U.S. military personnel arrive in Niger: Obama in letter to Congress

Comments (12)
gregbrew56 wrote:

Job security for our boys and girls in trailers in the Sahara (and Nevada) desert. *sigh*

Feb 22, 2013 10:31am EST  --  Report as abuse
Harry079 wrote:

The U.S. forces are equipped with “weapons for the purpose of providing their own force protection and security,”

What the heck is that statement supposed to mean?

Now he can’t even tell us what type of weapons our own military are using in a foreign land?

“and are there with Niger’s consent.”

I should certainly hope so!

Feb 22, 2013 10:47am EST  --  Report as abuse
lawbider wrote:

Here we go again, Congress you are all a bunch of PUTZ’s!! JMHO

Feb 22, 2013 11:03am EST  --  Report as abuse
americanguy wrote:

The French sent 500 combat troops to Afghanistan to help the USA, so the USA must now help the French in Mali.
That is what you do when you are friends and you have integrity like President Obama does.

Feb 22, 2013 11:12am EST  --  Report as abuse
Doc62 wrote:

“Send in the Drones: No matter, the’re here” -S.Sondheim?
Pricey, deadly and saves American lives. OR Do a WMD thing and send many more American soldiers to their unnecessary deaths.

Feb 22, 2013 11:41am EST  --  Report as abuse
MikeyLikesIt wrote:

@americanguy

Funny what one letter can change. When the President had a (R) after his name he was called a “warmonger” for having troops in other countries.

Now that the president has a (D) after his name it’s called “integrity”.

The only thing you liberals are consistent in is your hypocrisy.

Feb 22, 2013 11:43am EST  --  Report as abuse
LoveJoyOne wrote:

Oh my, MikeyLikesIt!!!

A Republican calling a Democrat hypocritical is really a case of the pot calling the kettle… well, you know what I mean. It’s Niger, so we have to be politically correct.

Feb 22, 2013 12:04pm EST  --  Report as abuse
usagadfly wrote:

Just what are we doing deploying yet more troops to yet another country almost no one cares about in the USA, and to fight from what we once called “sanctuaries” across international borders for the purpose of carrying out military attacks in a neighboring country?

If we as a people cripple Washington’s military ability to deploy abroad, then this sort of never ending nonsense will stop. And maybe we can keep Federal promises to Americans first, rather than to foreigners. They are irresponsible and need to have their authority to deploy overseas limited and to have the penalties for doing so be personal. What good does it do to penalize the taxpayer? None whatsoever. But cut pension and health benefits, including for dependents, by 25% and you will make them think. Right now they could care less if a poor man in the US is malnourished. They want more $1,000,000. unmanned attack drones to play with.

It is clear the Government is incapable of halting aggressive foreign military deployments.

Feb 22, 2013 12:07pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Chazz wrote:

“The U.S. forces are equipped with “weapons for the purpose of providing their own force protection and security.”

Good thing they’re not Ambassadors or Embassy personnel. If they were they’d be left to fend for themselves…. No one would watch….NO ONE would care.

Feb 22, 2013 1:04pm EST  --  Report as abuse
spca wrote:

here we go again ! start with 100 end up with 100,000

Feb 22, 2013 2:10pm EST  --  Report as abuse
fromthecenter wrote:

The worlds policeman once again…

Feb 22, 2013 3:29pm EST  --  Report as abuse

Harry079 wrote:

The U.S. forces are equipped with “weapons for the purpose of providing their own force protection and security,”

What the heck is that statement supposed to mean?

Now he can’t even tell us what type of weapons our own military are using in a foreign land?

___________________

It simply means they will be (and are) equipped to provide for their self-defense. No more, no less.

Feb 22, 2013 8:17pm EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.