and also the Kurds, at the same time.
Keep in mind that Turkey is, ostensibly, a long time ally of The United States of America. Turkey agreed to join NATO in 1951, and has officially been in NATO since 1952! My point is that Turkey, who presumably should know a LOT about the region in which they are located, has now, apparently, turned against ISIS while still attacking the Kurds who are fighting ISIS. What a mess!
And voices are being raised to get America to get more heavily involved in this quagmire. Many are even calling for us to send thousands, or even tens of thousands, of soldiers there, because "nothing will stem ISIS but American boots on the ground." That's easy to say when it's not YOUR boots, or, likely. the "boots" of any of your close family members who would be ordered to kill and die there!
Here's a link to the this most complex situation:

Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

The Romans became too civilized and their empire fell. Is the USA too civilized?

The boots on the ground doesn't necessarily mean combat operations.

Boots on the ground most times mean military advisers. Military advisers make our allies stronger, more efficient warriors, stronger allies to the US, and most importantly a placeholder for an American service member.

The issue of Boots on the Ground is that no military conflict has been won without some sort of ground presence. Air strikes, naval blockades and drone strikes don't take objectives, they just change the equation. This has been proven time and time again throughout history.


what these POTUS candidates have stated. They've used, or perhaps misused, this term and spoken directly about thousands of U.S. troops being needed to directly confront ISIS, ISIL, or whatever you wish to call them. So, my admonition to them is applicable. It won't be their boots, or the boots of anyone they hold dear to them!

My main point is that the situation is much more complex than, "All we have to do is send in our troops and wipe them out." We tried that in Iraq. We even proclaimed, "Mission Accomplished." And that was against a real national governmental regime! How's THAT working out? Is the world safer now than it was in 2001? Is the Middle East more stable now than it was in 2001? I don't think so!

The Middle East is a quagmire. It's just so hard to tell the "good guys" from the "bad guys!" GHW Bush warned us that, before we engage in military confrontations, we must have a clear set of objectives and a clear exit strategy. Turkey found out that by helping ISIS and hurting Assad and the Kurds, they have strengthened ISIS far beyond anything they could have imagined. And Turkey is right there! Even they can't tell the "good guys" from the "bad guys" in the Middle East.

Nothing will be resolved in the Middle East unless and until the parties of moderation and democracy unite to defeat, demean, and debase the extremists. This begins with the Turks and others making peace with the Kurds, but it would be greatly enhanced if the moderates could all make a lasting peace with Israel.
The U.S. simply cannot afford, in either lives or treasure, to permanently occupy hostile territory. Europe is a lot closer. Europe is relatively wealthy and powerful. Let them put "boots on the ground," if that will make the difference!

Foreign advisors directly confront ISIS. So I don't know what your saying with the first part.

As far as the second part I can give you quotes from the President and Vice President about how well Iraq was and could stand on its own as we pulled the last troops out. So don't even go there.


Iraq is a shell of a government. If all things stay the same, Iraq will eventually be dominated by Iran. Won't THAT be special. But, remember, it was W who stated that he refused to read his daddy's book about the quagmire that was Iraq. Obama just had to extricate us from an untenable situation into which W placed us.
Apparently, Mikey, you are disappointed that Obama withdrew our troops. My point is that they never should have been there to begin with! No WMDs found in Iraq! No connection of Saddam's regime to al-Qaeda and 9/11, who viscerally HATED Saddam! How many more would you have die in that no-win quagmire. Did you read GHW's book? I did!! GHW knew what needed to be done. GHW realized that only other Muslims could solve the problem that was Saddam Hussein. He got out! W committed more troops. And thousands died. And an estimated $2 TRILLION [Yes. Trillion with a "T"] of our tax dollars were spent. For what? An even LESS stable Middle East than when Saddam was in power. Some "Mission Accomplished!"

If troops are needed to make this horrible situation somewhat better because the Muslims cannot or will not take care of this themselves, the primary responsibility is in the laps of the European powers, with support only from the U.S. Or, do you want more young Americans to die there, and more and more billions or trillions of our tax dollars sent pouring into the quagmire that is the Middle East.
Do you really think that the U.S. can unilaterally solve a thousand year problem, Mikey? If so, welcome to Egypt!

