What constitutes "boots on the ground"?

Today, the White House announced that US Special Forces teams will be on the ground inside SYRIA helping to train Syrian rebels. Last week an American Master Sergeant was killed by friendly fire in a rescue of ISIS hostages in IRAQ. I'm sure that the left has an explanation for this breech of trust and another lie from the White House. I am also sure that they will throw the charge that the right wanted something done, and this is something so why are you complaining, in an attempt to distract from the initial falsehood.

That lie is one thing but here is the reality; Russia is currently targeting those same people that we are going to be "training" (FYI, my uncle "trained" the Vietnamese farmers in 1961 in much the same way) and there is a strong likelyhood that US soldiers could come under fire from those wonderful Russians that Hillary "reset". So what should Obama do when that happens? Deny that it happened is the usual play from the Boy-President or blame it on Bush. What do we (thats the US if you're taking notes) do if our soldiers are taken prisoner by either the Russians or the Syrians? To answer the first question, we have been wanting action taken in the Middle East....against ISIS. Assad is not threatening to take his fight for survival international like ISIS is. Assad is not destroying antiquities like ISIS. Assad is not going out of his way to round up, enslave, and murder people because of their religious beliefs but ISIS is. So Obama is FINALLY doing something (is that an admission of failure?) but he's doing it to the wrong people in the wrong place and putting our people in unnecessary peril.

It's a no win situation.

The President has let this get too far out of hand. Truth is, there isn't much he could do anyway, considering how he has squandered most of the good will, and reputation, we had over there.

He promised his supporters he would get out. They are all applauding. Trouble is, reality got in the way.

All we hear from The Left at this point is how Bush went into Iraq, ousted Saddam, and left a vacuum of leadership that allowed ISIS to rise to power in.

If we allow Assad to fall, just exactly who, to what, is going to take his place? The way the soldiers we train over there to fight their own fight seem to cut and run, I suspect the Russians will help Assad as much as possible, and maybe hope for the best.

I make no differentiation between Assad and any of various "freedom fighters" trying to oust him. He will put you against the wall for not bowing to his commands, and they will put you against the wall for exactly the same reason. You're dead either way.

How's that whole "Arab Spring" thing working out.

Don't know if the rules of engagement have changed in Iraq, however it looks like the American troops took a hand or the operation was going sideways with those well trained Iraq troops. Our troops in Syria is a baaaaad idea.

What constitutes "boots on the ground"?

To answer your question: boots on the ground has always meant that the individual military person is assigned to a unit station with an established military unit directly inside the country host question. Thus, during Viet Nam we did not have assigned units stationed over the line in Cambodia and Laos.

The following are facts:
Marine planes that were assigned to 29 Palms in the USA were given heavy armor in the belly for added protection and flown to the area for slow and low flights over the line to draw fire. Navy Corpsmen were aboard. They would then used rocket assist to get to high altitude while nearby fighters would deliver the bombs and napalm to the area firing on the slow plains. Those air crews were not assigned to the area, so they were officially not involved in the conflict.

There were Marines assigned to Camp Pendleton in California who were flown to the areas in Laos and Cambodia, dropped in for their missions, pickup and returned to California on a regular schedule. Thay were view as not being a part of the conflict, because LBJ said that he did not have troops where they were.

When I was personally injured during one of these trips I was not medically treated on the ground but flown back to California for treatment. Remember now, we were not there.

JR

It's a no win situation.

The President has let this get too far out of hand. Truth is, there isn't much he could do anyway, considering how he has squandered most of the good will, and reputation, we had over there.

He promised his supporters he would get out. They are all applauding. Trouble is, reality got in the way.

All we hear from The Left at this point is how Bush went into Iraq, ousted Saddam, and left a vacuum of leadership that allowed ISIS to rise to power in.

If we allow Assad to fall, just exactly who, to what, is going to take his place? The way the soldiers we train over there to fight their own fight seem to cut and run, I suspect the Russians will help Assad as much as possible, and maybe hope for the best.

I make no differentiation between Assad and any of various "freedom fighters" trying to oust him. He will put you against the wall for not bowing to his commands, and they will put you against the wall for exactly the same reason. You're dead either way.

How's that whole "Arab Spring" thing working out. Originally Posted by Jackie S

Well put. Stupid fuck talks about destabilizing Iraq and now is trying to do that very thing to Syria. Jesus Christ no excuse for this intervention.

There were Marines assigned to Camp Pendleton in California who were flown to the areas in Laos and Cambodia, dropped in for their missions, pickup and returned to California on a regular schedule. Thay were view as not being a part of the conflict, because LBJ said that he did not have troops where they were.

When I was personally injured during one of these trips I was not medically treated on the ground but flown back to California for treatment. Remember now, we were not there.

