200 additional US troops to Jordan

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 02:05 PM
link   

The group will give the United States the ability to "potentially form a joint task force for military operations, if ordered," he said.

The new deployment will include communications and intelligence specialists who will assist the Jordanians and "be ready for military action" if President Barack Obama were to order it, the official said


edition.cnn.com...

Well, it seems while the world is distracted by North Korea and Boston, the US is significantly stepping up deployment actions in the Middle East, further putting US troops in harms way, and laying the groundwork for overt action in Syria. Before anyone is paying attention, we'll have a whole lot more than the 200+ in place in Jordan alone (not to mention the forces in the Med, Gulf, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, etc.

edit on 4/17/13 by larphillips because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 02:08 PM
link   
Interesting... just as I post this, I notice the thread below stating Senate resolution/approval to back Isreal in an attack on Iran.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Yes, the pieces are falling into place rather quickly. Intentional or not, the NK and Boston distractions are doing wonders for US ramp-up for an escalation of war in the Middle East.

Never let a good crisis go to waste.



posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by larphillips
 





the US is significantly stepping up deployment actions in the Middle East,


200 troops significantly ?


Grasping at straws ?



posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by rockymcgilicutty
 


Do you not follow current events or history at all? Not to be rude here, but placing troops in Jordan for combat readiness is simply an opening of the door. This is a clear indicator of more soldiers to follow. Ft. Bliss is Army... they don't travel light and they aren't an in-and-out force. This is a formal escalation of events in an already hot and unstable area.



posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by larphillips
 


No I live current events, and lived through history. We have small numbers of troops deployed in over 100 countries. They are there to aid friendly countries that asked for help. Where were all they build ups after those deployments ?

You are making a prediction, with no basis in fact. The rest is a guess by you as to what's to follow.

The quote I questioned you on was from your OP, where you made a statement about the 200 troops as a significant deployment.



posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by rockymcgilicutty
reply to post by larphillips
 





the US is significantly stepping up deployment actions in the Middle East,


200 troops significantly ?


Grasping at straws ?


They're there to train + assist Jordanians with communications and such, which is significant.



posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 04:05 PM
link   


The group will give the United States the ability to "potentially form a joint task force for military operations, if ordered," he said.




This new deployment makes the U.S. military presence more official and is the first formalized ongoing presence of an American military unit in the Kingdom in recent years.


edition.cnn.com...



posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by CALGARIAN
 





They're there to train + assist Jordanians with communications and such, which is significant.


Exactly, and like I said at Jordan's request. Allies asking for help training THEIR forces.

As for having the potential to form a taskforce, 1 Military person in 1 embassy also has the potential to form a taskforce. I swear all the time I hear that Americans are being brainwashed and programed on this site. Just makes me laugh when members, can't even see that they are being spoon fed choice pieces of propaganda in a biased article.



posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 04:18 PM
link   
I'm not sure how a small story, essentially buried, "spoon-feeds" anyone. Attention is elsewhere. This trickles out. The Defense Secretary's statements were incredibly vague and open-ended, and certainly appears to open the door for far more military inolvement.

Our opinions obviously differ, but to me, this has all the hallmarks of setting the pieces in place for a big move. To commit any troops to any area right now, under severely strained budgets and deployment fatigue, is a major change and worth noting and paying attention to.



posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by rockymcgilicutty

Exactly, and like I said at Jordan's request. Allies asking for help training THEIR forces.


Also, where in the article does it say that Jordan requested this?



posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by larphillips
 





Our opinions obviously differ, but to me, this has all the hallmarks of setting the pieces in place for a big move. To commit any troops to any area right now, under severely strained budgets and deployment fatigue, is a major change and worth noting and paying attention to.


Obviously, we disagree.

I stick to facts, you prefer guess's and speculation.

Fact the U.S has small numbers of troops in many countries around the world to help with training, and technical support. This is done after request by the host countries. There is only very few numbers in history of build up's afterward.

The difference between you and I , is I refuse to speculate or guess out comes of a article that I read to promote my own agenda.

Now if in the coming weeks or months, you post a thread. That states for a fact that the U.S is moving large numbers of troops into Jordan. I will be on that thread to protest the troop movement.

