• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

CNN: 1,500 more troops to Iraq

TheDemSocialist said:
U.S. to boost military aid to Iraq - Los Angeles Times
"WASHINGTON — Facing a deadly resurgence of Al Qaeda in Iraq, President Obama signaled Friday that he would begin increasing U.S. military support for Baghdad after five years of reducing it.

The new U.S. plan represents a remarkable shift for Obama, whose administration trumpeted the 2011 withdrawal of the last U.S. troops from Iraq as a major achievement and has since shifted its attention to other regional challenges, such as Syria, Egypt and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Following a White House meeting with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki, Obama said he shared Maliki's fears about militants' growing foothold in Iraq's western region and would join the Iraqi leader's effort to crack down. Administration officials said this would include growing intelligence support and new weaponry."

U.S. sending weapons to Iraq to help curb al-Qaida advances | Nation & World | The Seattle Times
"WASHINGTON — The United States is quietly rushing dozens of Hellfire missiles and low-tech surveillance drones to Iraq to help government forces combat an explosion of violence by al-Qaida-backed insurgency that is gaining territory in both western Iraq and neighboring Syria.

The move follows an appeal for help in battling the extremist group by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who met with President Obama in Washington last month."
Click to expand...



In Dec after Maliki came to DC.....when reading that. How did you miss this part.


The terrorist group took advantage of the departure of U.S. forces to rebuild its operations in Iraq and push into Syria. Now that it has established a strong foothold in Syria, it is, in turn, using its base there to send suicide bombers into Iraq at a rate of 30 to 40 a month, using them against Shiites but also against Sunnis who are reluctant to cede control.....snip~
 
CanadaJohn said:
Does anyone really doubt that in a matter of time there will be as many or more American and coalition troops on the ground in Iraq and the area than there would have been had President Obama not beaten a hasty retreat from Iraq shortly following his election. It's impossible to be certain, but had the American forces been stationed in Iraq all this time, since 2011, it's quite possible that the ISIL/ISIS/IS movement never would have ventured past the Syrian/Iraq border in the first place.
Click to expand...

On both points (our eventual commitment, and the influx of ISIS from Syria) there is no doubt.
 
US Conservative said:
Exactly, ride it out, and make it the next guys problem. Even leftists seem vaguely cognizant about it.
Click to expand...


That is a scary, but likely accurate, assessment of the Obama management style. Never commit to any single plan and use parts of many plans (that makes it a comprehensive plan) to appease all at the table; plan A used the word "if", plan B used the word "and" and plan C used the word "but". Obama carefully drafts a speech stating that his goal is to implement a comprehensive solution containing the "ifs", "ands" and "buts" that have been recommended by a panel of experts with many areas of expertise. ;)
 
cpwill said:
:roll: Maliki wanted a minimum of 10K troops left behind in Iraq. The President told him he was on his own. Witness the results of the "not our problem" foreign policy.
Click to expand...

I would have done the same. Iraq refused to offer our troops immunity from their barbaric laws and let them just be American. They looked a gift-horse in the mouth so **** 'em.

America has to put a stop being the world's policemen putting down squables half way around the globe. If we go in, we should go in hard with the full might of the mighty US military and annihilate the enemy with prejudice. Enough *****-footing around. 15k here, 2k there. Screw that. Go big or stay home.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That is a scary, but likely accurate, assessment of the Obama management style. Never commit to any single plan and use parts of many plans (that makes it a comprehensive plan) to appease all at the table; plan A used the word "if", plan B used the word "and" and plan C used the word "but". Obama carefully drafts a speech stating that his goal is to implement a comprehensive solution containing the "ifs", "ands" and "buts" that have been recommended by a panel of experts with many areas of expertise. ;)
Click to expand...

Heya Ttwtt. :2wave: Well....his plan for ISIS has failed. He now needs a new one.
 
MMC said:
Heya Ttwtt. :2wave: Well....his plan for ISIS has failed. He now needs a new one.
Click to expand...

Not Obama - he will assert that the coalition plan (never his plan) is working but not as fast as he had hoped. ;)
 
Captain America said:
I would have done the same. Iraq refused to offer our troops immunity from their barbaric laws and let them just be American. They looked a gift-horse in the mouth so **** 'em.
Click to expand...

