• 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

stonewall50 said:
Are you on the ground there? Do you have secret sources? How do you know they haven't been? They won't be publicizing shootouts in Iraq. Most the personnel there is security. Again. Thinking our guys won't be doing any shooting is naive.

Will they be carrying guns?
Click to expand...

Ummm I can ask the same thing to you....
 
stonewall50 said:
Balance of probabilities brother dear. Will they be carrying guns?
Click to expand...

Im guessing yes. However that does not mean they will actively be set out into the battlefield...
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Im guessing yes. However that does not mean they will actively be set out into the battlefield...
Click to expand...

Ok. So they will have guns. Why? Like I said. It is naive to think they won't be shooting at Isis. Even in a limited capacity.
 
stonewall50 said:
Ok. So they will have guns. Why? Like I said. It is naive to think they won't be shooting at Isis. Even in a limited capacity.
Click to expand...

Naive? No. However we have had military advisors at many locations in our past, and many have been in Iraq before the current announcement, and they have not been in combat..
 
US Conservative said:
Obama's Iraq is coming home to roost. More troops tk, and 5 billion dollars. And its transparently clear that he didn't want this announcement made until after the elections, this allowed him to avoid the headlines on tuesday, and appear to be working with republicans today (to clean up his own mess).
Click to expand...

Obama's Iraq would never have been invaded and Saddam would have made sure no extremist religious cult like ISIS had a chance in Iraq.
Now back to Bush's Iraq.............Where something is finally working since Bush's stooge Maliki got ousted. The Sunni's are fighting back and Bagdad is helping give out our arms to them. The Generals have said that ISIS is "demoralized" by the airstrikes. When something works you double down. I'm sorry you are disappointed that we are winning. I know you were rooting for ISIS, it appears most Conservatives are.
 
Last edited:
TheDemSocialist said:
Naive? No. However we have had military advisors at many locations in our past, and many have been in Iraq before the current announcement, and they have not been in combat..
Click to expand...

http://news.yahoo.com/us-could-send-advisers-combat-iraq-150059619.html

Naive? Yes. Note the comment about "complex" operations. Hell...we might already have (and if we don't and we keep doing the air campaign we will most assuredly GET) forward air controllers on the ground for CAS.

They carry guns. They have a good chance of actual fighting.
 
iguanaman said:
Obama's Iraq would never have been invaded and Saddam would have made sure no extremist religious cult like ISIS had a chance in Iraq.
Now back to Bush's Iraq.............Where something is finally working since Bush's stooge Maliki got ousted. The Sunni's are fighting back and Bagdad is helping give out our arms to them. The Generals have said that ISIS is "demoralized" by the airstrikes. When something works you double down. I'm sorry you are disappointed that we are winning. I know you were rooting for ISIS, it appears most Conservatives are.
Click to expand...

I tbink conservatives, like most Americans, are ready to just let the nation fall to whoever. We are tired of caring. We just want to be done with it.
 
stonewall50 said:
US cools talk of combat role in Iraq

Naive? Yes. Note the comment about "complex" operations. Hell...we might already have (and if we don't and we keep doing the air campaign we will most assuredly GET) forward air controllers on the ground for CAS.

They carry guns. They have a good chance of actual fighting.
Click to expand...

So its a giant just of "well maybe"? Id rather not base it around of "well it could happen" when in fact its not happening.
 
stonewall50 said:
I tbink conservatives, like most Americans, are ready to just let the nation fall to whoever. We are tired of caring. We just want to be done with it.
Click to expand...

LOL What are you on? I want some.
 
iguanaman said:
Obama's Iraq would never have been invaded and Saddam would have made sure no extremist religious cult like ISIS had a chance in Iraq.
Now back to Bush's Iraq.............Where something is finally working since Bush's stooge Maliki got ousted. The Sunni's are fighting back and Bagdad is helping give out our arms to them. The Generals have said that ISIS is "demoralized" by the airstrikes. When something works you double down. I'm sorry you are disappointed that we are winning. I know you were rooting for ISIS, it appears most Conservatives are.
Click to expand...

