Debates
12 Jul 16
12 Jul 16
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/obama-approves-560-troops-iraq-225358
The increase was approved by President Barack Obama, who ran for president in 2008 on a pledge to end U.S. involvement in wars in the Middle East.
Story Continued Below
It is now clear, though, that he will leave office with U.S. troops still fighting in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
I didn't vote for Obama largely for the reason I didn't trust him on this issue. His policy has been little different from what GWB proposed in his last year or so except he has greatly expanded drone operations and transformed the CIA from an intelligence gathering organization to one who's primary purpose is killing. And this policy has done very little to end violence directed at US and Western interests.
It's highly likely Hillary will be worse.
12 Jul 16
Originally posted by vivifyCriticized by whom? Not by the people who believed that by voting for him they were voting to end US involvement in the Iraq war as he promised. The promise was not conditional on political or military developments in Iraq; in fact, Obama's "withdrawal" was in line with agreements already made by GWB before he left office.
Obama couldn't have anticipated ISIS, which is largely the reason why more troops have to Iraq. Remember, Obama was criticized for the troops "withdrawing too early". So Obama did attempt to keep his promise.
ISIS' rise is hardly shocking; they are drawn from the same Sunni areas of Iraq that most bitterly resisted the US occupation. Renewed civil war was always a likely outcome in Iraq. I'm quite unimpressed by the claim that Obama was such a fool he discounted that possibility although that would merely replace perfidy with gross incompetence.
12 Jul 16
Originally posted by no1marauderHolly cow No1, good point! If anything our national security has suffered by the drone use abroad. You know very well Hillary will be worse. I know Trump is a little rough around the edges, but he may keep us out of ww3. CNN bashes him and Fox news sandbags him so he must be a decent dude. He is bringing things into the presidential debates that have been needed for a long time. We keep sticking our noses into everyone elses business, we can eventually expect to get it cut off. If the terror threat was real we would have been more careful of our borders and have been more careful who was brought in as a refugee.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/obama-approves-560-troops-iraq-225358
The increase was approved by President Barack Obama, who ran for president in 2008 on a pledge to end U.S. involvement in wars in the Middle East.
Story Continued Below
It is now clear, though, that he will leave office with U.S. troops still fighting in both Iraq and Afgh ...[text shortened]... end violence directed at US and Western interests.
It's highly likely Hillary will be worse.
Originally posted by vivifyObama created ISIS you silly billy. The military would not support Alqaeda anymore so Obama had the name changed to ISIS. What do you mean he couldn't have anticipated ISIS. Get your head out, and see what is going on in the world.
Obama couldn't have anticipated ISIS, which is largely the reason why more troops have to Iraq. Remember, Obama was criticized for the troops "withdrawing too early". So Obama did attempt to keep his promise.
12 Jul 16
Originally posted by joe beyserI can't - I forgot my tin foil hat and the Illuminati are mind-controlling me.
Obama created ISIS you silly billy. The military would not support Alqaeda anymore so Obama had the name changed to ISIS. What do you mean he couldn't have anticipated ISIS. Get your head out, and see what is going on in the world.
12 Jul 16
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauder~4,600 troops in total now.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/obama-approves-560-troops-iraq-225358
The increase was approved by President Barack Obama, who ran for president in 2008 on a pledge to end U.S. involvement in wars in the Middle East.
Story Continued Below
It is now clear, though, that he will leave office with U.S. troops still fighting in both Iraq and Afgh ...[text shortened]... end violence directed at US and Western interests.
It's highly likely Hillary will be worse.
That's a Brigade I think. Commanded by a Brigadier General.
12 Jul 16
Originally posted by AThousandYoungFor one, as the article states, that number doesn't include at least another 1,000 troops who are on "temporary" assignments.
~4,600 troops in total now.
That's a Brigade I think. Commanded by a Brigadier General.
Second, "There is the three-star general in charge of the war, Army Gen. Sean MacFarland,"http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/03/31/exclusive-21-generals-lead-an-isis-war-the-u-s-denies.html
A three star general is a Lieutenant General and is two grades above a Brigadier General.
12 Jul 16
Originally posted by no1marauderI was merely pointing out where Bernie's support lies. He sold out.
So you are opposed NOW to US troops in Iraq?
I don't ever recall you being so BEFORE 2009.
As for myself, I don't think that political wars work. If you attack someone, it is not for political gain, rather, it is to vanquish a world power utterly and completely.
If you are to invade a country, then prepare to stay. Not only that, prepare to completely vanquish your enemy.
I once heard that it took nearly a decade to expel Nazi's from Germany after the war, and that was with no hostile countries around Germany helping them. How then could the US pick a small part of a hornets nest and expect to vanquish the entire nest in Iraq? The entire endeavor was ill conceived.
People simply don't learn from history. Just look at North Korea. The US did not vanquish North Korea and now continue to be stuck in the middle of a nuclear show down with South Korea some 50 plus years later.
If you don't vanquish the enemy, you only make them stronger.
But to answer your question, I originally did support the liberating of Kuwait. That seemed to make sense.
12 Jul 16
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyKuwait was "liberated" (though it is still a repressive, authoritarian State) 25 years ago. That is obviously not what I am referring to.
I was merely pointing out where Bernie's support lies. He sold out.
As for myself, I don't think that political wars work. If you attack someone, it is not for political gain, rather, it is to vanquish a world power utterly and completely.
If you are to invade a country, then prepare to stay. Not only that, prepare to completely vanquish your enemy. ...[text shortened]... er your question, I originally did support the liberating of Kuwait. That seemed to make sense.
You posted plenty back in 2006-08 and I do not recall you supporting the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq.
How exactly do you "vanquish" a country who's People don't want to be occupied and physically resist? Is that word a euphemism for mass murder?
13 Jul 16
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderOnce there I knew what the result would be pulling out. We see the results every night on the news.
Kuwait was "liberated" (though it is still a repressive, authoritarian State) 25 years ago. That is obviously not what I am referring to.
You posted plenty back in 2006-08 and I do not recall you supporting the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq.
How exactly do you "vanquish" a country who's People don't want to be occupied and physically resist? Is that word a euphemism for mass murder?
In a way, it was a no win scenario because the US did not go there to win anything, other than a right to the oil.
13 Jul 16
Originally posted by no1marauderGeneral McFarland commands III Corps which is two levels larger than a Brigade. He's in charge of the entire operation against ISIS in both Iraq and Syria, including the supercarrier and air force support, not just the ground troops in Iraq.
For one, as the article states, that number doesn't include at least another 1,000 troops who are on "temporary" assignments.
Second, "There is the three-star general in charge of the war, Army Gen. Sean MacFarland,"http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/03/31/exclusive-21-generals-lead-an-isis-war-the-u-s-denies.html
A three star general is a Lieutenant General and is two grades above a Brigadier General.