Obama's Red Line.....

[Boxlicker101]

Actually, it was President Eisenhower of the Republican Party who first "got us involved in Viet Nam"...

...he didn't want to get us overtly involved, but then he did furnish hard-earned USSA taxpayer money as military aid to the French; and after the French surrendered to the Viet Minh, Eisenhower continued to use hard-earned USSA taxpayer money to aid anti-communist leader Ngo Dinh Diem in consolidating power in Saigon. Throughout his second term, Eisenhower remained committed to Diem's tyrannical regime.

JFK simply extended the USSA's involvement in Vietnam by then first sending "advisers" to train and assist the opposition to the North...

...Obama is already far past the Eisenhower stage in the Middle East, and American "advisers" are already on the ground in Jordan and Turkey - on the borders of Syria - "advising" the "rebel" troops who are now hitting Assad hard.

JFK continually increased the USSA's covert aid to South Vietnam and his Democrat successor, LBJ, finally overtly sent American boots on the ground to Da Nang in early 1965 (if I remember correctly).

What is going to be interesting to see is if the Syrian "rebels" are successful in ousting Assad is how disastrous a jihadist state Syria will then be...

...because then it might demand American boots on the ground to clean-up not only that mess, but the mess the IRGs of the Islamic Republic of Iran has promised to make if Assad is forcefully deposed.

JFK was the first president to send US forces, and these were drastically increased by LBJ. If you just want to talk about American involvement, you can go back to Truman in 1946, when he promised to help France retain the area known as French Indo China. Possibly, you can go back to FDR and his agreements with Stalin and Churchill about the world after the end of WW2, which was still going on when the deals were made.

 

[eyer]

JFK was the first president to send US forces...

Yeah - like I posted, he sent "advisors"...

...they were "officially", intentionally, specifically, and technically not referred to as your "US forces", though, and a whole bunch of them were CIA.

The Gulf of Tonkin incident occurred on August 4, 1964; LBJ immediately addressed the nation about the incident and then the next day addressed Congress, where he said:

These latest actions of the North Vietnamese regime have given' a new and grave turn to the already serious situation in southeast Asia. Our commitments in that area are well known to the Congress. They were first made in 1954 by President Eisenhower.

LBJ asked Congress for a resolution giving him, as Commander-in-Chief, wider powers in confronting North Vietnam, even while promising to "seek no wider war".

...and these were drastically increased by LBJ.

You could reference actual numbers to back-up your "drastically" offering there...

...because I don't know how many "advisors" were already in the South before LBJ committed the first US troops who were, as I read on wiki now, the 3500 Marines arriving in Da Nang on March 8, 1965.

The Gulf of Tonkin is the tipping point...

...before August 4, 1964, America conducted an "advisory" mission in Vietnam; 6 months later, America sent the Marines to begin overt military action in Vietnam.

Thomas Jefferson's favorite school, the University of Virginia, even taught an online course entitled, "THE UNITED STATES ADVISORY EXPERIENCE: EARLY COMMITMENTS, 1954-1965".

If you just want to talk about American involvement, you can go back to Truman in 1946, when he promised to help France retain the area known as French Indo China. Possibly, you can go back to FDR and his agreements with Stalin and Churchill about the world after the end of WW2, which was still going on when the deals were made.

Well, however far you need to go back...

...please try to add some objectivity to your standard subjectivity next time, huh?

 

[BotanyBoy]

Now, he's letting Israel get its hands dirty doing something

About mother fucking time too...with over a trillion in toys we have given them alone not to mention another T in cash, it's about time they started policing their own fucking neighborhood.

Buy those fuckers an army and for ever all they do is run their fucking mouths...then turn to us and say "what you gonna do about it america?"

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Yeah, blame the damned dirty Jews for the problems of the Middle East...


Why don't you burn all of your flash drives in protest?


Ask the Al Tel Aviv Peace Brigade at Gitmo about the President's declarative "lines in the sand..."

 

[BotanyBoy]

Yeah, blame the damned dirty Jews for the problems of the Middle East...

^^ Fucking delusional nut job.

 

[bra_man69]

^^ Fucking delusional nut job.

^^^^^ just fucking delusional

 

[ChinaBandit]

The UN now suspects the rebels have used sarin in Syria.

If true, how would you foreign policy experts handle that game changer?

 

[mercury14]

The UN now suspects the rebels have used sarin in Syria.

If true, how would you foreign policy experts handle that game changer?

So Obama was wise not to make a snap decision.

I still think we should have taken military action in Syria a long time ago. I totally understand the argument that some of the rebel groups are dangerous people that we shouldn't be aiding, but that notion has to be considered in the context of... the rebels are probably going to win this anyway.

 

[ChinaBandit]

So Obama was wise not to make a snap decision.

I still think we should have taken military action in Syria a long time ago. I totally understand the argument that some of the rebel groups are dangerous people that we shouldn't be aiding, but that notion has to be considered in the context of... the rebels are probably going to win this anyway.

I agree that Obama was wise not to make a snap decision.

I am not sure I agree with military action against the Assad regime. I don't see it as a US responsibility to save lives in a foreign country. Let it play out.

 

[Ishmael]

The UN now suspects the rebels have used sarin in Syria.

If true, how would you foreign policy experts handle that game changer?

Short of an invasion there's not much to be done at this point in time. Obama sat on his hands far too long. The window of opportunity closed 12 months ago when the foreign radicals began flooding into the country.

Arming the rebels is now the same as arming the radicals. We can't, with any credibility, arm or support Assad even though he represents the lesser of two evils at this point.

Obama's Cairo speech is yielding a harvest that we're going to have to live with for years to come.

Ishmael

 

[unregistered]