Who is the President, Bush or Obama?
 
Grant said:
The man is a screwball. Read the article and see if it makes any sense whatsoever, or where his theories have enjoyed any success. We have to deal with the real world here.
Click to expand...

So its not about what advisors actually do, to now what in your opinion they should do?
 
TheDemSocialist said:
From the Seattle Times article that was published on December 25 of 2013: "A shipment of 75 Hellfire missiles was delivered to Iraq last week, reconnaissance drones are to be delivered by March and U.S. intelligence and counterterrorism officials say they have mapped the al-Qaida network in Iraq and are sharing this information with the Iraqis."
They arrived the week before this article was published in 2013.... U.S. sending weapons to Iraq to help curb al-Qaida advances | Nation & World | The Seattle Times
Click to expand...
What you are missing here are the requisite delivery systems. The Hellfire is a smart missile. This is why Iraq ordered the F-16s, to mate the Hellfire missiles with an appropriate fixed-wing delivery system. From December of 2011 until ISIS over-ran Mosul, the Iraqi Air Force consisted of a handful of Cessna aircraft. Fortunately for Baghdad, Russia and Belarus delivered a small batch of second-hand Su-30 fighter jets that were collecting dust in repair shops.
 
US Conservative said:
Obama ran on being able to fix these things, and instead his own politics have led to this flare up. Iraq is his baby, he took credit for it when it was going well, so logically he must accept the responsibility now.

And other nations are testing us. This is what happens when we elect weak leaders.
Click to expand...



Maybe the Middle East is a balance of competing forces. At the time that Obama withdrew US Troops, the US may have been more resented by the Iraqis. Staying longer may have built up more resentment against the US. Now the Iraqis are asking for assistance from the US.

One of the desired results of US policy is to have a reserve of respect from other nations. Obama has avoided over-playing US Power. Eventually, the ideal is for the Middle Eastern Nations, Tribes and Religions, to have a balance of power without US intervention or threats. Obama has been successful in avoiding creating more resentment than necessary.

If there was one clear solution that could be imposed and result in peace, then leadership in the sense of imposing boundaries would be possible. There is no clear solution for the Tribes and Nations that have been at war periodically over many centuries. When the balance is shifting toward massacre, then it is time for the US to step in, with minimal assistance, to avoid mass murders.


//
 
US Conservative said:
The Iraqi's wanted us to stay, as did Obamas military staff. Obama wanted to political benefits of "ending" the war and now here we are.
Click to expand...
If that's the case why was my nephew that served there and wounded twice told repeatedly by the Iraqis, "We want you to leave and stop occupying our country!"
 
matchlight said:
President Pinprick comes through again, I see. All this clownish politician is doing by putting men in by dribs and drabs is making it likely more of them will be lost. A substantial force--on the order of the force in South Korea, or somewhat smaller, with the right mix of aircraft, etc.--could finish these people once and for all. A force like that is what the experts say this country should have left in Iraq.

It's exactly because that was not done that this has happened. The longer these curs survive, and appear to be defying the U.S. and getting away with it, the brighter their star shines. The idea should be to whip them so badly, and to appear to do it so easily, that no one like them in the world would ever doubt who the strong horse was.
Click to expand...

ODS is a terrible waste. And who the hell are the curs?
 
MMC said:
So what?..... So who gives a **** if BO sent aid to Iraq and it was late. He still ****ed up and kept ****ing up. You weren't trying to deny that were you?

Moreover now his plan has failed completely. Doesn't say much for BO and his plan made by him and his inner circle. He should try listening to the experts who have been telling him what needs to be done all along.
Click to expand...


Zzzzzzzz...
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Point being?



Yes
From the Seattle Times article that was published on December 25 of 2013: "A shipment of 75 Hellfire missiles was delivered to Iraq last week, reconnaissance drones are to be delivered by March and U.S. intelligence and counterterrorism officials say they have mapped the al-Qaida network in Iraq and are sharing this information with the Iraqis."
They arrived the week before this article was published in 2013.... U.S. sending weapons to Iraq to help curb al-Qaida advances | Nation & World | The Seattle Times


What "wrong"? My opinion is he is in the wrong and you are in the wrong.
Click to expand...