You are against the invasion I get it. But to choose a failing strategy and double down on it later is just as bad. Was invading Iraq a bad idea? Yes. But the 2007 did work and did put the country on the path to stability. Those gains were lost in the mass withdrawal. And saying we don't have a SOFA is an excuse. We currently have about 3000 military members there that we've put there in the last year. Did we sign a SOFA yet? Nope.

Can we solve a thousand year problem? Yes. Can we do it alone? No. We need to partner with our moderate peace-loving partners in the ME support them in confronting Iran and ISIS through military training, supply, and advisors. Am I shocked the US policy of Ailey using air strikes hasn't worked? Not at all. History tells us it won't work.


believe that EVERY problem can be solved by the military. You're just like surgeons. Every surgeon believes (s)he can solve every medical problem via surgery. Yet, surgery patients die every day, and military incursions fail every day.
The Middle East has gobbled up outside forces over and over again. A thousand years of divisiveness cannot be solved any time soon. History tells us this, too. For the record, I am NOT unalterably opposed to an outside invasion. I AM unalterably opposed to an outside invasion led by U.S. troops!

As an example of just how complex the situations in Syria and Iraq are, here is a link to a current article about an attack by a so-called "rival" of ISIS, against a group organized and trained by the U.S. military, called "Division 30, meant to attack ISIS. There are so many differing factions, we really cannot tell the "good guys" from the "bad guys." How can we really take sides. when we don't really know which side to take??
Here's the link:

You are completely wrong. I was issued solved with diplomacy as much as possible. But ISIS doesn't deal in diplomacy. The enemy gets a veto. That's what you don't understand.

I am not advocating a U.S. led invasion. That is what you don't understand. I am advocating the U.S. assisting ME countries who are ALREADY fighting. Give them support, allow military experts determine what support they need through direct observation and training assistance.


Middle East. WOW! What a font of knowledge you are!
Let's see...are the Kurds the "good guys?" What about the Turks? Oh, wait. Turkey wants to destroy the Kurds!
Is Assad a "bad guy?" Is ISIS a group of "bad guys?" Oh wait. ISIS and the Assad regime want to destroy each other.
I haven't even gone into all of the tribal groups who have trouble agreeing on anything!

It seems to me that if you have all of this prescient power to discern the "good guys" from the "bad guys" in the Middle East, and if you have solutions to these thousand year old conflicts, your talents are being grossly underused, Mikey.

And I am not being the naive one here. I know that ISIS doesn't care one bit about diplomacy.

Unlike you, Mikey, I accept the fact that no one outside of the Middle East can solve these thousand year old conflicts. The vast majority of Muslims must want to solve the problems. The vast majority of Muslims must want freedom for all, with all of the unsettling changes that would come with freedom for all. Unless and until the Muslims want a fair and permanent solution, no solution will be attained.

This ISIS in the Middle East is no more a proper concern for a citizen of the United States than would a violent KKK in the USA be for a citizen of Malaysia.

ISIS is not some world threat, at least no more than Islam is in general.


reflects the ignorance of too many Americans. They have no idea of the complexity of Islam. Even hough they are somewhat familiar with the idea that there are many, many factions of Christianity, because Islam is not prevalent in America, they do not understand that many Muslims viscerally hate other Muslims, even more than they hate non-Muslims, because, in their skewed minds, these other Muslims should know better!

ISIS is a threat to the stability of the world. But ISIS should be primarily a Muslim problem. Unless and until the moderate Muslims take control of the Muslim world and totally discredit the fanatics in ISIS, al-Qaeda, the Taliban, etc., there will be no peace there. And, if we are foolish enough to believe that the problems cannot come here, we will suffer another 9/11 or some other great tragedy.
Until such a time as the Muslims take care of their problem, if greater military involvement is necessary, it should be headed by the nations in the Europe. European nations should supply the vast majority of the "boots on the ground," no matter what your interpretation of that term means to you. The U.S. should be in a supporting role only!

