Military Considering Sending Additional Troops To Iraq, Officials Say

[Purveyor]

Source: Associated Press

By LOLITA C. BALDOR and LARA JAKES
Posted: 08/20/2014 1:57 pm EDT

WASHINGTON (AP) — U.S. officials say military planners are weighing the possibility of sending more American forces to Iraq mainly to provide additional security around Baghdad.

A senior U.S. official says the number of troops currently under discussion would be fewer than 300, but there has been no final decision yet by Pentagon leaders.

The talks come as American fighter jets and drones conducted nearly a dozen airstrikes in Iraq since Tuesday when Islamic State militants threatened to kill a second American captive in retribution for any continued attacks.

A U.S. official says the strikes came in the hours after militants released a gruesome video Tuesday showing U.S. journalist James Foley being beheaded.

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/20/us-iraq-troops_n_5695491.html

[grahamhgreen]

1. LOLOL. Obama is not escalating, people here told me. Well, welcome back to the suck...

Iraq is a fools errand, designed to suck money from the American people and destabilize the world, while the war profiteers snicker, oil companies chuckle, and the children die.

Here's the solution:

Pull all the troops out now.

PROSECUTE Bush era war crimes, including the invasion, and torturers (hint - they were not patriots).

Pass laws to make war profiteering illegal, as we did in WWII.

Pass a tax on the wealthiest to pay for this mess most of them promoted.

Lead by example and moral authority, not out of fear that the Republicans might say mean things.

At least, that's how I see it.

OUT OF THE SANDBOX NOW!

[Purveyor]

6. Thanks. I self-deleted my comment.

[ballyhoo]

15. Excellent suggestions. I'm just wondering something..

we know who is funding ISIS, of which the names always heard is SA and Quatar, with Turkey sometimes thrown in for some reason unknown to me unless it's its hate for Israel. But could there be a hidden agenda? If the US enters a prolonged war with ISIS being funded by the above, it would bankrupt the US. Could this be part of an agenda by the rich to force the US to find money elsewhere (entitlements, etc) to pay for the war? Is this outlandish? Are we not only going to lose people through deaths but also be bankrupted in some kind of a devious plan devised by the neocons?

[grahamhgreen]

19. You are correct. This is exactly the plan. It's called disaster capitalism.

[candelista]

20. No. This is not so-called "disaster capitalism."

Businessmen can't invest profitably in a war zone. This is failed US imperialism. A misadventure of the 1%. Just because they're powerful doesn't mean they're smart.

[grahamhgreen]

23. Big oil and big war are making huge profits from Iraq. Baron Rothschild, an 18th century British

nobleman and member of the Rothschild banking family, is credited with saying that "The time to buy is when there's blood in the streets." He should know. Rothschild made a fortune buying in the panic that followed the Battle of Waterloo against Napoleon.

[candelista]

28. You misunderstand the point.

Rothschild's alleged comment was made after the war with Napoleon was over, not while it was going on with no end in sight. And big oil is not making profits in Iraq. Not while this crazy insurrection is going on. And there is no end in sight.

[ballyhoo]

26. Thanks. So ISIS more or less indirectly works for the Inverse Fascists

running the US into the ground. Sounds almost Hegelian.

[candelista]

21. No. This was not on the agenda.

The 1% wanted to control the resource rich Middle East and failed. That's all. Empires sometimes screw up.

[grahamhgreen]

24. Failed? Iraqi oil is now privatized... before it was owned by the Iraqi people.

[candelista]

27. Bwahahahahah!

You think those contracts with Maliki are worth a nickel now?

That really is a laugh!

[bigtree]

4. of course they are. People denied the President would do this, but here we are

... and it's just the beginning.


'Compelling Strategic Interest' in Iraq - What the hell did we think was going to happen?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025414614

[ballyhoo]

8. I knew what he would do from the beginning and

said so. It is now Obama's war.

[LloydS of New London]

5. Fuck. Fuck. Fuck. Fuck. Fuck. Fuck. Fuck.

And, if I might reiterate, Fuck.

[lark]

11. x1000,000,000,000

Meet the new boss, not nearly different enough from the old boss. Money talks and our soldiers walk.

So stupidly sucky that we voted for Obama thinking he was anti-war and now he's getting us back into this war. I just want to scream!

[Javaman]

7. the drip drip drip of faux mission creep.

Yay!!! we like our guy because he got us out of Iraq, right?

[L0oniX]

9. So the military is the decider now ...and Obama is out of the loop ...again?

[Hugabear]

10. No, no, and absolutely hell no. We should not be getting involved at all.

Responding to violence with more violence never solved anything. All we are going to do is create more people who hate us.

[Brother Buzz]

12. Can you say, "mission creep"?

We're going back in, one airplane load at a time

[OnyxCollie]

13. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

[blkmusclmachine]

14. Weren't they always going to, despite Obama's little speech???

[Skittles]

16. well isn't that special

[Purveyor]

17. You can't use that phrase without this... lol

[Skittles]

18. omg.......I'm really sick

but that made me LOL

[candelista]

22. They have to defend Baghdad.

The Obama administration has no alternative. If Baghdad falls without the US even trying to stop IS, Obama will be "the man who lost Baghdad," because he never tried to save it.

Of course this is all completely insane, but this is how these people think.

[grahamhgreen]

25. He'll be blamed no matter what he does... unless he tries new solutions, rather than failed policies

[candelista]

29. New "solutions"? Like what, for example?

Name one that would work for Obama.