I was wrong on when BO sent aid.....that's about it! 75 Missiles.....I missed that part. But I am glad you did point out the rest arrived in 2014. Like I said. What happened did you forget to bring up that I pointed this out. Looks like I was Right as well as being wrong when Bo sent the Aid. But then I was going by the NY Times piece.

Did you want to share with all.....how BO's strategy has come to a failure. Or did you skip that part like you did when I said the aid was shipped in 2014.
 
EnigmaO01 said:
Zzzzzzzz...
Click to expand...


Here I can help with this. ;)

14richmond.span.jpg
 
MMC said:
So what?..... So who gives a **** if BO sent aid to Iraq and it was late. He still ****ed up and kept ****ing up. You weren't trying to deny that were you?

Moreover now his plan has failed completely. Doesn't say much for BO and his plan made by him and his inner circle. He should try listening to the experts who have been telling him what needs to be done all along.
Click to expand...

The advantage of BO leaving Iraq, was to make it clear the US is not interested in colonizing Iraq.

US troops in the Middle East have been in danger for a long time.

Even President Ronald Reagan had a bad day in 1983.

"Suicide Bombers detonated each of the truck bombs. In the attack on the building serving as a barracks for the 1st Battalion 8th Marines (Battalion Landing Team - BLT 1/8), the death toll was 241 American servicemen: 220 Marines, 18 sailors, and three soldiers, making this incident the deadliest single-day death toll for the United States Marine Corps since World War II's Battle of Iwo Jima, the deadliest single-day death toll for the United States military since the first day of the Vietnam War's Tet Offensive, and the deadliest single attack on Americans overseas since World War II.[4] Another 128 Americans were wounded in the blast. Thirteen later died of their injuries, and they are numbered among the total number who died.[5



1983 Beirut barracks bombing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia





//
 
Gladiator said:
The advantage of BO leaving Iraq, was to make it clear the US is not interested in colonizing Iraq.

US troops in the Middle East have been in danger for a long time.

Even President Ronald Reagan had a bad day in 1983.

"Suicide Bombers detonated each of the truck bombs. In the attack on the building serving as a barracks for the 1st Battalion 8th Marines (Battalion Landing Team - BLT 1/8), the death toll was 241 American servicemen: 220 Marines, 18 sailors, and three soldiers, making this incident the deadliest single-day death toll for the United States Marine Corps since World War II's Battle of Iwo Jima, the deadliest single-day death toll for the United States military since the first day of the Vietnam War's Tet Offensive, and the deadliest single attack on Americans overseas since World War II.[4] Another 128 Americans were wounded in the blast. Thirteen later died of their injuries, and they are numbered among the total number who died.[5



1983 Beirut barracks bombing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia





//
Click to expand...



Mornin' Gladiator. :2wave: Good to see you back around. ;) This was from Oct 21st and the New Iraqi PM. This is what our people are caught up in. Despite trying to help them from losing their country. If you check back in the thread, with what the Sunni have now come out and said, and al Nusra wiping out whats left of the Syrian Rebels. You can see why BO's plan has gone kaaaaaput.


Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi said Monday he wouldn't allow any foreign troops into the country to help retake territory lost to a Sunni Arab uprising being led by the so-called Islamic State. His comments were widely reported. But the following remark arguably didn't get sufficient attention: “We don’t need foreign combat troops. And there is no country in the world which would be willing to fight here and give you back your land even if they were asked to," he said.

But now Abadi has effectively said that if given a chance the US would have designs on Iraqi territory. His comment that foreign help isn't needed is risible – the failures of the Iraqi army in Mosul and Anbar provinces show that. But his comments, while popular in Iraq, could further endanger any US troops there.

This is the environment that a few hundred US military advisers and diplomats are operating in, not in the badlands of Anbar but in the heart of Baghdad. And hatred for the US runs fairly deep among the country's Shiite militias, as AFP reported, citing a policeman in Baghdad.....snip~

Iraqi PM Abadi says the US is not to be trusted. Really?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom