• 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

DA60

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2012
Messages
16,386
Reaction score
7,793
Location
Where I am now
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
'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)?
 
Last edited:
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 .
 
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. Iran will pledge support to the shiite government of Iraq and go in and defeat the sunni forces of ISIS... 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.

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.
 
We should have never gone into Iraq in the first place. Now its a mess and a growing hotbed of Islamic terrorism. Non interventionism is the way to go.
 
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.
Iran will pledge support to the shiite government of Iraq and go in and defeat the sunni forces of ISIS...
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.

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.




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.
 
Last edited:
'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)?

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.
 
Sending 250 dudes to protect an embassy =/= an advise and support mission.
 
Our entire policy in Iraq has been a failure. Do NOT compound it by sending more Americans and spending more of our treasure there.
 
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 .

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.
 
Last edited:
It's official. Obama's legacy is that he's totally incompetent.
 
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.
 
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.

250 men were enough to save the Ambassador's life in Saigon.
 
Remember when Obama's detractors were saying that telegraphing the US troop withdrawal from Iraq simply signaled the enemy how long they needed to wait before attacking?

Here is the ISIS violence in Iraq by month (Troop Withdrawal completed in December 2011):

ISIS.jpg

(Source)

Sorry for the spoilers!
 
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)?

Part of those are to defend our embassy, something the right was bitching about Benghazi. First you guys complain he didn't defend Benghazi and now you are complaining he's sending troops to protect our embassy. Nice.

The other are specialf forces to train folks in Iraq.

For some on the right, they will bitch about Obama no matter WHAT he does. In this case, it's the right thing to do. I gurantee if the embassy in Iraq was attacked and he didn't send troops, many on the right would be bitching about "it's another Benghazi!"
 
Heard that before.

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.
If he keeps troops there you'll gripe about how he hasn't left Iraq.

Pure Obama Derangement Syndrome is on display with you. This is why many on the right are not taken seriously. They will gripe no matter WHAT Obama does.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
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.
 
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 .

I'll take irrelevant partisan hack responses for 1000 please.....
 
There should be an extraction of US persons, period. Its a lost cause over there.

As much as this hurts..... I must agree.

Withdraw every single US citizen/soldier/diplomat immediately and never return.
Close any embassy or "point of interest" the US has there, and vacate the country completely.


Now.
 
'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)?

I read that "Iraq" means "Vietnam" in Arabic. :mrgreen:
 
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.

Obama and every other Ameircan president will be between a hard place and a even harder place on Iraq. Iraq will be the never-ever ending War.

We have to decide as a nation what is our objective in the ME. Then let the people vote for the plan...and stick to it.

Bush was not voted in on a pledge to go to WAR in Iraq. Obama was voted into office to get us the hell out. He is retarded not to come before the American people to tell everyone there is NO WIN senario. He has failed in that task.

This decision--unlike all the others claimed by the GOP--will have verifiable, qualitative deaths directly associated with it.
 
Back
Top Bottom