: Why not? They're soldiers and they're on the ground.
-
-
Replying to @ericgeller
because its one of these annoying terms that means something technically which is different to its plain language meaning :(
2 replies 1 retweet 3 likes -
Replying to @pwnallthethings
: Oh, so you're not actually disputing my substantive point. One can't hide behind technical terms. They are ground forces.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ericgeller
: Unless you disagree that they are (a) on the ground and (b) U.S. troops, she was, in every meaningful sense, wrong.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ericgeller
no, she was restating the admin's position that there are no "ground forces" in Syria or Iraq - (which is itself misleading)
2 replies 1 retweet 0 likes -
Replying to @pwnallthethings @ericgeller
several people wanted to yell at that. There has already been US casualties of the ISIS ground war.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @flyryan @ericgeller
I hate the BS pretence of it. "No boots on the ground" is a slogan ungrounded in reality and voters deserve better
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
like, if "no boots" was a real imperative, pull everyone out. Otherwise suck it up and tell voters like it is.
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @pwnallthethings
That's the point tho. It's like IC def of "bulk." It's a BS term, it shouldn't be accepted.
@flyryan@ericgeller2 replies 1 retweet 1 like -
Or "EIT" instead of torture. No. It's torture. STFU about EIT.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Sure but that one was obvious bit of propaganda. Lots of people don't get "boots on ground" & "bulk" @pwnallthethings @flyryan
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.