• 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!

Obama Is Sending 275 US Troops To Iraq

Smeagol said:
From what I understand, the troops are there to protect our own embassy and to serve as advisers to the Iraqis.
Click to expand...

Two errors:

1) It is not our embassy. The embassy is the sole property of the US government.

2) The US govt's troops are there to protect Tillerson's oil interests, nothing more.
 
jmotivator said:
I think it will be the leftists who aren't happy with troops going back to Iraq.
Click to expand...

The left will be happy with whatever President Obama does for they always have Bush to blame.

Personally, I don't think he's doing enough. Can we really afford a full-blown terrorist stronghold in the Middle East? Pay now or pay bigger later.

Edit: I'm sure not well-informed about what's going on, or about Iran, but if Iran will handle it? I say let 'em have at it.
 
Smeagol said:
I think if our embassy is attacked or it looks like ISIS is about to take Baghdad, all heck will break out. ISIS has declared war on America
Click to expand...

ISIS has only declared war on the Shiite leadership of Iraq, and in turn, the US government that currently backs it due to its favorable policy toward US oil interests.

America, i. e. the people here, are irrelevant.
 
MaggieD said:
The left will be happy with whatever President Obama does for they always have Bush to blame.
Click to expand...

Obama must take orders from Mr. Tillerson. The American people's perception of him is irrelevant.

MaggieD said:
Personally, I don't think he's doing enough. Can we
Click to expand...

"We" is irrelevant. The CINC and Congress don't answer to you or me--they answer to Mr. Tillerson.
 
CRUE CAB said:
I have posted against these wars many times. So don't try to come here with some revisionist bull crap. I agree with almost nothing about Obama's policies.
Staying out of Iraq is what we should do.
Click to expand...

We don't have any say in he matter. US troops are only under the control of the US government.
 
Maenad said:
It IS a bad idea. He should be getting our diplomats back to the US!
Click to expand...

If he wants to pull out the diplomats, that is fine. There has obviously been an escalation of violence in Iraq and it would not be prudent to ignore it and do nothing. Putting troops into the embassy will help secure the area while they make an orchestrated withdrawal, protecting US assets.

Unlike some of his previous moves, you just don't say we are leaving.
 
shrubnose said:
That is nothing new, it was going on years ago before the 'surge'.
Click to expand...

Right, but unlike years ago, the US has minimized its presence in Iraq to a skeleton crew. If the USA won't show commitment to supporting the iraqi regime, they'll find friends elsewhere and the prime candidate is Iran.
 
MaggieD said:
The left will be happy with whatever President Obama does for they always have Bush to blame.

Personally, I don't think he's doing enough. Can we really afford a full-blown terrorist stronghold in the Middle East? Pay now or pay bigger later.

Edit: I'm sure not well-informed about what's going on, or about Iran, but if Iran will handle it? I say let 'em have at it.
Click to expand...

...
If you give Iraq to Iran, they probably won't annex it, probably keep it as a puppet state... and then you'll have Iran and Syria together as it were.
memap.jpg


So Iran won't stop at Iraq. It'll go and help out Syria against their ISIS group which is the main force of the revolution against the loyalists. And then Iran will have 2 puppet states.

It is not a wise idea to do that. If the USA entered Iraq to end Saddam's rule and bring democracy, do that. The job is clearly unfinished.
 
What has created this situation?
 
rhinefire said:
In and out and in and out and in and out and in and out. 1. Why have an embassy there? 2. Why not remove our people all together instead 275 troops vs. 10,000 psychotic terrorists?
Obama is lost. Does anyone believe he did not contemplate something like this happening when nearly 100% of the Washington buttheads knew it would? Impeach Obama.
Click to expand...
We have an embassy there because 1-nations tend to try to maintain diplomatic relationships, even with those we arent altogether friendly with and 2-We are working to develop a positive relationship with the government of Iraq.
 
MaggieD said:
This is rapidly becoming a reeeeal cluster****:



ISIS moving seized US tanks, Humvees to Syria | Fox News
Click to expand...
THAT is the real condemnation of this administration. They have been incompetent since day one. They have supported uprisings without considering consequences, supported the ouster of traditional allies by extremists, and now are supporting terrorist faction in Syria.

Its amateur hour there.
 
Neither Iraq nor any other Middle East country will ever be a truly democratic state.

That's not going to happen. The people there don't do democracy.

Read their history.

Don't take my word for this,just wait and see.
 
Last edited:
shrubnose said:
What has created this situation?
Click to expand...

The primary reason being bantered about is the power vacuum which occurred in 2011 when the US troops completely left Iraq.
Secondary reasons are, unchecked Syrian violence which has overflowed into Iraq, lack of inclusive leadership by Maliki by ignoring Sunni's in his country and Maliki's closer ties with Iran's Shiite government....
 
VanceMack said:
THAT is the real condemnation of this administration. They have been incompetent since day one. They have supported uprisings without considering consequences, supported the ouster of traditional allies by extremists, and now are supporting terrorist faction in Syria.

Its amateur hour there.
Click to expand...

Wesley Clark got it right. The neocons wanted to destabilize the Middle East, they just thought they could control the chaos and turn it to their advantage.

 
shrubnose said:
What has created this situation?
Click to expand...

Petroleum having a monopoly on transportation and by extension the economy depends on it presently.
 
Iraq is hard to be rebuilt. Its inner balance was totally destroyed.
 
I'm going with Maliki's failure to be inclusive-that's what led to this.
 
Rainman05 said:
Right, but unlike years ago, the US has minimized its presence in Iraq to a skeleton crew. If the USA won't show commitment to supporting the iraqi regime, they'll find friends elsewhere and the prime candidate is Iran.
Click to expand...
Let the Iranians have the Shiite part of Iraq, that pretty much means that they will be tied up fighting the terrorists there for decades to come, it shouldnt be the US problem anymore.
 
PoS said:
Let the Iranians have the Shiite part of Iraq, that pretty much means that they will be tied up fighting the terrorists there for decades to come, it shouldnt be the US problem anymore.
Click to expand...

The Iranian regime does not operate like the West. With no desire for democracy, human rights or development, it would simply slaughter the opposition like Assad.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom