US Needs to Send Ground Troops to Fight ISIS, NOW.

[eagle1462010]

Kill, kill, kill!!!!

While the video is amusing........That is what the military is trained to do. They are trained to kill, and do so when ordered to do so.

I know you are making fun of another poster, but at the same time the humor is short lived as most of the military are made up of men of Honor.

Just saying. Don't take it too much the wrong way.

 

[eagle1462010]

How about hold off blaming, and decimate ISIS FIRST.

The blame game doesn't matter on the battle field. The only thing that matters is the destruction of the enemy, and doing so while taking minimal casualties doing so.

 

[dilloduck]

McConnell announced:

McConnell to CNN Obama would have a lot of congressional support for action against ISIS 8211 CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

Looks like one BIG group now...................................

There was a lot for invading Iraq too.

Normally I would say don't invade or attack or occupy, as I said in 2003 when Bush craved the head of Saddam.

But what he did from 2003 to 2011 has created ISIS, and so once again we have to go in and clean up after this incredibly stupid, arrogant sewage waste of a human, George W. Bush.

ISIS has amassed a lot of money, and with that they can do what the Saudis did with OBL, and do much worse damage than a kid with a bomb in his underwear and a ticket to Detroit in his hand as was Al Queda's last ditch effort when they ran out of cash.

It ALWAYS comes down to who has the money.

How come Obama has let them acquire so much money ?

 

[deltex1]

ISIS is but a small part of the problem. A problem yet to be defined...after 30+ years...

TY Smedley...but no one is paying attention..if words were
Bullets the muzzies would have been gone in 1999

 

[Desperado]

Normally I would say don't invade or attack or occupy, as I said in 2003 when Bush craved the head of Saddam.

But what he did from 2003 to 2011 has created ISIS, and so once again we have to go in and clean up after this incredibly stupid, arrogant sewage waste of a human, George W. Bush.

ISIS has amassed a lot of money, and with that they can do what the Saudis did with OBL, and do much worse damage than a kid with a bomb in his underwear and a ticket to Detroit in his hand as was Al Queda's last ditch effort when they ran out of cash.

It ALWAYS comes down to who has the money.

Really after six years you are still blaming Bush for what is happening now in Iraq?
Honestly how long ago did you first hear about ISIS? 6 Months, a Year tops? That is all under Obama's watch,

 

[SmedlyButler]

So we're going to send our troops to kill every single terrorist in the world so they can't come here ?

[QUOTE="protectionist, You're beginning to get the idea (slowly)

[QUOTE="protectionist, As many as possible. The more of them you kill, the less harm they do. The less killing they do. The less recruiting they do. The less jihad they do.

I guess you are dumb as well as crazy. You missed the part where they've done more harm, more killing, recruited more, done more jihad since the invasion of 2003. You got kids you're willing to send to that black hole? Or you just think other people should be willing to sacrifice their's in your stupid crusade? If you're so afraid they'll come here and get you while you're sleeping in your nice comfortable bed grow a set of ball's yourself and go over there, join the Iraqi army or something. All you're willing to put on the line is your big mouth.

 

[EconChick]

Why? We will just piss them off and create little bitty ISIS's all over the world.

EARTH TO DILLODUCK: Pissing off isn't the issue. There have been jihadists for 1400 years. There likely will be them, for the next 1400 and longer. They don't go away. They're like fleas. You kill them whenever they get close enough to threaten you. When they show up again. You kill them again. It's never going to stop.

Then why in the fuck did Obama pull our troops out of Iraq ?

Hey bud, you're one of my many Libertarian friends with whom I agree on many issues, especially economic ones, but on this one, my L friends and I part ways. But at least I find I can have a rational discussion with Libertarians unlike the far left big government whackos that couldn't see logically if their lives depended on it. Given how prominent the Iraq issue has become again, there will be many threads, so let's make a pact between conservatives (you would call us neocons) and Libertarians to have a respectful back and forth, as you and I always do, and maybe we can keep this highly emotional issue from spiraling down into nothing but personal attacks like it does when childish far lefties get on a thread.

Deal?

As to your question on this post, I've addressed it with over a hundred posts over multiple threads. Obama simply did not negotiate hard enough because he is a pacifist at heart. He's as pussified as they come.

He doesn't understand that weakness invites aggression. He doesn't understand peace through strength. He doesn't understand the worst thing you can do with a bully on the playground is appease them and show you're afraid.

