100,000 troops, including Americans to be deployed in W.Iraq

a reply to: intrptr

McCain is over there face to face because they don't want any record of what he is saying to exist. Thats why they all, Kerry, Nuland, McCain and Hillary fly around the world, all the time. To meet in secret, and make secret deals.

If they are so secret, how do you know about them? Also, If Daesh is really a US operation, why send American troops at all? Just reinforce Daesh, or arm them with CB weapons. All this reeks of another Kremlin disinformation campaign. No American politician would commit 10,000 ground troops in an election year.

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969
Why do we need to send our sons and daughters fight another war in that region, plz stay safe out there people.

So that rich people can make more money..

a reply to: Xcathdra

McCain doesn't need any power to relay orders face to face. Even good old Mike Tyson could tell you all about pigeons.

And just adding an observation to the thread here.

In the 1st movie link on that article, if you watch from about 1:20 to 2:30

Reporter's first question: "Would you agree that President Obama's initial plan not to put boots on the ground to fight ISIL has changed?"

John Kirby, U.S. State Department Spokesperson, states: "So first of all let me back up, the President has been clear from the very beginning, as Commander and Chief, that we're not going to fight a large sustained combat counter-insurgency effort in Iraq or in Syria against ISIL. He never said there was never gonna be U.S. boots on the ground, as a matter of fact there's more then 3000 U.S. troops in Iraq right now in a training, advising, assisting capacity."

Reporter question 2: "3500 troops and more on their way is not a big ground-operation to you?"

J.K.: "It's not when you consider the scale of the kind of force presence that we had in Iraq up until 2011 and what we had in Afghanistan."

I think we can deduce from the first 40 seconds of the video, although propagandised, that President Obama did say not to put boots on the ground again, so J.K. makes a minor slip-up in his first response.
In his second answer, J.K. doesn't refute the "and more on their way" part of the question. Granted, that clip has been cut off so he could've adressed that later, although it didn't seem to be his first concern.

All of this can always be swung both ways considering all factors ofcourse, but it does add a bit of depth to the report.

a reply to: lspilot6946

This story is not true. It would be all over the MSM

I doubt the veracity of this

originally posted by: sosobad

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
Wait, why?

Why are they sending so many troops into Iraq?

Because from there they'll be in a better position to attack Assad. The ISIS bs is just a cover.

Seems Turkey is the advance forces to make sure the area is cool to set up a base in for Gogs army on the eastern front before they enter Syria.

Russia and Iran needs to put a stop to these plans. I don't see an Iranian supported Baghdad letting this go down without promising Iran and Russia big money if they prevent this from happening. They are sick of the U.S. so they will probably let Putin be their backer now.

originally posted by: Anosognosia
100,000 ground troops must have been what Obama was referring to when he was talking about winning the war on global warming.

It all makes sense now.

Could you uh..tell me what Obama exactly said about global warming that relates to a 100,000 troops?

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: spy66

Your evidence to support this?

You guys need to think on your own instead of repeating the Kremlin propaganda. You are so desperate to blame the US that you ignore the various, and conflicting, narratives Russia gives.

It begins in May 2015.


90 rebels are mentioned. May 2015.



It is hard to find moderate rebels, must pas US vetting.... Jun 2015




Here Ashton Carter is training about 60 rebel fighter. July 2015.



Its a small number... September 2015

a reply to: Balans

The 3,500 "advisers" are what is left in Iraq. They are not "on their way." That would bring the total number up to 7,000. Again, why send any US troops to the region if "ISIS" is really an American operation? Why not just arm ISIS with better weapons?

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Balans

Again, why send any US troops to the region if "ISIS" is really an American operation? Why not just arm ISIS with better weapons?

Well they need to be coordinated and trained With the New US weapons. Its not like ISIS can sitt and learn this from YouTube.

ISIS cant just take a US TOW out of the boks and just use it.

ISIS cant just take a US made stinger out of the Boks and use it.

THey need to be coordinated and trained.

The US Train, coordinate and share intelligence With their vetted moderate rebels, who than hand this over to ISIS.

a reply to: spy66

The US Train, coordinate and share intelligence With their vetted moderate rebels, who than hand this over to ISIS.

You have been repeating this claim for months now. If it is true, why send 10,000 uniformed American troops?

This makes zero political or military sense. In fact it is pretty much impossible. Maybe the Arab States could scrape up a 10,000 man force that is deployable but 90,000 is not happening. And ISIS is in total retreat on every front in Iraq what would be the point?

a reply to: Xcathdra

…they sent McCain because they don't want a record of what was said. A convenient straw man argument….

Its only too obvious they run world governments just like the mob runs their business. Called sit downs, they travel to meet in secret because they don't want any one hearing what they say or listening in on what they are told. All those thousands of miles by jet, limo and hotels, to… chat.

Derp, they could uses teleconference, a phone or fax…

What they discuss is highly secret because its highly criminal, just_like_Organized_Crime.

So glad to see the official line spokesperson on ATS come out to refute that. You guys are too obvious.

ISIS seem determined to coax us into putting boots on the ground....

Is it possible they have a nuke, but no delivery system?

Lure in the troops and some Allah Snackbar shouting, 72 virgin lusting wanker will be sitting there to push the button?

Just a thought.......

a reply to: MrSpad

Yah hey, what Middle Eastern war, chapter thirteen?

Every single one they ever come out with runs just like this. And every time they do it they pre announce it just like they do today.

Just take Vietnam for instance. First demonized in the Media, dirty Commies (back then), were threatening the peace and sanctity, killing their people, clamors begin, "something must be done. Oh no, there will be no boots on ground, just some "special" guys in an "advisory" role, then a "few more".

By then everyone forgets its against International law to invade other countries, accepting each phase after some protest because they get used to being told its necessary and acceptable.

From the beginning, they intended to topple the government, invade and occupy the targeted country, pulling the wool over people eyes with the constant propaganda pouring from the main stream, conditioning people to accept it.

Today in the land of internet the same conditioning is occurring from people on the internet, raising their voices in support of the lies, the subversion, the unjust wars for contrived reasons.

Those people are too obvious the way they come out every time someone tries to expose the truth about it, blah blah, its okay, its nothing, its necessary, we're helping…

a reply to: spy66

Thanks spy, for those videos. They do admit just a glimmer of what they are doing. Like the proverbial iceberg, only ten percent is showing above the oceans surface.

Just a little war, just a little bit, for a little while, lol.

When you seen the progression like I have over a lifetime, it becomes clear how they mind meld everyone over the multiple phases of each operation, each little war, each little country.

originally posted by: TheBulk

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: TheBulk

originally posted by: intrptr

The politician said the plan was announced to the Iraqi government during a visit by US Senator John McCain.

That creep is going to get us all killed.

You do realize that Obama is the president. Not McCain.

Both are puppets. McCains still fighting the Vietnam war, now getting a chance to get back at the Russians. Obama is just flash, a lover of the limelight and hi class society functions.

Sounds more like an excuse to avoid putting Obama's name on anything. Back in the day it was, Bush this and Bush that. Now it seems nothing is ever Obama's fault. None of his policies have any negative effects!

Politicinas are little more than front men for the Organization. Hired lawyers to speak for them 'in court'.

The real culprits are behind the stage curtain.

a reply to: intrptr

I don't remember you objecting to Russia sending troops in to Ukraine uninvited. Also, Russia has been far more involved in Syria than any NATO nation. It is almost as though Russia's overarching strategy is to create as many refugees as possible to put stress on the EU. Nah, Putin's the good guy here, right?

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: intrptr

McCain is over there face to face because they don't want any record of what he is saying to exist. Thats why they all, Kerry, Nuland, McCain and Hillary fly around the world, all the time. To meet in secret, and make secret deals.

If they are so secret, how do you know about them? Also, If Daesh is really a US operation, why send American troops at all? Just reinforce Daesh, or arm them with CB weapons. All this reeks of another Kremlin disinformation campaign. No American politician would commit 10,000 ground troops in an election year.

Pfft, what you think all that softening up by air is preceding?

Huh, what? Which monkey are you, no see, no hear, no tell? Every post you make is what huh, why they need to do that?

Now forum slide some more…

a reply to: intrptr

Every post you make is what huh, why they need to do that?

And every post you are unable to answer why.

a reply to: DJW001

Nah, Putin's the good guy here, right?

Russian isn't bombing the terrorists in Syria?