US Planning to Return Forces to Iraq

page: 1
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 08:42 AM
link   


After the Prime Minister of Australia Tony Abbott allocated some $12.4BN AUD to purchase a fleet of Texas-made F-35 fighter jets in preparation for what he described as “the unexpected.” Abbott then said, regarding talks during his most recent visit to the White House, that Australia would be an “utterly dependable ally” when in comes to the possibility military operations in Iraq.

US Planning to Return Forces to Iraq

I know that Obama has been very open about considering "all options" for handling the happenings in Iraq right now, but it would seem that "considering" this option enough to warrant Australia to buy a fleet of fighter jets, seems like there is an obvious favorite.

Just guessing, Obama wants a bombing solution implemented, but doesn't want the bad PR of revamping US forces in Iraq after nearly making good on his [first] term promises of ending the war completely.



+25 more 
posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 08:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Theeastcoastwest

And it wont solve anything.

Cause one day USA forces will have to go home again as they cant stay forever and the same crap will happen all over again.

Iraq cannot be fixed. It was permanently and unrepairable broken as soon as Saddam was removed in 2003

Ok Saddam was a dick but there was at least some order. Now Iraq will be lead by a whole group of Insane religious dicks.



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 08:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: Theeastcoastwest

And it wont solve anything.

Cause one day USA forces will have to go home again as they cant stay forever and the same crap will happen all over again.

Iraq cannot be fixed. It was permanently and unrepairable broken as soon as Saddam was removed in 2003

Ok Saddam was a dick but there was at least some order. Now Iraq will be lead by a whole group of Insane religious dicks.


I agree, I mean-how long did it take for the whole place to go to hell after US forces "left?" A couple months?

The only way to remove the forces the US publicly states as being against would be the use of such force that the collateral damages to innocents would make in un-justifiable. [hopefully]



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 08:56 AM
link   
well. are we surpriced?

Never ending story.

Until the people of the united states impeach mr Obama and kick out the neocons nothing will change.

There are 320 000 000 of you.

Get up and do something.

Fight for your kids right to live a free life.



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 09:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Theeastcoastwest
I know that Obama has been very open about considering "all options" for handling the happenings in Iraq right now, but it would seem that "considering" this option enough to warrant Australia to buy a fleet of fighter jets, seems like there is an obvious favorite.

Just guessing, Obama wants a bombing solution implemented, but doesn't want the bad PR of revamping US forces in Iraq after nearly making good on his [first] term promises of ending the war completely.



Australia has been negotiating the purchasing of those fighter jets for years now. This means that the two events are completely unrelated.

It is my personal opinion that something needs to be done about the current situation in Iraq, and done fast! We can't just sit by and let extremist groups take Baghdad, thereby causing the collapse of Iraq, and the region in general. I don't know what solution there is, but someone better come up with one soon.
edit on 13-6-2014 by daaskapital because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 09:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: daaskapital

originally posted by: Theeastcoastwest
I know that Obama has been very open about considering "all options" for handling the happenings in Iraq right now, but it would seem that "considering" this option enough to warrant Australia to buy a fleet of fighter jets, seems like there is an obvious favorite.

Just guessing, Obama wants a bombing solution implemented, but doesn't want the bad PR of revamping US forces in Iraq after nearly making good on his [first] term promises of ending the war completely.



Australia has been negotiating the purchasing of those fighter jets for years now. This means that the two events are completely unrelated.

It is my personal opinion that something needs to be done, and done fast! We can't just sit by and let extremist groups take Baghdad, thereby causing the collapse of Iraq, and the region in general. I don't know what solution there is, but someone better come up with one quicksmart.


Not gonna happen. The solution will be to hope it goes away and tell the media to stop reporting it. Extremists will continue their advance, and don't' worry I think the new season of American Idol is going to start soon



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 09:09 AM
link   
a reply to: PsychoEmperor

I fear that you may be correct on the matter.


We haven't seen many moves from international bodies or states during these recent tensions in Iraq. The international scene has effectively let the extremists walk up to Baghdad. It won't surprise me if they will just let it fall too.



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 09:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: daaskapital

originally posted by: Theeastcoastwest
I know that Obama has been very open about considering "all options" for handling the happenings in Iraq right now, but it would seem that "considering" this option enough to warrant Australia to buy a fleet of fighter jets, seems like there is an obvious favorite.

Just guessing, Obama wants a bombing solution implemented, but doesn't want the bad PR of revamping US forces in Iraq after nearly making good on his [first] term promises of ending the war completely.



Australia has been negotiating the purchasing of those fighter jets for years now. This means that the two events are completely unrelated.

It is my personal opinion that something needs to be done about the current situation in Iraq, and done fast! We can't just sit by and let extremist groups take Baghdad,


Why?


thereby causing the collapse of Iraq, and the region in general. I don't know what solution there is, but someone better come up with one soon.


Question, did you serve in Iraq during either of the two prior engagements? I did and I will tell you that going back there, should be the LAST thing on our minds regardless of what is going on there. Let them handle their own mess. If it destabilizes the region, oh well, not my problem.



