icanthearyou 4,462 Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 There is no political message. There are no partisan political implications. https://www.yahoo.com/gma/soldier-killed-iraq-raid-belonged-delta-force-141505104.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURaptor 1,121 Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 True Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aujeff11 6,243 Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 Yes he is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
autigeremt 6,569 Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 He was one hell of a soldier. Hooah! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURaptor 1,121 Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 The small matter of him dying in combat, in Iraq, after we were told that no US soldiers would be put in harms way does create a bit of a wrinkle, never the less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aujeff11 6,243 Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 The small matter of him dying in combat, in Iraq, after we were told that no US soldiers would be put in harms way does create a bit of a wrinkle, never the less. But the government denies the delta forces existence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURaptor 1,121 Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 Well, SecDef Carter did come out and admit that he was America's first " official " combat loss in fighting ISIS. Make of that what you will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aujeff11 6,243 Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 Well, SecDef Carter did come out and admit that he was America's first " official " combat loss in fighting ISIS. Make of that what you will. Im pulling your leg, man. It's an official organization but they are unofficially recognized if they get captured. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURaptor 1,121 Posted October 24, 2015 Share Posted October 24, 2015 I figured as much, as the matter of him being there and dying is now moot. May he be at peace , having fought the good fight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexava 6,973 Posted October 24, 2015 Share Posted October 24, 2015 The small matter of him dying in combat, in Iraq, after we were told that no US soldiers would be put in harms way does create a bit of a wrinkle, never the less. he did leave the possibility of using special forces for some missions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURaptor 1,121 Posted October 24, 2015 Share Posted October 24, 2015 The small matter of him dying in combat, in Iraq, after we were told that no US soldiers would be put in harms way does create a bit of a wrinkle, never the less. he did leave the possibility of using special forces for some missions. Not in combat roles though. Let me be perfectly clear... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,354 Posted October 24, 2015 Share Posted October 24, 2015 I knew Raptor couldn't resist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURaptor 1,121 Posted October 24, 2015 Share Posted October 24, 2015 Sorry I keep shining the light of truth on your Messiah, homer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexava 6,973 Posted October 24, 2015 Share Posted October 24, 2015 http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/02/11/obama-proposes-war-authorization-against-islamic-state/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURaptor 1,121 Posted October 24, 2015 Share Posted October 24, 2015 http://www.foxnews.c...-islamic-state/ President Obama on Wednesday opened the door to "limited" ground combat operations against the Islamic State, as he asked Congress to formally authorize military force against the terrorist network. The president, in a proposed resolution and a letter to Congress, underscored the "grave threat" posed by ISIS. "If left unchecked, ISIL will pose a threat beyond the Middle East, including to the United States homeland," Obama said. This was posted Feb. 11, 2015. I " think " the limited ground combat operations was more of the advise and assist sort of stuff, which Delta Force was doing, and the military action was long range stuff, not so much ' boots on the ground ' in more of a direct assault w/ troops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexava 6,973 Posted October 24, 2015 Share Posted October 24, 2015 http://www.foxnews.c...-islamic-state/ President Obama on Wednesday opened the door to "limited" ground combat operations against the Islamic State, as he asked Congress to formally authorize military force against the terrorist network. The president, in a proposed resolution and a letter to Congress, underscored the "grave threat" posed by ISIS. "If left unchecked, ISIL will pose a threat beyond the Middle East, including to the United States homeland," Obama said. This was posted Feb. 11, 2015. I " think " the limited ground combat operations was more of the advise and assist sort of stuff, which Delta Force was doing, and the military action was long range stuff, not so much ' boots on the ground ' in more of a direct assault w/ troops. im at work, so i am limited on what i can search. I remember him saying that either when he made the speech you posted or when he announced we would provide air support. He added no ground troops other than maybe a few strategic missions by special opps. This was always a possibility. I would not be surprised if he did a 180 and went back in full force. The situation may call for it. I am convinced he is not just getting soldiers killed to pad his buddies' pockets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURaptor 1,121 Posted October 24, 2015 Share Posted October 24, 2015 You think W did that ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexava 6,973 Posted October 24, 2015 Share Posted October 24, 2015 You think W did that ? either yes he did it or was too stupid to see those around him leading him to do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURaptor 1,121 Posted October 25, 2015 Share Posted October 25, 2015 You think W did that ? either yes he did it or was too stupid to see those around him leading him to do it. You honestly think that profiteering was the motive, above all else ? That's ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aujeff11 6,243 Posted October 25, 2015 Share Posted October 25, 2015 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3288220/Footage-emerges-showing-Iraq-ISIS-raid-20-year-veteran-Delta-Force-sergeant-shot-dead-saving-hostages.html?ito=social-facebook Pretty cool video of the Kurds and Americans trying to rescue and protect the hostages. Wheelers death isn't on the video though. Hearing the gunfire sends doggone chills right down my spine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexava 6,973 Posted October 25, 2015 Share Posted October 25, 2015 You think W did that ? either yes he did it or was too stupid to see those around him leading him to do it. You honestly think that profiteering was the motive, above all else ? That's ridiculous. what else do you think warmongering is influenced by? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURaptor 1,121 Posted October 26, 2015 Share Posted October 26, 2015 You think W did that ? either yes he did it or was too stupid to see those around him leading him to do it. You honestly think that profiteering was the motive, above all else ? That's ridiculous. what else do you think warmongering is influenced by? Certainly not silly things like abiding by UN resolutions. You honestly think that W would put 1000's of US lives, and so many more Iraqi civilian lives, just so his " buddies " could make a few extra bucks ? Look, calamity in the world will find those who can benefit from it, no mater what. Just because $ CAN be made, doesn't mean that anyone engaged in war just to make a few extra bucks. That's like saying we invested billions of dollars to go to the moon so we could develop velcro and ( eventually ) smaller computers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,354 Posted October 26, 2015 Share Posted October 26, 2015 You think W did that ? either yes he did it or was too stupid to see those around him leading him to do it. You honestly think that profiteering was the motive, above all else ? That's ridiculous. what else do you think warmongering is influenced by? Certainly not silly things like abiding by UN resolutions. You honestly think that W would put 1000's of US lives, and so many more Iraqi civilian lives, just so his " buddies " could make a few extra bucks ? Look, calamity in the world will find those who can benefit from it, no mater what. Just because $ CAN be made, doesn't mean that anyone engaged in war just to make a few extra bucks. That's like saying we invested billions of dollars to go to the moon so we could develop velcro and ( eventually ) smaller computers. not abiding by UN resolutions?...... That's a good one! The Iraq invasion was essentially about oil (benefiting the oil companies). http://www.theguardi...jul/28/iraq.usa Control over Iraqi oil should improve security of supplies to the US, and possibly the UK, with the development and exploration contracts between Saddam and China, France, India, Indonesia and Russia being set aside in favour of US and possibly British companies. And a US military presence in Iraq is an insurance policy against any extremists in Iran and Saudi Arabia. Overseeing Iraqi oil supplies, and maybe soon supplies from other Gulf countries, would enable the US to use oil as power. In 1990, the then oil man, Dick Cheney, wrote that: "Whoever controls the flow of Persian Gulf oil has a stranglehold not only on our economy but also on the other countries of the world as well." In the 70s, the US agreed with Saudi Arabia that Opec oil should be traded in dollars. American governments have since been able to print dollars to cover huge trading deficits, with the further benefit of those dollars being placed in the US money markets. In return, the US allowed the Opec countries to operate a production and pricing cartel.... An alternative view is that we did it for Israel or simple: http://lobelog.com/i...en-years-later/ Israel. For many neoconservatives in the Bush administration, a major (perhaps the major) reason for ousting Saddam was to improve Israel’s security. Since the 1990s, when several future Bush administration figures prepared the notorious “Clean Break” report for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, neoconservatives had been preoccupied with the notion that regime change in Iraq would touch off a broader regional transformation that would disempower Israel’s opponents in the Middle East. There are some caveats that should be made. First, although neoconservatives were the leading proponents of war, the broader “Israel lobby” as conventionally conceived did not play a particularly strong role (a clear point of contrast with the current campaign for war against Iran). Second, the fact that many in the US pushed for war out of Israel-related concerns did not mean that Israelis themselves were necessarily strong proponents — although figures on the Israeli right with strong ties to neoconservatives, such as Netanyahu himself, certainly were. or simple payback: “We have been hit very hard,” a Cheney adviser told journalist Barton Gellman, “and we needed to make clear the costs to those who might have been supporting or harboring those who were contemplating those acts.” Or, as Jonah Goldberg (channeling Michael Ledeen) put it more bluntly, “Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business.” On this line of thought, 9/11 required the US to make an example out of someone to demonstrate its continued strength. The Taliban was too small and weak to serve this purpose, but Saddam — who had already been in the crosshairs for unrelated reasons — fit the bill nicely. Many people seem hesitant to attribute the invasion to such a seemingly subjective and psychologized motive; it sounds more hardheaded to attribute it to a material interest like oil. But I think we underestimate the strength of this motive at our own peril, and that — particular for Cheney andRumsfeld, who to my mind were the two critical decision-makers — it may even have been the primary one. The profits made by Halliburton, et. al were a sideline benefit but certainly not insignificant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aujeff11 6,243 Posted October 26, 2015 Share Posted October 26, 2015 I'm not sure if we went to war over money but I do know that companies like Oshkosh made bank because of the war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURaptor 1,121 Posted October 26, 2015 Share Posted October 26, 2015 I'm not sure if we went to war over money but I do know that companies like Oshkosh made bank because of the war. I say good for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.