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

[Politico]

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

No we need to butt out.

 

[JWBooth]

US Needs to Send Ground Troops to Fight ISIS, NOW

Nope, it doesnt.
Tell ya what. If y'all think this is such a pressing need, suit up and head over there. Instead of sacrificing somebody else's kid, YOU go kick ass.

 

[I.P.Freely]

Yeah. Everybody is war wear.

How dare you blaspheme you commie piss ant .This is what the American people want.

 

[Desperado]

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 ?

And I take it, you do not agree with Gen. Martin Dempsey who happens to be the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Joint Chiefs chairman says ISIS not a direct threat to US, won't recommend Syria strikes yet
Joint Chiefs chairman says ISIS not a direct threat to US won t recommend Syria strikes yet Fox News

 

[Geaux4it]

If Isis wants war with us. They're welcome to invade.

No they're not. We are not well equipped or set up to repel a 2014 type of invasion. We'd have 9-11s, Boston Marathons, and Fort Hoods going on all over the place, intermixed with suicide bombers, and quite possibly nuclear bombs going off too. You want all that ? Better to obliterate this cancer over in the ME.

There is a gun behind every blade of grass. The libs will love us gun owners when they huddle up behind us as we mow down any ISIS invasions on main street USA

-Geaux

 

[aaronleland]

There will be no ISIS invasion. There may be a terrorist attack here and there, but they pose no serious threat to America.

 

[georgephillip]

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.

For whom do you imagine "boots on the ground worked very well in Iraq?" Certainly not the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who have died since March of 2003? Maybe you're referring to the millions of Iraqis who have become displaced since that time? IS would not even exist today absent the US invasion of Iraq, and your solution is to repeat the same action that enabled the extremists to come to power? Which side are you on...Halliburton's?

 

[Kondor3]

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

Better, perhaps, than one big ISIS, unchallenged for lack of balls, which grows into something which cannot be stopped.

Hold everything------how big are they? REALLY ??? Even our own intelligence is claiming that the area is a black hole of information.

Dunno...

CNN is using some fairly sizable colored maps re: areas in both Iraq and Syria, under IS control.

And, of course, it's not so much how big they are this very minute, rather, it's how big they might grow if left unopposed and if they end-up getting the territory they want, and a peace to hide behind, while they build up their strength, ala the Germans dodging the provisions of the Versailles Treat during the 1920s.

How many tanks ? How many Planes ?

I have no idea, nor do I pretend to have a crystal ball to inform us of such things. Why do you ask?

 

[Katzndogz]

obama is not going to invade Syria to fight ISIS. He COULD go into Syria to fight ISIS, but he never made a mistake. He won't oppose ISIS in Syria because Assad opposes ISIS in Syria. IF we had a sane commander in chief he would admit the mistake, apologize for helping ISIS get as big and powerful as they are and join the Syrian forces that have been trying to eject ISIS all this time.

 

[Kondor3]

...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...

Disagree.

Continue to project military power throughout the region, and the world at-large, but find ways to do it far more economically and efficiently and better-focused than we have in recent times, and learn not to draw lines in the sand that we have no intention of defending.

...America has enough to remember on Memorial Day.

And, so long as we choose not to hide our heads in the sand, and revert to a 19th Century isolationist stance - which many, myself included, see as ultimately suicidal in this new world of high-speed and far-reaching communications and transport and weaponry - we will continue to add to the list of those we need to remember on Memorial Day.

That is the price of participating on the world stage, in our own best interests, and that is the price of defending our freedom through off-shore projection, rather than waiting until the trouble reaches our own shores.

Oh, and, frankly, it's a good guess that the shades (ghosts) of a great many of our war dead, would resent having their bodies and caskets and headstones used without their permission, in an attempt to reinforce the case for isolationism. If true, then I stand with them in this matter.

 

[dilloduck]

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

Better, perhaps, than one big ISIS, unchallenged for lack of balls, which grows into something which cannot be stopped.

Hold everything------how big are they? REALLY ??? Even our own intelligence is claiming that the area is a black hole of information.

Dunno...

CNN is using some fairly sizable colored maps re: areas in both Iraq and Syria, under IS control.

And, of course, it's not so much how big they are this very minute, rather, it's how big they might grow if left unopposed and if they end-up getting the territory they want, and a peace to hide behind, while they build up their strength, ala the Germans dodging the provisions of the Versailles Treat during the 1920s.

How many tanks ? How many Planes ?

I have no idea, nor do I pretend to have a crystal ball to inform us of such things. Why do you ask?

You have no idea the size of the target yet you are advocating a battle plan that includes troops. I don't think it's wise. Lord knows another president was highly criticized for having a battle plan full of holes.

 

[JakeStarkey]

That boat sailed a long time ago, as Bush fucked it all up and Obama has been not able to repair it.

