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.
We are no where near the number of troops in both countries compared to 2008 his actions are the best under the circumstances. The Taliban is here to stay, if they couldn't get rid of them in 10 years then this isn't going to solve the problem. He ran on a platform to get us out of the 2 wars yet the pentagon just can't give it up. Certainly his decision in the end but the same people that criticize his lack of action turn around and are critical of taking action, can't win.
Either way this is minimal but I do not agree with sending in troops to combat.
But yet you will do your best to try and defend and deflect. It is his call, not the Pentagon's. It was his promises. Yes, I complain about his lack of action but the lack of actions in ending all of this.
This was a bad decision caving into the Pentagon, If Iraq has no interest in fighting then why should we. The core issue is a dysfunctional government in Iraq, if they get their act together they will succeed. The same generals that told us the Iraqi's were battle ready are now telling us we are threatened, no credibility.
There is no good way out of Iraq or Afghanistan, I don't see another 10 years making a difference we should have never gone in to these countries.
Now Obama is steadily releasing Guantanamo prisoners at the same time.
Kind of like he's getting together a reunion over there is Afghanistan.
Ha! It will be "just like the old days".
We are no where near the number of troops in both countries compared to 2008 his actions are the best under the circumstances. The Taliban is here to stay, if they couldn't get rid of them in 10 years then this isn't going to solve the problem. He ran on a platform to get us out of the 2 wars yet the pentagon just can't give it up. Certainly his decision in the end but the same people that criticize his lack of action turn around and are critical of taking action, can't win.
Either way this is minimal but I do not agree with sending in troops to combat.
Bottom line is that you are deflecting for Obama out of passion not logic.
It is Obama's call.
Ultimately it was Obama's call to dramatically escalate the Afghanistan War in 2009 and surge troops in there to the highest level of the war.
It is ultimately Obama's call again to pump more troops in there.
Perhaps, Obama has cold feet with how he handled Iraq's withdrawal.
Yet, Obama on one hand takes credit for winding troop levels down in Afghanistan - after surging the troops dramatically - and then escalating them again in 2014. He needs to be called on it. He is being deceptive - he could have framed this honestly from day one, but hasn't. He doesn't need to, the sheep will be there to deflect.
Obama has increased bombing, increased drones, continued rendition, increased non-combat military bases, etc....
There is always a deflection, always an excuse to frame it in the best possible light with deception.
The US Government has accused Syria of developing chemical weapons and harbouring Saddam Hussein's fleeing henchmen but officials say there is no imminent plan to attack the country.
Let's face it, we are going to have permanent military bases in middle east.
I hope the U.S. does not have permanent bases over there in the Middle East. Most of the population wants the U.S. out of there country, and staying there will only motive the Jihad to attack.
Regarding Afghanistan we should have never nation built there. Best thing to have done there is to just destroy everything and rebuild nothing, engage in a total war, because that is what the Jihad is doing against us and if the U.S. ever goes over into the Middle East that is the best strategy to win. It is too late to do this now, the best thing the U.S. can do is leave Afghanistan, and leave nothing behind.
Syria is unimportant to the U.S., and the U.S. should have never intervened there. Syria has nothing the U.S. wants or needs, and is unimportant to U.S. national security. Intervening in Syria will only motivate the Jihad to attack the U.S.
We are no where near the number of troops in both countries compared to 2008 his actions are the best under the circumstances. The Taliban is here to stay, if they couldn't get rid of them in 10 years then this isn't going to solve the problem. He ran on a platform to get us out of the 2 wars yet the pentagon just can't give it up. Certainly his decision in the end but the same people that criticize his lack of action turn around and are critical of taking action, can't win.
Either way this is minimal but I do not agree with sending in troops to combat.
Wait. Wait and see. The majority of the 1500 troops that are being deployed as "advisors" are being sent to Anbar. IS is close to taking over Anbar province. Will our troops be just advising, or will they find themselves in combat? As usual, Obama has to tell the enemy every move the US plans to make. Our troops will be sitting targets for IS. Since IS is gaining ground in Anbar province and it's expected they will take Anbar province, and we have troops in Anbar and they are attacked, what would the order be - to retreat? Remember, he declared this isn't "our" war and we are just advising the Iraqis, yet he is deploying troops to an area that is under siege.
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.