But I refuse to promote speculation, or more hate on baseless guesses.



posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 04:53 PM
link   
Debka has a more in depth article on this. It looks like a prophecy of Jeremiah's is close to being fulfilled.



posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by rockymcgilicutty

The difference between you and I , is I refuse to speculate or guess out comes of a article that I read to promote my own agenda.


I have an "agenda." Funniest thing I've heard all day. Thanks.



posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by larphillips
 





I have an "agenda." Funniest thing I've heard all day. Thanks.


No problem


I knew you wouldn't have a real response.
edit on 17-4-2013 by rockymcgilicutty because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by rockymcgilicutty
 


Excellent speculation and opinion.

Anyway...




It has also been said the troops will include commanding officers to lay the future groundwork for coordinating a larger deployment, if the need arises.

rt.com...




"We have been developing options and planning for a post-Assad Syria, and we will continue to provide the president and Congress with our assessment of options for U.S. military intervention," said Hagel.

www.usnews.com...



posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by larphillips
reply to post by rockymcgilicutty
 


Excellent speculation and opinion.

Anyway...




It has also been said the troops will include commanding officers to lay the future groundwork for coordinating a larger deployment, if the need arises.

rt.com...




"We have been developing options and planning for a post-Assad Syria, and we will continue to provide the president and Congress with our assessment of options for U.S. military intervention," said Hagel.

www.usnews.com...



The military has plan's for all scenarios that's their job. We have plans for a invasion of England do you think that will happen to.



posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 05:25 PM
link   
Your approach to this conversation aside, I guess we'll just wait and see how things play out. I certainly hope that your view turns out to be correct, and an official presense of the US millitary on yet another border of a raging civil war means absolutely nothing... just like the "planned invasion of England."

I hope that my perception of the trends, escalations, and placing of men and material in direct harms way are all way off base.

I hope you're right and I am not.

All we have now is time to watch things unfold.



posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by larphillips
Your approach to this conversation aside, I guess we'll just wait and see how things play out. I certainly hope that your view turns out to be correct, and an official presense of the US millitary on yet another border of a raging civil war means absolutely nothing... just like the "planned invasion of England."

I hope that my perception of the trends, escalations, and placing of men and material in direct harms way are all way off base.

I hope you're right and I am not.

All we have now is time to watch things unfold.





the US is significantly stepping up deployment actions in the Middle East,



At no point in our debate did I say I was right. You OP stated that there was a significant build up by the U.S. I asked if 200 troops were significant .




Do you not follow current events or history at all? Not to be rude here, but placing troops in Jordan for combat readiness is simply an opening of the door. This is a clear indicator of more soldiers to follow. Ft. Bliss is Army... they don't travel light and they aren't an in-and-out force. This is a formal escalation of events in an already hot and unstable area.


After your OP you speculated about further troop build up's. I disagreed using history and facts.




No I live current events, and lived through history. We have small numbers of troops deployed in over 100 countries. They are there to aid friendly countries that asked for help. Where were all they build ups after those deployments ?




I also told you that if it becomes fact I will protest with you. But I refuse to speculate.

Your two quotes a couple post above deviated from our subject. Those quotes referred to planning, at no time in either source did they state there would be further build up's.



posted on Apr, 18 2013 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by larphillips
 


July of last year:


This type of training mission, requested by Jordan, contributes to the overall security of the global environment by helping partner armies build their capacity to better defend themselves.

www.army.mil...

And it's not 200 ADDITIONAL troops, it's 200 TOTAL troops. There are currently about 150 there, and a headquarters troop is heading there to bring it up to 200 or so.
edit on 4/18/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2013 @ 11:52 AM
link   
200 U.S. soldiers to Jordan could jump to 20,000


The 200 or so troops from the 1st Armored Division at Fort Bliss, Texas, will work alongside Jordanian forces to "improve readiness and prepare for a number of scenarios," Hagel told the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Those scenarios could include securing chemical weapons arsenals or to prevent the war from spilling into neighboring countries, he said.

But the Pentagon has drawn up plans to possibly expand the force to 20,000 or more, the officials told the Times.


I don't know upi.com - but still interesting if true.






top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join