Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 37
  1. #1

    Post Obama sending another 1500 troops to Iraq for non combat roles

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...oops-Iraq.html

    President Barack Obama told Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel on Friday that the Pentagon can send as many as 1,500 additional ground troops to Iraq as part of the U.S. mission to fight ISIS.

    That deployment would approximately double the American military personnel in place there. The Defense Department had until Friday a mandate to send no more than 1,600 troops, and had put 1,400 in the field already.

    The White House also asked Congress for $5.6 billion in new war funding, all while insisting that the U.S. military is not using ground forces in a combat role. .

    Instead, the administration continued to stress on Friday that American personnel would train, advise and assist Iraqi military and Kurdish forces fighting the ISIS terror army.
    Baseball Trade Page: Hidden Content
    4 Sport Trade Bucket: Hidden Content

  2. #2
    Why would you send more American Soldiers in a non-combat role? What in the world does this prove? That they will be sitting ducks?

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by 37jetson View Post
    Why would you send more American Soldiers in a non-combat role? What in the world does this prove? That they will be sitting ducks?
    I don't really get it either. They have trained Iraq troops for YEARS. What more could these 1500 people teach them in a short amount of time? So I'm going to chalk this move up to Obama and the Democrats trying to look busy after getting beat bad in the election a few days ago. Just make news to try and squash the bad news. Not really the best thing to put the lives of 1500 in danger to do so but it isn't like Obama has really cared for the troops that much to begin with.
    Baseball Trade Page: Hidden Content
    4 Sport Trade Bucket: Hidden Content

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by pwaldo View Post
    I don't really get it either. They have trained Iraq troops for YEARS. What more could these 1500 people teach them in a short amount of time? So I'm going to chalk this move up to Obama and the Democrats trying to look busy after getting beat bad in the election a few days ago. Just make news to try and squash the bad news. Not really the best thing to put the lives of 1500 in danger to do so but it isn't like Obama has really cared for the troops that much to begin with.
    Just like the new AG, just another political maneuver that was postponed until after the election.

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by 37jetson View Post
    Why would you send more American Soldiers in a non-combat role? What in the world does this prove? That they will be sitting ducks?
    If they sent them to be in a combat role, America would be up in arms and the approval ratings would go down even further. The 1500 can at least try and slow the rate that ISIS is demolishing the Middle East.
    Andrew Bailey: 198/241 not including 1/1's (82.2%); 212/438 cards including 1/1's(48.4%)

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by andrewhoya View Post
    If they sent them to be in a combat role, America would be up in arms and the approval ratings would go down even further. The 1500 can at least try and slow the rate that ISIS is demolishing the Middle East.
    This makes no sense. How can troops sent in a non-combat role help to slow ISIS?

    I don't know the correct role, if any, for these troops in Iraq. I do know that sending them over as non-combat troops has more to do with recovery of poll numbers than anything else.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by 37jetson View Post
    This makes no sense. How can troops sent in a non-combat role help to slow ISIS?

    I don't know the correct role, if any, for these troops in Iraq. I do know that sending them over as non-combat troops has more to do with recovery of poll numbers than anything else.
    Did you not read the article? Or, even the first post?

    American personnel would train, advise and assist Iraqi military and Kurdish forces fighting the ISIS terror army.
    Andrew Bailey: 198/241 not including 1/1's (82.2%); 212/438 cards including 1/1's(48.4%)

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by andrewhoya View Post
    Did you not read the article? Or, even the first post?
    I read the article. Maybe I should rephrase my question to how can this strategy do anything but get our soldiers killed versus making any real progress against ISIS? Wouldn't it be easier to send ISIS pamphlets about the horror of war? I see this as a really bad idea for our troops.

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by 37jetson View Post
    I read the article. Maybe I should rephrase my question to how can this strategy do anything but get our soldiers killed versus making any real progress against ISIS? Wouldn't it be easier to send ISIS pamphlets about the horror of war? I see this as a really bad idea for our troops.
    Well, my opinion is that we will be helping militaries that are pretty hapless on their own...so, if we can slow ISIS now, with the possibility of a few fatalities, it may save us from ISIS getting bigger and better and carrying out a major terrorist attack on us later. My .02.
    Andrew Bailey: 198/241 not including 1/1's (82.2%); 212/438 cards including 1/1's(48.4%)

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by andrewhoya View Post
    Well, my opinion is that we will be helping militaries that are pretty hapless on their own...so, if we can slow ISIS now, with the possibility of a few fatalities, it may save us from ISIS getting bigger and better and carrying out a major terrorist attack on us later. My .02.
    I really hope that it can work as you describe. My total disdain for Obama is clouding my view of anything he does or says these days.

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •