Author Topic: Do you think we're going back into Iraq?  (Read 7095 times)

Rastus

  • Mindlessness Fuels Tyranny
  • Top Forum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7225
  • DRTV Ranger
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 833
Re: Do you think we're going back into Iraq?
« Reply #20 on: June 17, 2014, 06:41:22 AM »
Phil there seems to be a few holes in that reporter's knowledge. 

B-2's...wrong mission they would use B-52's which still fly and can fly from US..no mention of B-52.  Not all the B-52's are US based either. 

No mention of carrier based refueling planes...if we still have them...they referenced hornets refueling hornets....but then we can fly in from Italy with ground based refueling flying over Turkey.

Focus of the article is on hi-tech smart munitions....no mention of cluster bombs which would wax sore on their behinds or fuel-air munitions as well as other anti-personnel type things.  Not that this prez would use them.

But...there are a lot of BG's on the ground.  If they are moving in a column...as they were a couple of days ago you could chill them pretty quick.  That's a conventional movement and remember what happened to the guys fleeing Kuwait in the first Gulf War...  Again...not that the traitor we have as prez can or wants to seize an opportunity.

And I really don't want to send more US blood over there either.  However...if you could catch a conventional movement of terrorists why wouldn't you?  They've been hitting at us for a long time...remember the embassy bombing, the Cole, the Twin Towers (twice), etc., etc....sure we can all get along......

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
-William Pitt, British Prime-Minister (1759-1806)
                                                                                                                               Avoid subjugation, join the NRA!

tombogan03884

  • Guest
Re: Do you think we're going back into Iraq?
« Reply #21 on: June 17, 2014, 08:35:52 AM »
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/iraq-troops-obama/2014/06/16/id/577428/?ns_mail_uid=94501932&ns_mail_job=1573473_06172014&promo_code=o9c3zth4

Isn't this how we got started in VN ?
Best part is this makes "Obama's war" .
Can't blame Bush for this one.

Nearly 300 armed American forces are being positioned in and around Iraq to help secure U.S. assets as President Barack Obama nears a decision on an array of options for combating fast-moving Islamic insurgents, including airstrikes or a contingent of special forces.

The U.S. and Iran also held an initial discussion on how the longtime foes might cooperate to ease the threat from the al-Qaida-linked militants that have swept through Iraq. Still, the White House ruled out the possibility that Washington and Tehran might coordinate military operations in Iraq.

Obama met with his national security team Monday evening to discuss options for stopping the militants known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Officials said the president has made no final decisions on how aggressively the U.S. might get involved in Iraq, though the White House continued to emphasize that any military engagement remained contingent on the government in Baghdad making political reforms.

Still, there were unmistakable signs of Americans returning to a country from which the U.S. military fully withdrew more than two years ago. Obama notified Congress that up to 275 troops would be sent to Iraq to provide support and security for U.S. personnel and the American Embassy in Baghdad. The soldiers - 170 of which have already arrived in Iraq - were armed for combat, though Obama has insisted he does not intend for U.S. forces to be engaged in direct fighting.

"We are hard-wired into their system," the fledgling democracy that America helped institute, said Ryan Crocker, a former U.S. ambassador to Baghdad. "We can't walk away from it."

About 100 additional forces are being put on standby, most likely in Kuwait, and could be used for airfield management, security and logistics support, officials said.

Separately, three U.S. officials said the White House was considering sending a contingent of special forces soldiers to Iraq. Their limited mission - which has not yet been approved - would focus on training and advising beleaguered Iraqi troops, many of whom have fled their posts across the nation's north and west as the al-Qaida-inspired insurgency has advanced in the worst threat to the country since American troops left in 2011.

Taken together, the developments suggest a willingness by Obama to send Americans into a collapsing security situation in order to quell the brutal fighting in Iraq before it morphs into outright war.

If the U.S. were to deploy an additional team of special forces, the mission almost certainly would be small. One U.S. official said it could be up to 100 special forces soldiers. It also could be authorized only as an advising and training mission - meaning the soldiers would work closely with Iraqi forces that are fighting the insurgency but would not officially be considered combat troops.

The White House would not confirm that special operations forces were under consideration. But spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden said that while Obama would not send troops back into combat, "He has asked his national security team to prepare a range of other options that could help support Iraqi security forces."

It's not clear how quickly the special forces could arrive in Iraq. It's also unknown whether they would remain in Baghdad or be sent to the nation's north, where the Sunni Muslim insurgency has captured large swaths of territory ringing Baghdad, the capital of the Shiite-led government.

