Guess How Many Troops Obama Just Authorized 2B Deployed to Iraq?? Sound Familiar, LOL?

[TooTall]

There's no diference between combat troops and non-combat troops.

But there is a difference between a combat role and a non-combat role. Perhaps that is why the announcement was written to say this:

""additional U.S. military personnel in a non-combat role to train, advise, and assist Iraqi Security Forces, including Kurdish forces" against ISIS."

The Kurds and Iraqis are in the combat role.

Yeah, here's the "training and advice:"

Got out on patrol with a unit, kill a few from the other side then say, "that's how you do it." These advisers are fighting alongside the ISF and Kurds and in many cases are directing their actions. Calling it a "non-combat role" is just political cover and always has been.

All we had in Vietnam were advisors for several years until they started being killed and JFK did the dreaded mission creep.

 

[BlindBoo]

There's no diference between combat troops and non-combat troops.

But there is a difference between a combat role and a non-combat role. Perhaps that is why the announcement was written to say this:

""additional U.S. military personnel in a non-combat role to train, advise, and assist Iraqi Security Forces, including Kurdish forces" against ISIS."

The Kurds and Iraqis are in the combat role.

Yeah, here's the "training and advice:"

Got out on patrol with a unit, kill a few from the other side then say, "that's how you do it." These advisers are fighting alongside the ISF and Kurds and in many cases are directing their actions. Calling it a "non-combat role" is just political cover and always has been.

All we had in Vietnam were advisors for several years until they started being killed and JFK did the dreaded mission creep.

Except it was Johnson who deployed the first combat troops in Vietnam.

 

[EconChick]

You never wrote, "long, well thought out, substantive, SPOT on" posts, and you never substantiated what you did post. You like Steinlight blab and we are supposed to take your word for it.

Nope.

I was never born either, shit-for-brains. Not only that, I never breathe air.

FakeyJakey, you are playing word games with things many of us take REALLY fucking seriously. You would've been fragged without a doubt had you not been the kind of wimp that hid back at HQ behind the skirts of the brass.

Everyone knows how stupid you and Foo are....we barely even read your propaganda anymore....but I thank you for posting again just like I commanded you to.

The OP stands.

 

[EconChick]

There's no diference between combat troops and non-combat troops.

But there is a difference between a combat role and a non-combat role. Perhaps that is why the announcement was written to say this:

""additional U.S. military personnel in a non-combat role to train, advise, and assist Iraqi Security Forces, including Kurdish forces" against ISIS."

The Kurds and Iraqis are in the combat role.

You know that with your tons of front line experience in Iraq? You can't even find it on a map, FOO FOO.

 

[TooTall]

There's no diference between combat troops and non-combat troops.

But there is a difference between a combat role and a non-combat role. Perhaps that is why the announcement was written to say this:

""additional U.S. military personnel in a non-combat role to train, advise, and assist Iraqi Security Forces, including Kurdish forces" against ISIS."

The Kurds and Iraqis are in the combat role.

Yeah, here's the "training and advice:"

Got out on patrol with a unit, kill a few from the other side then say, "that's how you do it." These advisers are fighting alongside the ISF and Kurds and in many cases are directing their actions. Calling it a "non-combat role" is just political cover and always has been.

All we had in Vietnam were advisors for several years until they started being killed and JFK did the dreaded mission creep.

Except it was Johnson who deployed the first combat troops in Vietnam.

There's no diference between combat troops and non-combat troops.

But there is a difference between a combat role and a non-combat role. Perhaps that is why the announcement was written to say this:

""additional U.S. military personnel in a non-combat role to train, advise, and assist Iraqi Security Forces, including Kurdish forces" against ISIS."

The Kurds and Iraqis are in the combat role.

Yeah, here's the "training and advice:"

Got out on patrol with a unit, kill a few from the other side then say, "that's how you do it." These advisers are fighting alongside the ISF and Kurds and in many cases are directing their actions. Calling it a "non-combat role" is just political cover and always has been.

All we had in Vietnam were advisors for several years until they started being killed and JFK did the dreaded mission creep.

Except it was Johnson who deployed the first combat troops in Vietnam.

There were 746 US military advisers in Vietnam in January,1962. By the end of December, JFK increased that number to over 11,000 and that included 29 US Army Special Forces Detachments. Special Forces troops are by definition, combat troops. The line between a regular Army adviser and a combat troop is murky at best. Unless you think the 11,000 advisers were all clerk typist and supply sergeants, there were combat troops there and they did suffer casualties.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

President Bush Meets With Al-Maliki, Promises U.S. Won't Leave Before Iraq Is Ready. 9:10 PM, Nov 30, 2006

Bush: "It's going to -- the presence of the United States will be in Iraq so long as the government asks us to be in Iraq. This is a sovereign government."