That is a different issue than what most Libertarians have. Libertarians are not pussies like far lefties are, IMO, they're just tired of not seeing the job get done correctly and are tired of seeing how many innocents have to die during half assed measures, so prefer doing nothing than to doing it half assed.

And my perception is that when asked what came first, the chicken or egg, tend to choose the opposite of a conservative. So the disagreement is over analysis, not over "will." For Obama, his problem is all about lack of will.

 

[dilloduck]

I guess you're talking to me ? I was really just sorta curious as to why Obama was so adamant about gettting the hell outta there if he thought there was still a danger to the US there. Seemed sorta dumb.

 

[EconChick]

I guess you're talking to me ? I was really just sorta curious as to why Obama was so adamant about gettting the hell outta there if he thought there was still a danger to the US there. Seemed sorta dumb.

Roger. I probably picked the wrong post to reply to because it did look like we agreed on that one, LOL.

I was just making a plea for those of us who are conservative...IOW, Libertarians on national security and conservatives on natl security ....to keep the discussion dispassionate and some learning may actually go on between both sides....whereas with big govt far left libs....they're hopeless and threads with them always turn into a waste of energy and a race to the bottom.

 

[protectionist]

Yeah. Everybody is war weary. Oh yeah. Well, that's been the popular thought for a few years now (even though there's been less deaths in Iraq/Afghanistan over 13 years, than a single World War II battle). Well, I'm afraid to say folks, that little notion has very quickly gone out of style.....

ISIS has tons of money (to purchase bombs, nukes, biological weapons, gas, and bribe traitors). On top of that, the "Open Target" (name of the book that former Homeland Security Inspector General, Clark Kent Ervin wrote a few years ago) hasn't gotten much less open, since Ervin wrote that book. Have the ports gotten better since Lou Dobbs exposed their vulnerable status? (5% of shipping containers being inspected) Are water treatment plants (containing Chlorine tanks) any better secured than they have been (with a lone unarmed, security guard). Do all citizens have gas masks ? Are all streets surveilled with street camera/recorders ? Do we even come close to the level of security that is practiced routinely in Israel ?

Many more questions than these could be asked, and all with the same qualitative result. That we in America, are not well prepared for a well-organized, well-financed military force, coming here and attacking us, with 2014 methodology.....

Conclusion ? Time for Obama to get past the 2007 notion of removing troops from the Middle East and "no boots on the ground" which got him elected in 2008, and get up to speed. This is 2014. There is a real threat to America talking place before our eyes, and this is no time to play political games, or cling to outdated mantras. Obama's "no boots on the ground" is as dead as a doornail. The US needs to go after ISIS in Iraq, in Syria, and wherever they are, and obliterate them, and we need to do it with whatever it takes, and it looks that that includes ground troops, and we need to do it NOW.

NO!

Defend America's shores borders yes. Leave it to the region to fight their own civil wars. And if Europe and the rest of the World want to be pro-active in their own defence, great, they're more vulnerable than is the U.S. America's done it's part in "saving" the rest of humanity and bought itself loads of fucking trouble in the process.

America has enough to remember on Memorial Day.

You're "no boots on the ground" mantra is dead as a doornail. The American people are no longer in that 2008 mind set. The ISIS threat to the US mainland is evident, and all resources need to be employed to stop it.
As for your visuals, 5000 Us troops have been killed in both Iraq & Afghanistan wars over the past 13 years. In World War II, single individual battles lasting a month or tw had far more casualties. 19,000 US troops died in the Battle of the Bulge IN ONE MONTH. Almost that many died in the Battle of Okinawa, as well. And all the US deaths of all these wars combined would be small compared to what we'd have if ISIS attacked us here in the US.
Like the title of the famous Brigitte Gabriel book says > They Must Be Stopped.

Evident my ass----Are they boarding the troop canoes as we speak ?

You don't know that about 300 of them are Americans who live here ? Another 2000 or so are Europeans with passports from visa waiver countries ? And too new to be on a no fly list ? You didn't know this ? Like I said before, you need to watch the news a bit more.

