• 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!

US Sending 300 More US Troops to Iraq

DA60

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
'Two hundred more troops and detachment of helicopters and drones being sent to protect Americans and the US embassy.

The U.S. is sending another 300 troops to Iraq to beef up security at the U.S. Embassy and elsewhere in the Baghdad area to protect U.S. citizens and property, officials said Monday.

That raises the total U.S. troop presence in Iraq to approximately 750, the Pentagon said.'

US Sending 300 More US Troops to Iraq - ABC News







And the number just keeps growing and growing and growing...
 
DA60 said:
'Two hundred more troops and detachment of helicopters and drones being sent to protect Americans and the US embassy.

The U.S. is sending another 300 troops to Iraq to beef up security at the U.S. Embassy and elsewhere in the Baghdad area to protect U.S. citizens and property, officials said Monday.

That raises the total U.S. troop presence in Iraq to approximately 750, the Pentagon said.'

US Sending 300 More US Troops to Iraq - ABC News







And the number just keeps growing and growing and growing...
Click to expand...

Hmmm are we really trying to repeat Vietnam all over again? Who says history doesn't repeat itself.
 
I really don't understand why we are protecting an embassy in a country where we are letting the militants take over. Why risk so many lives in a situation we are not committed to being apart of. Are they hoping to somehow have diplomatic ties with the new Islamic extremist government once the civil war is over? I am left scratching my head here... We are sending in just enough troops for them to be in danger of getting caught in the crossfire and killed in large numbers. This is a disaster waiting to happen. If we don't want any part of Iraq's problems, then we should be evacuating the embassy completely.
 
PirateMk1 said:
Hmmm are we really trying to repeat Vietnam all over again? Who says history doesn't repeat itself.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...




I'm a Vietnam vet and that's exactly what it sounds like to me.




The best way to stay out of a war is don't get involved.

Sending a few hundred at a time by the end of this year the USA could have thousands of troops there, and every one of them will be a terrorist target.




Meanwhile, the USA doesn't control its own borders.

Does anyone else see a problem there?
 
PirateMk1 said:
Hmmm are we really trying to repeat Vietnam all over again? Who says history doesn't repeat itself.
Click to expand...

I don't think Vietnam is a good comparison in most aspects. That was during the cold war and we were trying to stop communist expansion and thought fighting for a stalemate like we achieved in Korea was possible. But we in into Korea to win and settled for a stalemate. In Vietnam we went in wanting a stalemate and settled for a loss. In Vietnam we had a president in LBJ itching to get U.S. troops into Vietnam in large numbers. Remember there were already 16,300 there when LBJ took over from JFK.

I am under the impression that President Obama is trying like heck not to get us re-involved in Iraq, at least with huge numbers of troops. At least that is the assumption I am living under today. But you maybe right comparing Iraq to Vietnam as these things can take on a life of their own. What was intended soon becomes obsolete, we send in 300, if that doesn't work then 600, then 1,000, then 10,000 and so on. In that way Iraq may come to resemble Vietnam.
 
Capster78 said:
I really don't understand why we are protecting an embassy in a country where we are letting the militants take over. Why risk so many lives in a situation we are not committed to being apart of. Are they hoping to somehow have diplomatic ties with the new Islamic extremist government once the civil war is over? I am left scratching my head here...
We are sending in just enough troops for them to be in danger of getting caught in the crossfire and killed in large numbers.
Click to expand...
 This is a disaster waiting to happen. If we don't want any part of Iraq's problems, then we should be evacuating the embassy completely.
Click to expand...




Like what happened to Reagan in 1983 in Beirut, Lebanon.

We don't want to see a repeat of that.
 
