Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That sounds like a rationale to invade a whole host of countries.
What makes it the responsibility of the US to make the despots of the world answer for their crimes, and what made Saddam the particular one the US needed to go after?
Not sure ive heard of many countries committing ethnic genocide in recent times.
USA is the most powerful country in world and one might argue with such power comes certain responsibilities. However, I think all civil countries that support peace, freedom, and human rights should pool resources to help the innocent and oppressed.
[quote=Redraven;35268806275 troops? Just what does he expect that little force to do, when faced with thousands of religious fanatics?[/quote]
Evacuate the embassy.
Quote:
100 troops "in reserve"? Again, what does he expect them to accomplish?
When those little dabs of force are decimated, what will he send next? Maybe 4 tanks and an attack helicopter?
IMO, either send a force that is big enough to do the job, or stay home!
It would take no less than 100,000 total troops (counting logisitics and air support) to "do the job," so that's not going to happen, nor is there going to be another "Blackhawk Down" situation.
Not sure ive heard of many countries committing ethnic genocide in recent times.
What do you consider "recent?" How about Syria three months ago?
Quote:
USA is the most powerful country in world and one might argue with such power comes certain responsibilities. However, I think all civil countries that support peace, freedom, and human rights should pool resources to help the innocent and oppressed.
Last year the Shia in Iraq were oppressing the Sunnis; this week it's going in the other direction. Which "innocent and oppressed" are you talking about when even the mothers on each side are saying "Kill them!"
What do you consider "recent?" How about Syria three months ago?
Last year the Shia in Iraq were oppressing the Sunnis; this week it's going in the other direction. Which "innocent and oppressed" are you talking about when even the mothers on each side are saying "Kill them!"
Syria is in the midst of a civil war. Iraq was not.
None the less, I am for foreign intervention to bring the Syrian War to a close so people can have a semblance of a normal life.
"They went from "all options on the table" to the very next day "no Troops in Iraq" to ...."
THERE is the problem! The fact that he is sending troops back in there is no big thing, IMO. I expected that. But this waving in the breeze, changing opinions as the wind shifts, looks bad for our country, and VERY bad for him!
275 troops? Just what does he expect that little force to do, when faced with thousands of religious fanatics?
100 troops "in reserve"? Again, what does he expect them to accomplish?
When those little dabs of force are decimated, what will he send next? Maybe 4 tanks and an attack helicopter?
IMO, either send a force that is big enough to do the job, or stay home!
Barack Obama is a man who is so dead set on being the anti-Bush that he can't even see through the fog good enough to recognize that he is blundering himself, and America, into a dangerous situation. Sending in such a small force is his way of communicating to liberals and his base that he was forced to do something without actually doing anything.
Barack Obama is absolutely worthless in every conceivable way.
Syria is in the midst of a civil war. Iraq was not.
None the less, I am for foreign intervention to bring the Syrian War to a close so people can have a semblance of a normal life.
As long as it's not our soldiers or Marines. There is nothing happening in Syria that justifies the loss of an American life. Their country, their problem, let the Syrians (or other ME countries) fix the mess.
In Iraq, I do agree with sending troops to defend the Embassy. It is soverign US territory, an attack on it is the same as an attack on any other US soil. But I fear that 275 soldiers is far too little and just putting them in the path of a chit-storm for no reason other than politics. How many Apaches can we base there? Hellfires and chain guns tops a camel jockey with an RPG. Can we keep AC-130s operating overhead all the time? As far as 100 advisors operating outside the embassy to "advise" the Iraqi millitary, HELL NO. Not worth the potential loss of American life. Iraqis have been given a tremendous opportunity to form a stable, prosperous government without a brutal dictator. They have failed, instead they are continuing to slaughter each other over their petty little superstition.
Last edited by Toyman at Jewel Lake; 06-17-2014 at 08:35 AM..
Yes, two days ago all the liberals were delighted that Obama was letting Iraq fall and was promising no troops, but now they have to be delighted that he's sending troops. Poor liberals -- their heads have to spin so fast.
Big difference.
We are not sending troops to fight.
We are sending troops to protect our citizens.
If that entails fighting, so be it. But the mission is to protect Americans there, not to engage ISIS.
Do you think that protecting American citizens there is a waste of time and resources?
You don't agree that we should protect American citizens in war zones?
You think Obama is wrong to protect American citizens in war zones?
Let's be sure we're straight about something: The US did not invade Iraq for the sake of the oppressed Kurds and Shias.
Unless you are close friends with the President or in his inner group of advisors you do not know what the real reason(s) we went to war are.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
