Maybe. Generally libs favor military action in which the United States has zero strategic interest, like Somalia. The trouble is, all you would be military experts, who claim to be so nuanced in other matters, lose your perspective when it comes to the application of military force. The phrase "boots on the ground" or the word "invasion" is one you utilize with little *******s sitting around the campfire, designed to scare them. But not really applicable here. It may be a very limited special ops mission might be appropriate if we had excellent intelligence. An analogue might be the raid on Entebbe. Risky? Certainly. But potentially worth it.
And the "strategic interest" in rescuing those girls is what?
And the "strategic interest" in rescuing those girls is what?
Did I say there was one? Did I say there had to be one before we contemplate a rescue mission? You ladies really need to start reading, rather than mindlessly reacting to, my posts. Under the right circumstances, I could support an effort to save those girls. I hope and assume we're exploring the contingencies even as we speak.
Did I say there was one? Did I say there had to be one before we contemplate a rescue mission? You ladies really need to start reading, rather than mindlessly reacting to, my posts. Under the right circumstances, I could support an effort to save those girls. I hope and assume we're exploring the contingencies even as we speak.
Maybe. Generally libs favor military action in which the United States has zero strategic interest, like Somalia.
Would seem to me that the plight of these girls would be much like Somalia. So I ask again, what is the strategic interest in rescuing these girls? Or are you siding with the bleeding heart *******s and thinking that we should do this out of the goodness of our collective hearts - and at the risk of some of our soldiers' lives.
The trouble is, all you would be military experts, who claim to be so nuanced in other matters, lose your perspective when it comes to the application of military force. The phrase "boots on the ground" or the word "invasion" is one you utilize with little *******s sitting around the campfire, designed to scare them. But not really applicable here. It may be a very limited special ops mission might be appropriate if we had excellent intelligence. An analogue might be the raid on Entebbe. Risky? Certainly. But potentially worth it.
Would seem to me that the plight of these girls would be much like Somalia. So I ask again, what is the strategic interest in rescuing these girls? Or are you siding with the bleeding heart *******s and thinking that we should do this out of the goodness of our collective hearts - and at the risk of some of our soldiers' lives.
How so?
Please don't blame me for your inability to comprehend English. As to Somalia, I favored that mission. What I didn't favor was former SecDef Les Aspin's political decision to have a "light" footprint during that operation. That meant no Abrams tanks. And was directly responsible for our inability to mount a successful rescue effort for the Black Hawk down guys. A decision for which Aspin later took the blame and resigned.
Dang it, Flag. See if you can stay off of Alex Jones just for a week. Or a day. One step at a time.
The trick is to actually read it and make your own informed decisions, as opposed to just putting the hand at it because it isn't on your approved list of mainstream media sources. Even I don't agree with everything he posts, especially when he tries to use religion to sway people.
because it isn't on your approved list of mainstream media sources.
What about your own "approved list" of sources? Ever consider that?
Evidence suggests that you're like the hipster who thinks the kind of music or the beer he/she likes is alternative, just because the hipster community thinks it's cool. The "nonconformist" conformist.
Comment