Capster78 said:
I really don't understand why we are protecting an embassy in a country where we are letting the militants take over. Why risk so many lives in a situation we are not committed to being apart of. Are they hoping to somehow have diplomatic ties with the new Islamic extremist government once the civil war is over? I am left scratching my head here... We are sending in just enough troops for them to be in danger of getting caught in the crossfire and killed in large numbers. This is a disaster waiting to happen. If we don't want any part of Iraq's problems, then we should be evacuating the embassy completely.
Click to expand...

Unless the get out of Dodge plan includes razing large portions on the surrounding area I don't see sending a few troops in as a very good idea.
 
shrubnose said:
Like what happened to Reagan in 1983 in Beirut, Lebanon.

We don't want to see a repeat of that.
Click to expand...

It's completely insane. I feel for the families of the troops who are being sent there. Completely outnumbered and targets fresh for the picking. A militants wet dream. Why don't we just call them up and tell them to meet us at the US embassy in Iraq.. We are outnumbered and far enough away from support that you can come have a great ole time yelling alah Akbar to your hearts content.
 
shrubnose said:
Like what happened to Reagan in 1983 in Beirut, Lebanon.

We don't want to see a repeat of that.
Click to expand...

But we don't hear of Beirut and the other two bombings on a regular basis because it was a GOP admin.
That's juswt the way we rewrite.
The MSM is in Cheney's hip-pocket when it comes to rewriting history .
 
DA60 said:
'Two hundred more troops and detachment of helicopters and drones being sent to protect Americans and the US embassy.

The U.S. is sending another 300 troops to Iraq to beef up security at the U.S. Embassy and elsewhere in the Baghdad area to protect U.S. citizens and property, officials said Monday.

That raises the total U.S. troop presence in Iraq to approximately 750, the Pentagon said.'

US Sending 300 More US Troops to Iraq - ABC News
And the number just keeps growing and growing and growing...
Click to expand...
And would not be questioned under a GOP President, as we saw last decade.
Just imagine if McCain would have been elected.
He still is the only one out there who wants to bomb right this minute.
And all of Romney's defense advisors were Bush's NEO-Cons .
 
So you're the US. Do you:

A) Abandon the embassy. Most folks are already out of there anyway.

B) Do nothing at all. Leave the comparative skeleton crew- and arguable the largest ambassadorial complex in the world- to give overrun or not, inshallah.

c) Send some folks to protect the skeleton crew.
 
DA60 said:
'Two hundred more troops and detachment of helicopters and drones being sent to protect Americans and the US embassy.

The U.S. is sending another 300 troops to Iraq to beef up security at the U.S. Embassy and elsewhere in the Baghdad area to protect U.S. citizens and property, officials said Monday.

That raises the total U.S. troop presence in Iraq to approximately 750, the Pentagon said.'

US Sending 300 More US Troops to Iraq - ABC News







And the number just keeps growing and growing and growing...
Click to expand...



So, the situation is worse than we previously thought...
 
DA60 said:
'Two hundred more troops and detachment of helicopters and drones being sent to protect Americans and the US embassy.

The U.S. is sending another 300 troops to Iraq to beef up security at the U.S. Embassy and elsewhere in the Baghdad area to protect U.S. citizens and property, officials said Monday.

That raises the total U.S. troop presence in Iraq to approximately 750, the Pentagon said.'

US Sending 300 More US Troops to Iraq - ABC News







And the number just keeps growing and growing and growing...
Click to expand...

I was telling my friends that even though I am politically opposite of Obama I do support him not engaging us in another war. Apparently I am going to have to stop saying that because it looks like he is trying to sneak us into another war.
 
Far be it for someone on the Left(ish) to bring up Benghazi, but...

What would you like the President to do when there is a threat to an embassy? He was targeted in the past when he didn't send support troops, you're now trying to target him for sending in troops - the only alternative I can see, as OWO mentioned, is to shut the embassy and run, which I can't imagine would go down well either...
 
Last edited:
iangb said:
Far be it for someone on the Left(ish) to bring up Benghazi, but...

