PDA

View Full Version : U.S. to Put 'Boots on the Ground' in Iraq




twomp
01-23-2016, 04:31 PM
And so it begins.


U.S. Secretary of Defense Ash Carter admitted Friday that there will be U.S. boots on the ground in Iraq in order to help defeat the Islamic State group, which has strongholds in the north of the country and in neighboring Syria. The Pentagon chief made the admission during an appearance on CNBC’s "Squawk Box" at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, backtracking on the long-held White House line that regular U.S. troops would not be used to fight the terrorist organization, aka ISIS, in Iraq.

"We're looking for opportunities to do more, and there will be boots on the ground — I want to be clear about that — but it's a strategic question, whether you are enabling local forces to take and hold, rather than trying to substitute for them,” Carter said.

Carter and U.S. President Barack Obama have both on numerous occasions ruled out such measures in Syria and Iraq, fearing being drawn into another long and drawn-out war in the Middle East. U.S combat troops fought in Iraq for nearly nine years, while the conflict in Afghanistan continued for a little over 13. Nearly 6,700 U.S. troops died, and 53,000 were injured, in both conflicts.

Read the rest here:

http://www.ibtimes.com/amid-isis-fight-iraq-us-put-boots-ground-says-pentagon-boss-carter-2276310

Uriel999
01-23-2016, 05:35 PM
They've got a really good feeling about Round 3!

Suzanimal
01-23-2016, 05:40 PM
They've got a really good feeling about Round 3!

http://i.imgur.com/Ws2sfGk.jpg

euphemia
01-23-2016, 05:56 PM
They are already there, actually. This news is after the first new deployment.

tod evans
01-23-2016, 06:27 PM
Moar warz.......:mad:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQUXuQ6Zd9w


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjqjZsw66DE

Feeding the Abscess
01-23-2016, 06:52 PM
The time to oppose putting troops back into Iraq would have been in June of 2014, when Obama first started putting troops there to guard the embassy and combat ISIS.

Rand supported Obama's decision to do so, and tied his support to the alleged security failure of Benghazi.

If we're going to make progress in the fight against foreign intervention, we're going to need to reject the arguments for these incursions when they start, rather than supporting them.

GunnyFreedom
01-23-2016, 06:56 PM
The time to oppose putting troops back into Iraq would have been in June of 2014, when Obama first started putting troops there to guard the embassy and combat ISIS.

Rand supported Obama's decision to do so, and tied his support to the alleged security failure of Benghazi.

If we're going to make progress in the fight against foreign intervention, we're going to need to reject the arguments for these incursions when they start, rather than supporting them.

Embassy guards is not an intervention. :rolleyes:

fr33
01-23-2016, 07:04 PM
Embassy guards is not an intervention. :rolleyes:

It is when the embassy was not wanted by the locals.

GunnyFreedom
01-23-2016, 07:15 PM
It is when the embassy was not wanted by the locals.

All embassies are at the invitation of the government.

fr33
01-23-2016, 08:00 PM
All embassies are at the invitation of the government.

You realize that we are talking about Iraq, right? A government put into place by the US and the few Iraqis left alive by the US government.

"I'm going to take my boot off your throat just long enough to put these handcuffs on. Now sign this document saying you agree to these handcuffs." (basically)

loveshiscountry
01-23-2016, 08:57 PM
The time to oppose putting troops back into Iraq would have been in June of 2014, when Obama first started putting troops there to guard the embassy and combat ISIS.

Rand supported Obama's decision to do so, and tied his support to the alleged security failure of Benghazi.

If we're going to make progress in the fight against foreign intervention, we're going to need to reject the arguments for these incursions when they start, rather than supporting them.Benghazi wasn't about security failure. That was a symptom. Benghazi was about the blow back from gun running. Whichever side doesn't get the guns is going to be mad.

pcosmar
01-23-2016, 09:24 PM
Embassy guards is not an intervention. :rolleyes:

No Embassy,, no embassy guards.
Spooks and Mercs,, and unspecified details on what exactly they were doing there.

I suspect they were arming ISIS,, knowingly or otherwise. Whilst stirring other shit in the neighborhoods.

Feeding the Abscess
01-23-2016, 09:38 PM
Benghazi wasn't about security failure. That was a symptom. Benghazi was about the blow back from gun running. Whichever side doesn't get the guns is going to be mad.

I agree. The takeaway from Benghazi shouldn't have been 'where the hell were the Marines,' but 'why the hell were we there to begin with, and what the hell were these people doing?'