Fair enough. There are others that feel the same way, including many of the potential Republican candidates. I sure lean that way but still wonder how you can have a coalition of SIXTY countries and come up short with ground troops.

No your are NOT!!!

Well said!!!!

It is a fact that GW's administration agreed to the status of forces agreement which required US troops to leave Iraq in 2011....that just a fact look it up yourself.

Got that with no problem!

You however missed the point!

Between 10:52 and 10:55 PM last night THREE TROLL POSTS. wonder if it was the same one or they had a meeting.

A fact, already agreed to, does not become more a fact because you keep repeating it while others are trying to discuss the actual point..

A troll is a troll is a troll

I think you are being unfair in calling someone a troll when they agree with a post not to your liking.

An earlier poster noted your (?) posts and said you were just watching for this person's postings and then jumping on her and admonishing her but not offering anything to the topic.

Aren't you guilty of the same offense as what you claim the other poster has done?

Please note, I am not saying this in a hurtful way and do not take it that way.
Let's just try and stay on topic without calling out others. This is Florida's Friendliest Hometown.

No troll here.... It was me and I couldn't sleep, for the second night in a row.

Didn't believe the information had been agreed to at the time of the post.

I do not take it in a negative way at all.

One of the charatitics of the troll group is inundating a thread with one liners. In this case the subject was covered more than once in the thread previously, and since you brought up my posts....I was the one who agreed with those mentioning this, and actually corrected posters with whom I normally agree to validate the fact.

As I said, since I am the poster who backed up an opposing poster, it had nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing.

The fact was covered a number of times previously and it appears whomever made all these posts within minutes had not read the thread.

If I jumped and erred, I apologize, but after awhile you jus have a feeling.

But most importantly understand it has NOTHING to do with whether I agree or disagree, and again, if you read you will find it was ME who backed this fact up, so it has nothing to do with any agenda. I could have ignored, but post 42, 44, and 47 were made by me validating the fact.

Again, if I misspoke and these posts were not made by the troll group, I apologize.

Only comment from me is I validated the fact THREE times at minimum in the thread, and the discussion was NOT centered on that fact, that was validated at least three time.

I am sorry if I placed you in the wrong catagory. I, obviously, posted myself saying it was true, and just do not know more to say. That fact was not the subject of the thread, but certainly was acknowledged.

Sorry

All clear here.....

I have a neighbor who was stationed in the Middle east as a sniper. He says the "Iraqi's are not into the fight". I see Mosul was overrun and the Iraq Security Forces left behind 2300 Humvees $100,000 each x 2300= $230,000,000. So I'm guessing that the postings on this site suggest we send more American troops and more $$$ to get the job done.
We will need a Draft to fulfill this fantasy and more taxpayer $$$ to get the job done. When we have a Republican President he will get the job done with "our" tax $$$ and "our" grandsons and grandaughters.

First point I want to make which, to me anyway is important.

I do not think the postings here necessarily call for troops on the ground as you seem to be defining it. I still wonder why, if there is a void on the ground, the coalition of 60 countries is not involved. Before I would advocate any American troops, I would want that answered.

I think your feelings are a bit out of kilter. Some, but not all Republicans want troops on the ground. Some want "advisors"., and some want battle troops. I think you are making a big generalization on this. I look forward to debates on this subject.

Lastly, I "hope" we have time until a new President is elected. That implies things do not get worse. I really am frustrated, and it is probably just me, but the only thing the American public is hearing about this war on ISIS is negative things from our military and the media. Why the CINC does not say more than he "doesn't think we are losing".

Again, I think you are making many generalizations and why is the void on the ground covered, in some way, by that large coalition.

This fight is not up to the USA. We will never be friends with those countries so why waste our money over there? Get out completely, protect our country so those lunatics do not bother us.

As for why this is happening, the blame lies directly with war-criminals Bush and Cheney.

The responsibility Is tha of the current POTUS. Presenting the blame game for 7 years ago? Obviously somebody who doesn't accept that what happens, more likely not happens on Obama watch is his responsibility.

That chit was worn out year one. Time to accept that Obama is the key to ISIS advancement...."nobody else.