Read his lips or read his press release.

Obama insists: No U.S. ground combat troops in Iraq

President Obama doubled down Wednesday on an increasingly questioned pledge: There will be no U.S. ground combat troops back in Iraq.

 

"I will not commit you, and the rest of our armed forces, to fighting another ground war in Iraq," Obama told troops at the U.S. Central Command

 

 

UH OH, the JV team turned into varsity due to incompetence. Going back to Iraq, in smaller scale, but still sending troops there. Maybe he hasnt learned to say what he dont know.

Obama opens door to 'limited' ground combat operations against ISIS | Fox News

They can not afford to re-deploy. Remember, this is not about commitment, helping or not helping allies, etc. It is about a budget problem and the military is the last budget item that has something they can grab for the increases in HHS (Obamacare) and the rising interest on the debt that the Fed wants to raise rates on to increase the lining of their (international) pockets.

 

We will not engage in any action that increases the military budget. That money is being removed as fast as they can to shift into the the HHS and Treasury.

Maybe we can pass a law that requires ISIS members to comply with AHCA. That will show them.

For those in favor of troops on the ground, what would you like to see, what is your goal and what is your exit strategy?

For those in favor of troops on the ground, what would you like to see, what is your goal and what is your exit strategy?

 

I can already answer. Scrap AHCA, divert the dollars to the military. Stay there "until we get the job done", whatever that is.

I can already answer. Scrap AHCA, divert the dollars to the military. Stay there "until we get the job done", whatever that is.

 

Scrapping AHCA would be a good start...

Nothing is going to change. The press conference was a joke. If Obama was serious he wouldn't put a time frame on it and would hit

ISIS with such an overwhelming force. The threat of them hitting America is real and Obama is still standing on the side lines. We have the military force to totally eradicate them but we are currently sub-contracting the fight. His policy is leading to an attack on the homeland. He has taken us back to a pre-9/11 country.

Read his lips or read his press release.

Obama insists: No U.S. ground combat troops in Iraq

President Obama doubled down Wednesday on an increasingly questioned pledge: There will be no U.S. ground combat troops back in Iraq.

 

"I will not commit you, and the rest of our armed forces, to fighting another ground war in Iraq," Obama told troops at the U.S. Central Command

 

 

UH OH, the JV team turned into varsity due to incompetence. Going back to Iraq, in smaller scale, but still sending troops there. Maybe he hasnt learned to say what he dont know.

Obama opens door to 'limited' ground combat operations against ISIS | Fox News

 

So do we want to declare war on ISIS or not? Isn't he asking for authority to declare war on ISIS?

As usual, the OP title is misleading. As the president is looking to go to Congress to get approval, but the Republicans want to give him more power and don't think he needs to come to them. I agree, we need to do a lot more and there shouldn't be a time frame, a plan and clear objective, but no time frame. It says something when the Catholic Church, including the Pope, says that military action needs to happen to "stop" ISIS, but they don't spell out what would be right and what would be wrong.

 

BUT, the first step is getting troops over there, I am sure that after we get there that there would be more and more troops sent in, and more action taken, as well as the time frame going right out the window.

 

Obama makes formal request for war authorization against Islamic State - The Washington Post

How many "troops" ("boots on the ground") does the USA have overseas who are not members of our military services but rather are employees or subcontractors with companies which in contract with our government? During the last election cycle, I heard a number but I can't recall it now--------I do recall it being surprisingly large to me, though. at that time.

As usual, the OP title is misleading. As the president is looking to go to Congress to get approval, but the Republicans want to give him more power and don't think he needs to come to them. I agree, we need to do a lot more and there shouldn't be a time frame, a plan and clear objective, but no time frame. It says something when the Catholic Church, including the Pope, says that military action needs to happen to "stop" ISIS, but they don't spell out what would be right and what would be wrong.

 

BUT, the first step is getting troops over there, I am sure that after we get there that there would be more and more troops sent in, and more action taken, as well as the time frame going right out the window.

 

Obama makes formal request for war authorization against Islamic State - The Washington Post

 

The administration did not need approval for Libya. Well really it did, but it did not obtain or even try to.

 

Congress is only a speed bump when they want it to be when it comes to international affairs.

How many "troops" ("boots on the ground") does the USA have overseas who are not members of our military services but rather are employees or subcontractors with companies which in contract with our government? During the last election cycle, I heard a number but I can't recall it now--------I do recall it being surprisingly large to me, though. at that time.

It's growing every day. A great opportunity for a HUGE pay check, which is why some sign up as soon as they are done with their military obligations. A few days on, then a few days off, then every month you get an extended time off. Unlike the military where when you are there, you fight until your tour is over.

The administration did not need approval for Libya. Well really it did, but it did not obtain or even try to.

 

Congress is only a speed bump when they want it to be when it comes to international affairs.

 

Okay so when he goes to Congress like he is supposed to it's still a problem?

 

 

I'm so confused.

Okay so when he goes to Congress like he is supposed to it's still a problem?

 

 

I'm so confused.

 

Just looking for consistency that hopefully is based in law.

 

I have not even formed an opinion on what the right action is.

 

Libya was not costly - and it helped the 'rebels' overthrow a government threatening to go financially rogue. We just lost some advanced stingers in the process that ended up killing Americans on the battlefield in Afghanistan. And 4 others in the process of trying to fix the issue. But not costly to the government budget. So no big deal on Libya - cost wise.

 

Boots on the ground in Iraq are expensive. Much more expense than some smart bombs and CIA black ops. And the money 'saved' by getting out of Iraq is spent. Literally.

 

If we are saving up cost in the military budget for anything it will be for Ukraine or protecting Europe if they try to protect Ukraine from Russia. A-10s already on way to Germany.

 

A-10s headed back to Spangdahlem for 6-month rotation - Europe - Stripes

Okay so when he goes to Congress like he is supposed to it's still a problem?

 

 

I'm so confused.

 

Confused is the perfect word PP92. Did you see Earnest and Psaki trying to answer the reporters yesterday about the French bombing of the kosher deli? They were obviously coached to NOT say that the bombing was an attack against Jews...when it is blatantly obvious to anyone with a brain that it was. Talk about confusing...