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.
Location: Georgia, on the Florida line, right above Tallahassee
10,471 posts, read 15,837,011 times
Reputation: 6438
Advertisements
The importance of special forces appears likely to grow in coming years. In February 2012, American officials said that the plan to wind down the combat role of the United States in Afghanistan a year earlier than expected would rely on shifting responsibility to Special Operations forces to hunt militants and train foreign security forces. At a time of declining Pentagon budgets and a waning public appetite for large wars of occupation, the Obama administration hopes to depend more on foreign troops and security forces to tackle extremist threats abroad.
"Iraq and the United States are negotiating an agreement that could result in the return of small units of American soldiers to Iraq on training missions" and that a unit of Army Special Operations soldiers has already been deployed to Iraq to advise on counterterrorism and help with intelligence
Isn't it nice when a President actually follows through on what he said he would do?
He's trying to start on that saving ~1/2 trillion dollar thing, eh? Romney of course, wants to take that back and add even more in spending and 100,000 more troops/boots on the ground for America.
Judging from your title, it seems that you believe that sending "training teams" to Iraq could have effected the same outcome as the War in Iraq? If so, that's not even close to logical or realistic.
What was the outcome from the Iraq War, thousands of Americans dead? Yeah I guess special forces wouldn't have had the same effect, we probably only would have had about 10 American deaths, if that.
What was the outcome from the Iraq War, thousands of Americans dead? Yeah I guess special forces wouldn't have had the same effect, we probably only would have had about 10 American deaths, if that.
This is so confusing because neither Obama or Romney are generals or have any experience whatsoever with major tactical decisions and both would just be doing what they are told which both would be ill-equipped to argue in any capacity. How things are presented is another story...we know Obama's style is less then normal because everything just goes down, down, down. ...so what ever it is he is doing and who gives a piece of baloney what it is, or what the intentions and hopes are, its just not working out...no doubt about it. No-body in ME wants to climb aboard the Obama wagon...its just a ridiculous mess. This portion of the debate or issue is already over because the product stability is showing a distinct loss opposed to a once hopeful gain or at very least a cessation of the increasing threat in global safety for everyone... how much more plain and simple could review be.
What was the outcome from the Iraq War, thousands of Americans dead? Yeah I guess special forces wouldn't have had the same effect, we probably only would have had about 10 American deaths, if that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmw335xi
Tell me what have we accomplished in Iraq that was worth the death of thousands of Americans?
Do Iraqi's love America now?
Is there more stability in the Middle East because Saddam is dead?
Don't forget that Al Qaeda has a presence in Iraq now. It didn't before. Same with Syria.
In Syria, Al Qaeda supports the Free Syrian Army. Who does the US back in Syria? Why the Free Syrian Army of course.
You can't tell the players without a scorecard.
Location: Georgia, on the Florida line, right above Tallahassee
10,471 posts, read 15,837,011 times
Reputation: 6438
Quote:
Originally Posted by AeroGuyDC
Judging from your title, it seems that you believe that sending "training teams" to Iraq could have effected the same outcome as the War in Iraq? If so, that's not even close to logical or realistic.
Training teams vs. full blown invasion?
Makes no sense at all.
Not if you're interested in spending lots of American cash on contractors in wars and getting lots of American soldiers killed and not in watching Obama trim the military. Then, I agree, it makes no sense at all. That's why it makes sense to me. Oh,well.
The day I posted this, the Conservative loons here were going nuts about us sending a few troops there to train .. like Obama said he was going to do. Watch out for those COnservative loons, bro. Some of them just don't get it.
Not if you're interested in spending lots of American cash on contractors in wars and getting lots of American soldiers killed and not in watching Obama trim the military. Then, I agree, it makes no sense at all. That's why it makes sense to me. Oh,well.
The day I posted this, the Conservative loons here were going nuts about us sending a few troops there to train .. like Obama said he was going to do. Watch out for those COnservative loons, bro. Some of them just don't get it.
Maybe people are concerned about the troops going back there? After the embassy attacks I'd say that they have a good reason to be concerned.
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.