Just a simple question-do you think a world with less American presence will be a better place, or a worse place?
 
US Conservative said:
Good point, Obama stated there was indeed PEACE in Iraq.
Click to expand...

ah......

See, that's where things go seriously into surrealism in American politics. Even what is on record, from the mouth of the President is ignored in asserting the new reality.

They say politics makes strange bedfellows, but here I am in league with Yankee Conservatives because everything the US left says is questionable at least. ****, here we are two years down the road, we it's on record, yet these vermin demand "what peace"..

Ah...the one Obama said was there when he really needed your vote.....

IS there something in the water?
 
CRUE CAB said:
Is there another "revelations"?
Click to expand...

There are many revelations from many sources, but only one Revelations to my knowledge. I thought perhaps you were referring to other insight you've gained or predictions made by others. But you mean Obama is ushering in the apocalypse as per the Bible.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Not Obama - he will assert that the coalition plan (never his plan) is working but not as fast as he had hoped. ;)
Click to expand...

Well he did say it was to early to tell if his plan was working or not.....but that was Tuesday while the Election was going on and not much was focused on the issue. It has failed. His usual with things overseas.


Iraq's Sunnis Won't Fight ISIS for U.S......


Iraq's Sunnis won't fight ISIS for the U.S. says NIQASH, a non-profit media organization operating out of Berlin. Without Sunni support, America's war in Iraq cannot succeed. Here's why.

According to NIQASH, a source at the U.S. embassy in Baghdad said there have been secret negotiations between various Sunni Muslim armed factions, via Arab and Iraqi Kurdish intermediaries, for the past three months. At the request of U.S. diplomats and military personnel, Shia officials from the Iraqi government have also been meeting with the leaders of these groups in Erbil, Kurdistan and Amman, Jordan.

The Sunnis seem to be choosing a middle ground, one which does not serve America's interests. According to a 1920s Revolution Brigades (Sunni militia) leader, various militias came to the decision "not to support the international coalition against ISIS. They also decided not to cooperate with ISIS either. If the [Iraqi] army or the [Shia] militias attack [Sunni] areas they control though, they will fight both groups."....snip~

Iraq's Sunnis Won't Fight ISIS for U.S.*|*Peter Van Buren
 
Oh, and the final move to the endgame. BO needs a new idea. As the Syrian Rebels we were arming and training just got wiped out and whatever we gave them is now in the hands of Al Nusra AQ.


Tragic Setbacks for U.S. Allies in Iraq and Syria.....


Western Iraq saw more brutal bloodshed this weekend after the Islamic State massacred 322 people of the Albu Nimr tribe, a Sunni group, including women and children. The Iraqi government confirmed the attack in the Anbar region, which began on Saturday and continued into Sunday, and was described as "systematic killings."Beyond the lives lost, the success of these "systematic killings" will have a long-term impact on the struggle between ISIS and the Iraqi government. "The fall of the village dampened the Shi'ite-led national government's hopes the Sunni tribesmen of Anbar—who once helped U.S. Marines defeat al Qaeda—would become a formidable force again and help the army take on Iraq's new, far more effective enemy," noted Reuters's Michael Georgy.

In Syria, the United States faced another setback in its battle against terrorist groups, when weapons distributed to anti-government rebels ended up in the hands of an al-Qaeda splinter group, Jabhat al-Nusra. The weapons provided by the United States included GRAD rockets and TOW anti-tank missiles. It is unclear if the moderate rebels who had been trained by the United States surrendered or defected to the terrorist group. The Independent reported that a U.S.-backed rebel group, Harakat Hazm, surrendered on Saturday night "without firing a shot" after al-Nusra attacked the villages it controlled. Some soldiers apparently defected, and the Syrian Revolutionary Front, another group receiving U.S. support, was driven from its strongholds.....snip~

Tragic Setbacks for U.S. Allies in Iraq and Syria
 
Fearandloathing said:
ah......

See, that's where things go seriously into surrealism in American politics. Even what is on record, from the mouth of the President is ignored in asserting the new reality.

They say politics makes strange bedfellows, but here I am in league with Yankee Conservatives because everything the US left says is questionable at least. ****, here we are two years down the road, we it's on record, yet these vermin demand "what peace"..

