• Barack Obama approves sending 1,500 more US troops to Iraq to fight Islamic State
    33 replies, posted
[QUOTE]US President Barack Obama is authorising the U.S. military to deploy up to 1,500 more troops to Iraq as part of the mission to combat the Islamic State group. Obama is also asking Congress for more than $5 billion to help fund the fight. The White House says the troops won’t serve in a combat role, but will train, advise and assist Iraqi military and Kurdish forces fighting IS. White House press secretary Josh Earnest says Obama has also authorised the additional personnel to operate at Iraqi military facilities outside Baghdad and Erbil. Until now, U.S. troops have been operating a joint operation centre setup with Iraqi forces there. The announcement is part of a $5.6 billion funding request to Congress and came just after Obama met with congressional leaders on Friday.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.news.com.au/world/barack-obama-approves-sending-1500-more-us-troops-to-iraq-to-fight-islamic-state/story-fndir2ev-1227116601771[/url]
Welp, here we go again.
If you're gonna send troops, we need to surge it. 2000 Troops ain't gonna do shit, and will just pussy foot the situation. [editline]9th November 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Da Big Man;46449940]Welp, here we go again.[/QUOTE] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSRXR9KLNK8[/media] [editline]9th November 2014[/editline] [quote]The White House says the troops won’t serve in a combat role, but will train, advise and assist Iraqi military and Kurdish forces fighting IS.[/quote] The Johnson Administration would like to remind all of us that we are only training the South Vietnamese government in an advisory role. Oh we also need more troops on the ground to protect our airbases by the way.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;46449982]If you're gonna send troops, we need to surge it. 2000 Troops ain't gonna do shit, and will just pussy foot the situation. [editline]9th November 2014[/editline] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSRXR9KLNK8[/media] [editline]9th November 2014[/editline] The Johnson Administration would like to remind all of us that we are only training the South Vietnamese government in an advisory role. Oh we also need more troops on the ground to protect our airbases by the way.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]The White House says the [b]troops won’t serve in a combat role[/b], but will train, advise and assist Iraqi military and Kurdish forces fighting IS.[/QUOTE]
When you advise and assist, you are shooting eventually.
Now I have to sit through more people being blatantly racist during commuting hours. Perfect.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;46450015]When you advise and assist, you are shooting eventually.[/QUOTE] Just like when we attacked Russia for invading Georgia, right? Pretty sure we had military advisers and troops all over the place in that one.
[QUOTE=PolarEventide;46450010][/QUOTE] Im sure 1500 is enough considering their training and equiptment, this isn't WW2. Besides, I think its a good thing the US to start supporting ground combat, its a fucked up situation over there and it does need sorting out; this isnt exactly a full blown invasion like last time.
The ride never ends.
You know what they say! [b]Third time's the charm[/b].
[QUOTE=cr2142;46450187]Im sure 1500 is enough considering their training and equiptment, this isn't WW2. Besides, I think its a good thing the US to start supporting ground combat, its a fucked up situation over there and it does need sorting out; this isnt exactly a full blown invasion like last time.[/QUOTE] 1,500 isn't a lot by today's standards too. They obviously aren't meant for combat when we brought in 10,000 troops to Iraq in 2003.
"Training and advising". Wonder where I've heard that before...
It's okay guys. They're just going to "Advise" the enemies die... by shooting bullets at them.
Once more boys, once more, goin' to sea once more.
Didn't work in 'Nam Ain't gonna work now [editline]10th November 2014[/editline] Probably won't ever work
I feel like we can easily break ISIS but we never ever ever will bring stability to that region ever.
[QUOTE=ColdWave;46450704]I feel like we can easily break ISIS but we never ever ever will bring stability to that region ever.[/QUOTE] the instability in the region has to be solved from within. foreign intervention seems to perpetually make things worse
thanks obama
[QUOTE=TheHydra;46450771]the instability in the region has to be solved from within. foreign intervention seems to perpetually make things worse[/QUOTE] Western governments are better off saying "who are we to legitimize extremists by treating them as such a serious threat?" and staying out of it. The only reason these groups have any form of longevity is because people keep getting their homes and families torn up by western countries. That makes them much more amiable toward the idea of picking up a gun and shooting people who might have had something to do with it. If they stop intervening and stop legitimizing then people stop having personal reasons to get involved so violently. That then extends back home, where hopefully the money has been spent instead of on military operations but on community ones providing support for at-risk members of the community who might be easily swayed to become home grown terrorists. Then you can say to those people "look, we have left your place of ancestery alone, we're trying to help" and that will be a lot more convincing than going "it's un-[nationality] to blow us up! Please don't mind the fact we're doing the same thing in the middle east that you want to do here!" If we're willing to accept collateral damage for invasions to stop terrorists, why do we prefer it to be [I]our[/I] people doing the damage. Work with the region peacefully, without military where possible and not at all if it's too dangerous without. Some people will die in atrocities comitted by the terrorists. But we've been trying to stop terrorists in the region for generations now. We've just made it worse, is it so hard to believe that less people might die if we stop doing this stuff? Just send aid where appropriate and safe to do so, focus on reducing the home grown terror threat, which shouldn't be too hard if you've stopped bombing the middle east.