I agree we need to confront ISIS but it will take US ground forces advising to do it... Just as we did with the Anbar Awakening.


The Anbar Awakening happened when the U.S. had thousands of front-line troops still fighting elsewhere in Iraq. U.S. forces were much more than just "advising." Fighting forces were available at any time they might be needed. That little fact can really bolster local forces!

In any case, if forces opposed to ISIS can really join together against ISIS, there is no reason why U.S. forces must be directly involved. But, the situation is not just a military one. Should we rely upon Turkey which, until recently, helped ISIS? Should we coordinate with the Assad regime which Turkey hates, and which we have declared to be a terrorist state? How would Israel feel about that?
And what about the Kurds? Only in the Kurdish areas of Iraq were U.S. troops really welcomed as liberators when we first invaded Iraq in W's War. The Turks HATE the Kurds. This all fits into my position that the Middle East is an extremely complex quagmire which the U.S. should avoid as much as possible.
European powers are closer to the zone. European powers are more than capable of advising, or fighting directly. Should the U.S. support our allies? Of course! Should we ALWAYS lead the way? NO!!!

Actually the Kurds are the only ones beating ISIS.

We should have military advisors in Jordan and Iraq partnered with those forces to fight ISIS. The Anbar Awakening was when tribes finally agreed to partner with US forces. Before long the U.S. forces were not doing the bulk of the fighting. That's because advisors increase military competency, give adequate feedback as to what resources are needed, give accurate assessments of the partners forces.

The answer it ISIS in your question is none of the above. We have moderates from Syria and Iraq who have fled to Eastern Iraq and Jordan. We need to partner with them to take back their homes. ISIS is so brutal on the populations they control that getting moderates to rise up won't take long. The biggest threat to ISIS brutality is its brutality when there is an outside force willing to support those it persecuted. Again history shows us this. When another army shows up at the city walls it's the slaves internally who become the inside threat,


But, the Turks HATE the Kurds. Many groups in Syria and Iraq ALSO HATE the Kurds. How can we form a coalition when many perceived groups within the proposed coalition HATE each other?
And why can't the European powers take the lead militarily, with our support? Didn't we fight a war back 70 or so years ago to free Europe? Didn't we implement the Marshall Plan shortly after freeing Europe to re-enrich Europe? What more must the United States do? How many more Americans must die? How many billions or trillions must we spend? When are some other countries, who are geographically much closer to the situation, and economically much more affected by the problems in the Middle East, going to step up and take the lead? Americans are sick, tired, and economically exhausted by others seeing us as the "world police!!"

I believe America has always fought for freedom and not just America. I believe that is why so many want to come here. That's what I believe America should do.

The European powers will do whatever they do. We can't make them. But America fighting for freedom and being the most honest broker of the major powers is why so many look to us for leadership and why so many want to work with us. That is also why those who hate, hate America.


We have already lost nearly 4500 lives in Iraq. How many more billions, or even trillions, of our tax dollars would you have us spend? The cost so far is about $2 trillion.

You write of our fighting for freedom. Freedom gained for whom, Mikey? ISIS? Al Qaeda? The Assad regime?

I repeat -- the Middle East is a quagmire.
The fighting has been going on for a thousand years.
Our troops, should NOT lead this effort. We cannot be the world's police.

The only true democracy in the Middle East is Israel.
When was the last time Israel needed U.S. troops to defend itself?

We cannot just declare, "Mission Accomplished," and win a war like this one.
We cannot force democracy onto people who are so divided that they are not willing to give rights and opportunities to those whom they consider to be heretics and enemies.

A final, peaceful, solution in the Middle East will only occur when the vast majority of Muslims there decide that their best hope for a brighter future is by working together, rather than by tearing each other apart. No sacrifice of American lives; no spending of American tax dollars needed desperately at home; will force a solution on these thousand year old grievances which cause mortal combat.

did not want to hunt down Saddam Hussein:
"Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep", and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible... We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different — and perhaps barren — outcome."

