US forces still in fight at end of combat mission

[Cancel 2018. 3]

US forces still in fight at end of combat mission

US forces still in fight at end of combat mission

HAWIJA, Iraq – Even as President Barack Obama was announcing the end of combat in Iraq, American soldiers were sealing off a northern village early Wednesday as their Iraqi partners raided houses and arrested dozens of suspected insurgents.

US forces still in fight at end of combat mission - Yahoo! News

its not combat, its fighting, they are not combat troops, they are fighting troops

 

[DamnYankee]

The Obama lied, soldiers died!

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

The Obama lied, soldiers died!

The remaining U.S. forces in Iraq would be "as combat ready, if need be, as any in our military," Biden said, flanked by Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen for the 75-minute ceremony, which also changed the U.S. mission's name from "Operation Iraqi Freedom" to "Operation New Dawn."

Three years ago, about 170,000 U.S. troops were in Iraq. Of those who remain, fewer than 10 percent — or 4,500 — are special forces who will regularly go on raids and capture terrorists, albeit alongside Iraqi troops.

 

[Don Quixote]

The Obama lied, soldiers died!

yes, and bush/cheney got us there and over 4 thousand died - for not good reason

 

[Good Luck]

The first of what will be many indications what I anticipate will come true: the only thing to actually change is the number of soldiers stationed there, and what we label them. it was 170,000+ combat troops. Now its 50,000+ "military advisers" doing the same things the "combat troops" did in the same way under the same circumstances.

But to the brain dead, labels are everything. Combat is over. It's just the shooting and dying that will continue. (and if previous experience is consistent, will accelerate until it is out of control - again.)

 

[DamnYankee]

yes, and bush/cheney got us there and over 4 thousand died - for not good reason

Just saving your granola munchin', Subaru driving', Birkenstock wearin' liberal fat ass from terrorists.

 

[apple0154]

The first of what will be many indications what I anticipate will come true: the only thing to actually change is the number of soldiers stationed there, and what we label them. it was 170,000+ combat troops. Now its 50,000+ "military advisers" doing the same things the "combat troops" did in the same way under the same circumstances.

But to the brain dead, labels are everything. Combat is over. It's just the shooting and dying that will continue. (and if previous experience is consistent, will accelerate until it is out of control - again.)

The whole point is to reduce the numbers. The difference between 170,000 troops and 50,000 troops is there are 120,000 fewer lives on the line and that's a good thing regardless of how anyone wants to spin it.

 

[DamnYankee]

The whole point is to reduce the numbers. The difference between 170,000 troops and 50,000 troops is there are 120,000 fewer lives on the line and that's a good thing regardless of how anyone wants to spin it.

Your logic is flawed, proven by the success of The Surge.

 

[Jarod]

I thought the surge was successfull, why are we still dying in Iraq so many years later?

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

I thought the surge was successfull, why are we still dying in Iraq so many years later?

the above is probably why you get neg repped

 

[Jarod]

the above is probably why you get neg repped

Dixie makes much much more idiotic and inflamatory statements all the time, ALL THE TIME...

Its about my ideology, not the intelegence of what I say.

 

[cawacko]

I thought the surge was successfull, why are we still dying in Iraq so many years later?

do you really enjoy flaming that much?

 

[DamnYankee]

I thought the surge was successfull, why are we still dying in Iraq so many years later?

Its about my ideology, not the intelegence of what I say.

No its all about this. Only a total idiot would put together a sentence like that.

 

[Chapdog]

The first of what will be many indications what I anticipate will come true: the only thing to actually change is the number of soldiers stationed there, and what we label them. it was 170,000+ combat troops. Now its 50,000+ "military advisers" doing the same things the "combat troops" did in the same way under the same circumstances.

But to the brain dead, labels are everything. Combat is over. It's just the shooting and dying that will continue. (and if previous experience is consistent, will accelerate until it is out of control - again.)

we will be in iraq for a very long time. Why would we after trillions spend and thousands dead walk away and let some other world power step in to be favorites for the oil?

