world

Clinton vows no U.S. troops in Syria, Iraq

28 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2015 AFP

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

28 Comments
Login to comment

Well said. I'd support further involvement only if all countries operating in Syria got on the same page, which means ending the pet projects, and if Assad is leaves.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Agree 100%. Without Assad's departure, there will NEVER be an end to the conflict.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

US helped Islamists in Afghanistan against Soviet Union, Al Queda arose resulted in Osama Bin Laden & Sept 11. US killed Saddam Hussien in Iraq, Iraq in civil war, IS arose. US helped disposed Gaddafi of Libya, Libya in civil war. US helped brought down Murbarak of Egypt, Egypt almost in civil war, if not for military rule. US helping to dispose Assad, Syria in civil war, with the fast rise and expansion of IS globally.

US has been making huge mistakes again and again & disrupting the fine balance & checks in Middle East.

Middle East countries need strong men nationalistic leaders to keep the peace, and checked Shiites against Sunni in a fine balance. Western democracy does not work there. So many lives have been lost through civil wars.

Time to wake up! Easy naïve tagline propaganda has cost so many lives.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Once again, always a GREAT IDEA to tell your foe what / how much lack of resolve you have to ultimately do them in.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

Time to wake up! Easy naïve tagline propaganda has cost so many lives.

Well said jgb.

The war monger Hillary will only feed the war pigs. Amazing people support her.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Once again, always a GREAT IDEA to tell your foe what / how much lack of resolve you have to ultimately do them in.

Sometimes the enemy at home is more important than the enemy outside.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Once again, always a GREAT IDEA to tell your foe what / how much lack of resolve you have to ultimately do them in.

Clinton hast to swing and pivot more to the left if she wants show the liberal base she's dovish and would basically allow our enemies to kill us wherever we go. Remember, capitulation, veggies and talking about the weather are issues that liberals love and live for.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Remember, capitulation, veggies and talking about the weather are issues that liberals love and live for.

You would rather put boots on the ground, bringing the West into a war it has no right to be in, painting a target on its back causing more terrorist attacks. So if we are going to play that game, we woudl have to say: Remember, getting our innocent people killed, killing their innocents, and fostering an environment that creates terrorism are issues that republicans love and live for.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

"Clinton hast to swing and pivot more to the left if she wants show the liberal base she's dovish and would basically allow our enemies to kill us wherever we go. Remember, capitulation, veggies and talking about the weather are issues that liberals love and live for"

Remember, many rightists were bouncing around in their cages squealing about bombing Assad not too long ago.

How far did you go, Bass? Were you just in favour of bombing or did you want to send the troops in?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

The amazing part of this article is the statement that she is a fore runer. After her treachery and lies/ half truths its hard to believe people will trust her.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

You would rather put boots on the ground, bringing the West into a war it has no right to be in, painting a target on its back causing more terrorist attacks.

I would increase the special forces troops, yes, indeed. Not necessarily a large ground force, but I would most definetly work with all my general advisors, listen to them as to what and how to execute a accurate offense and to kill as many of them as possible.

So if we are going to play that game, we woudl have to say: Remember, getting our innocent people killed, killing their innocents, and fostering an environment that creates terrorism are issues that republicans love and live for.

I would do whatever it takes to keep my country safe, that is the priority of the president and not trolling off to yap about hugging some hibiscus in the hopes that having more flowers will get the jihadists feeling warm and fuzzy and have them put down all weapons and cease all attacks.

Remember, many rightists were bouncing around in their cages squealing about bombing Assad not too long ago.

Sure and I also remember, many conservatives weren't onboard, because 1) they didn't trust that the president would keep his word and why fund something that the president wouldn't commit to anyway, but to do it to NOT look weak. and he didn't keep his word as usual. 2) In typical Obama fashion, he didn't reveal any plans as what or how he's going to topple off Assad, how does he want to do this? Oh, you need to speak with the Pentagon about this, but as Gates, Feinstein and Panetta would say, the president just doesn't know what he's doing when it comes to the ME. Again, the year can't come soon enough!

How far did you go, Bass? Were you just in favour of bombing or did you want to send the troops in?

If need be.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

I would increase the special forces troops, yes, indeed. Not necessarily a large ground force, but I would most definetly work with all my general advisors, listen to them as to what and how to execute a accurate offense and to kill as many of them as possible.

See, Obama shows himself to be smarter than you here. He said that sure, America could put troops on the ground, and they could take the ground - but the problem is keeping the ground. You have to keep American boots on the ground indefinitely, and the people have said they don't want to be there.

Not only that, being there paints a target on America's back.

I would do whatever it takes to keep my country safe

If that were true, you'd be advocating for a full withdrawal of America from the middle east altogether. Instead you are preaching actions that will get more Americans killed.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

@Bass I'm sorry, you misunderstood me.

Were you in favour of Bombing Assad a few years ago? I imagine you were. Did you go as far as some who were talking about sending troops in?

It's just that the right have this tendency to shoot first and think later.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

See, Obama shows himself to be smarter than you here.

Uh-huh, but Obama is not smarter than the clock ticking away. The sound of a ticking clock is the sweetest sound that you could ever hear.

He said that sure, America could put troops on the ground, and they could take the ground - but the problem is keeping the ground.

Listen, the first thing you have to do is take back the ground from the caliphate, keeping and maintaining that ground is possible with increased troop presence, not only from the US, but a real coalition force with a unified objection to destroy ISIS.

You have to keep American boots on the ground indefinitely, and the people have said they don't want to be there.

Oh, so now, you have to worry about what the people want, but when it comes to the Syrian Muslim refugees, the people can just shut the hell up!? That smells so badly of BS liberal hypocrisy at its worst.

Not only that, being there paints a target on America's back.

The west has already a big giant bulls eye on its back and now we need to make sure we neutralize this threat once and for all.

Were you in favour of Bombing Assad a few years ago?

I was in favor of getting rid of Assad before it became the latest fashion to do so.

I imagine you were. Did you go as far as some who were talking about sending troops in?

I was on the fence about that, like the rest of the Republicans, there is no way to trust this president, therefore, I was in the middle, but trusting Obama falling through on that threat, NO, I didn't believe him.

It's just that the right have this tendency to shoot first and think later.

And the left have the tendency allow mayhem and destruction and find STILL any cause to seek out blame to whatever they can attach it to and make 1000 excuses all that and still refusing to blame the perpetrator.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Once again, always a GREAT IDEA to tell your foe what / how much lack of resolve you have to ultimately do them in.

Totally agree! When it comes to international relations, constant war footing dictates that responsibility to the American electorate be subordinate to strategic ambiguity. That's why I support Trump's approach: No one has any idea what it would be, but it would certainly more awesome than anything that can be concretely outlined.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Has Russia killed over 100K innocent citizens like the US did in Iraq? Has Russia bombed a hospital?

Fact is the US has been dicking around in the Middle East for decades and has destabilized the entire region and nothing to show for 15 years of war. Furthermore, overthrowing stable govt's has not worked in the past and won't work here. Anyone know the definition of insanity?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Boots on the ground from NATO and Russia won't solve this. You need a fanatical force to take on ISIL, one as vicious and as violent as they are... or a helicopter gunship assault force tasked with exterminating them all.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

bass: Clinton hast to swing and pivot more to the left if she wants show the liberal base she's dovish and would basically allow our enemies to kill us wherever we go.

What about Bush? What about Cheney? You give them a free pass ALL the TIME for EVERYTHING they have ever done.

Remember, capitulation, veggies and talking about the weather are issues that liberals love and live for.

Both parties do that equally. I feel like your comments are ganging up on Clinton and Obama and as a fair and balanced non-partisan who could vote for either party I'm here to tell you all about your hypocrisy.

I would most definetly work with all my general advisors

But it's OK when Bush doesn't work with his advisers?

Oh, so now, you have to worry about what the people want, but when it comes to the Syrian Muslim refugees, the people can just shut the hell up!?

Don't go there. Seriously.

I was on the fence about that, like the rest of the Republicans, there is no way to trust this president, therefore, I was in the middle, but trusting Obama falling through on that threat, NO, I didn't believe him.

But it's OK when Republicans don't follow through on their threats? And don't even get me started on their poll numbers. They are out of step with American opinion polls which makes their actions illegal.

but to do it to NOT look weak.

What about Trump, Cruz, and Rubio making America look weak? You always give them a free pass. Always.

the president just doesn't know what he's doing when it comes to the ME

And it's OK when Bush doesn't know what he's doing in the Middle East?

I would do whatever it takes to keep my country safe

Yet you support our current gun laws that have NO VETTING process whatsoever. Even felons, minors, and the criminally insane can walk into any gun store in America and buy a gun. Even Paul Ryan agrees.

I'm sick and tired of Repubs following people like Rafael Cruz (whom I doubt is really Christian and wasn't even born here) into sheer madness. In other words, on top of that where, I could care less..

5 ( +7 / -2 )

Heh, I'm impressed Superlib, I literally went back to see if I'd read the poster wrong. Masterful!

3 ( +4 / -1 )

@Superlib

A great post but In the words of that liberal, hippie, socialist, Prius-driving and gun-confiscating folk song - "Where have all the ROFLs gone?".

4 ( +4 / -0 )

@SuperLib. You really came out swingin' . . . I like that. So you have "it" in you after all. Need more like you, but on our side.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

And if we do send soldiers in and squash ISIS utterly, do we also squash Assad?

No-no . . . Squash Riyadh, Mecca and Medina. Then deal with the baggage handlers later. The real focus should be a 180 on the wests' relationship with the Saudis.

We shake hands with the white Daesh while we plot how to destroy the black Daesh. This is the problem. Time to 180.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

And if he wins (again), in a legitimate vote then too bad, all major players in the region have to suck it up and stop funding and arming terrorists in an attempt to depose an elected president.

Again, Again ? Ha ha ha... Really ? He ran unopposed and got 99.7% of the vote. Bashar NEVER won legitimate vote. Really one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/this-is-what-its-like-to-have-the-assad-regimes-barrel-bombs-dropped-on-your-city-2015-5?r=US&IR=T

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

American boots are already on the ground in Syria and Iraq- ah Clinton needs to rub the sleep out if her eyes....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

As they say, poop or get off the pot. Half measures won't defeat ISIS. Bombing and flying away is proof of non-commitment and cowardice and will and has been a cause of terrorism as our bombs and missiles kill non-combatants. Clinton is a fool, and so are all who think that aerial bombing alone, or even with support of the locals, will achieve any aims worthy of a decent human being with an eye on the future.

On the other hand, if we let ISIS have their caliphate, it would not be long before they become bored bureaucrats or acquire and sit in armored tanks I bet they strongly desire. Popping tanks with air to surface missiles is a lot cleaner. Its also legitimate.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Has Russia bombed a hospital?

Either Russia or one of its coalition partners. It's not in the mainstream media, so people who follow that may have missed it:

http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/article/missiles-hit-msf-supported-hospital-near-damascus

(NATO doesn't fly missiles to Damascus; they stay in east Syria.)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites