Featured Do you believe the US will avoid boots on the ground in Iraq?

You got overt boots and covert boots--in the Army of the Potomac, some had no boots.

Viet Nam was covert long before it was overt. We have special forces deployed in many places--like the ones who got Bin Laden.

Not sure the Sheiks and tribal warlords are ready for democracy--which is o.k.--just don't mess with the crude oil and opium derivatives supply.

Then you got holy wars and ethnic cleansing.

"Satan is alive and well on planet earth."

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

Well we have boots on the ground now and there have been hundreds of Coalition Forces personnel on the ground even since the withdrawel of the Brigade Combat Teams. I certainly would like to see a solution that keeps us from going back to Division sized forces reopening the FOBs but who knows what the situation will call for in the near or long term future.

 

I believe we already have combat troops in Iraq.

It's a lie. A useless lie.

 

This poll is worded in a confusing manner. "Yes, no..." and "No, we will...".

To the point, I have no idea, but sincerely hope not. That was not an option.

 

It is common knowledge that we have and have had hundreds of troops in Iraq since the major withdrawal. It is no big secret. It is not some nefarious lie. It should be quite obvious that when he has been asked about boots on the ground it would imply the resumption of the prolonged combat operations in the country which we have conducted the last 11 years. Saying that we have combat troops there now and acting like you just blew the lid off watergate is a bit ridiculous. I mean even back in June it was major news that that he sent additional troops to plus up the security around the embassy as a response to the IS threat. I don't remember a whole lot of criticism for that. Nobody cared becuase it was a necessary decision.

 

I didn't say it was a "nefarious" lie. That's your word.

It's a useless lie. Unnecessary. You said it yourself. It's common knowledge.

So why the lie? Because Millions of people don't know, what to us, is common knowledge.

The lie is meant for them. His sheep. People that believe every word that comes out of his lying mouth.

 

It isn't a lie though. I don't know how many people caught the mainstream and primetime newscast where he said he was going to send more troops in June but it was kind of a big story. I mean its not like he can go door to door and certify that every human being in the country knows that. It was a significant story that was pushed along every single news medium both conservative and liberal. He answered the question about "boots on the ground" in the context it was given and everyone knows that his response pertained to supplementing the airstrikes with a ground force willing to take on the IS directly. The answer was no.

Asking him a yes or no question is pointless to me anyway as I would rather him react accordingly to new information as it comes in. I would hate for him to have to worry about called a liar when faced with reexamining a course of action.

This kind of petty nitpicking serves no one.

 

Based on what?

 

We haven been hovering around 800 to date. There is probably a significant number of Humint and SF presence as well. This is common through most the worlds "hotspots."

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/30/world/meast/iraq-crisis/index.html

 

Yes. It is. You have already admitted as much.

You can try to excuse it all you like, but it's a lie. A useless lie.

 

What lie! I mean in what way could you possibly twist that statement into an attempt to deceive or misinform others. He announced quite publicly months ago that he was sending in additional troops.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/30/world/meast/iraq-crisis/index.html

 

So, he's lying now.

You have already agreed it's a lie.

You have also stated we have special ops troop in Iraq. Are they wearing s flip flops?

Now you're trying to put lipstick on the pig, but it's still a pig. It's "common knowledge" that it's a pig.

Why are you running backwards?

 

I'm not running from anything. Anyone conservative or liberal knows exactly in what context he is referring to when he answers that question. You are so wrapped up in your obssession with Obama that you are seeing conspiracies everywhere. He was very upfront about adding more troops three months ago. There was nothing to hide.

Try to follow this with me and if you can't understand this then you simply choose to post with nothing more than confirmation bias.

He sends in troops in Iraq to secure the embassy as a response to growing IS threat. I think everyone was ok with on both sides of the partison aisle.

At the beginning of an announced airstrike campaign he is asked if he plans to supplement the airstrikes with ground support. Answer is no. Translation: We are not currently planning on entering into a ground war with the IS.

These are mutually exclusive events.

How you see it as some sort of "gotcha" moment is beyond sad and petty.

 

So it's a useless lie.

 

Since we are going to quibble on the trivial. You can't call it a lie if you can't define "boots on the ground." Oh wait, he never said boots on the ground in the first place! He said the following. Show me the lie.

"We have had advisers in Iraq through our embassy and we are prepared to send a small number of additional American military advisers -- up to 300 -- to assess how we can best train, advise and support Iraqi security forces going forward," the President said.

"American forces will not be returning to combat in Iraq but we will help Iraqis as they take the fight to terrorists who threaten the Iraqi people, the region and American interests as well," he added.

- President Obama.

Pretty sure that is what we have done.

 

Oh and there is this now.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/14/world/meast/iraq-crisis/index.html?hpt=hp_bn2

This is a positive deveolpement but the huge number of displaced Yazidi refugees are going to have to find a place to assimilate.

 

If it comes from the white house , it comes from the liar-in-chief.

Air strikes are not combat?

If the troops we have on the ground are forced to defend themselves, it's not combat? How can he guarantee they won't have to defend themselves? Are you really falling for that pablum meant for the uninformed?

It's just another useless lie. You must think people are as stupid as he does.

 

Sigh. What exactly do you have a problem with here? What in the world is wrong with what we just accomplished this past week? Goodness gracious of all the hills to die on you pick this one?

 

Lies and liars.

I have no use for them. Obama is right at the top of the list.

Neither Obama nor Hagel can guarantee that if troops are in the area (boots on the ground), they won't be involved in combat. It's a stupid thing to say.
A useless lie.