President Bush Meets With Al-Maliki Promises U.S. Won t Leave Before Iraq Is Ready ksdk.com


Bush understood the reality about Iraq's sovereignty way back in 2006. Bush knew our troops were there only if Iraq requested the presence.
Rightwingers now want us to believe that the US can tell them that their laws courts and constitution are subordinate to the needs of the US military.

 

[Antares]

The neo-con far right continue their bottom feeding behavior. Bush's invasion destabilized a precarious balance in the ME. There is no denying and no revisionism can change that. Petraeus says there is no way to tell if the withdrawal from Iraq caused the situation we are in now.

......and now your Boi Obama is going to remove Assad

 

[JakeStarkey]

That bothers me, Antares.

Let's declare victory, bring the troops home, let them settle it out amongst themselves, and we continue to build energy independence.

 

[Antares]

That bothers me, Antares.

Let's declare victory, bring the troops home, let them settle it out amongst themselves, and we continue to build energy independence.

Fair enough.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Pezz 10158812

That's just a cute way of saying "we won't fire first"

Its way beyond who fires first. Daesh fired first and the US military has been firing back for weeks now killing many of the uncivilized bastards. Do you want the Iraqis to shoot and be shot at in defense of their own lives and property and nation? What is your desire for Obama to do?

 

[JakeStarkey]

To bring the troops home, now.

 

[MaryL]

Are you kidding me? Please. the author of affordable health care cost me my job and my doctor, the guy that said marriage was about a man and a woman, ( now supports gay marriage) is now waffling on boots in the ground in Iraq after he committed to pulling out troops? Liberals, get your bloody freeking heads out of your asses. You voted for this man. Obama isn't an American, he doesn't understand America. We Need to send in troops, unfortunately, airstrikes didn't work in Vietnam and it won't alone in Siria/Iraq, either. A genuine commitment and an effort to END the ENEMY on any level, not just political or superficial. Real. Obama doesn't know REAL from a hole in the ground.

 

[JakeStarkey]

maryl, you are a neo-con, a subversive from the military right trying to impose an antiAmerican system on us.

I have no interest in what you think other than making sure our troops get home and our money of the taxpayer is spent on American needs.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Calling it a "non-combat role" is just political cover and always has been.

How can that particular 'call' establish political cover for President Obama? What constituency would possibly be politically appeased or neutralized appeased by calling it a non-combat role?

Is JakeStarkey part of a targeted voter bloc who is politically satisfied when they hear that the advisers in Iraq are there In a non-combat role?


JS 10162814

Let's declare victory, bring the troops home, let them settle it out amongst themselves, and we continue to build energy independence.

 

[JakeStarkey]

JakeStarkey is a veteran who fully understands what the terms mean and notfooledby others who do not get it.

maryl, I do not think you are a subversive (I just wanted to see what it was like to rant and rave like the reactionary far right) but I do think you are wrong about continuing on in Iraq.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

MryL 10163185

airstrikes didn't work in Vietnam

.

Iraq is not at all similar to Vietnam. But Americans dying on the front lines for South Vietnam's freedom did not work either. And Obama has maintained from the start that airstrikes alone won't defeat the IS terrorists. But you seem to favor Americans fighting on the front lines in Iraq and Syria. Is that what you want?

 

[Ellipsis]

What is your desire for Obama to do?

I want Obama to kill himself. If he takes any action other than suicide then I disapprove.

 

[Ellipsis]

To bring the troops home, now.

What? Are you crazy? I'm setting myself up for a transfer to a unit which was just sourced for deployment to Seria...last time I deploied my net pay came out to $267 per day, tax free....no way I'm turning down a pile of cash like that. I could have my student loans paid off!

 

[NotfooledbyW]

It's called mission creep.

Is it wrong in your opinion to send more U.S. military personnel to serve “in a noncombat role to train, advise and assist Iraqi security forces, including Kurdish forces,”? Are you for or against the US military mission to assist the newly formed Iraq government defeat the IS terrorists in Iraq right now?

Are you for or against what you call mission creep?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

NF 10163094

Do you want the Iraqis to shoot and be shot at in defense of their own lives and property and nation? What is your desire for Obama to do?

Pezz 10163578 in response to NF 10163094

I want Obama to kill himself. If he takes any action other than suicide then I disapprove.

Here Pezz states that he disapproves of President Obama's actions that would send more U.S. military personnel to serve in a noncombat role to train, advise and assist Iraqi security forces, including Kurdish forces to kill , destroy and defeat IS terrorist that have committed atrocities and genocide against Sunni, Shiite, Yazidi, Kurd and Christian Iraqis as well as video-taped beheadings of European and American citizens that were kidnapped in Syria for ransom.

And both Pezz, we now know, and Daesh, we may presume, would like to see the current US president die in office rather than see him assist Iraqis in actions to destroy Daesh. Hopefully Pezz is the only American that has common cause with Daesh in the most disgusting way.