Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

restorefreedom

(12,655 posts)
Tue Oct 27, 2015, 03:00 PM Oct 2015

Since we now have ground troops in a war against ISIS, does this affect your support

for or against a particular candidate? This was from something I just posted an LBN basically we are getting into a ground war now with Isis in Iraq and Syria. One of the candidates, Hillary, is very likely to continue and expand on this effort, while two of the candidates Bernie and Martin are not likely to let it creep into a more substantive war. how important is war as an issue in your primary voting, and how does a ground war with IsIS, which may grow into a much more serious ground war before Obama leaves office, going to affect your voting if it does?


link from lbn
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141244307

17 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

Autumn

(45,066 posts)
2. I voted for Obama because I was sure a republican would keep us there or expand the war.
Tue Oct 27, 2015, 03:03 PM
Oct 2015

So that's where I am. Yeah it is going to affect my voting.

Robbins

(5,066 posts)
3. what it does more than anything
Tue Oct 27, 2015, 03:06 PM
Oct 2015

Is make me furious at Obama.and angry at myself for supporting him In 2007/2008 and donating to him in 2012.

This along with sellout on SSI and medicare makes me more hardened to support bernie and if he loses to Clinton stay home
on election day.

GusBob

(7,286 posts)
9. Interesting. So now its gone from "saying home in '16" to "shoulda stayed home in '08/'12"
Tue Oct 27, 2015, 03:22 PM
Oct 2015

how regressive

 

HassleCat

(6,409 posts)
5. I am disappointed the president allowed this mission creep
Tue Oct 27, 2015, 03:09 PM
Oct 2015

This is the way we got involved in Vietnam. Kennedy put in advisors, and they did far more than advise. Johnson used the existing conflict to phony up "evidence" we were attacked by the North Vietnamese, and the party was on. Of course, we followed a similar template to invade Iraq, and those who said it was "another Vietnam" were laughed off the planet. I expect the same thing to happen here, with a simmering period, followed by some bogus "evidence" we need to escalate, and another "shock and awe" murder of a quarter million civilians. This is fairly likely with President Clinton and absolutely inevitable with President Bush/Trump/Cruz/Carson...

 

Android3.14

(5,402 posts)
6. Somehow I doubt if the supporters of a certain corporate puppet will engage in this discussion
Tue Oct 27, 2015, 03:17 PM
Oct 2015

Anyone?
Helllooooo?

restorefreedom

(12,655 posts)
8. how is that connected to the war on isis?
Tue Oct 27, 2015, 03:20 PM
Oct 2015

The mission to capture or kill bin Laden was extremely focused and time-limited. This is mission creep that the secretary of defense is already said means American boots on the ground and American soldiers being in harms way, including being possibly killed or captured by isis. They're not all the same, but I'm curious as to why you asked the question.

TwilightGardener

(46,416 posts)
15. Won't be just one raid. Probably wasn't the first. I guess the Pentagon had to some up
Tue Oct 27, 2015, 04:03 PM
Oct 2015

with something to explain how a soldier died, which is why we heard about it. There will be more. It's a ground war on the sly.

restorefreedom

(12,655 posts)
17. its not the one mission
Tue Oct 27, 2015, 04:46 PM
Oct 2015

it is the statement about more missions and the danger that already exists to US ground troops.

did you read what carter said?

what could possibly be ambiguous about "direct action on the ground?" its clear we are in a ground war, no matter how much they try to avoid the term for political reasons

Ashton Carter: U.S. to Begin 'Direct Action on the Ground' in Iraq, Syria

Defense Secretary Ashton Carter said Tuesday that the U.S. will begin "direct action on the ground" against ISIS forces in Iraq and Syria, aiming to intensify pressure on the militants as progress against them remains elusive.

"We won't hold back from supporting capable partners in opportunistic attacks against ISIL, or conducting such missions directly whether by strikes from the air or direct action on the ground," Carter said in testimony before the Senate Armed Services committee, using an alternative name for the militant group.

Read more: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/sec-carter-direct-u-s-action-ground-iraq-syria-n452131

 

think

(11,641 posts)
11. No. We got in a ground war in Iraq. A pre-emptive war based solely on lies that cost America dearly
Tue Oct 27, 2015, 03:40 PM
Oct 2015

It was one of America's greatest failures of humanity. The Iraqis lost hundreds of thousands of it's citizens with millions of lives disrupted & devastated.

The war destabilized the region wreaking further havoc on the entire region and created the crisis that exists today.

And to top it off we're STILL there fighting after all these years....

 

Scuba

(53,475 posts)
12. Nope. I'm still opposed to any US involvement in the mid-east ....
Tue Oct 27, 2015, 03:41 PM
Oct 2015

... that's not bona fide humanitarian aid, preferrably administered through a third party.

 

artislife

(9,497 posts)
16. It appears one candidate's supporters
Tue Oct 27, 2015, 04:26 PM
Oct 2015

will follow whichever way their leader tells them to. This week it may be good, next week it may be bad. Just depends.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Since we now have ground ...