Ah...the one Obama said was there when he really needed your vote.....

IS there something in the water?
Click to expand...

Peace and then theres none. Bush's fault unless its a success. Anyone else is to blame. Its the dance of the liberal.
I always hear this song in my head as they dance...
 
cpwill said:
Just came over "breaking news" on the telly-o-vision.

Huh. Odd how that decision came just after the election, eh?
Click to expand...

I expect in 2015 we will see even more with Congress more that willing to fuel the engines of war and aid their backers.
 
US Conservative said:
Just a simple question-do you think a world with less American presence will be a better place, or a worse place?
Click to expand...

There was a day when I would have said worse.

But, now, with Iraq and Afghanistan, having met a few dozen soldiers who served in Kandahar, and read the writings of many Muslim Canadians, scholars and professionals who opine that the middle east is best lest to middle easterners, that NO outside help comes without agendea; it's time for true sovereignty. Yes, it will mean people are going to die, Arab will kill Arab, but it will also mean Arab's won't be getting even with America.
'
 
Fearandloathing said:
Okay....let's see if I follow.

There was no peace in Iraq you say...

So why did Obama pull out again?
Click to expand...

He followed the agreement established by the previous administration and the Iraqi government.
 
MMC said:
Well he did say it was to early to tell if his plan was working or not.....but that was Tuesday while the Election was going on and not much was focused on the issue. It has failed. His usual with things overseas.


Iraq's Sunnis Won't Fight ISIS for U.S......


Iraq's Sunnis won't fight ISIS for the U.S. says NIQASH, a non-profit media organization operating out of Berlin. Without Sunni support, America's war in Iraq cannot succeed. Here's why.

According to NIQASH, a source at the U.S. embassy in Baghdad said there have been secret negotiations between various Sunni Muslim armed factions, via Arab and Iraqi Kurdish intermediaries, for the past three months. At the request of U.S. diplomats and military personnel, Shia officials from the Iraqi government have also been meeting with the leaders of these groups in Erbil, Kurdistan and Amman, Jordan.

The Sunnis seem to be choosing a middle ground, one which does not serve America's interests. According to a 1920s Revolution Brigades (Sunni militia) leader, various militias came to the decision "not to support the international coalition against ISIS. They also decided not to cooperate with ISIS either. If the [Iraqi] army or the [Shia] militias attack [Sunni] areas they control though, they will fight both groups."....snip~

Iraq's Sunnis Won't Fight ISIS for U.S.*|*Peter Van Buren
Click to expand...

Hmm... Maybe we need to try the Egypt/Israel model where we arm and pay both sides forever not to fight each other.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Just Obama's Iraq right? Not Bushes. Not our foreign policy for the last 14 years right? Just Obama's fault.
Click to expand...

Bush isn't in office and Obama has 2 years left. At what point is it ok to criticize his Iraq policy?
 
US Conservative said:
The war started. And violence escalated, and then dramatically dropped?What changed? One POTUS made a commitment to getting the job done.
Click to expand...

You do realize that after troops left Iraq, there were 4 years of 'relative peace'. If we're going by your flawed interpretation of the numbers, by following the Bush administration's plan, Iraq saw "peace" for 4 years. Correct? Hell, if we use your metric for peace, Iraq was still technically at peace in 2013.

Conversely, I wonder how many more video's of mass execution you need to see before you realize that another (and current) POTUS did the exact opposite-and look at the fallout.

Besides, life under Saddam, with his WMD attacks, etc wasn't exactly "peaceful", was it. Im sure you can answer that.
Click to expand...

No, no. You made a ridiculous claim and are now trying to avoid it like the plague. You don't get to run. Tell us, if Iraq saw peace in 2008, when casualties were as high as when the war first started, does that mean that in 2013 Iraq was peaceful too? After all, violence in 2013 only reached the levels of 2008.

Civilian death toll in Iraq highest in years, fueling concern of Al Qaeda 'resurgence' | Fox News

The United Nations said 7,818 civilians were killed in 2013, a return to 2008 levels. The startling figure follows warnings from lawmakers and analysts that the violence threatens to undo hard-fought gains by the United States.
Click to expand...

You set the standard for 'peace'. Now you get to be exposed for your nonsense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom