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

neverforget

(9,436 posts)
Mon Feb 16, 2015, 11:30 PM Feb 2015

Ed Schultz thinks we should consider Ground Troops in ‘Religious War’ with ISIS

http://www.msnbc.com/the-ed-show

It's the first video titled "Barbaric acts of terror in Denmark and Libya"

Retired Colonel Jack Jacobs said that we would need 200,000-300,000 troops in order to take ground and KEEP IT. He didn't sound like he was for it, but just pointing it out. Ed didn't sound like he wanted that either but said “What we’re doing isn’t strong enough, isn’t working,” he said. “Now whether that means we need to put ground troops and get them involved, I don’t know. I’m not a military expert.”

Fuck that shit.
30 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Ed Schultz thinks we should consider Ground Troops in ‘Religious War’ with ISIS (Original Post) neverforget Feb 2015 OP
We never do anything right. cwydro Feb 2015 #1
Lies resulting in hundreds of thousands of deaths and quagmire versus Obama and no ground troops - no difference at all. Fred Sanders Feb 2015 #3
Just an FYI.. might be a coincidence.. maybe not.. Cha Feb 2015 #18
doesn't the new War Powers request include ground troops? DrDan Feb 2015 #26
If you have not read the three page document....do not forget it was a blank cheque before. Fred Sanders Feb 2015 #27
does it include the use of ground troops? DrDan Feb 2015 #30
there's no ******* comparison to what President Obama is doing to try and keep us safe and Cha Feb 2015 #12
The fact the limited authorization has a 3 year limit is driving the War Hawks mad with rage. Fred Sanders Feb 2015 #28
Ed should stick to domestic affairs and union stuff, his foreign affairs knowledge is abysmal. Fred Sanders Feb 2015 #2
Yeah he was for the Keystone pipeline too but he changed his mind neverforget Feb 2015 #5
Obama was for the pipeline? When? Fred Sanders Feb 2015 #6
No Ed Schultz neverforget Feb 2015 #7
Schultz? I see. Because the Teamsters wanted it for the temporary jobs? At least he changed. Fred Sanders Feb 2015 #8
Two threads here now, one saying Matthews is beating the war drum, now this. merrily Feb 2015 #4
I'm going to guess More War! neverforget Feb 2015 #9
What the hell good would that do, Ed? Warpy Feb 2015 #10
It'd fatten the MIC's profits neverforget Feb 2015 #11
Plus, jobs for the unemployed, with no need to fund a retirement package. n/t winter is coming Feb 2015 #15
We won't like it? JonLP24 Feb 2015 #19
We already have ground troops in Iraq mwrguy Feb 2015 #13
we do but this would be on a scale like the 2003 invasion neverforget Feb 2015 #23
FFS, the last thing you should do is voluntarily escalate a religious war. winter is coming Feb 2015 #14
Ed Shultz is terrible JonLP24 Feb 2015 #16
He's pretty good on labor issues neverforget Feb 2015 #17
I liked him at first JonLP24 Feb 2015 #20
yeah. I don't get him but maybe that's the former Republican in him neverforget Feb 2015 #21
EDIT: freshwest Feb 2015 #22
That is what I was thinking. GE/MSNBC wanted every one to talk about the ISIS situation. Ed did. jwirr Feb 2015 #29
Your republican roots are showing again Ed. geomon666 Feb 2015 #24
IIRC, Ed originally supported the war in Iraq too. So at least he's a consistent KingCharlemagne Feb 2015 #25
 

cwydro

(51,308 posts)
1. We never do anything right.
Mon Feb 16, 2015, 11:31 PM
Feb 2015

Bush and Cheney effed up Iraq bigtime.

I don't see that Obama is doing anything any better.