 

[protectionist]

Yeah. Everybody is war weary. Oh yeah. Well, that's been the popular thought for a few years now (even though there's been less deaths in Iraq/Afghanistan over 13 years, than a single World War II battle). Well, I'm afraid to say folks, that little notion has very quickly gone out of style. As they used to say in college, "form follows function" Well, the function now has changed from "Bush just wants to get oil", and "Obama will get us out of there", to "fight them there now, or fight them here very soon." Every national security expert agrees that ISIS fully intends to attack the US, once it accomplishes it's goals in the Middle East. Looking at all the relevant variables, it's hard to make the case that they couldn't attack here, and impose massive genocide + massive structural damage. Guess what folks > The "war weary" era is now over.

ISIS has tons of money (to purchase bombs, nukes, biological weapons, gas, and bribe traitors). On top of that, the "Open Target" (name of the book that former Homeland Security Inspector General, Clark Kent Ervin wrote a few years ago) hasn't gotten much less open, since Ervin wrote that book. Have the ports gotten better since Lou Dobbs exposed their vulnerable status? (5% of shipping containers being inspected) Are water treatment plants (containing Chlorine tanks) any better secured than they have been (with a lone unarmed, security guard). Do all citizens have gas masks ? Are all streets surveilled with street camera/recorders ? Do we even come close to the level of security that is practiced routinely in Israel ?

Many more questions than these could be asked, and all with the same qualitative result. That we in America, are not well prepared for a well-organized, well-financed military force, coming here and attacking us, with 2014 methodology.

Conclusion ? Time for Obama to get past the 2007 notion of removing troops from the Middle East and "no boots on the ground" which got him elected in 2008, and get up to speed. This is 2014. There is a real threat to America talking place before our eyes, and this is no time to play political games, or cling to outdated mantras. Obama's "no boots on the ground" is as dead as a doornail. The US needs to go after ISIS in Iraq, in Syria, and wherever they are, and obliterate them, and we need to do it with whatever it takes, and it looks that that includes ground troops, and we need to do it NOW.

Because "boots on the ground" worked so well in Iraq? It's time to break up the military industrial congressional complex and start spending war money on domestic needs:

"The total debt of all state governments in the U.S. is now $130 billion.

"The U.S. will spend $170 billion on our wars in Iraq-Afghanistan-Pakistan this year.

Forty-six states in the US today are in fiscal crisis.

"We must demand that our Congressional delegation vote against any further war spending and that they become leaders in the Congress on this important issue.

"We must also urge all elected officials (local, state, and federal) to speak out against continued war spending... demand that we Bring Our War $$ Home now.

Bring Our War Home

YES, because boots on the ground worked very well in Iraq. That's right. Iraq was under control of the Iraq govt supported by US troops. It remained that way until the troops left. THEN, things went awry, as ISIS moved into the vacuum.

And if you ignore the ISIS threat, you'll be bringing the war home all right. With nuclear bombs, poison gas, and deadly biological agents sweeping through American cities.

 

[protectionist]

Everything has changed!!!!! You're either for us, or against us!!!!!! It's for the children!!!!!

Shit yourself America!!! Give in to fascism now!!!!!

THEY WILL CHOP YOUR HEAD OFF. RUN AWAY !!!

Trying to be funny doesn't change anything. There's a real threat to America, and it has to be stopped. Putting humor into a serious situation only does one thing > makes you look stupid.

oh really ? Let's hear all the PROOF. Let's hear the casus belli. At least Bush made an attempt at it.

Don't watch the news ? Haven't heard about "See you in New York" ?

EARTH TO DILLODUCK: ISIS proclaims their intention to fly their flag over the White House, every day. You don't know ? And every national security expert has confirmed the threat. Which one would you like to hear from first. ?

 

[protectionist]

ISIS is a result of the Civil War that existed while we were there and after we left. It is Shiite versus Sunni. The Sunni's want control of the region again, and believe the Shiites are inferior to them. It seems on the battlefield ISIS was correct, but incorrect when they go up against the Kurds who are hardened fighters.

Nearly 100,000 Iraqi soldiers through down their arms and deserted after ISIS showed up, leaving American Hardware for ISIS to pick up and fight with. Were these soldiers COWARDS.........are were they just there to get a paycheck and never believed in Iraq to begin with.........The later is more to my opinion. Had these Iraqi's stood and fought they outnumbered ISIS probably 10 to 1. Had they fought there is no way ISIS takes Northern Iraq.

Why should we fight again for a country that refuses to defend itself even after we trained and armed them?