What would you like the President to do when there is a threat to an embassy? He was targeted in the past when he didn't send support troops, you're now trying to target him for sending in troops - the only alternative I can see, as OWO mentioned, is to shut the embassy and run, which I can't imagine would go down well either...
Click to expand...

I could care less what wouldn't 'go down well', only the weak worry about that.

You either shut down the embassy until the situation stabilizes or you have only a skeleton staff.
 
DA60 said:
I could care less what wouldn't 'go down well', only the weak worry about that.
Click to expand...
If people's opinions shouldn't matter, why did you bother making a thread essentially saying "I disapprove!"

You either shut down the embassy until the situation stabilizes or you have only a skeleton staff.
Click to expand...
...or you increase the protection, as has happened here. Don't worry, it doesn't matter if it doesn't go down well with you - apparently only the weak would worry about what you think.
 
iangb said:
If people's opinions shouldn't matter, why did you bother making a thread essentially saying "I disapprove!"

...or you increase the protection, as has happened here. Don't worry, it doesn't matter if it doesn't go down well with you - apparently only the weak would worry about what you think.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:

I did not say 'people's opinions shouldn't matter'.

I was talking about this topic and your statement...as in 'you don't base foreign policy on what others think...you just do the right thing'.

I actually have to explain that to you?

Either you are emotionally challenged or you are playing childish games.

Either way, I am not wasting my time on you.


We are done here.

Good day.
 
Last edited:
DA60 said:
:rolleyes:

I did not say 'people's opinions shouldn't matter'.

I was talking about this topic and your statement...as in 'you don't base foreign policy on what others think...you just do the right thing'.

I actually have to explain that to you?

Either you are emotionally challenged or you are playing childish games.

Either way, I am not wasting my time on you.


We are done here.

Good day.
Click to expand...
Do I have to explain to you that "that won't go down well" is because it's (also) not the right thing to do? There are normally reasons why people have opinions.

In this case, you're advocating closing down an embassy and withdrawing staff from the middle of an area which America has pretty vested interests (both economically and politically) in keeping stable, which contains a fair number of US citizens/contractors whom the embassy could no longer support, which has a certain level of dependence on US intervention for it's existence in the first place and which is being threatened by a group which (if I recall correctly) were kicked out of Al-Quaeda for being 'too extreme'. If the US were to cut and run it may well result in the fall of Iraq as a multicultural entity - which leads potentially to ethnic cleansing and all manner of nastiness, plus renewed problems in Iran, Syria etc - all of which act as extra catalyst for radicalism and attacks in the US and elsewhere.

This is a situation where there is no 'right thing to do' - but I do think that this is the lesser of evils. Withdraw, and the region might fold. Leave a skeleton staff, and you emperil further those who remain behind, along with those Americans who might need help but for whom there isn't personnel available. Do nothing, and risk everyone who stays. Or send in extra protection, which might act as a stabilising presence and will certainly keep US citizens safe.

"The right thing" is not as obvious as you make it out to be. The people who have the most information about the situation have made their decisions, and you are second-guessing from the sidelines, offering no actual reasons for your criticism but voicing your opinion all the same, whilst simultaniously saying that it is facts, not opinions, that matter.

But, if you don't want to have to actually support your opinions, then...

*Doffs fancy hat*

Good day, sir.
 
Capster78 said:
I really don't understand why we are protecting an embassy in a country where we are letting the militants take over.
Click to expand...
 Why risk so many lives in a situation we are not committed to being apart of. Are they hoping to somehow have diplomatic ties with the new Islamic extremist government once the civil war is over? I am left scratching my head here... We are sending in just enough troops for them to be in danger of getting caught in the crossfire and killed in large numbers. This is a disaster waiting to happen. If we don't want any part of Iraq's problems, then we should be evacuating the embassy completely.
Click to expand...




We (The USA.) are not 'letting the militants take over' in Iraq.

Iraq is 'letting the militants take over' and its their problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom