Obama deploying 1500 more troops to Iraq

[Templar 331]

Stay in it till the end? ISIS is a new threat from another country that moved into Iraq. Iraq wasn't exactly peaceful, but there was no need for us to intervene until now.

[Gumboy]

Stay in it till the end? ISIS is a new threat from another country that moved into Iraq. Iraq wasn't exactly peaceful, but there was no need for us to intervene until now.

You know what, I'm just going to go ahead and completely ignore these troops on the ground and the utter 100% lies Obama told about this upcoming conflict.

Lets stick to this: We are supporting the Kurds in iraq, while allied with a country that wants to kill all kurds and labels them as terrorists.

- - - Updated - - -

You know what would probably help the kurds more then arming them and training them, as has backfired on us so many times in the past? Just getting Turkey to stop bombing them and forcing them into camps!

[Aeluron Lightsong]

Gonna need evidence that he lied.

[Merkava]

Not exactly. The iraqi's did not want us there anymore and did not renew the contract. So its not entirely obama's fault, but did he even really try? If you invade a country you should be in it for the long hall, and we were not, and failed.

The issue was troop immunity, which we could have gotten a number of different ways. Obama insisted on parliamentary ratification which he knew would never pass, at least not with the troop levels he was talking about.

[Templar 331]

Just keep in mind: This is all, 100%, Obama's fault. This could have been prevented with one little thing: Not lying about boots on the ground in the first place and saying he would have this taken care of.

So how does admitting that they are boots instead of advisers change the troubles in Iraq? Why would he go full blown invasion when Bush did that and put us into debt for it? If he stays out, he's screwed. If he invades, he's screwed. If he goes half way, he's screwed.

[Merkava]

Don't forget to add that the Iraqi government declined to allow a SOFA agreement which pretty much meant that they would pull out ALL of the troops instead of leaving a few thousand in there. So if you want to blame someone BLAME IRAQ Gumboy.

It wasn't the SOFA. It was the troop immunity component. Which could have been gotten in different ways.

[Deleted]

About damn time the americans do something about this whole situation that THEY are responsible for after all?!

ONLY 1500?!

- - - Updated - - -

Stay in it till the end? ISIS is a new threat from another country that moved into Iraq. Iraq wasn't exactly peaceful, but there was no need for us to intervene until now.

ISIS was formed recently and took advantage of the chaos in both Syria and Iraq - you know, the country where you guys looked for non existing wmd-s, killed the dictator which was actually keeping things together and then bailed while the house was burning? Yeah, ISIS is so your fault, it's unbelievable how much it is your fault. How about doing something to fix the mistake of pulling out?

[Aviditas]

To expand to the minds of our ignorant viewers to this thread, 1500 soldiers is barely 2 squadrons (3-5 troops) of soldiers. Most Camps had Divisions (Go google it) worth of soldiers at them, and that was war time. Sending 1500 soldiers is a drop in the bucket, these are the advisors. Nothing more, nothing less, stop making a big deal about things you dont understand.

[Gumboy]

About damn time the americans do something about this whole situation that THEY are responsible for after all?!

ONLY 1500?!

Exactly. If you are going to do something, do it RIGHT....

"These are advisors" ROFL. Ok, so when the president said no boots on the ground, and now there are boots on the ground, they are not boots on the ground, but "Advisors"

I see how it works. If someone you support does something it means one thing, if someone in the other party does it, it means something completely different. You can argue semantics all you want. "no boots on the ground" means "no boots on the ground" not "Some boots on the ground"

- - - Updated - - -

So how does admitting that they are boots instead of advisers change the troubles in Iraq? Why would he go full blown invasion when Bush did that and put us into debt for it? If he stays out, he's screwed. If he invades, he's screwed. If he goes half way, he's screwed.

Explain to me how him flat out lying does not change how the people see him?

[Templar 331]

Yeah, ISIS is so your fault, it's unbelievable how much it is your fault. How about doing something to fix the mistake of pulling out?

Well we were going to invade Syria, but some people didn't take to kindly to that idea.

Explain to me how him flat out lying does not change how the people see him?

Who says it doesn't? I'm asking how does calling these "advisers" boots change anything?

[Gumboy]

Who says it doesn't? I'm asking how does calling these "advisers" boots change anything?

The simple fact that trying to change the facts of the situation in order to get political points is silly. Call it what it is, a blatant lie about boots not going to be on the ground, then doing it.

- - - Updated - - -

These are more "advisors" in a noncombat role. If we counted people like this as "boots on the ground", we have a fuckload more boots in a fuckload more of countries than Iraq.

The difference is, there are not active wars in those countries. I assume you are referring to our bases in places like Germany or Japan, and the difference is night an day.

[Puupi]

Since when has Obama had a private army of his own?

[Drsolders]

Since when has Obama had a private army of his own?

Since Vietnam the president has basically had a small private army. They can deploy small amounts of troops for short terms, key word being short. He didn't need congresses approval but he got it anyways.

[Beefsquatch]

To expand to the minds of our ignorant viewers to this thread, 1500 soldiers is barely 2 squadrons (3-5 troops) of soldiers. Most Camps had Divisions (Go google it) worth of soldiers at them, and that was war time. Sending 1500 soldiers is a drop in the bucket, these are the advisors. Nothing more, nothing less, stop making a big deal about things you dont understand.

While you have a point, the mission of the new batch of troops is a bit different. They won't be in a safe area training Iraqi's. They are going to the Anbar province to train and help the soldiers there. Anbar province is almost completely under ISIS control. Very good chance of those guys getting into combat situations.

But I think it'll stay that way. With the SF partaking in any role in a hostile area. I doubt we'll be sending in grunts anytime soon, if at all. The US has other crap to worry about.

[Deleted]

These are more "advisors" in a noncombat role. If we counted people like this as "boots on the ground", we have a fuckload more boots in a fuckload more of countries than Iraq.

Sorry but thats pretty wrong. They troops can be : : embedded with Iraqi troops; carry weapons; fire their weapons if fired upon; and call in airstrikes.

Washington chooses to define combat using a very narrow definition much like they do with enemy combatant.

These are and the previous 1600 are 'boots on the ground'.

[ParanoiD84]

ISIS is starting to get demoralized from all the bombings so that's good. Also they are more of advicers then there to combat.

[Easo]

Dear Americans, let me explain to you my simple opinion of this:
IS is not a localised issue, or a responsibility of only locals.

You are the only ones who can do something.
Your military should realy take the gloves off.

[Deleted]

Dear Americans, let me explain to you my simple opinion of this:
IS is not a localised issue, or a responsibility of only locals.

You are the only ones who can do something.
Your military should realy take the gloves off.

Coming up with a strategy would be a good first step.

I can't help but laugh when the whole salvation of the Iraq (after the flaky original premise broke down) was about controlling Irans influence and all the US has done is given Baghdad to them on a silver platter. Its fucking retarded.

[Deleted]

This is what what happens when you not only allow Politicians to start wars but also dictate how they are fought, this shit should have been dealt with in 1990.

[Ghostpanther]

[QUOTE=Gumboy;30484322]The simple fact that trying to change the facts of the situation in order to get political points is silly. Call it what it is, a blatant lie about boots not going to be on the ground, then doing it.

[COLOR="#417394"][SIZE=1]

I agree with you Gumboy. It is just another example of " You can keep your doctor Obama" striking again.