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 Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

neverforget

(9,513 posts) Mon Feb 16, 2015, 11:30 PM Feb 2015

Ed Schultz thinks we should consider Ground Troops in ‘Religious War’ with ISIS [View all]

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:

Ed Schultz thinks we should consider Ground Troops in ‘Religious War’ with ISIS [View all] 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