Remember, W stated that he did not, and would not, read his father's book. "Ignorance is bliss," I guess.

blah blah blah,

This post really says nothing other than you read GHWBs book.


The US military is at least 1000 times more a threat to the stability of the world.

You militant Liberals are exactly the imperial problem as you claim the rich people are. What irony.

Mr. Empty Glass is doing on THIS topic?
Chicken Little believes that the U.S. military is, "1000 times more a threat to the stability of the world," than is ISIS. I'd LOVE to see his list of facts on this charge!
And...are you one of Mr. Empty Glass's, "militant Liberals," Mikey?

The list of facts start with selected readings that eventually lead to a long list of military interventions in world affairs by the US military for about a century now.

I suggest starting with Major General Smedley Butler and then moving on to Jonathan Kwitny and Noam Chomsky. Past that point, if you can't find more reading to do, you just weren't paying attention in the first place.

Of course, Dale, you won't do that, since you know exactly what I'm talking about, but your heavy Golden Class and Boomer Generation dependence on the imperial model makes it a conflict of interest for you to so indulge. You need the US military to destabilize nations and regions so that cheap energy and cheap goods continue to flow to the best benefit of your class of person.

WE are the world's greatest threats. WE are the world's leading rogue nation. This fact is hard to find in the popular media since our popular media supports the empire. I'm sure it was equally hard for 1930s Germans to understand what their own nation was becoming too.

Remember, MIKEY'S the one arguing for greater American military intervention in the Middle East, not I.

Smedley Butler died in 1940!
Jonathon Kwitny died in 1997.
Noam Chomsky is 86 years old and aligns himself with, "libertarian socialism." You do realize that Chomsky is a member of the International Workers of the World union, right? And Israel considers Chomsky to be such an enemy of Israel, that he is banned from going there. At least Chomsky is still alive in this century!
Interesting group of philosophers with whom you align yourself, Mr. Empty Glass.


GZ and I have been round and round on the US military. We do not agree.

I totally disagree with him that ISIS is not a threat. Like I said before, the enemy always gets a veto. We already are seeing ISIS inspired attacks in the US. Currently the rate is not a large rate but it's rise has been fast and significant.

The one thing I will say in GZ's defense. He believes in what he says. He believes, GZ correct me with I'm wrong, in bringing all US forces back internally to the US and no longer continue our strategic worldwide defense. He does not believe in a halfhearted measure which is what you appear to do. You believe the Middle East is a quagmire and that we should only be supporting Israel, yet if we don't take an active role with our partners the chances of Israel being pulled into yet another Israel vs. Arab country role is significant.

In the last 30 years most Arab countries have taken a less and less combative operations with Israel. This has been the slow change since the Camp David Accords. Currently what is happening is a Persian vs. Arab conflict. That's what ISIS represents. (Sunni/Shia is just another word for it but Persian v. Arab is more correct). This conflict has put Israel into agreement with Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the GCC countries which all are increasingly wary of the Iran/Iraq/Syria Persian influence.

I notice you don't want US forces involved in the ME. You want European powers involved. However you don't state how you think they should get involved or why. Your ideas on the ME are as incoherent as the President's policies.


In your opinion, Mikey, is GZ aka Mr. Empty Glass justified in stating that the U.S. military is "1000 times" more dangerous and destabilizing than are ISIS and other similar organizations? And, since you state that you and GZ are in a disagreement about the United States military being involved in military conflict around the world, are you, Mikey, as Chicken Little labels them, a "militant Liberal?"

Secondly, you are greatly oversimplifying the Middle East. For example, let's focus upon the Kurds, an ethnic group about which you and I agree as far as their being allies of the United States. While most Iraqi Kurds are Sunni Muslim in faith, about 2/3 of ALL Kurds are Shia. 6% just call themselves, simply, "Muslim." Here's a link to an article articulating this: And, the Turks, who are mostly Shia, HATE the Kurds, while both are fighting the almost exclusively Sunni ISIS!
But there's more. Assad, the Syrian leader, is an Alawite, a sect of Shia. However, most Syrians, about 3/4, are Sunni. And, while ISIS is fighting Assad, so is Turkey, a mostly Shia nation, who is also fighting the Kurds. In addition, ISIS is terrorizing the Sunni in the large areas they now control, so much so that millions are leaving ISIS-controlled areas! Does this make any sense to you? It makes little sense to me. And this is just ONE PART of the Muslim jumble that makes up the Middle East.
Now, Mikey, if you can discern the "good guys" from the "bad guys" in the Middle East, you definitely are better at doing so than I -- and the Turks, apparently. If these thousand year old chasms seem to be bridgeable to you, you really should be in a lead position on Middle East policy, at least for our military, Mikey.

