Ready for Boots on the Ground in Iraq?

[Geaux4it]

Really? Maybe the ones who enjoy the thrill of combat but the vast majority are surely relived that we have not been feeding them to the warhawk wood chipper just so stay at home warriors like yourself can get a chubby watching war footage.

So, you're a veteran? Your inside knowledge is intriguing

-Geaux

I am but unlike many I do feel it adds anything to the discussion or makes me any more correct.

Interesting. Ok,

-Geaux

 

[tinydancer]

Iraq Policy: Washington’s Puzzle Palace Keeps Getting Curiouser

Let’s count the ways. It goes without saying that Obama is now busily bombing American military equipment. Some of that equipment is pretty high tech gear and especially lethal - not the kind that jihadists ordinarily train with in their desert lairs or mountain redoubts.

But then again, ISIS got provisioned by none other than the Iraqi Army. The latter not only dropped its uniforms for civvies during the battle for Mosul, but also left behind armored Humvees, heavy artillery, night vision systems, state of the art firearms and much else of like and similar nature.

Nor was this the first time that the Iraqi Army disarmed itself unilaterally. A while back they also surrendered their uniforms and guns when another American President - George W. Bush - bombed them.

That was called “shock and awe”. Afterwards, the remnants of the Iraqi army must have found it indeed shocking and awesome that Washington immediately pivoted - after hanging the country’s leader - and spent $25 billion re-equipping and training them in brand new uniforms and with far better weapons.

Fast-forward to 2014. The hasty hand-off of these American weapons to ISIS during its June blitzkrieg was easy enough to explain. On their way out of Baghdad, the Washington “nation builders” had equipped and trained a native army so that it could defend a “nation” which did not exist. What passed for “Iraq” was some very long, straight lines drawn on a map exactly 98 years ago by the British and French foreign offices as they carved up their winnings from the Ottoman Empire. What passed for governance within these so-called Sykes-Picot boundaries was a series of kings, generals and dictators - culminating in Saddam Hussein - who ruled from the barrel of whatever gun had been supplied by the highest bidder among the Great Powers.

Iraq Policy: Washington?s Puzzle Palace Keeps Getting Curiouser | Zero Hedge

I only partially disagree with the author of the piece you put up. Albeit, ISIS grabbed the spoils of all the equipment left behind in Iraq when the Iraqi soldiers ran for their lives.

But where did they get all their military hardware to take over one third of Syria and launch the invasion of Iraq in the first place?

I'm not finding any answers and even more bizarre I'm not finding anyone in the media asking that question.

ISIS didn't take over that much of Syria and launch an invasion into Iraq with harsh words after all.

 

[Mac1958]

.

This is what we get when when we invade, occupy and try to re-build sovereign countries, especially those that are controlled by people living under a 17th-century mentality. A big, long term mess in which we have to align ourselves with bad guys in order to go after worse guys. Then later, we'll have to deal with the bad guys we just aligned ourselves with, because THEY have become worse.

Maybe we could learn to stop trying to control the freakin' planet. It doesn't work.

.

 

[Geaux4it]

Iraq Policy: Washington’s Puzzle Palace Keeps Getting Curiouser

Let’s count the ways. It goes without saying that Obama is now busily bombing American military equipment. Some of that equipment is pretty high tech gear and especially lethal - not the kind that jihadists ordinarily train with in their desert lairs or mountain redoubts.

But then again, ISIS got provisioned by none other than the Iraqi Army. The latter not only dropped its uniforms for civvies during the battle for Mosul, but also left behind armored Humvees, heavy artillery, night vision systems, state of the art firearms and much else of like and similar nature.

Nor was this the first time that the Iraqi Army disarmed itself unilaterally. A while back they also surrendered their uniforms and guns when another American President - George W. Bush - bombed them.

That was called “shock and awe”. Afterwards, the remnants of the Iraqi army must have found it indeed shocking and awesome that Washington immediately pivoted - after hanging the country’s leader - and spent $25 billion re-equipping and training them in brand new uniforms and with far better weapons.