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 09:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Why?


Why does something need to be done? The allied forces have worked so hard to ensure that the Middle East remains stable and outside the grasp of terrorist organisations. Allowing ISIS to take Baghdad would essentially mean the end of Iraq, and that would have serious consequences on not only the region, but the world.




Question, did you serve in Iraq during either of the two prior engagements? I did and I will tell you that going back there, should be the LAST thing on our minds regardless of what is going on there. Let them handle their own mess. If it destabilizes the region, oh well, not my problem.


No i did not serve in Iraq, but that fact shouldn't diminish mine, or anyone elses opinion on the matter. Their mess is our mess. If we hadn't have gone in there in the first place, we wouldn't be dealing with this situation right now.

I think this is a problem for everyone. If Baghdad falls, extremists may be able to use Iraq as a haven of sorts (ISIS is looking to establish a caliphate). We must also remember that the country is a major distributor of oil, and the international market is already feeling the effects of these tensions. Iraq is not a country we can just let slip by.
edit on 13-6-2014 by daaskapital because: quote problems



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 09:26 AM
link   
Going back in will not solve anything but further de-stabilize Iraq.

I fear the Al-Queda offshoots will approach Bagdad in the coming days, US will provide air cover and the whole debacle will absolutely ruin whats left of Iraq.
Many more innocent people are going to die.

However I don't think we can afford to turn a blind eye this either.



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 09:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: daaskapital

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Why?


Why does something need to be done? The allied forces have worked so hard to ensure that the Middle East remains stable and outside the grasp of terrorist organisations. Allowing ISIS to take Baghdad would essentially mean the end of Iraq, and that would have serious consequences on not only the region, but the world.


I heard these same scare tactics for the last 13 years for every country in the middle east we've gotten involved in. It's all a bunch of crap. I don't care about the middle east anymore. They won't stop fighting each other and to pretend like we can mediate and help them is idiocy. Let them just kill each other. No more money, tech, or men to iraq. Save that money to help out the very real and continuing problems at home first.


No i did not serve in Iraq, but that fact shouldn't diminish mine, or anyone elses opinion on the matter. Their mess is our mess. If we hadn't have gone in there in the first place, we wouldn't be dealing with this situation right now.


Their mess is only our mess if we make it so. Obama tried to say the same thing about Syria, we didn't go and the world didn't fall apart because of it. Though if you want to go back so badly, sign up for the military if they mobilize. Put your money where your mouth is and go make it your problem. I've already been down that road and it is an endless and demoralizing one.


I think this is a problem for everyone. If Baghdad falls, extremists may be able to use Iraq as a haven of sorts (ISIS is looking to establish a caliphate). We must also remember that the country is a major distributor of oil, and the international market is already feeling the effects of these tensions. Iraq is not a country we can just let slip by.


No Iraq will just have a new asshole in charge, same as always.
edit on 13-6-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 09:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: daaskapital

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Why?


Why does something need to be done? The allied forces have worked so hard to ensure that the Middle East remains stable and outside the grasp of terrorist organisations. Allowing ISIS to take Baghdad would essentially mean the end of Iraq, and that would have serious consequences on not only the region, but the world.




Question, did you serve in Iraq during either of the two prior engagements? I did and I will tell you that going back there, should be the LAST thing on our minds regardless of what is going on there. Let them handle their own mess. If it destabilizes the region, oh well, not my problem.


No i did not serve in Iraq, but that fact shouldn't diminish mine, or anyone elses opinion on the matter. Their mess is our mess. If we hadn't have gone in there in the first place, we wouldn't be dealing with this situation right now.

I think this is a problem for everyone. If Baghdad falls, extremists may be able to use Iraq as a haven of sorts (ISIS is looking to establish a caliphate). We must also remember that the country is a major distributor of oil, and the international market is already feeling the effects of these tensions. Iraq is not a country we can just let slip by.


Fact is yes the west are responsible for screwing it up.

But it beyond fixing like how the USA could not fix Vietnam.

At some point you need to cut your loses, accept defeat and move on and possible face the music.



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 09:32 AM
link   
a reply to: daaskapital


Aren't these the same al ciada that the US was supporting in Syria? Why would we want to fight them, when we have been propping them up?



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 09:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: daaskapital

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Why?


Why does something need to be done? The allied forces have worked so hard to ensure that the Middle East remains stable and outside the grasp of terrorist organisations. Allowing ISIS to take Baghdad would essentially mean the end of Iraq, and that would have serious consequences on not only the region, but the world.




Question, did you serve in Iraq during either of the two prior engagements? I did and I will tell you that going back there, should be the LAST thing on our minds regardless of what is going on there. Let them handle their own mess. If it destabilizes the region, oh well, not my problem.


No i did not serve in Iraq, but that fact shouldn't diminish mine, or anyone elses opinion on the matter. Their mess is our mess. If we hadn't have gone in there in the first place, we wouldn't be dealing with this situation right now.

I think this is a problem for everyone. If Baghdad falls, extremists may be able to use Iraq as a haven of sorts (ISIS is looking to establish a caliphate). We must also remember that the country is a major distributor of oil, and the international market is already feeling the effects of these tensions. Iraq is not a country we can just let slip by.


Fact is yes the west are responsible for screwing it up.

But it beyond fixing like how the USA could not fix Vietnam.

At some point you need to cut your loses, accept defeat and move on and possible face the music.


But the US and who helped the US should also be punished for the mistake(s) they made really so they at least learn from their mistakes.
Nothing at home has hurted them for the mess they created far away.. I mean everyone wants justice right?
What would be a fair punishment?

edit on 13-6-2014 by Plugin because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 09:34 AM
link   
I'm not sure America should do anything as long as this administration is aiding the enemy by turning there leaders loose to be able to create an army like this, this guy was turned loose from American custody in 2009.

So is the question being asked, "how many American kids will die to get this guy "...AGAIN !!! ???
edit on 13-6-2014 by Battleline because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 09:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
I heard these same scare tactics for the last 13 years for every country in the middle east we've gotten involved in. It's all a bunch of crap. I don't care about the middle east anymore. They won't stop fighting each other and to pretend like we can mediate and help them is idiocy. Let them just kill each other. No more money, tech, or men to iraq. Save that money to help out the very real and continuing problems at home first.


I'm not disagreeing with you, i'm just pointing out some very valid concerns regarding the current situation at hand. I don't agree with sending troops back over, but i do think something should be done to at least minimise the potential ramifications of an ISIS takeover of Baghdad.



Their mess is only our mess if we make it so. Obama tried to say the same thing about Syria, we didn't go and the world didn't fall apart because of it. Though if you want to go back so badly, sign up for the military if they mobilize. Put your money where your mouth is and go make it your problem. I've already been down that road and it is an endless and demoralizing one.


Well we did make it so.

Syria is a different situation to Iraq, and i don't think they can be adequately compared. We have a real threat here where Baghdad is currently being surrounded by extremist forces. To just let it slip would be a foolish mistake. I'm not saying that we should go back, i'm saying that someone should come up with an idea to at least minimise the damages done.



No Iraq will just have a new asshole in charge, same as always.


True, but this 'asshole' is worse than every other before it...



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 09:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Plugin

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: daaskapital

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Why?


Why does something need to be done? The allied forces have worked so hard to ensure that the Middle East remains stable and outside the grasp of terrorist organisations. Allowing ISIS to take Baghdad would essentially mean the end of Iraq, and that would have serious consequences on not only the region, but the world.




Question, did you serve in Iraq during either of the two prior engagements? I did and I will tell you that going back there, should be the LAST thing on our minds regardless of what is going on there. Let them handle their own mess. If it destabilizes the region, oh well, not my problem.


No i did not serve in Iraq, but that fact shouldn't diminish mine, or anyone elses opinion on the matter. Their mess is our mess. If we hadn't have gone in there in the first place, we wouldn't be dealing with this situation right now.

I think this is a problem for everyone. If Baghdad falls, extremists may be able to use Iraq as a haven of sorts (ISIS is looking to establish a caliphate). We must also remember that the country is a major distributor of oil, and the international market is already feeling the effects of these tensions. Iraq is not a country we can just let slip by.


Fact is yes the west are responsible for screwing it up.

But it beyond fixing like how the USA could not fix Vietnam.

At some point you need to cut your loses, accept defeat and move on and possible face the music.


But the US and who helped the US should also be punished for the mistake(s) they made really so they at least learn from their mistakes.
Nothing at home has hurted them for the mess they created far away.. I mean everyone wants justice right?
What would be a fair punishment?



O I agree Bush and tony Blair should be charged with treason and war crimes and sentenced to life in Prison.

I have a feeling which one out the two will be dropping the soap
edit on 13-6-2014 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 09:40 AM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

Thanks for the reply.

I agree...i just want something done to minimise the potential effects of an ISIS takeover of Baghdad, and possibly Iraq. I understand that the middle east is irreparable. But just because we can't fix it, doesn't mean we shouldn't act to make a negative situation at least somewhat bearable.



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 09:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: daaskapital
a reply to: crazyewok

Thanks for the reply.

I agree...i just want something done to minimise the potential effects of an ISIS takeover of Baghdad, and possibly Iraq. I understand that the middle east is irreparable. But just because we can't fix it, doesn't mean we shouldn't act to make a negative situation at least somewhat bearable.


Im not sure what can be done. More the USA gets involved likely the more support the ISIS will get.

I wish there was something that can be done. But I just don't see what..... Not any long term solutions anyway



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 09:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: jaws1975
a reply to: daaskapital


Aren't these the same al ciada that the US was supporting in Syria? Why would we want to fight them, when we have been propping them up?


ISIS is no longer affiliated with Al Qaeda, and the USA is only meant to be propping up the moderate rebels in Syria. Apparently, the USA has not aided the extremist sides of the Syrian conflict, but i don't know how much truth there is to that, considering that everyone over there is involved in extremism in one way or another. I imagine the vetting process would be extremely difficult too.





top topics
 
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join