Finally, you are oversimplifying my position on the Middle East. There is a positive position involving the use of the U.S. military as a secondary force behind the European powers. I reject BOTH Chicken Little's position of no engagement AND your position that only with the U.S. military LEADING the way, can the Middle East be somewhat stabilized. My position is that the United States should not be the world's police force. Where is Germany? Where is France? Where is Great Britain? Where are the Benelux countries? These are all highly developed societies and economies with good to excellent professional, modern military capabilities. This is THEIR area of the world. THEY rely much more upon Middle East oil than do we. It's time for the EUROPEANS to step up and lead the way, with our active support.

It is so easy to criticize any sitting POTUS on this issue. None have handled it well. But, of all of them, it seems that GHW Bush understood the complexity the best. His basic position was, get in and get out as quickly as possible, while supporting the only true democracy in the Middle East -- Israel. If you had to sum up how I feel on this topic, I agree with this Republican! Does that make me a Republicrat?

No I don't think he's justified. We've argued here and on TT about it. He's set in his opinion, I'm set in mine. I at least respect that he's not a hypocrite and fully believes it even though I disagree totally.

The only thing that sets the Kurds apart from their neighbors is they speak Kurdish. They would side with the Persians if they felt they would be allowed to have their own state, they are not allowed that hence they resist.

Of course the sides don't make sense to you. You don't live there. The Kurds are fighting ISIS because they know as bad as they are oppressed by Iran, Iraq, Turkey and Syria they will be killed by ISIS systematically.... for what boils down to not speaking the same language and having different cultural traditions.

The problem with your assessment on European powers is that they took the lead in Algeria with the US following in tow (Why I don't know because the President has never explained it well). How'd that work out? Why didn't Reagan, the Bushes or Clinton go into Algeria? How do you get the European powers to take a lead in the ME exactly?


more Americans die, and we spend a LOT of very needed money, for what? So that more Muslims can kill other Muslims? For what? Ideology? Religious differences? If you truly believe that somehow American military might can force a solution to problems that are 1000 years old, you are both naive and foolish.

You have every right to disagree with me or GHW Bush. The fact is that he was right. We get in and get out. We stay out of long-term permanence in the Middle East, except to support the only true democracy in the Middle East -- Israel. Ultimately, it is not the Europeans who can force solutions either. There will be no long-lasting peace unless and until the Muslims can bury their differences themselves -- period!

The problem of your assessment of my position is my position has history of success.

After the 2007 surge we had the Anbar Awakening. Former enemies began fighting on the side of law and order. The situation remain largely pacified until all troops were pulled out with no advisors left. Now we have had to re engage troops on a solely air campaign which has led to a stalemate.

I notice you have no idea how to get Europe to engage and thus you should abandon that idea.


were really "pacified" in 2007. Here's a link to an article which is realistic in its analysis.
Yes, there was a significant drop in deaths after the surge. But, no, one could not candidly describe Iraq as "pacified." As the article points out, the death toll was still far too high. It only looks good compared to the higher death toll in previous years.

And how long would you have U.S. forces stay in Iraq? 5 more years? 10 more years?
Your argument should be with the policies of GHW Bush. He knew just a little more about the Middle East than either one of us, Mikey! GHW Bush said we should have a clear set of objectives; have an exit strategy; and get out -- except to support the one true democracy in the Middle East -- Israel!

You want to talk history, but you ignore 1000 years of fighting and bitterness.
No, Mikey! Iraq was not "pacified" in 2007, any more than there was a "Mission Accomplished" in 2003!

