We are not in conflict with the Japanese, Germans, or Koreans (well armed conflict at least). Our bases in Japan and Germany have absolutely nothing to do with us policing them. Horrible analogies. The last thing we need is 100s-1000s of soldiers dying a year trying to protect Baghdad. Why would you want that?
When was the last time ISIS attacked Iraq while American troops were present. Don’t answer. Please!
How long before we go back into Iraq once Iran takes over?
6 months? 1 year? 2 years?
Are we going to let Israel hanging in the wind when Iran attacks them? For Israel’s sake they better hope it doesn’t happen soon because if it does they better be prepared to go it alone.
And last but not least I’m done talking with you today on this subject because I’m just flat out bored.
ISIS has like 3-4k members. The Iraqi army has over 3/4s of a million members. It's purely political over there. There is no reason to lose any more troops in a country that is unwilling to help themselves. And what does Iraq have to do with protecting Israel? We can protect Israel without losing troops in that shit hole called Iraq. It's funny how your political leanings make you have to support the Iraqi people as if it really is a key to survival for the rest of the world. Just funny how your cult works, lol.
For Now, Obama is getting it right. Hope it continues.
[h=1]U.S. rules out Iraq airstrikes for now[/h] [h=2]President Obama opts to pursue alternative strategies[/h] By Carol E. Lee, Julian Barnes and Dion Nissenbaum
WASHINGTON—President Barack Obama decided against immediate air strikes on marauding Sunni extremists in Iraq, opting instead to pursue strategies such as providing intelligence to the Iraqi military, addressing the country’s political divisions and seeking support from regional allies.
Mr. Obama will convene a White House meeting Wednesday with Republican and Democratic leaders from the House and Senate to brief them on what officials call this new comprehensive approach.
Click to Play
[h=3]U.S. forces capture key Benghazi suspect[/h] The U.S. has captured Ahmed Abu Khattala, a senior suspect in the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.
The president wants to avoid airstrikes for now in part because U.S. military officials lack sufficient information to hit targets that would shift momentum on the battlefield. Officials say their approach also would help address underlying causes of the Sunni uprising and the collapse of Iraq’s military forces.
“What the president is focused on is a comprehensive strategy, not just a quick military response,” a senior administration official said. “While there may potentially be a military component to it, it’s a much broader effort.”
Mr. Obama ultimately may decide not to order air attacks, senior U.S. officials said, bucking what for days appeared to be the leading U.S. option to counter the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, or ISIS, the terror group that has seized a large swath of Iraq’s north and west. U.S. strikes are still actively under discussion, but the officials cautioned Tuesday that they don’t expect Mr. Obama to put military action back on the table quickly, and said he may announce steps in a broader U.S. response over time.
Reuters Volunteers, who have joined the Iraqi Army to fight against predominantly Sunni militants from the radical Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), carry weapons during a parade in the streets in Al-Fdhiliya district, eastern Baghdad June 15, 2014.
The White House and Pentagon now hold a more skeptical view of the possible effectiveness of speedy airstrikes and instead are considering deploying U.S. special operations forces to provide intelligence and battlefield advice to the Iraqi military, the U.S. officials say.
Such an effort, the officials hope, would allow Iraqi forces to mount a counterattack. Officials said Mr. Obama could follow up increased training and advising of Iraqi forces with airstrikes if deemed necessary, but that outcome isn’t a sure thing.
[h=1]U.S. rules out Iraq airstrikes for now[/h] [h=2]President Obama opts to pursue alternative strategies[/h] By Carol E. Lee, Julian Barnes and Dion Nissenbaum
WASHINGTON—President Barack Obama decided against immediate air strikes on marauding Sunni extremists in Iraq, opting instead to pursue strategies such as providing intelligence to the Iraqi military, addressing the country’s political divisions and seeking support from regional allies.
Mr. Obama will convene a White House meeting Wednesday with Republican and Democratic leaders from the House and Senate to brief them on what officials call this new comprehensive approach.
Click to Play
[h=3]U.S. forces capture key Benghazi suspect[/h] The U.S. has captured Ahmed Abu Khattala, a senior suspect in the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.
The president wants to avoid airstrikes for now in part because U.S. military officials lack sufficient information to hit targets that would shift momentum on the battlefield. Officials say their approach also would help address underlying causes of the Sunni uprising and the collapse of Iraq’s military forces.