Fast-forward to 2014. The hasty hand-off of these American weapons to ISIS during its June blitzkrieg was easy enough to explain. On their way out of Baghdad, the Washington “nation builders” had equipped and trained a native army so that it could defend a “nation” which did not exist. What passed for “Iraq” was some very long, straight lines drawn on a map exactly 98 years ago by the British and French foreign offices as they carved up their winnings from the Ottoman Empire. What passed for governance within these so-called Sykes-Picot boundaries was a series of kings, generals and dictators - culminating in Saddam Hussein - who ruled from the barrel of whatever gun had been supplied by the highest bidder among the Great Powers.

Iraq Policy: Washington?s Puzzle Palace Keeps Getting Curiouser | Zero Hedge

I only partially disagree with the author of the piece you put up. Albeit, ISIS grabbed the spoils of all the equipment left behind in Iraq when the Iraqi soldiers ran for their lives.

But where did they get all their military hardware to take over one third of Syria and launch the invasion of Iraq in the first place?

I'm not finding any answers and even more bizarre I'm not finding anyone in the media asking that question.

ISIS didn't take over that much of Syria and launch an invasion into Iraq with harsh words after all.

Many of the militants we armed in Syria crossed into Iraq and are ISIS. That's where some of the arms came from initially

-Geaux

 

[Mad Scientist]

Make sure you Libruls get your kids to sign up for Obama's War.

You're not a Racist are you?

 

[Geaux4it]

 

[tinydancer]

Iraq Policy: Washington’s Puzzle Palace Keeps Getting Curiouser

Let’s count the ways. It goes without saying that Obama is now busily bombing American military equipment. Some of that equipment is pretty high tech gear and especially lethal - not the kind that jihadists ordinarily train with in their desert lairs or mountain redoubts.

But then again, ISIS got provisioned by none other than the Iraqi Army. The latter not only dropped its uniforms for civvies during the battle for Mosul, but also left behind armored Humvees, heavy artillery, night vision systems, state of the art firearms and much else of like and similar nature.

Nor was this the first time that the Iraqi Army disarmed itself unilaterally. A while back they also surrendered their uniforms and guns when another American President - George W. Bush - bombed them.

That was called “shock and awe”. Afterwards, the remnants of the Iraqi army must have found it indeed shocking and awesome that Washington immediately pivoted - after hanging the country’s leader - and spent $25 billion re-equipping and training them in brand new uniforms and with far better weapons.

Fast-forward to 2014. The hasty hand-off of these American weapons to ISIS during its June blitzkrieg was easy enough to explain. On their way out of Baghdad, the Washington “nation builders” had equipped and trained a native army so that it could defend a “nation” which did not exist. What passed for “Iraq” was some very long, straight lines drawn on a map exactly 98 years ago by the British and French foreign offices as they carved up their winnings from the Ottoman Empire. What passed for governance within these so-called Sykes-Picot boundaries was a series of kings, generals and dictators - culminating in Saddam Hussein - who ruled from the barrel of whatever gun had been supplied by the highest bidder among the Great Powers.

Iraq Policy: Washington?s Puzzle Palace Keeps Getting Curiouser | Zero Hedge

I only partially disagree with the author of the piece you put up. Albeit, ISIS grabbed the spoils of all the equipment left behind in Iraq when the Iraqi soldiers ran for their lives.

But where did they get all their military hardware to take over one third of Syria and launch the invasion of Iraq in the first place?

I'm not finding any answers and even more bizarre I'm not finding anyone in the media asking that question.

ISIS didn't take over that much of Syria and launch an invasion into Iraq with harsh words after all.

Many of the militants we armed in Syria crossed into Iraq and are ISIS. That's where some of the arms came from initially

-Geaux

Well we know the arms didn't come from Iran or Russia considering they are both very strong allies of Assad.

ISIS gained its power and wealth over the past year and a half in Syria. Taking over one third of the bloody country is no easy feat.

If the west truly armed "so called moderate rebels" that were only screened by Qatar and Saudi Arabia, there should be hell to pay because some how that weaponry made it into the hands of ISIS, Levant and Al Nusra.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

So ... what would you military geniuses have done?

Take your time - tell us all about what YOU would have done.

It seems to be a commonality amongst 'Obable' haters to play arm-chair QB.

Whatever he does is wrong or socialist or Kenyan or whatever.

Our next POTUS should just ask Obamy what he would do and then do opposite, like the proverbial reverse barometer.

It's what the R's do anyhow.

Oh bullshit. It's a no brainer on what he could have done. When Iraq was asking for drone strikes against ISIS he could have delivered and prevented the invasion of ISIS.

Last summer they were asking for help to contain this terror army. Obama voted present.

... And what would you have had to say about that? You would have, of course, said how proud you were that Obumbler did the right thing.




.

 

[Geaux4it]

So ... what would you military geniuses have done?

Take your time - tell us all about what YOU would have done.

It seems to be a commonality amongst 'Obable' haters to play arm-chair QB.

Whatever he does is wrong or socialist or Kenyan or whatever.

Our next POTUS should just ask Obamy what he would do and then do opposite, like the proverbial reverse barometer.

It's what the R's do anyhow.

Oh bullshit. It's a no brainer on what he could have done. When Iraq was asking for drone strikes against ISIS he could have delivered and prevented the invasion of ISIS.

Last summer they were asking for help to contain this terror army. Obama voted present.

... And what would you have had to say about that? You would have, of course, said how proud you were that Obumbler did the right thing.




.

One 'ah shit' outweighs 1000 'that a boys'

-Geaux

 

[tinydancer]

I have to say that when I read that Obama and Cameron are pissed off that Putin might be arming the pro Russian rebels in the Ukraine I want to bazooka barf at the sheer hypocrisy of these banty roosters.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Boots on the ground won't happen until after the November elections.

So its clear there are no boots on the ground right now and for four more months.

If combat boots go back in November should Congress pass an AUMF to give Obama the go ahead to send them?

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

Well, let's see. It's another lie. 134 "advisors" are currently on the ground in Iraq. Look for 500 or so more in the coming days.


Now, before you Nazi fuckers start screaming "THEY AREN'T COMBAT TROOPS!!!" They are armed an have the authority to fire at the "enemy". Here's a clue - if they are armed - they are COMBAT TROOPS.


One more lie from the Chicago thug.

Any time we send 'advisers' anywhere, they are always armed and allowed to defend themselves, but consider for a moment what you might have to say if the anointed one did NOTHING ... if he stood by while all of our sacrifice to free Iraq, unraveled?

You of course would applaud him for doing the 'right thing.'

I am the guy in favor of wiping ISIS off the face of the map. Here's the Chicago Thugs problem. He continually has stated that there will be "no boots on the ground" while he sends troops to put their "boots on the ground". Again, another bullshit lie from this clown car administration.

I would prefer that he bomb every square inch of Iraq unit the threat from ISIS is gone. He will, instead, pussy-foot around and screw this thing royally (as he has already done). News reports state that he was warned by both the CIA and the DIA a YEAR AGO about ISIS and he sat with his finger up his ass and did nothing. Now, ISIS is out of control and is twice as powerful as the entire Iraqi Army - hell, the Iraqi Army RUNS when they approach.

Barry - either shit or get the hell off the pot. Grow a pair of balls (rather than those grape nuts you have) and get the damned job done.

So, he's a girly man ... again?

I'm a tad confused, I thought that he was currently a drone firing lunatic and NO ONE was safe?

Ah, the idiot wind shifts once more.

How confounding!

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

Oh bullshit. It's a no brainer on what he could have done. When Iraq was asking for drone strikes against ISIS he could have delivered and prevented the invasion of ISIS.

Last summer they were asking for help to contain this terror army. Obama voted present.

