- Joined
- Jan 28, 2012
- Messages
- 16,386
- Reaction score
- 7,793
- Location
- Where I am now
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
You can't let Iraq fall into the hands of another dictatorial regime, which make no mistake, that's what ISIS wants, an islamic dictatorship (they would call it a caliphate and helpful idiots would say it's an "islamic republic" whatever that is... but it's a dictatorship under sharia). Because how long until you have to go in again and fight a stronger force? No, hit them while they're not completely in control and organized.
Btw, if the USA won't go in, Iran will.and maybe they won't stop at Iraq, what if they go in Syria under the pretense to "finish off" ISIS? Finish off the terorrists? Who can say that they're wrong? Nobody.Iran will pledge support to the shiite government of Iraq and go in and defeat the sunni forces of ISIS...
So congrats, you just gave Iran at least 2 puppet states.
I am all for America being for non-interventionism, but if you went in to do a job in Iraq, end the job. Don't leave it half-assed. Don't just pack your **** and leave. You went in, you overthrew a dictator which for better or worse kept the peace in that territory.
Islamic rebels wouldn't have happened under Saddam because he was a brutal dictator.
The only reason they happened in Syria under Assad is because for 30 years, ever since the Iran-Iraq war and especially after the first gulf war and the 2nd gulf war, sunni muslims, including former military soldiers, have left Iraq to seek refuge in Syria. And when they were strong enough, they rebelled and are now causing problems in Syria. And now, those same people and their new recruits are coming home to roost in Iraq. They're coming back to their country as militant islamists. So don't make it sound like the USA can just pack **** up and leave. No, you ****ed up. Take responsibility and clean up the mess or accept that yet again, you went in, put your dick in the pond, stirred the fishes and left.
'WASHINGTON – The United State is deploying up to 275 military troops to Iraq to protect the U.S. Embassy and other American interests and is considering sending a contingent of special forces soldiers as Iraq struggles to repel a rampant insurgency, officials said Monday. The White House insisted anew the U.S. would not be sending combat troops and thrusting America into a new Iraq war.
President Obama, in a formal report to Congress, said the troops in in the deployment he was announcing would be equipped for combat and would remain in Iraq until the security situation improved. About 160 troops are already in Iraq, including 50 Marines and more than 100 Army soldiers. Some of those soldiers have only recently arrived.'
US sending 275 troops to Iraq | Fox News
So, it's official...he went from 'no troops' to '275 troops'.
Is this how Vietnam started (after the Gulf of Tonkin incident)?
Are you 100% sure of that?
How are the Shias backed by Iran doing in Syria?
Nothing in the Middle East is a sure thing.
I'm not saying that the Shias can't win, I'm just saying that it's a long ways from a done deal.
Wait and see.
This story is several hours old.
If Obama didn't send in troops to protect embassy personnel, you rightists would complain about that.
If he doesn't bomb, Bush neo-cons and McCain/Graham types will complain about that.
GOPs can't even get along with each other, let alone work Professionally and Patriotically with the Dems on foreign affairs.
And please try to explain how the 50-YO Gulf of Tonkin incident has anything to do with this desert/mountain/cave war.
And good luck with Romney as your 2016 candidate .
The man is sending 250 troops to prop up an embassy that may come under siege. For all those who think this is a bad idea, I hope you aren't the ones asking for Hilary's head because she screwed up Benghazi. For all those asking answers for how Benghazi can happen, how one of our ambassadors can be killed, you should be cheering this action.
I will say this is the best decision the President and his team made in this crisis.
Sending 250 dudes to protect an embassy =/= an advise and support mission.
President Obama, in a formal report to Congress, said the troops in in the deployment he was announcing would be equipped for combat and would remain in Iraq until the security situation improved. About 160 troops are already in Iraq, including 50 Marines and more than 100 Army soldiers. Some of those soldiers have only recently arrived.'
[/I]
US sending 275 troops to Iraq | Fox News
So, it's official...he went from 'no troops' to '275 troops'.
Is this how Vietnam started (after the Gulf of Tonkin incident)?
Heard that before.
I would not bitch about him not sending troops. You are wrong there, like most times.You will bitch about Obama no matter what he does.
If he sends troops you will bitch.
If he doesn't send troops and the embassy is attacked, you'll say it's another benghazi.
If he withdraws all the troops, you'll say he is a failure.
Pure Obama Derangement Syndrome is on display with you.
I would not bitch about him not sending troops. You are wrong there, like most times.
And his is a failure.
You already are griping he's sending troops.
My only problem with is that they only sent 275. Send in 27,500 with the sole mission to protect the embassy and immediate vicinity...AGGRESSIVELY...and with drone and CAS.I don't know about comparisons to Vietnam, but I'd make a comparison to Libya and I'd say if the Obama administration had sent 275 marines to Libya - Tripoli and Benghazi - to protect the embassy staff in that country, there likely still would be an Ambassador Stephens serving in Libya and three brave ex-marines providing additional security there.
In my view, this is a good move and one that America often makes in any part of the world where tensions rise and the security of an embassy is at risk.
This story is several hours old.
If Obama didn't send in troops to protect embassy personnel, you rightists would complain about that.
If he doesn't bomb, Bush neo-cons and McCain/Graham types will complain about that.
GOPs can't even get along with each other, let alone work Professionally and Patriotically with the Dems on foreign affairs.
And please try to explain how the 50-YO Gulf of Tonkin incident has anything to do with this desert/mountain/cave war.
And good luck with Romney as your 2016 candidate .
There should be an extraction of US persons, period. Its a lost cause over there.
'WASHINGTON – The United State is deploying up to 275 military troops to Iraq to protect the U.S. Embassy and other American interests and is considering sending a contingent of special forces soldiers as Iraq struggles to repel a rampant insurgency, officials said Monday. The White House insisted anew the U.S. would not be sending combat troops and thrusting America into a new Iraq war.
President Obama, in a formal report to Congress, said the troops in in the deployment he was announcing would be equipped for combat and would remain in Iraq until the security situation improved. About 160 troops are already in Iraq, including 50 Marines and more than 100 Army soldiers. Some of those soldiers have only recently arrived.'
US sending 275 troops to Iraq | Fox News
So, it's official...he went from 'no troops' to '275 troops'.
Is this how Vietnam started (after the Gulf of Tonkin incident)?
Obama is doing the right thing for once. I am not complaining. The chief complaint of the "rightists" is that he pulled all the troops out in the first place. If you look at the ISIS violence in Iraq you see that ISIS really began this campaign the minute US troops left Iraq.
I think it will be the leftists who aren't happy with troops going back to Iraq.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?