The Kurds are a different story. They have stood by us and if threatened deserve our help. All they are asking for is to have strategic strikes for their forces and they retake the ground. We only need air power to do so in regards to the Kurds.

ISIS can get caught in the open and partially destroyed by U.S. Air Strikes. Crippling their ops and supply lines. We don't need ground forces to do that.

Finally, ISIS is just another name in the history of Radical Islam. Many names come and go, and when they appear they seem to BE THE ONE this time. The dust has covered many other names like ISIS, and will do so again. They will eventually fail in Syria as the Russians are supporting Assad with weapons.......As they will get eaten away with targets of opportunity by U.S. Air Power.

Don't jump the gun on full invasion just yet.

US national security experts don't agree with you. I'll go with THEIR analysis, unless anything changes. And we're not fighting for a country that refuses to defend itself. We're fighting to defend OURSELVES, in the USA.

 

[protectionist]

So we're going to send our troops to kill every single terrorist in the world so they can't come here ?

You're beginning to get the idea (slowly)

You're insane

I haven't figured out if he really is insane or just terminally paranoid

So you believe that to be the case for every national security expert in America, who now all are in agreement with me ?

 

[protectionist]

So we're going to send our troops to kill every single terrorist in the world so they can't come here ?

You're beginning to get the idea (slowly)

You're insane

I haven't figured out if he really is insane or just terminally paranoid

He's slipping. Sorta sad, really.

And you also don't agree with all the US national security experts ?

 

[protectionist]

McConnell announced:

McConnell to CNN Obama would have a lot of congressional support for action against ISIS 8211 CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

Looks like one BIG group now...................................

There was a lot for invading Iraq too.

Normally I would say don't invade or attack or occupy, as I said in 2003 when Bush craved the head of Saddam.

But what he did from 2003 to 2011 has created ISIS, and so once again we have to go in and clean up after this incredibly stupid, arrogant sewage waste of a human, George W. Bush.

ISIS has amassed a lot of money, and with that they can do what the Saudis did with OBL, and do much worse damage than a kid with a bomb in his underwear and a ticket to Detroit in his hand as was Al Queda's last ditch effort when they ran out of cash.

It ALWAYS comes down to who has the money.

ISIS is raking in $2 Million A DAY from their black market oil sales.

 

[protectionist]

I guess you're talking to me ? I was really just sorta curious as to why Obama was so adamant about gettting the hell outta there if he thought there was still a danger to the US there. Seemed sorta dumb.

Seems sorta community organizer in the wrong job.

 

[SmedlyButler]

Yeah. Everybody is war weary. Oh yeah. Well, that's been the popular thought for a few years now (even though there's been less deaths in Iraq/Afghanistan over 13 years, than a single World War II battle). Well, I'm afraid to say folks, that little notion has very quickly gone out of style.....

ISIS has tons of money (to purchase bombs, nukes, biological weapons, gas, and bribe traitors). On top of that, the "Open Target" (name of the book that former Homeland Security Inspector General, Clark Kent Ervin wrote a few years ago) hasn't gotten much less open, since Ervin wrote that book. Have the ports gotten better since Lou Dobbs exposed their vulnerable status? (5% of shipping containers being inspected) Are water treatment plants (containing Chlorine tanks) any better secured than they have been (with a lone unarmed, security guard). Do all citizens have gas masks ? Are all streets surveilled with street camera/recorders ? Do we even come close to the level of security that is practiced routinely in Israel ?

Many more questions than these could be asked, and all with the same qualitative result. That we in America, are not well prepared for a well-organized, well-financed military force, coming here and attacking us, with 2014 methodology.....

Conclusion ? Time for Obama to get past the 2007 notion of removing troops from the Middle East and "no boots on the ground" which got him elected in 2008, and get up to speed. This is 2014. There is a real threat to America talking place before our eyes, and this is no time to play political games, or cling to outdated mantras. Obama's "no boots on the ground" is as dead as a doornail. The US needs to go after ISIS in Iraq, in Syria, and wherever they are, and obliterate them, and we need to do it with whatever it takes, and it looks that that includes ground troops, and we need to do it NOW.

NO!

Defend America's shores borders yes. Leave it to the region to fight their own civil wars. And if Europe and the rest of the World want to be pro-active in their own defence, great, they're more vulnerable than is the U.S. America's done it's part in "saving" the rest of humanity and bought itself loads of fucking trouble in the process.