If the Europeans don't want to get involved, that should tell us something, shouldn't it? Once again, Mikey: how many more Americans should die in the Middle East, and for what? How many more billions or trillions or our tax dollars would you spend trying to solve 1000 years of grievances?
Simply stated -- we should follow the GHW Bush policy in the Middle East.

requiring a four-year college degree. Many require only a high school diploma or the equivalent. Some do require an Associate's degree. Here's a link to the article:
Good luck!

The solution of taking ISIS out most CERTAINLY is simple!! The issue is, it's time for someone to "take out the trash"! How difficult is that concept to understand? Notice I didn't say "easy". True evil can only be defeated by greater evil. Think:Germany, Japan in 1945. Think A-Bombs, firebombs, etc.

Here's the link to the story:
It is a real rift. To me, it adds to the complexity of the entire situation in the Middle East. Does America really want to try to "take sides" here? Who are we for? Who are we against? We, obviously, hate Al-Qaeda. We, obviously, hate ISIS (ISIL or IS, whatever we are calling them today). We also hate Bashar al- Assad, the Syrian leader. And Europe is now facing a crisis of unparalleled numbers of immigrants fleeing the fighting by the tens of thousands and insisting upon going to Europe for refuge and work!
Can this terrible situation really be resolved by sending in U.S. troops? If so, how many? Should we send in a few hundred trainers and advisors? Should we send in thousands of fighting soldiers? How many more dead, young Americans are we willing to sacrifice? How many more hundreds of billions can we afford to spend? And, after all of the sacrifices of our young people and our wealth, can we achieve a lasting peace among various factions which have been fighting off and on for over a thousand years?

IMHO -- The Middle East will remain in turmoil unless and until the moderate forces within Islam can take their religious leadership back from the extremists and dictators. And whether this occurs or not, U.S. involvement must be supportive of those few groups -- notably like the Kurds -- which seek and want our help. Even this has its downside, since the government of Turkey, which is ostensibly our ally, hates the Kurds. There is: NOTHING SIMPLE IN THE MIDDLE EAST!.

Russia is getting more involved. Russia hates ISIS, but LOVES Assad! This just adds to the complexity that makes up the Middle East conundrum. And remember, Russia is geographically MUCH closer to this area. Russia is directly across the Black Sea from Turkey and the Caspian Sea from Iran, and actually shares borders with some countries we consider to be in the Middle East, such as Azerbaijan, which shares another border with Iran.

Here are a links to two articles:

but it really fits well here. In this interview with Dick Cheney the Coward, he calls the situation in Iraq a "quagmire." Hmmm...Where have I seen or heard that term before, describing the situation in the Middle East? Cheney states why it would have been a mistake to invade Baghdad and remove Saddam from power. In this interview, he sounds just like Bush #41 in his book -- remember, that's the book W stated he never read. Hmmm...
Here's the link:

"Iraq is a success." - Obama administration in 2010.




was his statement that, "Iraq's future will be in the hands of its people."
Obama was wrong, too. The only part of his statement I agree with is the extraordinary efforts of America's fighting men and women.
We should never have been therein the first place. Obama and Biden should never have had to face this situation at all.
W sent our troops there to fight and die in this "quagmire."

BTW -- Biden's son, Beau, served in Iraq, and earned medals there. Remind many of W's or Cheney the Coward's children served in Iraq?

Speaking of quagmires. How's Libya? ISIS wasn't there before we attacked. How's that working out?

Seems to me it's this administration that doesn't know what they're doing militarily. One day it's bad, the next it's good, then they're JV's, then allow them to build nukes. It's all over the place. Do they decide what they do each day with a giant Wheel of Diplomacy and whatever it lands on is what the policy is for today?

Hilary supported the war are you equally appaulled that Chelsea didn't serve? Personally, I really could care less what the children of politicians do with their time.


The GOP (with some exceptions, like Rand and Ron Paul) seems eager to send our young people to war. They just don't want anyone in THEIR families to go fight! Which war in Iraq occurred when Bill Clinton was POTUS? I've forgotten? Please remind me.

