Obama Stands Firm: U.S. Will Not Fight Another Ground War in Iraq

[mystery-ak]

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/isis-terror/obama-stands-firm-u-s-will-not-fight-another-ground-n205321

Obama Stands Firm: U.S. Will Not Fight Another Ground War in Iraq
The U.S. will not send armed forces to fight a ground war in Iraq, President Barack Obama reiterated Wednesday, a day after his top military adviser said he could envision recommending that the president deploy ground troops there.

"It is more effective to use our unique capabilities in support of our partners on the ground," Obama told service members at U.S. Central Command in Tampa, Florida. "That is the only solution that will succeed in the long run."

Gen. Martin Dempsey told the Senate Armed Services Committee on Tuesday that if airstrikes did not end up being effective enough against Islamic extremist group ISIS, he would recommend putting troops in Iraq. Obama has said previously that he would not send in U.S. combat forces.

On Wednesday, Obama said leading a broad coalition of countries united against ISIS and supporting Iraqi troops on the ground is the best route to "degrade and ultimately destroy" the extremists.

"These terrorists will learn the same thing leaders of al Qaeda already know: We mean what we say. Our reach is long. If you threaten America, you will find no save haven. We will find you eventually," he said, adding that U.S. troops have conducted more than 160 airstrikes against them so far.

[musiclady]

He'll just keep deploying more and more troops and claiming there aren't any "boots" on the ground.

[GourmetDan]

We'll do it Clintoon-style and lob cruise missiles at aspirin factories...

[rangerrebew]

Whether we have boots on the ground or not depends on your definition of "firm."

[240B]

When an enemy is attacking you, you cannot simply declare peace and pull out. That is what everyone in the world, except Obama, calls surrender. Surrender is not peace, surrender is the act of surrendering, which means you lose.
 
Obama simply cannot accept responsibility for anything. He cannot bring himself to ever admit he is ever wrong about anything. That is a simple mind, and is not overpowering intelligence as the Liberals claim it is.

[Dexter]

He cannot bring himself to ever admit he is ever wrong about anything.

Most people can't do that.

[musiclady]

Most people can't do that.

Poppycock!

Grown-ups do it all the time.

Obama just isn't one.

[SPQR]

RIGHT! There are "advisors" there already. That is another word for troops.In Vietnam we sent "advisors' that eventually escalated to having boots to the ground. Its a slippery slope or mission creep. Mission creep is the expansion of a project or mission beyond its original goals, often after initial successes.Secondly, the House by allowing to vote by sending arms to the Syrian Rebellion has touched off an arms race with Russia, China,North Korea and Iran which will provide more men and equipment to Assad. I would suggest let the Saudis and the other Gulf members take care of the Syrian resistance movement and ISIS if they have the chance. The Saudis have the latest equipment and gladly wipe off the Syrian resistance off the map.ISIS is the biggest threat than the Syrian resistance.

[240B]

Kelly is all over it tonight. It is just another broken promise from Obama. Now, what he seems to be saying is that yes, there will be troops there, but, but, but, they will not be conducting forward combat missions (ergo, not combat troops).
 
So, the troops will be there to support Iraq but it will not be a war. Obama just wants to play word games to try to make himself look like he drew another 'red line', or another one of his famous "Period!" promises and now he is backing out of it.
 
The guy is a master of lies and double talk.

[SPQR]

RIGHT! There are "advisors" there already. That is another word for troops.In Vietnam we sent "advisors' that eventually escalated to having boots to the ground. Its a slippery slope or mission creep. Mission creep is the expansion of a project or mission beyond its original goals, often after initial successes.Secondly, the House by allowing to vote by sending arms to the Syrian Rebellion has touched off an arms race with Russia, China,North Korea and Iran which will provide more men and equipment to Assad. I would suggest let the Saudis and the other Gulf members take care of the Syrian resistance movement and ISIS if they have the chance. The Saudis have the latest equipment and gladly wipe off the Syrian resistance off the map.ISIS is the biggest threat than the Syrian resistance.

Mission Creep a short story

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/barack-obama-war-syria-96308.html

I would like to remind everyone that we "vetted" Afganistan soldiers and they ended up shooting American soldiers in the back.

[Fishrrman]

From the article:
[[ Obama Stands Firm: U.S. Will Not Fight Another Ground War in Iraq
The U.S. will not send armed forces to fight a ground war in Iraq, President Barack Obama reiterated Wednesday, a day after his top military adviser said he could envision recommending that the president deploy ground troops there. ]]

Let me preface my remarks by stating unequivocally that I detest Obama and his politics.
Having said that, he's right about this.

