5
5
0
Kurds
Syria
Office of the President (POTUS)
Posted 5 y ago
Responses: 3
5
5
0
Since you posted this without comment I'm left to wonder, "How does SSG Robert Mark Odom feel about this?" I could make assumptions based on your other posts but I'm not a person for making an ass of myself (except to those who disagree with me)
(5)
(0)
3
3
0
If this approach means not deploying US forces to fight in endless non-wars, I am all for it.
(3)
(0)
SSG Robert Mark Odom
I'm not for WAR nor do I seek to see the U.S. in a continued one. However, I do think that our friends won't stick up for us when we need them if we betray them now. What about keeping our commitment?
(2)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
SSG Robert Mark Odom what commitment?
I must have missed it when we signed a treaty. Or an agreement. Or anything like that.
The Kurds were thrilled to have our support, but do not construe that as an obligation on our part.
I must have missed it when we signed a treaty. Or an agreement. Or anything like that.
The Kurds were thrilled to have our support, but do not construe that as an obligation on our part.
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
Well, maybe it's that simple...and maybe it isn't. We have to determine what the United States is to be: a superpower with global influence...or a regional "fortress" impregnable to foreign incursion? The former has arguably been the status quo for more than half a century...the latter may be impossible. However, if we accept the former, we also have to consider that we may be going about it all the wrong way. I share 1SG (Join to see) 's opinions on the, "endless non-wars"...but also believe we have to honor commitments written in the blood of allies. Unfortunately, I think that would mean only committing forces when we have the latitude to leverage our advantages to full-effect...i.e., taking off the "safeties".
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google