All errors should be reported to

Saturday, November 21, 2015

60% support sending in troops? Do not trust the 60%

I read this tweet from Donald Douglas ‏@AmPowerBlog: "Sixty percent support sending more ground troops to defeat ISIS."

My gut reaction was F-'em.

About half the 60% are not worthy of the fine men and women serving in our military.

That half of these 60%-ers are the pukes who were all for the War in Iraq in 2003, but who abandoned it a few years later. The collapse of support for the war -- even as we were winning it -- led to a Democratic Congress and a Democratic president who took that hard fought victory and throw it away, withdrawing the troops and turning Iraq over to the Islamic State.

On top of that, the punks who said send the troops and changed their minds also paved the way for Obamacare, #BlackLivesMatter, an $18 trillion national debt, and the Animas River turning orange. I am serious. No Republican-run EPA would turn a river orange.

By getting bored with the war, the whole damned nation is falling apart. So no, I do not support going through this again.

The whole world knows we are a big fat oaf of a nation of narcissists -- which Barack Obama happens to represent quite well -- who lack the heart to kill the bastards who want to kill us.

So what should we do?

First, forget troops on the ground. I support the troops, which is why I oppose putting so much as a ham sandwich on the ground under this neophyte commander-in-chief.

Drones and no fly zones are doomed to fail. We bombed North Vietnam into the Stone Age. How did that work for us?

What we need is a covert operation. This American still can do -- provided the president can get the press to shut the F up about operations. Infiltrate the Islamic State -- they love recruiting blue-eyed blonds -- and subtly set their leaders against one another. Sabotage the SOBs from within.

That is after all what the socialists and radical jihadists are doing here.

We are the Ottoman Empire. We have all this power, and no will.

Maybe in 14 months, President Trump can turn that around. I do not know.

I do know that I do not trust enough of that 60% to support putting troops on the ground. Yes, that is how you win a war, but I do not think Americans want to win anymore.


  1. Don - Bombing North Viet Nam into the Stone Age worked. We were winning the war. We lost it at home. Walter "the most trusted man in America" Cronkite reported that Tet was a disaster. It was. For the enemy. We had the enemy on the run. Then, to the surprise of the North Vietnamese, we gave up and left. We promised monetary support and weapons to the South Vietnamese government, but a Dimocrat Congress stopped that. Ask a lot of the grunts who served in the war. The North Vietnamese general even admitted that they were losing when we left. The first war this country lost and we lost it at home due to traitors like Flipper and Jane Fonda.

  2. Most of the people polled have no friends or relatives in the service. I have a nephew who just left on his second deployment. I did 21 years. Let's make it mandatory that Congress and the Executive send their precious loved ones into the fight. Especially the Clintons.

    1. Are you talking about Monica or Huma?

  3. "We bombed North Vietnam into the Stone Age." No way! Yes, we bombed. If (IF) we had bombed Hanoi into rubble, and Haiphong harbor into swampland, and all major and minor towns and cities and power stations, maybe. BUT. WE. DIDN'T. (Damn, but I miss Curt LeMay.) LBJ and MacNamara wouldn't let the AF bomb anything they didn't authorize.

  4. Too late Don, they already infiltrated the White House.

  5. The bombing worked. Linebacker II not only brought the NV to the table in about two weeks but made them very agreeable to a cease fire that ended the war in 1973. What lost the war was the Democratic congress abandoning the South Vietnamese when the North invaded in 1975. President Ford wanted to provide air support, which had worked to stop a previous invasion by the North, but the Dems said, "No."

    This is the place where we say, "We can deal with them over there, or we can deal with them over here." Not sure why you think Obama will be any more competent defending the U.S. domestically than he would sending troops into Syria. We can risk the soldiers to his incompetent bungling, or we can risk civilians at home to his incompetent bungling.

    The proper response to ISIS/Syria/Assad/etc is to put 100,000 or more troops on the ground and unfortunately refight what we did 10 years ago. I would assemble them in Israel, march them over the Golan Heights, stop in Damascus to put Assad against a wall and introduce him to flow through ventilation. March through Raqqa. Meet up with the Kurds and establish a Free Kurdistan out of Iraq, Turkey and Iran.

    Hey, a guy can dream, can't he?

  6. What is missing here is diplomacy. We have six nations I can name off the top of my head that we consider to be allies, no, seven. These need to be consulted regarding what their goals are and what they would consider to be appropriate responses. Our most recent high level commitment was in Iraq, so the level of cooperation from them and the Kurds in the north should have especial consideration. Then a pragmatic attitude going forward would then be required as no plan works the way one hopes. In our system of government all of this means a public discussion of these things is necessary. I think Obama is doing some of this, bit he has dispensed with intimate allied diplomacy and is carrying out much of his policy secretly. If he was a Republican he would have been impeached already.