would the U.S be better able to respond to the situation in Syria...

Would the U.S. be better able to respond to the situation in Syria if we still had some troops in Iraq? I've kind of thought about this since the early days of the Syrian Civil War, that if the U.S. had kept some troops in Iraq we could use those troops to patrol the Iraqi-Syrian border and have more leverage with the Iraqi government and we could intercept the tranfer of Iranian weapons to Syria.

Yesterday on Fox News, Lt. Col. Allen West (who himself commanded a brigade in Iraq) also made this same point, that the U.S. should've kept a residual force in Iraq and that with that force we could intercept some of the Iranian weapons that are going to Assad through Iraq.

Would the U.S. be better able to respond to the situation in Syria if we still had some troops in Iraq? I've kind of thought about this since the early days of the Syrian Civil War, that if the U.S. had kept some troops in Iraq we could use those troops to patrol the Iraqi-Syrian border and have more leverage with the Iraqi government and we could intercept the tranfer of Iranian weapons to Syria.

Yesterday on Fox News, Lt. Col. Allen West (who himself commanded a brigade in Iraq) also made this same point, that the U.S. should've kept a residual force in Iraq and that with that force we could intercept some of the Iranian weapons that are going to Assad through Iraq.

whipassmt

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

Would the U.S. be better able to respond to the situation in Syria if we still had some troops in Iraq? I've kind of thought about this since the early days of the Syrian Civil War, that if the U.S. had kept some troops in Iraq we could use those troops to patrol the Iraqi-Syrian border and have more leverage with the Iraqi government and we could intercept the tranfer of Iranian weapons to Syria.

Yesterday on Fox News, Lt. Col. Allen West (who himself commanded a brigade in Iraq) also made this same point, that the U.S. should've kept a residual force in Iraq and that with that force we could intercept some of the Iranian weapons that are going to Assad through Iraq.

Master_Live

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

Would the U.S. be better able to respond to the situation in Syria if we still had some troops in Iraq? I've kind of thought about this since the early days of the Syrian Civil War, that if the U.S. had kept some troops in Iraq we could use those troops to patrol the Iraqi-Syrian border and have more leverage with the Iraqi government and we could intercept the tranfer of Iranian weapons to Syria.

Yesterday on Fox News, Lt. Col. Allen West (who himself commanded a brigade in Iraq) also made this same point, that the U.S. should've kept a residual force in Iraq and that with that force we could intercept some of the Iranian weapons that are going to Assad through Iraq.

Master_Live

[QUOTE="Master_Live"][QUOTE="whipassmt"]

Would the U.S. be better able to respond to the situation in Syria if we still had some troops in Iraq? I've kind of thought about this since the early days of the Syrian Civil War, that if the U.S. had kept some troops in Iraq we could use those troops to patrol the Iraqi-Syrian border and have more leverage with the Iraqi government and we could intercept the tranfer of Iranian weapons to Syria.

Yesterday on Fox News, Lt. Col. Allen West (who himself commanded a brigade in Iraq) also made this same point, that the U.S. should've kept a residual force in Iraq and that with that force we could intercept some of the Iranian weapons that are going to Assad through Iraq.

LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="Master_Live"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]We didn't want to stay either.....LJS9502_basic

I'm not sure you need troops for war anymore. Last I heard it's just like playstation thanks to the drones.

we'd be better able to respond to the situation in Syria if we weren't arming the rebels, they're radical jihadists set to destabilize the region if they overthrow the secular government that protects religious minorities and prohibits religious parties in government, if you think the 100,000+ dead so far is a lot then it's going to be a hell of a lot more in the ensuing power vacuum, and what will emerge is a theocratic Islamic republic who won't be concerned about rebuilding the country, employing people with jobs, providing food and educational resources, instead we'll get the leadership of warlords whose only governing goal will be some "destroy Israel" saber rattlinglamprey263

[QUOTE="lamprey263"]we'd be better able to respond to the situation in Syria if we weren't arming the rebels, they're radical jihadists set to destabilize the region if they overthrow the secular government that protects religious minorities and prohibits religious parties in government, if you think the 100,000+ dead so far is a lot then it's going to be a hell of a lot more in the ensuing power vacuum, and what will emerge is a theocratic Islamic republic who won't be concerned about rebuilding the country, employing people with jobs, providing food and educational resources, instead we'll get the leadership of warlords whose only governing goal will be some "destroy Israel" saber rattlingTruthTellers

^^^^The Obama Administration is imploding and if they lose this vote it will be catastrophic for them. Master_Live

I'm not sure you need troops for war anymore. Last I heard it's just like playstation thanks to the drones.

KingKinect

why do we need troops? we're just going to bomb the shit out of them.

If Alan West says it, it has to be true.

If Alan West says it, it has to be true.

jimkabrhel

what about Adam West?

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Master_Live"] Iraq didn't want a residual US troop presence. Master_Live

Nah, both us and the Iraqis (government anyways) wanted forces to remain, we just couldn't agree to the status of forces agreement that would put our troops under the jurisdiction of Iraqi courts for criminal trials.

Right now the administration is more concerned with how we are viewed by the world rather than doing the right thing which is what we the people decide. The Middle East will always be a hot bed when you have power hungry voodoo followers hell bent on domination and there is nothing we can do to stop such thinking.

Our government likes to give the impression as being morally pure and able to act like the moral authority of the globe but the past atrocities of our government suggest otherwise.

Mr. Obama is in over his head and being a narcissist will not admit he is in the wrong. You hear him passing the blame on the so-called red line. He is in for a rude awakening if Russia decides to play hardball and god help him if China screws with us monetarily.

You should have never invaded Iraq in the first place.

[QUOTE="TruthTellers"] Maybe for the approval ratings, but not their foreign policy. The Obama Administration is going to attack Syria whether it gets a yea or nay and in doing so will set a dangerous precedent of rouge administrations acting on their own without the Consent of the Governed and if both houses of Congress do vote for authorization, that will also set another precedent that whenever chemical weapons are used on innocent civilians, the US will use its military in retaliation. Let's hope Russia or China don't do anything silly in the future.Solaryellow

Right now the administration is more concerned with how we are viewed by the world rather than doing the right thing which is what we the people decide. The Middle East will always be a hot bed when you have power hungry voodoo followers hell bent on domination and there is nothing we can do to stop such thinking.

Our government likes to give the impression as being morally pure and able to act like the moral authority of the globe but the past atrocities of our government suggest otherwise.

Mr. Obama is in over his head and being a narcissist will not admit he is in the wrong. You hear him passing the blame on the so-called red line. He is in for a rude awakening if Russia decides to play hardball and god help him if China screws with us monetarily.

Holy crap....... I'll agree your government is'nt doing "the right thing", but international relations certainly is'nt a point of focus either...

[QUOTE="Master_Live"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]We didn't want to stay either.....Squeets

Nah, both us and the Iraqis (government anyways) wanted forces to remain, we just couldn't agree to the status of forces agreement that would put our troops under the jurisdiction of Iraqi courts for criminal trials.

Holy crap....... I'll agree your government is'nt doing "the right thing", but international relations certainly is'nt a point of focus either...

MlauTheDaft

[QUOTE="MlauTheDaft"]

Holy crap....... I'll agree your government is'nt doing "the right thing", but international relations certainly is'nt a point of focus either...

Solaryellow

We already think that your country will do whatever it pleases. Personally, I'm downright afraid of the US. 

Edit:

This post might just have litterally tagged me as a potential threat.

we should have troops in every country around the world. just in case.comp_atkins

^^^^The Obama Administration is imploding and if they lose this vote it will be catastrophic for them. Master_Live

America is imploding, it doesn't matter what your so called "Prez" does.  This is only one of many things to happen during the downfall of the U.S.  If the "Prez" is the leader of the free world  I ask one question.  "Why Y'all act like sheep?"

we'd be better able to respond to the situation in Syria if we weren't arming the rebels, they're radical jihadists set to destabilize the region if they overthrow the secular government that protects religious minorities and prohibits religious parties in government, if you think the 100,000+ dead so far is a lot then it's going to be a hell of a lot more in the ensuing power vacuum, and what will emerge is a theocratic Islamic republic who won't be concerned about rebuilding the country, employing people with jobs, providing food and educational resources, instead we'll get the leadership of warlords whose only governing goal will be some "destroy Israel" saber rattlinglamprey263

SHUT UP EVIL DICTATOR SOMETHING SOMETHING GOBAMA HES AWESUM

[QUOTE="lamprey263"]we'd be better able to respond to the situation in Syria if we weren't arming the rebels, they're radical jihadists set to destabilize the region if they overthrow the secular government that protects religious minorities and prohibits religious parties in government, if you think the 100,000+ dead so far is a lot then it's going to be a hell of a lot more in the ensuing power vacuum, and what will emerge is a theocratic Islamic republic who won't be concerned about rebuilding the country, employing people with jobs, providing food and educational resources, instead we'll get the leadership of warlords whose only governing goal will be some "destroy Israel" saber rattlingLordQuorthon

SHUT UP EVIL DICTATOR SOMETHING SOMETHING GOBAMA HES AWESUM

 LOL, he was talking about losing less Human life and moving a country forward...   Iamprey... you evil bastard you!

[QUOTE="TruthTellers"] Maybe for the approval ratings, but not their foreign policy. The Obama Administration is going to attack Syria whether it gets a yea or nay and in doing so will set a dangerous precedent of rouge administrations acting on their own without the Consent of the Governed and if both houses of Congress do vote for authorization, that will also set another precedent that whenever chemical weapons are used on innocent civilians, the US will use its military in retaliation. Let's hope Russia or China don't do anything silly in the future.Solaryellow

Right now the administration is more concerned with how we are viewed by the world rather than doing the right thing which is what we the people decide. The Middle East will always be a hot bed when you have power hungry voodoo followers hell bent on domination and there is nothing we can do to stop such thinking.

Our government likes to give the impression as being morally pure and able to act like the moral authority of the globe but the past atrocities of our government suggest otherwise.

Mr. Obama is in over his head and being a narcissist will not admit he is in the wrong. You hear him passing the blame on the so-called red line. He is in for a rude awakening if Russia decides to play hardball and god help him if China screws with us monetarily.

That being said I don't think what "we the people" decide is always the right thing, in some cases the government may be better off acting against popular opinion.