[QUOTE=LuaChobo;46450376]the idea with fighting against ISIS is minimal western casualties, hence why its mainly airstrikes and drone attacks. the issue with wars in the general middle east is the insurgents/etc know the land SO MUCH FUCKIN BETTER than anyone else, and as much as people talk shit about ISIS they kinda know how to fuck shit up. ISIS literally screamed at the US to send troops in so they could have ground war, the US was like "fuck that, drones and airstrikes" and then ISIS bitched some more[/QUOTE]"Know the land" means nothing in this case for two reasons: a vast majority of Syria and Iraq is desert and the only places to hide are clearly marked on a map. These aren't fun dune type deserts either, they're that flat shitty kind that are all hardpack or sand-sprinkled bedrock. You're right though, fighting them with airstrikes and drone attacks is our best way, partially because... [QUOTE=gerbe1;46451019]Western governments are better off saying "who are we to legitimize extremists by treating them as such a serious threat?" and staying out of it. The only reason these groups have any form of longevity is because people keep getting their homes and families torn up by western countries. That makes them much more amiable toward the idea of picking up a gun and shooting people who might have had something to do with it. If they stop intervening and stop legitimizing then people stop having personal reasons to get involved so violently.[/QUOTE] This is very true. When some faceless red, white, and blue foreign war machine comes in and kills Muslims on their home turf it generally pisses off a lot of people, and it galvanizes some to action. Then when they get fucked up, some accidents happen, and then an insurgency is brewed up by all the hurt feelings, more innocent people die from that too. This creates a cycle of violence that would normally be halted by trade and money and people being friends and stuff, but the Middle East is a special place. I would say it's magical, but it's hot and stuff there so fuck that. Fighting the Islamic State is best done by supporting the Kurdish forces and (as reluctant as I am to say it) Assad and the Syrian rebels. I left out the Iraqi Army because it's the Iraqi Army and is actually worse than the fucking [i]Afghan National Army[/i] who are holding off increasing Taliban attacks. I can safely say I did not see this coming, I expected the ANA to crumble and the Iraqis to be worth something. That's the reason why ISIS is so goddamn cool to a lot of people right now by the way, they violently throatfucked the military that the evil Americans trained and left behind, and they were Shia Muslims too! That's like a thousand billion million cool points according to all the young men joining ISIS right now, galvanized by this cool new Baghdadi guy who's leading these black-clad holy warriors and fucking shit up. ISIS isn't so much a faction as it is the collective outlet for all the religious and political tension that has been building North Africa and the Middle East since the late 1970s. ISIS is the Anonymous of the hyper-religious but disenfranchised youth in the Muslim world, and right now they're fighting a super cool real battle! Those of you who remember Chanology can prooobably remember how exciting it was when it was fresh and new, so it's not hard to imagine what it's like for a young man seeing the propaganda aimed directly at him. Undermining such an entity would require a hell of a lot more than what's happening now though, but it absolutely does [i]not[/i] need a full-scale ground invasion. Getting castigated in public and repeated instances of humiliation or being made into fools or jokes would crush ISIS, much like it crushed Chanology and the Occupy movement and many others. Key thing to do once this is all over is to stress that we, the West, merely assisted and did not vanquish the Islamic State. That honor should go to (and it should be pressed hard in the media) to the local forces fighting for their lives and their rights, we should constantly remind the world that we're not conquerors here and we're not invading. Insurgency and fanaticism needs a bad guy, and failing to live up to the role means the "struggle" is an empty one, and this will have little to no popular support.
[QUOTE=Da Big Man;46449940]Welp, here we go again.[/QUOTE] But SH was fucking asking for boots on the ground to fight the evil ISIS. Now we don't want to go to Iraq again? Make up your bloody minds guys :v:
Five bucks it's a bunch of airforce FACs there to properly designate priority targets for CAS.
The only people that will benefit from this is private military contractors. $5 billion. As if we didn't already spend enough on our military.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;46450015]When you advise and assist, you are shooting eventually.[/QUOTE] Have to teach them which end the bullet comes out of somehow
So, let's say all foreign countries just let ISIS be. How do you guys think that'll end? Of course, having troops in the region is delicate but what else is there to do about a terror group that can quite literally expand and conquer when left uncontested? Sure, these drone strikes seem to be doing well, but is it solving the problem? That's what I'm wondering.
[QUOTE=RichyZ;46452855]it all depends on the person really i imagine britbongs will like this because they see isis being opposed, and yanks wont because its more of us dying again for no foreseeable good future (i only mention the divide between nations because it seems to be the case with these sh threads, i.e. when the bong boys came down to iraq to do whatever most of the response was "let the americans do it fuck this gay shit")[/QUOTE] "brit bongs"? I support boots on the ground but only if we are invited and it should be more community building shit than blowing people up. Otherwise you are just "mowing the grass". I think it will end up with british soldiers being sent to fight over there so I can't imagine there being much "hurrah" for this.
[QUOTE=Boaraes;46454484]So, let's say all foreign countries just let ISIS be. How do you guys think that'll end? Of course, having troops in the region is delicate but what else is there to do about a terror group that can quite literally expand and conquer when left uncontested? Sure, these drone strikes seem to be doing well, but is it solving the problem? That's what I'm wondering.[/QUOTE] Drones and airstrikes are all well and good, but they're not going to defeat ISIS. You can't hold ground with air superiority, [i]somebody[/i] has to have ground troops in an area to [i]really[/i] defend it. Unfortunately it doesn't look like the Iraqi military is ready or able to do that. Pulling all of our troops out of Iraq was a poor strategic move to begin with, the Iraqi government is still shaky and extremists aren't exactly uncommon in that region; assuming that everything would just be fine was naive at best. The US should have established a few permanent military bases in Iraq to prevent this sort of problem, but the Iraqi government refused to cooperate.
[QUOTE=cr2142;46450187]Im sure 1500 is enough considering their training and equiptment, this isn't WW2. Besides, I think its a good thing the US to start supporting ground combat, its a fucked up situation over there and it does need sorting out; this isnt exactly a full blown invasion like last time.[/QUOTE] 1962.
At this point I'm not even surprised, considering the situation in the entire area I would have expected combat troops by now.
[QUOTE=Medevila;46459093]desert, backed by finite stolen capital[/QUOTE] And Saudi oil money
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.