BREAKING NEWS: 275 U.S. Miltary Personnel Heading to Iraq

Wow. Good thing it isn't like ten thousand troops or something. People would be pissed.

Also was information about other possible U.S. intervention. President Obama also said that the U.S. is prepared to use "targeted" and "precise" military action in Iraq if necessary. I am sure many know what that could mean.

Doing so could result in being the reason why Iraq forces win. Ideally, they will solve their own issues with minimum casualties.

Even if those variables are in the equation, he can guarantee the intent which is likely why he did.

This is not really the place to discuss that sort of thing if only because anyone could be reading it and the same can be said for his press conference.

Allow me to explain by telling you a story.

I remember during the first few years of the Iraq War last decade, a news reporter was in the Middle East with American forces. On television, he showed the world American plans for movement. He was soon taken out of that area because he was essentially giving enemy forces U.S. tactical information. Similarly, if the president or someone on the internet gave in-depth information about current plans for U.S. aid, I believe it would be counter-productive.

I would like to know how it does not.

They are special forces. Not standard soldiers.

You need not even consider such a thing of me. I am saying that they seem to both be the first one. If you cannot trust the president who talks with military leaders, that being the only thing which will be enough of a guarantee for you is apparent, though only to a certain degree because of this being a text conversation.

But seriously, I'm feeling burned out about this whole Iraq thing.

(well maybe I care a little about not caring, though)

Here we go.

We already discussed that one can guarantee intent, but not always the outcome, so repeating what you and I have said should be unnecessary. Unless you have a source providing trustworthy data that there are going to be less troops sent, they are in total two hundred and seventy five in number. I could go into more detail, but you do not seem to be interested in talking about it since you are saying the same thing, but only with a little more your reasoning elaborated. If I am wrong, I would be happy to continue.

As a matter of fact, I already did several posts ago in this conversation.

I will say it again one final time:

President Obama has told the world what the United States is going to do for Iraqi-American relations. Whether or not you trust his word or consider what he said to be sufficient is you prerogative. If you feel that my comparison to a past information leak was insufficient, I would like to know how it is not which to this point in time you been lacking an explanation of.

I'm sure the US troops are there for evacuation purposes. Nothing new there.

But, I'm more interested in some things people seem to have glossed over such as CNN reporting ISIS captured an Iraqi chemical weapons complex (as stated on the ticker at the bottom of the TV screen). I thought all such facilities have been dismantled back in the 90's and now CNN is saying otherwise.

You seem to be making a point that is both obvious and unrelated to what I have been talking about. Also, you have asked a question of the same nature. Next, often times, you have claimed illogical things are being said by other users and I when in fact they are actually rational. At this point, I am considering this another conversation with thegerg.

No one is arguing against that, yet you continue to repeat yourself for reasons I am unaware of.

I was not referring to ISIS' capability. My focus was on the U.S. troops and their strategy. You can understand that, right?

Source?

You are telling me that the following comment is unrelated to this thread:

Hmm.

@thegerg: In that case, I do not know what you are talking about therefore I am unable to give an answer. If you could be more specific, I should be able to.

@thegerg: I remain confused about what you are referring to. At no point did I respond to a post in this thread knowing it was unrelated to the U.S. troops and their strategy. If you could quote when I did that, your questioning would be understood.

---

UPDATE: First U.S. advisers to be deployed are highly trained senior special ops soldiers with experience in Iraq.

Source: Former Major General Spider Marks on CNN live television

I find what you are saying to be confusing. That was not my initial post on the matter. My initial post was the opening post of this thread.

Finally. A question that is actually about something we have been talking about has been asked. I did not say discussing the president's public claims were similar to the leak of sensitive information. Actually, I was implying that if anyone had in-depth details about the U.S.' plans then talking about them here would be counter-productive the efforts of America which is why I intended to change the course of the conversation. I wonder why you have not realized that.

Key word: in-depth

I have said it numerous times. What I said is related. Have a nice day.

Stop trolling me.

I am just focused on the matter at hand with questions that could have been asked in such a way as to keep close to that rather than being the one who is asking why giving too much information about special operation is not good for security--Whether that information be given on the internet by the users in this thread (I doubt anyone here has that), the president himself, or anyone else. Instead of asking something like that, you did that very thing which led to you asking me the right thing the wrong way. If you need me to articulate my comments more, I would be more than happy to, but when saying that I should "keep up," remember you were the one who asked me and still do have not acknowledged this basic piece of information.

What does it matter if everyone is reading it?

At this point, it really feels like you are attempting to troll me or simply do not understand my reasoning at which is okay. The latter of which is okay. No harm done.

That is the same question asked differently. If I am wrong, I welcome the constructive criticism that comes with being so.

You are arguing semantics. Will you not be satisfied until I describe every step which results in them being related to one another?

Iraq's military police force is a fucking mess, rabid drug use and sex among soldiers while guarding posts. There's zero discipline.

I doubt it'll change anytime soon, they have a long way to go unfortunately for us before they can be called autonomous.