US Planning to Return Forces to Iraq

page: 4
5
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 14 2014 @ 09:18 AM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

Kudos.

Do not mess with the system.




posted on Jun, 14 2014 @ 09:47 AM
link   
This is pretty straight forward. If the oil companies have gotten what they wanted and their oil flow and near by projects aren't threatened then no return.

The MIC will always be for it because it makes them money but warring isn't going away soon in other places and new tech is under development. They can be on the fence.

Doubt fixing a screw up is the real deciding point.



posted on Jun, 14 2014 @ 06:21 PM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

I agree with much of what you just posted. There is a part of me that says to just let them rot in their own hell. The part about abandoning Iraq, making our blood spilt there meaningless also grates on me.

Regarding your "war crimes" comment my response is this: War is hell. IF you are going to conduct it, then take off the kid gloves. As long as you do not utterly and completely defeat the enemy you will always have results such as Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq. So..you conduct war when necessary and only when necessary and when you do, you do it with extreme prejudice.

Walk softly and carry a big stick has another component. If you have the biggest stick in the room then there should be very little negotiating and a lot of "this is how it's going to be". I can draw a lot of historical proof to support why negotiating only helps the weaker side in the negotiation. Just off the top of my head: Nazi Germany's early "acquisitions" in WWII, Korea, Vietnam, the whole and virtually all negotiating that has taken place in the Middle East.

But hey...you are right in that if we weren't expected to and didn't act like the world's police dept we would not be facing the problems we have now. We would be facing other problems lol. We could take root causes back many many decades and the only way to correct those problems would have been to start back then. Too late now, the barn door was left open and all the livestock and Elvis have left the building.



Oh yeah, and if you are Iraq, and just got your ass handed to you, you have very little to say about troops being stationed there. 2. Place the base in the desert, do not patrol cities etc and you will not have issues with snipers and IEDs. The presence of a significant force would, IMO, have prevented the current FUBAR situation. From that base you could send out troops in overwhelming force at extreme need, backed up by air superiority...

We shouldn't have been there in the first place, but once the decision is made, to take a half-assed approach is just stupid.

In other words, I do not support us sending troops back in but if we do then, damnit, do it right so you don't have to go in again.
edit on 14-6-2014 by bbracken677 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2014 @ 10:14 PM
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, 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.


We can't let them take Baghdad? Why not?

1. We are funding them
2. We are providing weapons and supplies to them

There is no logical reason why we should bother with Iraq. Sending troops in would be suicide that WE paid for! The only thing I'd suggest is drone strikes, but then we waste all the money and weapons we gave these radical idiots.

I say let it get crazy in Iraq and make Israel and Saudi Arabi deal with that crap.
edit on 14-6-2014 by WCmutant because: (no reason given)
edit on 14-6-2014 by WCmutant because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2014 @ 11:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Theeastcoastwest

Funny how all the countries the US meddles in, end up lead by extreme religious dicks. Syria, Israel, Iraq, Libya, almost all of Africa really.

US intervention, ends with religious extremism. Just leave the mid east be, protect your US borders and #ing forget the rest of the world you dicks.



posted on Jun, 15 2014 @ 12:05 AM
link   
I highly doubt this is true.

Why the HELL would we want to return forces to Iraq, putting lives in danger and throwing more money away? There is absolutely no reason for the U.S. to send troops in there again. Unless, of course there's something hidden in the billion dollar Bush Baghdad Palace aka the embassy that the cabal doesn't want us to know about.

We destabilized the area by ridding it of Saddam Hussein, and we're not going to be able to fix it by putting boots on the ground or carrying out airstrikes. This would be a boneheaded move.

Let them work their crap out among themselves over there. None of our business. None.



posted on Jun, 15 2014 @ 01:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: daaskapital

No i did not serve in Iraq


Not even a half-dozen posts and out come the dark horse warmongers; the doves. I'll tell you what, if you so desperately want to un# the mistakes (I freely admit there are plenty to choose from) that were made in Iraq the trot you consciousness-objecting ass right down to your local recruiting office and enlist.


...but that fact shouldn't diminish mine, or anyone elses opinion on the matter.


You're right, it doesn't diminish your opinion, it obliterates it.


Their mess is our mess.


Since when? You couldn't be bothered to give a damn about Saddam in spite of years of gassing Kurds, employing the services of interrogators that used rape, sodomy and the use of various household objects in a sexual fashion to elicit information and ethnic cleansing as viable methods of rule but you at the time doubted WMDs?


If we hadn't have gone in there in the first place, we wouldn't be dealing with this situation right now.


So now it's acceptable to go to war in the name of the Iraqi people despite the fact that hundreds (some reports of thousands) of Shia and Sunni muslims are standing up to ISIS and screaming, ''NO!'' This is their defining moment as a nation.


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.


Again, nobody cared 15 years ago. After 10 years it is time for the Iraqi people to nut up. I'm cool with aiding, but enough is enough.

daaskapital: You can choose to see this as a personal attack, or as one indicative of the majority opinion of the military. We (by 'we' I mean a select few) fought for them and many died for them, but it is time they picked up their own banner rather than relying on Coalition Forces.
edit on 15-6-2014 by Lipton because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2014 @ 11:06 AM
link   
When will people wake up that radical muslims are planning a caliphate.People live in a fake fanatasy world right now.Innocent Iraqis being slaughtered like a holocaust currently is going on.Photos are online.



posted on Jun, 15 2014 @ 11:15 AM
link   
You want to know what I think the cold, hard truth is? Well even if you don't, here it is: in countries that have not been civilized to the degree of the Western world, democracy cannot work. What is the reason that Saddam's solidified power base seemed to keep more than a semblance of order in Iraq? Because all of these zealot religious factions could not attempt to gain power without extreme consequences. Meaning death or torture and imprisonment. Attempts at seizing power like we are seeing in Iraq after the US withdrawal were not nearly as common nor as massive during Hussein's reign.

Now I know that I said democracy cannot work, but that is not entirely accurate. IF the democratic government is willing to go to extremes in exercising military power, then they too can maintain it. But it will take being brutal to keep these groups broken. They will always reform, and if the government unwilling to exercise absolute force, then anything could happen. If war is to be had at all, let it be quick and brutal. That is the only truly humane way to wage war in my opinion. Exercising more brutality equates with the loss of fewer lives in the long run. Of course there are things that many believe in, like certain rights, which would get in the way of truly winning such a conflict. I am not saying that we should necessarily exclude rights for combatants or even terrorists, but what I am saying is that it might be one of the few things that actually works. But is that really a solution? To some it is, and to some it is not.

The true problem in Iraq and other parts of the Middle East, whether one wishes to admit it or not, appears to be Islam. I would say religion in general, but no other modernly practiced religion spawns so much violence, or so many various factions all wishing to not only seize power, but force their religious beliefs on other people. In the sense of true religious freedom the Middle East lags behind the progress of the rest of the world. What really saddens me is that there are people in these countries who are more liberal and who would fit nicely in a democratic or republican form of government, but when expressing your liberality can end in you getting stoned to death, few people are willing to stand up to extremists. The same thing happened with Hitler. About half the country did not support him when he rose to power, but what could they do when the SS was doing basically what these extremists are doing? My point is evidenced in the US Declaration of Independence, which explicitly states that people are more apt to suffer abuses than to correct the situation. It is true.

I cannot say with any certainty what the best solution is, but I will say that I am not entirely opposed to the idea of going back into Iraq. I do not necessarily support it either, and I will say that I am glad the decision is not mine. People always think they know better than those who make the decisions, and even if that were true, very few understand the pressures of such decisions and of such a high office in general. I will also say this...For those republicans who supported Bush going into Iraq 100%, which was probably the majority of them, would you not say that intervention is much more justified now than at that time? It has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that not only were we lied to at that time, but that those who lied to us knew the truth. Does that not upset you? So many of these people wish to complain about Obama, which is fine if criticism is justified, but seriously...Do you forget so soon?



posted on Jun, 15 2014 @ 11:25 AM
link   
Holocaust is occruing in Iraq,photos leaking of massive truck loads of dead iraqis.Gonna be WW3.THis and Ukraine getting far worse.SHould do some airstrike and drone strikes is all.See what happens.
edit on 15-6-2014 by Jobeycool because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2014 @ 10:59 PM
link   
You know when Obama said "no boots on the ground" the only thing I could think of is that everything this man says is a lie, so why should this be any different.





new topics
top topics
 
5
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join