The troops would fall under the authority of the U.S. ambassador in Baghdad and would not be authorized to engage in combat, another U.S. official said. Their mission would be "non-operational training" of both regular and counterterrorism units, which the military has in the past interpreted to mean training on military bases, the official said.

However, all U.S. troops are allowed to defend themselves in Iraq if they are under attack.

The three U.S. officials all spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to publicly discuss the plans by name.

Obama made the end of the war in Iraq one of his signature campaign issues, and has touted the U.S. military withdrawal in December 2011 as one of his top foreign policy successes. But he has been caught over the past week between Iraqi officials pleading for help - as well as Republicans blaming him for the loss of a decade's worth of gains in Iraq - and his anti-war Democratic political base, which is demanding that the U.S. stay out of the fight.

The crisis has sparked a rare alignment of interests between the U.S. and Iran, which wants to preserve Iraq's Shiite-dominated government. The U.S. and Iran are engaged in sensitive nuclear negotiations and used a round of talks Monday in Vienna, Austria, to hold a separate bilateral discussion on Iraq.

While the U.S. and Iran have similar short-term goals in Iraq, they have different long-term aims. The United States would like to see an inclusive, representative democracy take hold in Iraq, while predominantly Shiite Iran is more focused on protecting Iraq's Shiite population and bolstering its own position as a regional power against powerful Sunni Arab states in the Gulf.

Crocker said that Iran should "use all the influence" possible to keep the al-Qaida-style Islamic group from exacerbating the sectarian strife in Iraq.

Appearing Tuesday on "CBS This Morning," Crocker said if he'd have Secretary of State John Kerry "on a plane right now for Baghdad."

"I would have liked to have seen more sustained, high-level diplomatic engagement with the Iraqis," Crocker said. He said that for the country to have any change at survival there must quickly be a show of "Kurdish, Shia and Sunni" solidarity.

Republican Rep. Mike Rogers of Michigan, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said Washington must move immediately "to disrupt their ability to continue their operations." He said the insurgents are holding sway currently and that "all the ingredients are going into the stew. We see it happening on our watch."

Appearing on CNN, Rogers said he believes there still is time for the United States to make a difference, but that Washington must move now.

While the White House continues to review its options, Iran's military leaders are starting to step into the breach.

The commander of Iran's elite Quds Force, Gen. Ghasem Soleimani, was in Iraq on Monday and consulting with the government there on how to stave off insurgents' gains. Iraqi security officials said the U.S. government was notified in advance of the visit by Soleimani, whose forces are a secretive branch of Iran's Revolutionary Guard that in the past has organized Shiite militias to target U.S. troops in Iraq and, more recently, was involved in helping Syria's President Bashar Assad in his fight against Sunni rebels.

tombogan03884

  • Guest
Re: Do you think we're going back into Iraq?
« Reply #22 on: June 17, 2014, 08:46:25 AM »
I have heard, though I have not looked into it myself, that the US is asking Iran to handle security for our embassy in Iraq.

That should work out well.   ::)

http://girlsjustwannahaveguns.com/2014/06/weighing-options-us-considers-unlikely-alliance-iran-face-common-foe-boosts-presence-gulf/

Weighing The Options: US Considers an Unlikely Alliance with Iran in the Face of a Common Foe, Boosts Presence in the Gulf


http://girlsjustwannahaveguns.com/2014/06/quit-soon-former-pm-tony-blair-unleashes-obama-iraq-mess/

‘Quit Too Soon’: Former PM Tony Blair Unleashes on Obama for Iraq Mess

Tony Blair last night attacked ‘bizarre’ claims that his decision to go to war with Iraq in 2003 caused the current wave of violence in the  country – and blamed everyone but himself for the crisis.

The former Prime Minister insisted he was right to topple Saddam Hussein with the US and said things would have been worse if the dictator had not been ousted from power a decade ago.

Mr Blair ended a week-long silence after mounting claims by diplomats and Labour MPs that his and Mr Bush’s handling of the Iraq War sowed the seeds of the attempt by the Al Qaeda-backed ISIS terror group to conquer Iraq. In a 2,800-word ‘essay’ on the new Middle East conflagration, Mr Blair refused to apologise and argued:

    Barack Obama ordered US troops to leave Iraq too soon.
    Britain and America must launch renewed military attacks in Iraq  and Syria.
    Al Qaeda was ‘beaten’ in Iraq thanks to the Blair-Bush war, but the bungling Iraqi government let them back in.

