• 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

well we will see if we are called in to assist the Iraqi's or the Kurds at all. We might yet be - and I imagine that wiping out the convoys of our trucks being driven north to Syria is more appealing than watching them bent to the service of al Qaeda.

We'll see, but I can't see Obama making any offensive moves and those troops are there for no other reason than to cover the evacuation of American personel.
 
Right.

But the Iraqi Sunni's view it as their religious brothers aiding them against oppression by the Shia majority in Iraq.

So did the Austrians.
 
And by doing so we'll say to future allies that we can't be trusted.
Allowing Iraq to fall will have negative concequences for decades to come.
And those newly dead Americans you support killing to save this version of Iraq will be on a different level than the "4 dead in Ben-gha-zi" right.

Democrats in the Senate need to begin a whole new set of "select" committees to go back to Iraq-2 and move forward.
You know, set the record straight once and for all .
 
'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)?

bad move.
 
We'll see, but I can't see Obama making any offensive moves and those troops are there for no other reason than to cover the evacuation of American personel.

Only reasonable reason to have them.
 
Obama has been president for 6 years.
McCain agreed with the pull-out in December of 2011 with a lack of a SOFA.

Give thanks to the last administration for a whole new generation of terrorists.
"Bring it On" and "Crusades"--a complete ****ing idiot was your Bush .
 
And those newly dead Americans you support killing to save this version of Iraq will be on a different level than the "4 dead in Ben-gha-zi" right.

Democrats in the Senate need to begin a whole new set of "select" committees to go back to Iraq-2 and move forward.
You know, set the record straight once and for all .

Yrah, that'll fix everything. :roll:
 
Those troops were sent there so that we don't have to send troops there.
Do you follow that logic?
 
McCain agreed with the pull-out in December of 2011 with a lack of a SOFA.

Give thanks to the last administration for a whole new generation of terrorists.
"Bring it On" and "Crusades"--a complete ****ing idiot was your Bush .

Obama has been in control for 6 years. He has had ample time to change the world.
 
'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)?

Almost every single President in US history has sent troops to reinforce an Embassy. This also isn't how US involvement in Vietnam started.
 
bad move.

I agree. And I can't decide if this is a knee jerk reaction on Obama's part of if he is just giving the US the finger and sending a few troops in to try and show us a thing or two.......that our diplomats will still be killed and would have in Benghazi even with a few troops.
 
Obama has been in control for 6 years. He has had ample time to change the world.
Right--All by himself--with a clear and present danger at home with your GOP and its dozens of position--
though Obama meets with the four congressional leaders tomorrow, I wouldn't tell the GOPs anything--
they'll immediately run to FOX and play politics with any new intel -
 
Right--All by himself--with a clear and present danger at home with your GOP and its dozens of position--
though Obama meets with the four congressional leaders tomorrow, I wouldn't tell the GOPs anything--
they'll immediately run to FOX and play politics with any new intel -

So much of what you post is so nonsensical that I can't even take you seriously as a poster.
 
So much of what you post is nonsensical that I can't even take you seriously as a poster.
That was a quick response--certainly having nothing to do with what I said--
four congressional leaders--Pelosi, Reid, Boehner, McConnell--to meet with the President tomorrow--did you get that part--

For one who continually posts that Obama has been President 6 years,
try 5 years and not quite 5 months, since you're a stickler for those who make a mistake with the quote button--

for one who continually posts that it's all on Obama, don't bother with the world being gray versus black-and-white--
and by all means, ignore all the chirping from Bush neo-cons right now--
oh wait--those are your talking points -
 
And by doing so we'll say to future allies that we can't be trusted. Allowing Iraq to fall will have negative concequences for decades to come.

No question about it. I can't imagine that anyone would trust the U.S. government. I sure don't. So that is a pretty meaningless argument. Iraq will fail no matter what we do. No point in spending more money and blood on it.
 
No question about it. I can't imagine that anyone would trust the U.S. government. I sure don't. So that is a pretty meaningless argument. Iraq will fail no matter what we do. No point in spending more money and blood on it.

We could keep her alive, but we don't possess the leadership to do so.
 
Back
Top Bottom