If we go back to Iraq, what outcome can we cause that will be different from the one that resulted last time? How can we hope to produce results that will be different this time around? How many more men are we willing to sacrifice? How many more billions (or trillions?) are we going to toss down that drain? And then we'll have to go back and do it all over again a THIRD time, and a FOURTH time….

We can go back, get rid of isis and then --- once we're gone, it will be some new organizations of jihadis NEXT time. Are we going to resupply a new "Iraqi security force", only to watch them drop their rifles and disappear when confronted by the next group of islamic radicals?

What's that old definition of "insanity"?
About how you keep doing the same thing over and over again, but expect different results?

Addendum:
You're going to reply, "but we HAVE to do SOMETHING..."
And you're right.
I have an idea about what should be done with Iraq.
....and with every other islamic nation on earth.
But... you don't want to hear about it...
(And I don't mean "nuke them off the face of the earth"... either...)

[SPQR]

From the article:
[[ Obama Stands Firm: U.S. Will Not Fight Another Ground War in Iraq
The U.S. will not send armed forces to fight a ground war in Iraq, President Barack Obama reiterated Wednesday, a day after his top military adviser said he could envision recommending that the president deploy ground troops there. ]]

Let me preface my remarks by stating unequivocally that I detest Obama and his politics.
Having said that, he's right about this.

If we go back to Iraq, what outcome can we cause that will be different from the one that resulted last time? How can we hope to produce results that will be different this time around? How many more men are we willing to sacrifice? How many more billions (or trillions?) are we going to toss down that drain? And then we'll have to go back and do it all over again a THIRD time, and a FOURTH time….

We can go back, get rid of isis and then --- once we're gone, it will be some new organizations of jihadis NEXT time. Are we going to resupply a new "Iraqi security force", only to watch them drop their rifles and disappear when confronted by the next group of islamic radicals?

What's that old definition of "insanity"?
About how you keep doing the same thing over and over again, but expect different results?

This President has had abysmal Foreign policy. He has managed to tick off everyone in the world.And you trust him and John Kerry on this? Jimmy Carter had a better foreign policy than this President.

[Fishrrman]

Trigger wrote above:
[[ And you trust him and John Kerry on this? Jimmy Carter had a better foreign policy than this President…]]

No, of course I don't trust Obama.

But having said that, I don't trust ANY OTHER current American politician on this either.
I don't trust any democrats (of course), but…
I don't trust any Republicans, either.

When the first American politician steps forward to truly state who (and what) "the enemy" is in this struggle, perhaps then I will trust and support him.

But as of yet, no one has stepped up to the plate on this one.
NO ONE...

[SPQR]

Trigger wrote above:
[[ And you trust him and John Kerry on this? Jimmy Carter had a better foreign policy than this President…]]

No, of course I don't trust Obama.

But having said that, I don't trust ANY OTHER current American politician on this either.
I don't trust any democrats (of course), but…
I don't trust any Republicans, either.

When the first American politician steps forward to truly state who (and what) "the enemy" is in this struggle, perhaps then I will trust and support him.

But as of yet, no one has stepped up to the plate on this one.
NO ONE...

That's the answer I wanted to hear

[Bigun]

Poppycock!

Grown-ups do it all the time.

Obama just isn't one.

 :thumbsup2: :thumbsup2: :thumbsup2:

[SPQR]

Pinprick operations wont cut it . We must use every resource at our disposal. But it will have to include other nations in region like Saudi Arabia. Because ISIS is probably their next target on the list.

[Bigun]

Pinprick operations wont cut it . We must use every resource at our disposal. But it will have to include other nations in region like Saudi Arabia. Because ISIS is probably their next target on the list.

Treating symptoms and curing the disease are two decidedly different things! Until we are ready to acknowledge and deal with the fact that IRAN is the disease we are only treating symptoms!

[musiclady]

Treating symptoms and curing the disease are two decidedly different things! Until we are ready to acknowledge and deal with the fact that IRAN is the disease we are only treating symptoms!

But according to the Obama administration, Iran will be our ally....... 

[SPQR]

Treating symptoms and curing the disease are two decidedly different things! Until we are ready to acknowledge and deal with the fact that IRAN is the disease we are only treating symptoms!

Iran is the problem, but ISIS is a bigger problem right now. The Israelis can deal the Iranian government. They have been doing a good job assassinating their top scientists and fly drones on a regular basis. There is a great book called Israel vs. Iran. It could be found on Amazon.com and Amazon Kindle.