Defiant Mr Blair said he was determined to reply ‘forcefully’ to ‘inevitable’ claims about his record in Iraq following the rapid advance of ISIS.

‘I understand, following Afghanistan and Iraq, why public opinion was so hostile to involvement.

‘But every time we put off action, the action we will be forced to take will ultimately be greater. Instead of re-running the debate over Iraq from 11 years ago, we have to realise that whatever we had done or not done, we would be facing a big challenge today.

‘It is bizarre to claim that, but for the removal of Saddam, we would not have a crisis. We have to re-think our strategy towards Syria and support the Iraqi government in beating back the insurgency.

‘Extremist groups, whether in Syria or Iraq, should be targeted. However unpalatable this may seem, the alternative is worse.’

Rastus

  • Mindlessness Fuels Tyranny
  • Top Forum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7225
  • DRTV Ranger
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 833
STOP THE PRESSES....GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR IS OVER.
« Reply #23 on: June 18, 2014, 06:14:32 AM »
Wait Tom....all of that cannot be true!  The Global War on Terror has been over for more than a year now!  Hussein, as in Barrack Hussein Obama, said so.  Not only that....Obama believers (aka Kool-Aide drinkers) can gloat over the fact that Obama has been protecting the rule of law as he is quoted at the bottom of this article over a year ago.

By the way...if anyone here was under sufficient delusion to have voted for Obama for whatever reason, party preference, racial guilt, lack of discernment, or just plain stupidity....don't vote again.  Please.  Seriously...don't vote....not again....not even for your local dog catcher as you have proved yourself to be a less than competent voter.


23-MAY-13 Obama

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/05/23/obama-global-war-on-terror-is-over


Obama: 'Global War on Terror' Is Over


New rhetoric for defeating al-Qaida includes plan for closing Guantanamo Bay.

President Barack Obama



By Paul D. Shinkman

May 23, 2013 | 3:30 p.m. EDT

The "Global War on Terror" is over, President Barack Obama announced Thursday, saying the military and intelligence agencies will not wage war against a tactic but will instead focus on a specific group of networks determined to destroy the U.S.

This shift in rhetoric accompanies new or updated efforts to defeat al-Qaida and its affiliates, the president said in a speech at the National Defense University within Washington, DC's Fort McNair. Al-Qaida in Pakistan and Afghanistan is on a "path to defeat," he said, so the U.S. must focus instead on al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula -- "the most active" in plotting against the U.S. -- homegrown violent extremism and unrest in the Arab world that leads to attacks like the assault on the Benghazi diplomatic post.

Allowing drone strikes, including those against American citizens, and closing the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay are chief among the first steps in accomplishing this goal, he said.

"We must define our effort not as a boundless 'Global War on Terror,' but rather as a series of persistent, targeted efforts to dismantle specific networks of violent extremists that threaten America," Obama said.

Obama Defends Targeted Killing of Anwar al-Awlak


"Deranged or alienated individuals – often U.S. citizens or legal residents – can do enormous damage, particularly when inspired by larger notions of violent jihad. That pull towards extremism appears to have led to the shooting at Fort Hood, and the bombing of the Boston Marathon," he said. "So that's the current threat: Lethal yet less capable al-Qaida affiliates. Threats to diplomatic facilities and businesses abroad. Homegrown extremists. This is the future of terrorism. We must take these threats seriously, and do all that we can to confront them."

Part of this effort includes closing the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, which Obama says has "become a symbol around the world for an America that flouts the rule of law."

The president plans to reopen an office at the Department of State -- which he closed in January -- to act as a special envoy and work with the Department of Defense to find ways to return each detainee to their home country. Obama has also tasked the Department of Defense to designate a site within the U.S. to hold military commissions, two of which are currently underway in a special court at Guantanamo Bay.

He also announced Thursday he is lifting the moratorium on detainee transfers to Yemen to allow for a case-by-case analysis on each detainee.

"To the greatest extent possible, we will transfer detainees who have been cleared to go to other countries," he said. "Where appropriate, we will bring terrorists to justice in our courts and military justice system. And we will insist that judicial review be available for every detainee."

Obama has consistently railed against the detention facility and how it is viewed throughout the world.

"It is critical for us to understand that Guantanamo is not necessary to keep America safe," he said in a speech at the end of April. "It is expensive, it is inefficient, it hurts us in terms of our international standing, it lessens cooperation with our allies on counterterrorism efforts, it is a recruitment tool for extremists."

Obama's attempts to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility during his first term were blocked by Congress. Of the hundreds of detainees brought to the remote base on the southeastern end of Cuba, only 166 remain. A handful are awaiting trial. The rest are either deemed too dangerous to release -- but are precluded from trial due to lack of evidence or evidence tainted by enhanced interrogation techniques -- or their home country will no longer accept them.

The U.S. government is prohibited from releasing detainees to a country where they will likely be killed.

"Once we commit to a process of closing Gitmo, I am confident that this legacy problem can be resolved, consistent with our commitment to the rule of law," he said.


See see....in highlighted in color above....Obama's commitment to the rule of law!!!  Obama deniers see how wacky you are....this man said he is committed to the rule of law!!!!  I feel so much better now having found this 2013 article that confirms there can be nothing going on in Iraq with terrorists and that we are secure in the rule of law over here.  Not only that...I feel really good about how we can use drones to take out US citizens because the man making the decisions has such a clear and accurate picture of the world....
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
-William Pitt, British Prime-Minister (1759-1806)
                                                                                                                               Avoid subjugation, join the NRA!

billt

  • Top Forum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6751
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 475
Re: Do you think we're going back into Iraq?
« Reply #24 on: June 18, 2014, 07:20:40 AM »
Obama rules out air strikes because his administration lacks proper intelligence. How fitting.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06/18/obama-reportedly-rules-out-iraq-airstrikes-as-prepares-to-meet-with-hill/

Sponsor

  • Guest
Re: Do you think we're going back into Iraq?
« Reply #25 on: Today at 10:03:05 AM »

tombogan03884

  • Guest
Re: Do you think we're going back into Iraq?
« Reply #25 on: June 18, 2014, 08:21:20 AM »
Obama rules out air strikes because his administration lacks proper intelligence. How fitting.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06/18/obama-reportedly-rules-out-iraq-airstrikes-as-prepares-to-meet-with-hill/

If he really cared about that he would not have run for a second term.

billt

  • Top Forum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6751
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 475
Re: Do you think we're going back into Iraq?
« Reply #26 on: June 23, 2014, 07:26:37 AM »
Every country in the Middle East we try to "help", gets screwed up worse after we leave. Many of these nations need brutal dictators to keep their brutal citizenry in line. Say what you want about Sadam, Iraq was not in the mess it's in now when he ran it. Same with Libya under Gadhafi. These countries will never fight for freedom because they don't want, let alone understand it. They sure as hell aren't willing to die for it. They're hiding under their beds as we speak. Most are either cowards, or else blood thirsty idiots. Let them all kill each other. If they want to send in a few drones to give our people some target practice, fine.

They want to beat their women, grow their dope, and kill each other, like they've been doing for 2,000 years. Let them. They are going to do it regardless. The Taliban will start killing everyone 10 minutes after we leave. How many lives and dollars did we waste there? If I have to pay another $2 bucks a gallon for gas, it's a small price for having these morons exterminate each other off the planet.

Solus

  • Top Forum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8666
  • DRTV Ranger
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 43
Re: STOP THE PRESSES....GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR IS OVER.
« Reply #27 on: June 23, 2014, 02:35:25 PM »


"Once we commit to a process of closing Gitmo, I am confident that this legacy problem can be resolved, consistent with our commitment to the rule of law," he said.


See see....in highlighted in color above....Obama's commitment to the rule of law!!!  Obama deniers see how wacky you are....this man said he is committed to the rule of law!!!!  I feel so much better now having found this 2013 article that confirms there can be nothing going on in Iraq with terrorists and that we are secure in the rule of law over here.  Not only that...I feel really good about how we can use drones to take out US citizens because the man making the decisions has such a clear and accurate picture of the world....

No, he did not say he was commited to the rule of law. 

What he said is that the closing of Gitmo would BE CONSISTANT WITH OUR COMMITMENT TO THE RULE OF LAW.

What ever that commitment might be....Nil or less in Obama's case.
Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"
—Patrick Henry

"Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters."
— Daniel Webster

tombogan03884

  • Guest
Re: Do you think we're going back into Iraq?
« Reply #28 on: June 23, 2014, 04:37:16 PM »
consistent with our commitment to the rule of law," he said.

Yeah, the Marxist POS consistently ignores the rule of law .

 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk