It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

So once we put Boots on ground in Iraq AGAIN...we will have to stay or it will happen again.

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 03:25 PM
link   
We should either go full retard and send all our troops to clean the disease called ISIS and then remain to make sure it stays gone or just leave and let the disease take over.

If we go we have to stay for ever. Lets just make new US states out of Iraq this time. Or get out and never look back.

We need Colin Powel as President right now. He is probably only person in the US that could clean this mess up.




posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 03:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Xeven

I'm not sure why everyone thinks Obama went to congress to get approval for troops on the ground. Unless I'm missing something, that's not what his proposal says at all.


U.S. President Barack Obama has sent Congress his request for authorization to use military force in the campaign against ISIS, limiting operations against the militants to three years and barring use of U.S. troops in "enduring offensive ground combat."

According to the text, Obama also wants to repeal the 2002 measure that authorized the Iraq war. But his proposal leaves in place a 2001 authorization, passed shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks, for a campaign against al-Qaeda and its affiliates.


As it stands, U.S troops in Iraq are there on a training and advisory basis. Although there have been reports of a few engagements, they have been defensive in nature. As far as I can tell (based on reports in the media), U.S forces are not performing patrols, engaging in offensive operations, etc.

source
edit on 13-2-2015 by DeadSeraph because: edited for source



posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 03:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Xeven

I'm pretty sure that America went "full retard" a LONG time before this situation arose.
edit on 13-2-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 03:53 PM
link   
Deploying forces into the region is much more necessary, and justified, than the previous offensive operations. The previous actions destabilized the region, thus stability is a major concern at present. Now it is in America's interest to eradicate ISIS, plain and simple. They are poised to threaten our oil supply considerably, although this would still be a difficult prospect for them. They could definitely harm us in this area however. Saudi Arabia is on the border of this conflict, and it wouldn't surprise me if ISIS would have supporters in that nation, and thus partisan action could be detrimental to US oil interests. Then of course ISIS has captured valuable resources in Iraq and Syria as well. If Syria were to fall then things would dramatically look up for ISIS. I believe that we have to go in.

With that said, let us analyze your statement that we will have to keep boots on the ground. This is not necessarily the case. It would be better to let local military units do this, but of course that didn't work out so well last time. The bottom line is that the US has to establish and maintain stability to protect our interests. The best way to eliminate groups like ISIS is to destroy their funding. ISIS must have an incredible amount of funding, and it is coming from somewhere. If it is from Saudi Arabia then we have a major dilemma. I suppose that the only real solution is to keep boots on the ground for an extended period, although this is costly. The only other alternative would be to stay away entirely, but this hurts the US' oil interests. The US military needs to see what is cheaper: to keep a military presence in Iraq, or to keep going back periodically when groups like ISIS pop up. If the military were to wage only an air war it could succeed. A strategic bombing campaign could have crippled ISIS with adequate intelligence and few target restrictions. This did not happen of course. So the US command needs to reevaluate their options. If you use an option, like strategic bombing, you have to ensure that it succeeds. ISIS could not have been eliminated with just bombing, but they would have been severely handicapped. They would have had their offensive power destroyed on an operational scale.
edit on 2/13/15 by JiggyPotamus because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 04:00 PM
link   
a reply to: DeadSeraph

Obama has no clue at all what he is doing. I am not saying he wants boots on ground. I AM. Either that or leave and forget about it completely. We will inevitably have to put boots on the ground.

We need to put sniper rifles in the wings of our drones....



posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 04:07 PM
link   
a reply to: JiggyPotamus




Deploying forces into the region is much more necessary, and justified, than the previous offensive operations


Only justified if the countries request help. Has Sryia requested that the US invade its country. Has Sryia requested the US arm and fund Sryian terrorists groups that have killed many civillians.

No its not justified nor where the last two illegal wars that were never ratified under internation law and the UN...

purp..



posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 04:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Xeven

Go full retard?



We need Colin Powel as President right now


Job done.



posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 04:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Xeven




Obama has no clue at all what he is doing. I am not saying he wants boots on ground. I AM. Either that or leave and forget about it completely. We will inevitably have to put boots on the ground. We need to put sniper rifles in the wings of our drones....


The US and collation forces have bombed Iraq and caused much in the way of the problems seen there now..

and you want to bomb them again..?

purp..



posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 04:29 PM
link   
Putting US or Western troops into combat would be a foolish mistake and only give ISIL a huge recruiting tool. It could also split the coalition. As is their are already more than enough boots willing to do the fighting. They just need training along with intel, logistical and air support. And when all is said and done with US forces not being used in ground combat they can leave without the place falling apart again. For once somebody in the US is thinking ahead and doing things the smart way. We have seen time and again that with proper support the Muslim forced already fighting ISIL are more than capable of defeating them.



posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 04:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Xeven

how about bringing all the innocent citizens back to the US then your troops can have all the fun they want , then when its all over you can stay behind and clean the country up including rebuilding all the homes you have destroyed .



posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 05:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Xeven

This is what happens when you stick you nose in to a 2000 year old civil war, it will never end with the U.S. anymore then it has with the Muslim tribes.

As bad as it sounds if we had left Saddam and Khadafy alone they were no real threat to anyone but the clowns that wanted to continue the civil wars.

For those of you that say, well Saddam caused 911, that's BS and you know it, and as for Khadafy, Obama did him and Egypt to put his brown shirt army, the Muslim Brotherhood in control, this is common sense if you think about it.



posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 10:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Xeven

Going full retard gave birth to ISIS. Going full retard is just what it's name implies.

Face it, the war machine loves terrorist groups and does little to prevent them. In fact, they only help create them. The so called war on terror is a joke just like the war on drugs.


edit on 13-2-2015 by Swills because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2015 @ 06:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Xeven

I suggest you look into how US sponsored Syrian rebels who became ISIS

USA USA

How many have you killed today



posted on Feb, 14 2015 @ 07:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xeven
a reply to: DeadSeraph

Obama has no clue at all what he is doing. I am not saying he wants boots on ground. I AM. Either that or leave and forget about it completely. We will inevitably have to put boots on the ground.

We need to put sniper rifles in the wings of our drones....




Yes absolutely. Should have never left.



posted on Feb, 14 2015 @ 07:04 AM
link   
If we put boots on the ground the Powell doctrine needs to be brought back.

For those that don't know you use massive overwhelming force.. Protecting the lives of the soldiers is priority number 1. You smash any resistance so throughly it will be a generation before they consider fighting again.

That's the only way I could see accepting boots on the ground.



posted on Feb, 14 2015 @ 07:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: MrSpad
Putting US or Western troops into combat would be a foolish mistake and only give ISIL a huge recruiting tool. It could also split the coalition. As is their are already more than enough boots willing to do the fighting. They just need training along with intel, logistical and air support. And when all is said and done with US forces not being used in ground combat they can leave without the place falling apart again. For once somebody in the US is thinking ahead and doing things the smart way. We have seen time and again that with proper support the Muslim forced already fighting ISIL are more than capable of defeating them.


Its a good thing the Kurds haven't been waiting around for a coalition. The US has been at war with ISIS but using Kurds as foot solders in a union of shared interests. Certainly the Kurds believe they will get something out of this besides some greater regional autonomy. The US stands to end up screwing the Kurds. The Kurds may end up being crackers in bed with all the love making going on over there now.



posted on Feb, 14 2015 @ 08:11 AM
link   
What I am getting at is this half effort is the wrong direction. No need to have 300 Marines over there that could end up in cages being burned alive. If your going to be over there with our troops do so with enough force that we cannot lose...
If not then stay out. We can fly Iraq's to US and train them here or Maybe at that Cuban Base...

IN or OUT but not half measures that result in mission creep and American deaths...Lebanon for instance.
edit on 14-2-2015 by Xeven because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 12:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: PizzaAnyday505
a reply to: Xeven

I suggest you look into how US sponsored Syrian rebels who became ISIS

USA USA

How many have you killed today


They are not the same group. In fact the US backed Syrian rebels have been fighting ISIL longer than anybody. Back when Assad and ISIL had and unofficial cease fire so they could both focus on the rebels.



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 02:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: MrSpad
They are not the same group. In fact the US backed Syrian rebels have been fighting ISIL longer than anybody. Back when Assad and ISIL had and unofficial cease fire so they could both focus on the rebels.


Maps and facts on the ground as well as mainstream media say otherwise

Syrian rebels were in the news all the time and then started receiving western help and lo and behold spilled into Iraq from Syria calling themselves ISIS

Before that ISIS group was just a small fringe group with 1000 members, that's it

You can deny all you want, this is public information



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 02:33 AM
link   
You can't just annex it for the US, This has to be a United Nations project, nobody should 'take' Iraq and make it into part of another country just to keep the peace.

Yes, A UN peacekeeping force should remain there indefinitely after the ISIS scums asses are nailed to the gates of hell. Which will be happening shortly.

You come in from elsewhere knock out insurgents and take control that makes you invaders. You just used the terrorists to do all your dirty work.

I don't think the US gov or any other UN nation operates that way. These entities exist to shut that crap down not create it.




top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join