Iraq War III Straight Ahead

[planosteve]

We’re Going Back to Iraq
– Unless Americans rise up and say "No!"

President Obama’s announcement that the US is sending 300 “advisors” back to Iraq to stave off the rising Sunni insurgency was couched in assurances that “American forces will not be returning to combat in Iraq” – but who really believes that? A proven liar – “If you like your health insurance you can keep it” – this President has absolutely no qualms about engaging in systematic deception if it serves his purposes. Indeed, his version of the numbers is in itself a blatant lie: in reality, we are sending 575 military personnel into Iraq, including the 275 marines and troops sent to guard the now-imperiled US Embassy – and that’s just what they’re announcing publicly. God knows what the real numbers are.

Furthermore, the President told us “we will be prepared to take targeted and precise military action if and when we determine that the situation on the ground requires it.” This will presumably come in the form of air strikes, but the vague wording gives Obama lots of leeway.

The President went out of his way to spin all this in a way that portrayed it as a decision to limit the use of American military force, but his bald assertion that Americans will not play a combat role is just not credible. What if the Iraqi “army” continues its dramatic collapse and the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) enters Baghdad? They’re already in the suburbs of the Iraqi capital: how long before they approach the Green Zone? The rapidity of the ISIS advance militates against making any such declarative statement.

In short, we are, for all intents and purposes, back in a combat role in Iraq – and we aren’t limiting our intervention to purely military means. As the President strongly implied in his news conference, and top administration officials have been saying over the past twenty-four hours, the US is intent on regime change in Iraq – that is, getting rid of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

Yes, we helped arm ISIS, along with our backstabbing Gulf allies – and now we’re sending troops into Iraq who will come under fire from weaponry paid for by American taxpayers. If ever there was a crisis entirely created in Washington, what is happening in Iraq today is a textbook case.

The American people said "Enough!" – "Basta!" – and it’s time for them to do so again, in no uncertain terms. We here at Antiwar.com are asking our readers and supporters to call Congress and tell them under no circumstances should we send even a single soldier to Iraq. Not one penny, not one GI! And please don’t tell me it’s useless because they won’t listen – they did last time, as politician after politician, inundated with calls from angry constituents, backed away from supporting the supposedly imminent bombing of Syria.

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2014 ... k-to-iraq/

[GFB]

What would be the reason Obama would go back to war?

[Dancer]

He won't call on troops to back to Iraq because that would screw up golf and his ultimate goal: Destroying America as we know it.

[LibraryLady]

Military advisers - Isn't that how Viet Nam began?

[GFB]

Military advisers - Isn't that how Viet Nam began?

Yes, but Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon each had a sliver of character.

None would deliberately sell their country down the river for political gain.

[planosteve]

Military advisers - Isn't that how Viet Nam began?

Yes, but Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon each had a sliver of character.

None would deliberately sell their country down the river for political gain.

How do you figure a third war in Iraq would benefit Peace Prize Man? He can't run for office again.

[GFB]

Military advisers - Isn't that how Viet Nam began?

Yes, but Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon each had a sliver of character.

None would deliberately sell their country down the river for political gain.

How do you figure a third war in Iraq would benefit Peace Prize Man? He can't run for office again.

That is what I asked you above..you're the one that said we're going.

I say no..since there is nothing in it that benefits Obama personally..and he has shown he has no interest in fighting terrorists..he can't even CALL them terrorists.

[Red Oak]

Biggest question I have is if Obama is a Sunni or a Shite ?

[planosteve]

I say no..since there is nothing in it that benefits Obama personally..and he has shown he has no interest in fighting terrorists..he can't even CALL them terrorists.

Your assuming Obama is the decider. He's no more the decider than Bush was.

[GFB]

I say no..since there is nothing in it that benefits Obama personally..and he has shown he has no interest in fighting terrorists..he can't even CALL them terrorists.

Your assuming Obama is the decider. He's no more the decider than Bush was.

I think he decides everything.

[Bob Of Burleson]

I say no..since there is nothing in it that benefits Obama personally..and he has shown he has no interest in fighting terrorists..he can't even CALL them terrorists.

Your assuming Obama is the decider. He's no more the decider than Bush was.

I think he decides everything.

Pfft.