It does fascinate me that so many Republicans are so concerned over the very regrettable deaths of four Americans in Libya, but don't bring up the thousands who died in Iraq fighting W's war of revenge!

So I guess Black Hawk Down was a matter of fiction?


Black Hawk Down was an incident that should have never happened, because the U.S. shouldn't have been there.

So you're telling me a Democrat is willing to put the children of others in danger but not their own kid.



dead in Iraq seem to mean so little to you and others in the GOP -- Rand and Ron Paul excepted.
Talk about apples and oranges!

There is no draft. Those of us that serve do so knowing our lives are at stake. We do not have a problem with that. We do have a problem when politicians don't listen to military experts.


There is no draft. Those of us that serve do so knowing our lives are at stake. We do not have a problem with that. We do have a problem when politicians don't listen to military experts.


Some serve because they are mindless drones and can't do anything without being ordered to do so.

And this is how most Democrats REALLY feel about the military and why they don't listen to military leaders. Want to know why Syria and Libya are jacked up? This right here.

Probably the first time he has ever been honest on this site.


Most Democrats have great respect for the military. It is the GOP which sends too many of our young people off to kill and die, but don't want to take care of these brave men and women when they return to private lives. Just ask Marcy Kaptur. She has often disagreed with sending our young people into wars, but has worked tirelessly to get better help for veterans. It is quite likely that there would not even BE a World War II Memorial in D.C., if Marcy hadn't been so tenacious in pushing for one. Have you any idea how many World War II vets have visited that memorial since it was constructed? And how many of us who are the children of those who were part of this "greatest generation" of Americans? And, just how are these World War II vets treated, as they keep aging?

And, have you forgotten that too many young Americans were sent to war with inadequate equipment? Have you forgotten the find-raisers which were to send proper body armor to our soldiers in the second war in Iraq? The GOP is GREAT at starting wars, but LOUSY at taking care of our soldiers, both during, and after they are "in country."

Anytime MikyA post anything we should issue a Buffoon Alert.

Oh yeah Dale,

You were soooooo concerned about the lives lost in Iraq and Afghanistan that you feel Cheney and Bush should have had their kids serve. Yet you weren't concerned about Chelsea serving despite Clinton putting service members lives at risk.

So you're either a partisan or you feel the soldiers who died in Somalia are worth less.

I'm guessing the answer is you put the Democratic Party before your country.


How many Americans died in Somalia?
How many died when Reagan sent troops to Lebanon?

And exactly when did Cheney the Coward serve?
And when exactly did The Donald serve?
Remind me, please. I've forgotten.

Mikey -- You just can't deny the truth. W and Cheney sent troops into combat in an unnecessary war of revenge against Saddam. And, as W's father warned, and as Cheney the Coward also predicted in the 1990s, the removal of Saddam destabilized Iraq and led to chaos. And, when W committed these troops into battle, were these young Americans properly armed and protected?
And when our troops return, just how much does the GOP do to help them as vets?

GOP -- protector of the super-rich!

I was right.

A partisan.


I never claimed I was NOT partisan!

only are the Muslims divided between Sunni and Shiite; not only are the Muslims divided between militant crazies and moderates; there are numerous minority ethnicities as well.

Here are links to two stories. One is about a large ethnic minority, the Kurds, who have proved themselves to be among the most pro-American, reliable allies we have, but whom some of our supposed allies like Turkey and Russia hate. [Please note: The Donald LOVES Putin. He keeps saying so over and over. That's a great trait for a POTUS?] Here it is:
The next is about a small ethnic minority group which is consistently under fire from extremists in Afghanistan, and which gets little help from the Afghan government, even though they are part of the Shiite sect as are the majority of those in the Afghan government. Here is that link:

IMHO -- Unless and until more groups like the Kurds unite against the militants in the Middle East, nothing the U.S. can do will be effective. Note that the Kurds were aided by U.S. air strikes. THAT makes sense. But, the Middle East is unbelievably complex. Offering simple solutions is political pandering at its worst.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.