Fred Sanders

(23,946 posts)
3. Lies resulting in hundreds of thousands of deaths and quagmire versus Obama and no ground troops - no difference at all.
Mon Feb 16, 2015, 11:40 PM
Feb 2015

Cha

(297,513 posts)
18. Just an FYI.. might be a coincidence.. maybe not..
Tue Feb 17, 2015, 02:06 AM
Feb 2015
Eric Boehlert @EricBoehlert
Follow
wow. Obama's #Gallup approv rating today: 49% vs. W. Bush's approv rating on this day 8 yrs ago: 33%. (what success/failure looks like)
8:21 AM - 16 Feb 2015 115 Retweets 68 favorites

http://theobamadiary.com/2015/02/16/happy-presidents-day-2/

Cha

(297,513 posts)
12. there's no ******* comparison to what President Obama is doing to try and keep us safe and
Tue Feb 17, 2015, 01:17 AM
Feb 2015

what bush-cheney did to FUBAR the Middle East.. and have it come back and bite us like we knew it would in 2003.

Fred Sanders

(23,946 posts)
8. Schultz? I see. Because the Teamsters wanted it for the temporary jobs? At least he changed.
Mon Feb 16, 2015, 11:59 PM
Feb 2015

I love the man for his passion, but his general knowledge is woeful.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
4. Two threads here now, one saying Matthews is beating the war drum, now this.
Mon Feb 16, 2015, 11:41 PM
Feb 2015

Gee, I wonder what Morning Joe is going to say about this.

Warpy

(111,327 posts)
10. What the hell good would that do, Ed?
Tue Feb 17, 2015, 12:11 AM
Feb 2015

You been talking to Grandpa McCain lately?

Honestly, every war we get into sets up the next one, the exception being WWII and that was due to the Marshall Plan, something that would never get past Republicans now.

We need to stop meddling in the Middle East, let them sort their own shit out. No, we won't like what they end up with, especially in the short term. It's just not our fight.

Do we put pressure on ISIL in other ways? Oh, you bet we do, through cheap oil and bombing the facilities they're using to steal oil in the region to sell it to finance their war against everybody who isn't them. We should also be providing humanitarian aid to people who have had to run for their lives.

Sending in the military? No way, Ed. We already know how that goes and so do they.

neverforget

(9,436 posts)
11. It'd fatten the MIC's profits
Tue Feb 17, 2015, 01:11 AM
Feb 2015

and the blowback would fuel more war. It's win-win for the warmongers.

JonLP24

(29,322 posts)
19. We won't like it?
Tue Feb 17, 2015, 02:22 AM
Feb 2015

Our meddling hasn't improved anything. I do love your humanitarian aid suggestion, we don't do much of that. There is a reason why our perception ratings are the lowest in the region though the US was viewed as very favorably before the US-Saudi Arabia alliance. Not just in the middle east but all a country has to do to become a major enemy of the US is to nationalize their oil production. The Iranian coup, the 70s, billions in weapon deals over-and-over to Saudi Arabia, not to mention the US bizarre alliance with Israel. Our meddling is being directed by multinational corporations.

Bombing oil facilities, problem is they are someone's oil facilities

Yet appearances deceive: This is not an independent state. You’re in Iraq — more precisely, the part of northern Iraq known officially as the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG). You’ll be reminded of this fact when you open your wallet to pay for something: the local currency is still the Iraqi dinar (though the U.S. dollar circulates widely). Nor do any of the foreign governments that maintain consulates in Erbil recognize Kurdish statehood; nor, for that matter, does the government of the KRG itself. For the time being, Iraqi Kurdistan is still under Baghdad’s writ.

Emphasis on “for the time being.” In July of last year, KRG President Massoud Barzani asked his parliament to start preparing for a referendum on independence. It was a suitably dramatic response to the stunning disintegration of the Iraqi state under then-Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Earlier, in January 2014, Maliki’s government had cut off financial transfers to the Kurds as part of a fight over control of oil resources, enraging Erbil even as his repressive policies toward Iraq’s Sunni Arabs were fueling the dramatic rise of the Islamic State (IS). Last summer, after IS forces shocked the world by seizing control of Mosul, Iraq’s second-largest city, the jihadists pushed from there deep into Kurdish territory, at one point getting within 25 miles of Erbil.