 

[Jarod]

No its all about this. Only a total idiot would put together a sentence like that.

I call bullshit.

 

[DamnYankee]

I call bullshit.

You already wrote bullshit; too late to call it.

 

[Good Luck]

The whole point is to reduce the numbers. The difference between 170,000 troops and 50,000 troops is there are 120,000 fewer lives on the line and that's a good thing regardless of how anyone wants to spin it.

LOL Look whose doing the spinning. Getting dizzy? Or is dizzy your normal state of being?

The fact is Obama left 50,000 troops to do the job of 170,000. If you think putting the people you leave behind in MORE danger is a "good" thing, then you are beyond contempt. The claim of "combat operations are over" is proven a fucking lie by the referenced article. (which is the point of this thread.) And you want to call it "spin"? Pull your head out of the donkey's ass for ONCE in your miserable god forsaken mindless life.

 

[Good Luck]

we will be in iraq for a very long time. Why would we after trillions spend and thousands dead walk away and let some other world power step in to be favorites for the oil?

If we are going to stay, then quit the fucking LYING and admit we are going to stay. It will take continued COMBAT OPERATIONS, just like the one in the referenced article, if we are going to stay. I do not approve of staying, but if we are going to do so, say so and fucking do it right. Leaving 50,000 behind to do the job of 170,000 is putting that 50,000 at greater risk, for the sake of political points.

Fuck that. IF combat operations are "over" then fucking quit sending our troops out on combat operations. IF "advisers" is all we need in place, then cut it down to an MI contingent and a few combat officers to help with the S3 planning. (about 250-300 could do any "advising").

OTOH, if combat operations are NOT over, the WH needs to quit the fucking lying, his supporters need to quit supporting the fucking lies, and admit to what is actually going on.

 

[cawacko]

LOL Look whose doing the spinning. Getting dizzy? Or is dizzy your normal state of being?

The fact is Obama left 50,000 troops to do the job of 170,000. If you think putting the people you leave behind in MORE danger is a "good" thing, then you are beyond contempt. The claim of "combat operations are over" is proven a fucking lie by the referenced article. (which is the point of this thread.) And you want to call it "spin"? Pull your head out of the donkey's ass for ONCE in your miserable god forsaken mindless life.

You have to cut him some slack, he's Canadian. I was going to say by numbers alone yes there are 120,000 less troops to be possibly killed. Of course as you say there could still more troop deaths with the 50k troops rather than the 170k. In a worse case senario if the 50k lose control of the country and we have to send more troops back in then the reduction doesn't do well.

 

[apple0154]

LOL Look whose doing the spinning. Getting dizzy? Or is dizzy your normal state of being?

The fact is Obama left 50,000 troops to do the job of 170,000. If you think putting the people you leave behind in MORE danger is a "good" thing, then you are beyond contempt. The claim of "combat operations are over" is proven a fucking lie by the referenced article. (which is the point of this thread.) And you want to call it "spin"? Pull your head out of the donkey's ass for ONCE in your miserable god forsaken mindless life.

Try using the brains the good Lord gave you. As Chapdog wrote in msg. 14, "Why would we after trillions spend and thousands dead walk away and let some other world power step in to be favorites for the oil?"

Time for a little schoolin', Good Luck. First of all, Iraq is all about the oil. It's always been about the oil. It was never about WMD and it's not about women wearing burkas or little girls not going to school although those things are more inclined to get the general population behind war rather than saying we're going to invade a country, kill the people and take their oil.

When it comes to Iraqi Freedom the burka wearing women and the little girls should be glad they are not in Somalia or Ethiopia getting gang raped or having their breasts cut off so they can't feed their babies. Now there would be a good reason to go to war but, alas, there's very few oil fields there.

Now, one could say Obama is not being a humanitarian by easing off the mission of cultural change while others can say Obama is right not to send young Americans to their death so 'Aasera' can shop J.C. Penny and little 'Sabeen' can attend school.

The truth is the oil is the priority and the troop level is proportional to what it takes to keep it flowing. The burka, schooling, the poppy fields.....well, they'll have to wait.

Got it?