America has enough to remember on Memorial Day.

You're "no boots on the ground" mantra is dead as a doornail. The American people are no longer in that 2008 mind set. The ISIS threat to the US mainland is evident, and all resources need to be employed to stop it.
As for your visuals, 5000 Us troops have been killed in both Iraq & Afghanistan wars over the past 13 years. In World War II, single individual battles lasting a month or tw had far more casualties. 19,000 US troops died in the Battle of the Bulge IN ONE MONTH. Almost that many died in the Battle of Okinawa, as well. And all the US deaths of all these wars combined would be small compared to what we'd have if ISIS attacked us here in the US.
Like the title of the famous Brigitte Gabriel book says > They Must Be Stopped.

Evident my ass----Are they boarding the troop canoes as we speak ?

You don't know that about 300 of them are Americans who live here ? Another 2000 or so are Europeans with passports from visa waiver countries ? And too new to be on a no fly list ? You didn't know this ? Like I said before, you need to watch the news a bit more.

And another American invasion in the mid-east is going to fix that scenario how? As GYSMYS would say.....THINK!

 

[protectionist]

Yeah. Everybody is war weary. Oh yeah. Well, that's been the popular thought for a few years now (even though there's been less deaths in Iraq/Afghanistan over 13 years, than a single World War II battle). Well, I'm afraid to say folks, that little notion has very quickly gone out of style.....

ISIS has tons of money (to purchase bombs, nukes, biological weapons, gas, and bribe traitors). On top of that, the "Open Target" (name of the book that former Homeland Security Inspector General, Clark Kent Ervin wrote a few years ago) hasn't gotten much less open, since Ervin wrote that book. Have the ports gotten better since Lou Dobbs exposed their vulnerable status? (5% of shipping containers being inspected) Are water treatment plants (containing Chlorine tanks) any better secured than they have been (with a lone unarmed, security guard). Do all citizens have gas masks ? Are all streets surveilled with street camera/recorders ? Do we even come close to the level of security that is practiced routinely in Israel ?

Many more questions than these could be asked, and all with the same qualitative result. That we in America, are not well prepared for a well-organized, well-financed military force, coming here and attacking us, with 2014 methodology.....

Conclusion ? Time for Obama to get past the 2007 notion of removing troops from the Middle East and "no boots on the ground" which got him elected in 2008, and get up to speed. This is 2014. There is a real threat to America talking place before our eyes, and this is no time to play political games, or cling to outdated mantras. Obama's "no boots on the ground" is as dead as a doornail. The US needs to go after ISIS in Iraq, in Syria, and wherever they are, and obliterate them, and we need to do it with whatever it takes, and it looks that that includes ground troops, and we need to do it NOW.

NO!

Defend America's shores borders yes. Leave it to the region to fight their own civil wars. And if Europe and the rest of the World want to be pro-active in their own defence, great, they're more vulnerable than is the U.S. America's done it's part in "saving" the rest of humanity and bought itself loads of fucking trouble in the process.

America has enough to remember on Memorial Day.

You're "no boots on the ground" mantra is dead as a doornail. The American people are no longer in that 2008 mind set. The ISIS threat to the US mainland is evident, and all resources need to be employed to stop it.
As for your visuals, 5000 Us troops have been killed in both Iraq & Afghanistan wars over the past 13 years. In World War II, single individual battles lasting a month or tw had far more casualties. 19,000 US troops died in the Battle of the Bulge IN ONE MONTH. Almost that many died in the Battle of Okinawa, as well. And all the US deaths of all these wars combined would be small compared to what we'd have if ISIS attacked us here in the US.
Like the title of the famous Brigitte Gabriel book says > They Must Be Stopped.

Evident my ass----Are they boarding the troop canoes as we speak ?

You don't know that about 300 of them are Americans who live here ? Another 2000 or so are Europeans with passports from visa waiver countries ? And too new to be on a no fly list ? You didn't know this ? Like I said before, you need to watch the news a bit more.

And another American invasion in the mid-east is going to fix that scenario how? As GYSMYS would say.....THINK!

What a stupid question. Obviously, if you destroy the organization, its followers (never very swift in the first place) cancel out, and go back to harmlessly nodding out at pot parties.

 

[aaronleland]

Defending our borders and pulling our forces out of the Middle East would not only keep us safer, but save us trillions of dollars in the long run.