Buoyed by U.S.-led airstrikes on IS positions, the Kurdish army, the Peshmerga, soon rallied, forcing the Islamic State to retreat. But the Kurds didn’t stop there. The collapse of the demoralized Iraqi Army in large swathes of northern Iraq had created a vacuum that Kurdish troops were only too happy to fill. Almost by accident, KRG leaders abruptly found themselves ruling 40 percent more territory than at the start of the conflict.

<snip>

If the dream finally becomes a reality, there is one nation in particular that the Kurds will have to thank for it: the United States. Even though U.S. policy toward the Kurds has often been subordinated to the same spirit of realpolitik that defines so many of Washington’s policies in the region, today’s Iraqi Kurdistan traces its origins to two key events: the establishment of a no-fly zone over the region after the Allied victory over Saddam in 1991, and the overthrow of the Iraqi dictator in the U.S.-led invasion in 2003. As a result, Kurds tend to be overwhelmingly pro-American — to an extent that comes as quite a jolt to anyone who’s spent time in other parts of the Middle East.

And yet President Obama and his predecessors in the White House have all been notably reluctant to give their blessing to Kurdish statehood — out of the not entirely unreasonable fear that creating a new player in such a volatile neighborhood could invite serious instability. To name but one possible risk: a declaration of secession by Iraqi Kurdistan could prompt the final collapse of rump Iraq into separate Sunni and Shiite statelets, intensifying sectarian conflict throughout the region.

(I lost the link but from the foreign policy oil website)

Outside of the ISIS information war is the unresolved political conflicts that are the driving forces behind this. Obama has made slight improvements from all prior predecessors since FDR. He has had improved relations with Iran, more distancing from Saudi Arabia, and has shown signs of relations with the Houthis in Yemen though its way too early to indicate were this is going and they are only just slight & cautious changes.

neverforget

(9,436 posts)
23. we do but this would be on a scale like the 2003 invasion
Tue Feb 17, 2015, 10:52 AM
Feb 2015

and subsequent occupation only across more countries.


winter is coming

(11,785 posts)
14. FFS, the last thing you should do is voluntarily escalate a religious war.
Tue Feb 17, 2015, 01:35 AM
Feb 2015

ISIS is a problem but it's not just our problem, and throwing troops at it could easily make things much worse.

freshwest

(53,661 posts)
22. EDIT:
Tue Feb 17, 2015, 02:42 AM
Feb 2015

Last edited Tue Feb 17, 2015, 12:24 PM - Edit history (1)

VIDEO REMOVED.

Obama isn't doing what they want him to do. So is MSNBC, who was right in there cheering the Iraq Invasion, just reminding Ed who's paying his rent?

If someone wants to go fight, Christian Dominionists are the cheapest soldiers, they want to bring the Apocalypse, even if they die doing so, the same as ISIS, but from the other side. They don't plan to come back.

Some Americans are already there to fight for religion now:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141015596

jwirr

(39,215 posts)
29. That is what I was thinking. GE/MSNBC wanted every one to talk about the ISIS situation. Ed did.
Tue Feb 17, 2015, 11:43 AM
Feb 2015

He brought up the issue by voicing the R view. Then his guests explained why putting boots on the ground was a very bad idea. If any of you know how hard Ed fights for an issue he really believes in then you also saw how easily he backed off.

And all the programs last night had this same talking point. Don't remember Al Sharpton's program. Chris Matthews was the war hawk ready to fight a religious war and he sounded like he really believed it. I also forget what Rachel said. Chris Hayes did a great job of denouncing the idea and suggesting alternatives and Lawrence O did also.

I personally got the idea that they all had their marching orders and were allowed to invite guests but in no way were they allowed to deviate from their assigned portion of the issue.

 

KingCharlemagne

(7,908 posts)
25. IIRC, Ed originally supported the war in Iraq too. So at least he's a consistent
Tue Feb 17, 2015, 11:16 AM
Feb 2015

interventionist. I stopped listening to him many years ago and want to say it was due to his support for the Iraq War. Can't remember now.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Ed Schultz thinks we shou...