... And what would you have had to say about that? You would have, of course, said how proud you were that Obumbler did the right thing.




.

One 'ah shit' outweighs 1000 'that a boys'

-Geaux

Not exactly.

I would say more accurately, that an ounce of effort = a pound of "look, the POTUS fucked up again!"

 

[tinydancer]

So ... what would you military geniuses have done?

Take your time - tell us all about what YOU would have done.

It seems to be a commonality amongst 'Obable' haters to play arm-chair QB.

Whatever he does is wrong or socialist or Kenyan or whatever.

Our next POTUS should just ask Obamy what he would do and then do opposite, like the proverbial reverse barometer.

It's what the R's do anyhow.

Oh bullshit. It's a no brainer on what he could have done. When Iraq was asking for drone strikes against ISIS he could have delivered and prevented the invasion of ISIS.

Last summer they were asking for help to contain this terror army. Obama voted present.

... And what would you have had to say about that? You would have, of course, said how proud you were that Obumbler did the right thing.




.

I would have been doing cyber cartwheels in my living room cheering him on.

But having followed this "Arab Spring" fairy tale since it began I knew Obama wouldn't do jack shit about ISIS and Levant.

Why? Because Obama and other western leaders have been so focused on attempting to remove Assad from power at any cost they willingly turned a blind eye to the terror groups in Syria.

Now we have a big "whoopsies" to deal with because of their short sightedness. The morons we have as leaders didn't anticipate "what could possibly go wrong".

And here we are with a massive humanitarian disaster on our hands.

 

[Geaux4it]

... And what would you have had to say about that? You would have, of course, said how proud you were that Obumbler did the right thing.




.

One 'ah shit' outweighs 1000 'that a boys'

-Geaux

Not exactly.

I would say more accurately, that an ounce of effort = a pound of "look, the POTUS fucked up again!"

Things that are routine will eventually become transparent. Unlike Obama's agenda. I'm still waiting but can't see through the stone obstacles.

-Geaux

 

[deltex1]

CNN again...Admiral Kirby just used the term "writ large". I wonder if Patton ever used that terminology.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

Oh bullshit. It's a no brainer on what he could have done. When Iraq was asking for drone strikes against ISIS he could have delivered and prevented the invasion of ISIS.

Last summer they were asking for help to contain this terror army. Obama voted present.

... And what would you have had to say about that? You would have, of course, said how proud you were that Obumbler did the right thing.




.

I would have been doing cyber cartwheels in my living room cheering him on.

But having followed this "Arab Spring" fairy tale since it began I knew Obama wouldn't do jack shit about ISIS and Levant.

Why? Because Obama and other western leaders have been so focused on attempting to remove Assad from power at any cost they willingly turned a blind eye to the terror groups in Syria.

Now we have a big "whoopsies" to deal with because of their short sightedness. The morons we have as leaders didn't anticipate "what could possibly go wrong".

And here we are with a massive humanitarian disaster on our hands.

Wrong! You would have immediately posted a thread about Obama being an out-of-control, Kenyan, Marxist, blah, blah, blah ... saying that we should have stayed out of this, etc., etc, ... .

 

[RandallFlagg]

Any time we send 'advisers' anywhere, they are always armed and allowed to defend themselves, but consider for a moment what you might have to say if the anointed one did NOTHING ... if he stood by while all of our sacrifice to free Iraq, unraveled?

You of course would applaud him for doing the 'right thing.'

I am the guy in favor of wiping ISIS off the face of the map. Here's the Chicago Thugs problem. He continually has stated that there will be "no boots on the ground" while he sends troops to put their "boots on the ground". Again, another bullshit lie from this clown car administration.

I would prefer that he bomb every square inch of Iraq unit the threat from ISIS is gone. He will, instead, pussy-foot around and screw this thing royally (as he has already done). News reports state that he was warned by both the CIA and the DIA a YEAR AGO about ISIS and he sat with his finger up his ass and did nothing. Now, ISIS is out of control and is twice as powerful as the entire Iraqi Army - hell, the Iraqi Army RUNS when they approach.

Barry - either shit or get the hell off the pot. Grow a pair of balls (rather than those grape nuts you have) and get the damned job done.

So, he's a girly man ... again?

I'm a tad confused, I thought that he was currently a drone firing lunatic and NO ONE was safe?

Ah, the idiot wind shifts once more.

How confounding!

Nope, he's been a pussy for years......what the hell is your point?

 

[NoNukes]

I am the guy in favor of wiping ISIS off the face of the map. Here's the Chicago Thugs problem. He continually has stated that there will be "no boots on the ground" while he sends troops to put their "boots on the ground". Again, another bullshit lie from this clown car administration.

I would prefer that he bomb every square inch of Iraq unit the threat from ISIS is gone. He will, instead, pussy-foot around and screw this thing royally (as he has already done). News reports state that he was warned by both the CIA and the DIA a YEAR AGO about ISIS and he sat with his finger up his ass and did nothing. Now, ISIS is out of control and is twice as powerful as the entire Iraqi Army - hell, the Iraqi Army RUNS when they approach.

Barry - either shit or get the hell off the pot. Grow a pair of balls (rather than those grape nuts you have) and get the damned job done.

So, he's a girly man ... again?

I'm a tad confused, I thought that he was currently a drone firing lunatic and NO ONE was safe?

Ah, the idiot wind shifts once more.

How confounding!

Nope, he's been a pussy for years......what the hell is your point?

His point is obvious to anyone with a lick of smarts.

 

[Sallow]

The pinch is coming for the dipstick Obama. Now that he is committed to bombing tumbleweeds and desert oasis, guess what?

What, no empty pharmacies to send T-Hawks into?


Its not working

So, the decision will have to be made at some point.

Cut and run like he did last time? Leave it to turn into a crap hole like it is today? Just another Obama Syria screw-up?

Or will he put boots on the ground to do the job?

I say he'll leave them to die and go golf

-Geaux




U.S. air strikes not "breaking the threat" of ISIL: Pentagon

U.S. air strikes not breaking the threat of ISIL: Pentagon | Video | Reuters.com




John McCain Criticizes Iraq Air Strikes As 'Ineffective'

WASHINGTON, Aug 10 (Reuters) - The United States conducted a new round of air strikes on Sunday against Islamic State militants in Iraq while congressional Republicans slammed President Barack Obama's intervention as ineffective and called for more aggressive military steps.

Republican Representative Peter King of New York criticized Obama for insisting he will not send U.S. ground troops to combat Islamic State forces in Iraq, adding that the United States has been too timid in the crisis so far.

"We should take nothing off the table. We (should) start off with massive air attacks," King, a member of the House of Representatives Homeland Security Committee, told NBC'S "Meet the Press" program.

"I think doing them from aircraft carriers is limiting them. We should use bases in the area so we can have much more sustained air attacks. We should be aggressively arming the Kurds," King added.

============================


President Obama "Phones It In" To Explain How Well Things Are Going In Iraq - Live Feed

Mass graves - transitory. Military coups - noise. ISIS direct calls for American blood - no problem. Siding with another unelected leader without being sure - new normal foreign policy. Arming kurd fighters - sure why not. Saving a few 100 Yazidi in the name of humanitarianism (oh and the oil sshh) - priceless. We hope President Obama has had a restful morning on his vacation at Martha's Vineyard as he speaks on the latest political developments in Iraq (which last week he explained were crucial if the army was ever to fight for the 'nation' ever again). Just a reminder, the call is 'audio only' - listen hard for the calls of 'fore' in the background.

President Obama "Phones It In" To Explain How Well Things Are Going In Iraq - Live Feed | Zero Hedge

So you are in agreement with John McCain and Peter King.

You support these guys..right?

Let's just be clear on that. You aren't cherry picking comments.

You support what these guys are advocating wholeheartly..right?

You think that McCain and King are correct about foreign policy.