JR Originally Posted by JRLawrence

My cousin did the exact thing...said they were soaked in Agent Orange yet the military says they were never there.

So to answer JD's question...if it is your boots on the ground you damn sure better constitute boots on the ground.

What constitutes "boots on the ground"?

To answer your question: boots on the ground has always meant .... Originally Posted by JRLawrence

You might want to modify that statement somewhat ... for historical correctness.

My cousin did the exact thing...said they were soaked in Agent Orange yet the military says they were never there. Originally Posted by WTF

An "issue" with a claim of being contaminated with defoliation chemicals is making sure that one was in a location where documentation shows that "defoliants" were applied. There was, and is, a list of areas.

My recollection of your report of your cousin's plight is his inability to show he was deployed in an area that was treated during or after the treatment date.

The grand inquisitor speaks again.

We're your boots on the ground in Clarksville?

For the record, fuck this shit in Syria.

My cousin did the exact thing...said they were soaked in Agent Orange yet the military says they were never there.

So to answer JD's question...if it is your boots on the ground you damn sure better constitute boots on the ground. Originally Posted by WTF

So your brother was fucked over by LBJ, from the sound of it, although as LL has pointed out, treatment appears to be contingent upon proving the injury, both what and by whom, not internet conjecture and obfuscation which is easily forgotten..

We should leave Syria to the Russians, who seem to be accomplishing their own goals rather effectively. They want respect and land, not admiration from pussies like our liberal government and its representatives.

We're your boots on the ground in Clarksville? Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Tennis! Isn't that what you wore?

As for your lameass Syrian comment ... It's your "man's" call, isn't it.

After all he's merely trying to re-create his "legacy" .... why would a fiction like you have any objection to him rewriting his reality?

So your brother was fucked over by LBJ, from the sound of it, although as LL has pointed out, treatment appears to be contingent upon proving the injury, both what and by whom, not internet conjecture and obfuscation which is easily forgotten.. Originally Posted by DSK

Since his cousin was "soaked" in it, locating the vat into which he fell seems like an easy task....and it's remarkable he didn't even drown....speaking of "internet conjecture."

Speaking of ...

"During this Census count (2000), the number of Americans falsely claiming to have served in-country is: 13,853,027. By this census, FOUR OUT OF FIVE WHO CLAIM TO BE Vietnam vets are not."

And that was 15 years ago!

"in-country" = "boots on the ground"

Since his cousin was "soaked" in it, locating the vat into which he fell seems like an easy task....and it's remarkable he didn't even drown....speaking of "internet conjecture."

Speaking of ...

"During this Census count (2000), the number of Americans falsely claiming to have served in-country is: 13,853,027. By this census, FOUR OUT OF FIVE WHO CLAIM TO BE Vietnam vets are not."

And that was 15 years ago!

"in-country" = "boots on the ground" Originally Posted by LexusLover

My cousin died a little over two years ago of cancer before his 65th birthday. A decorated Vietnam Vet. A Pro Rodeo bareback bronc rider and steer wrestler and a Rancher later in life. Not a man you would ever fuck with.


My personal conversation with him indicated that he did not institute any claims against the government for which he fought because he thought it pointless. He did not care for all the bureaucracy and had the attitude of "You gotta die sometime".

At his funeral was when I heard folks that had served with him tell a much more detailed account of what their mission was. They were dropped in Laos for weeks at a time. He did not complain about shit...He said they were just trying to stay alive and it was what it was...never a bitter word did I ever hear him complain. He'd in fact laugh about Agent Orange and how they handled it back then ...


So LL, your recollection is wrong as usual but I can just blame that on shitty parenting on your parents part. You might have grown up to be a decent fellow without their crappy parenting.

Since his cousin was "soaked" in it, locating the vat into which he fell seems like an easy task....and it's remarkable he didn't even drown....speaking of "internet conjecture."

Speaking of ...

"During this Census count (2000), the number of Americans falsely claiming to have served in-country is: 13,853,027. By this census, FOUR OUT OF FIVE WHO CLAIM TO BE Vietnam vets are not."

And that was 15 years ago!

"in-country" = "boots on the ground" Originally Posted by LexusLover

You really are a little turd lexie lacking, mocking the ones who served seems your MO.

So LL, your recollection is wrong as usual but I can just blame that on shitty parenting on your parents part. You might have grown up to be a decent fellow without their crappy parenting. Originally Posted by WTF

Oh, my recollection is good. The facts you just related I never saw, and it was more than two years ago when you mentioned your "cousin"s" problem.

Having an incorrect recollection makes one neither a liar or a hypocrite, but in your feeble attempt to be relevant in a conversation and attempt to appear intellectually superior by making up shit and then trying to show that someone else is wrong ...

you show your ineptness and lack of self-esteem. It does appear you had shitty parents, rather than anyone else. But projection is your best bet, and the only one.