“What the president is focused on is a comprehensive strategy, not just a quick military response,” a senior administration official said. “While there may potentially be a military component to it, it’s a much broader effort.”
Mr. Obama ultimately may decide not to order air attacks, senior U.S. officials said, bucking what for days appeared to be the leading U.S. option to counter the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, or ISIS, the terror group that has seized a large swath of Iraq’s north and west. U.S. strikes are still actively under discussion, but the officials cautioned Tuesday that they don’t expect Mr. Obama to put military action back on the table quickly, and said he may announce steps in a broader U.S. response over time.
Reuters
The White House and Pentagon now hold a more skeptical view of the possible effectiveness of speedy airstrikes and instead are considering deploying U.S. special operations forces to provide intelligence and battlefield advice to the Iraqi military, the U.S. officials say.
Such an effort, the officials hope, would allow Iraqi forces to mount a counterattack. Officials said Mr. Obama could follow up increased training and advising of Iraqi forces with airstrikes if deemed necessary, but that outcome isn’t a sure thing.
[h=1]Obama eyes ‘special forces’ option in Iraq, meeting with Hill leaders[/h]
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...raq-airstrikes-as-prepares-to-meet-with-hill/
@)
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...raq-airstrikes-as-prepares-to-meet-with-hill/
@)
Obama eyes ‘special forces’ option in Iraq, meeting with Hill leaders
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...raq-airstrikes-as-prepares-to-meet-with-hill/
@)
well i guess that could be one of guesser's alternative strategies he highlighted. he's so proud of his president for standing down on air strikes but it's fucking crickets when it comes to a special forces invasion
silly partisan politics.
well i guess that could be one of guesser's alternative strategies he highlighted. he's so proud of his president for standing down on air strikes but it's fucking crickets when it comes to a special forces invasion
silly partisan politics.
You're certainly right about silly partisan politics that most in here engage in, especially the lying idiot you're quoting. I am against a US "invasion" of any kind in Iraq, and started the thread with that clearly stated.
[h=1]For Obama, Iraq Move Is a Policy Reversal[/h]
http://online.wsj.com/articles/for-obama-iraq-move-is-a-policy-reversal-1407470613?mod=e2tw
Loser!@#0
http://online.wsj.com/articles/for-obama-iraq-move-is-a-policy-reversal-1407470613?mod=e2tw
Loser!@#0
The World Will Blame President Obama if Iraq Falls
The world will not blame the Iraqi government if the children and women huddled atop Mount Sinjar in northern Iraq die of hunger and exposure. Nor will Pope Francis blame Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki if the Islamic extremists attacking the country slaughter the 40,000 Christians and other minorities who have fled to the mountaintop. The fact is that the world, from the pontiff in the Vatican to the coal miner in West Virginia, will blame President Obama.
That is why the president found himself under such intense pressure to act on Thursday, facing calls from around the world to marshal American might in a way to both rush humanitarian aid to the refugees in Iraq and punish the forces of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) who are trying to kill them.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/whit...-blame-president-obama-if-iraq-falls-20140807
The world will not blame the Iraqi government if the children and women huddled atop Mount Sinjar in northern Iraq die of hunger and exposure. Nor will Pope Francis blame Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki if the Islamic extremists attacking the country slaughter the 40,000 Christians and other minorities who have fled to the mountaintop. The fact is that the world, from the pontiff in the Vatican to the coal miner in West Virginia, will blame President Obama.
That is why the president found himself under such intense pressure to act on Thursday, facing calls from around the world to marshal American might in a way to both rush humanitarian aid to the refugees in Iraq and punish the forces of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) who are trying to kill them.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/whit...-blame-president-obama-if-iraq-falls-20140807
Of course I'm upset. I started the thread, you brainless idiot, and have continued to say what a dreadful mistake Obama would be making if he got involved in Iraq. He has, he's made that dreadful mistake, and unfortuantely America will suffer the consequences of this mistake. Unlike you, and most of the hypocrites down here, I am consistent in my views. They don't change because Obama does something I wanted and I become automatically against it.
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
[h=1]Obama Signals Likely Long U.S. Military Involvement in Iraq[/h]
http://online.wsj.com/articles/obam...-break-siege-on-iraqs-mount-sinjar-1407597000
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss...
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
[h=1]Obama Signals Likely Long U.S. Military Involvement in Iraq[/h]
http://online.wsj.com/articles/obam...-break-siege-on-iraqs-mount-sinjar-1407597000
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss...