Heavy air strikes only and let the Arab nations that hate ISIS carry the ground battle.

 

[dilloduck]

...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...

Disagree.

Continue to project military power throughout the region, and the world at-large, but find ways to do it far more economically and efficiently and better-focused than we have in recent times, and learn not to draw lines in the sand that we have no intention of defending.

...America has enough to remember on Memorial Day.

And, so long as we choose not to hide our heads in the sand, and revert to a 19th Century isolationist stance - which many, myself included, see as ultimately suicidal in this new world of high-speed and far-reaching communications and transport and weaponry - we will continue to add to the list of those we need to remember on Memorial Day.

That is the price of participating on the world stage, in our own best interests, and that is the price of defending our freedom through off-shore projection, rather than waiting until the trouble reaches our own shores.

Oh, and, frankly, it's a good guess that the shades (ghosts) of a great many of our war dead, would resent having their bodies and caskets and headstones used without their permission, in an attempt to reinforce the case for isolationism. If true, then I stand with them in this matter.

Our own government has taken away more of our freedoms than any foreign threat has. What was done in Iraq that preserved anything American ?

 

[dilloduck]

That boat sailed a long time ago, as Bush fucked it all up and Obama has been not able to repair it.

Heavy air strikes only and let the Arab nations that hate ISIS carry the ground battle.

True---Obama has proven to be incompetent in taking the reins and going forward. Risk as little as possible if anything at all. Remember what CinC our troops will be answering to.

 

[saveliberty]

Death from above only please.

 

[Kondor3]

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

Better, perhaps, than one big ISIS, unchallenged for lack of balls, which grows into something which cannot be stopped.

Hold everything------how big are they? REALLY ??? Even our own intelligence is claiming that the area is a black hole of information.

Dunno...

CNN is using some fairly sizable colored maps re: areas in both Iraq and Syria, under IS control.

And, of course, it's not so much how big they are this very minute, rather, it's how big they might grow if left unopposed and if they end-up getting the territory they want, and a peace to hide behind, while they build up their strength, ala the Germans dodging the provisions of the Versailles Treat during the 1920s.

How many tanks ? How many Planes ?

I have no idea, nor do I pretend to have a crystal ball to inform us of such things. Why do you ask?

You have no idea the size of the target yet you are advocating a battle plan that includes troops. I don't think it's wise. Lord knows another president was highly criticized for having a battle plan full of holes.

That's easily remedied, once sufficient intel and research have been undertaken.

One then applies strategy and tactics and assets to match the goals associated with such an intervention.

I am provisionally on-board with the idea of active military intervention but the devil is in the details.

Once we define the element(s) and territory(ies) to be impacted, we can then begin to narrow things down, in order to devise suitable goals, from which all else follows, yes?

 

[Kondor3]

...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...

Disagree.

Continue to project military power throughout the region, and the world at-large, but find ways to do it far more economically and efficiently and better-focused than we have in recent times, and learn not to draw lines in the sand that we have no intention of defending.

...America has enough to remember on Memorial Day.

And, so long as we choose not to hide our heads in the sand, and revert to a 19th Century isolationist stance - which many, myself included, see as ultimately suicidal in this new world of high-speed and far-reaching communications and transport and weaponry - we will continue to add to the list of those we need to remember on Memorial Day.

That is the price of participating on the world stage, in our own best interests, and that is the price of defending our freedom through off-shore projection, rather than waiting until the trouble reaches our own shores.

Oh, and, frankly, it's a good guess that the shades (ghosts) of a great many of our war dead, would resent having their bodies and caskets and headstones used without their permission, in an attempt to reinforce the case for isolationism. If true, then I stand with them in this matter.

Our own government has taken away more of our freedoms than any foreign threat has...

Quite possibly true.

...What was done in Iraq that preserved anything American ?

Nothing, insofar as I can tell at first (or second) glance.

 

[dilloduck]

If we delay long enough Syria and Iraq may solve this themselves. What's the hurry ?

 

[pismoe]

I didn't read the whole thread but I don't mind boots on the ground from the all volunteer USA military. Only change I'd want to see would be all the silly rules of engagement [ROE] done away with and all USA military allowed to kill and destroy . Also like to see a return to a draft but that's a different subject .

 

[SmedlyButler]

How many tanks ? How many Planes ?

I have no idea, nor do I pretend to have a crystal ball to inform us of such things. Why do you ask?

That's easily remedied, once sufficient intel and research have been undertaken.

One then applies strategy and tactics and assets to match the goals associated with such an intervention.

I am provisionally on-board with the idea of active military intervention but the devil is in the details.

Once we define the element(s) and territory(ies) to be impacted, we can then begin to narrow things down, in order to devise suitable goals, from which all else follows, yes?

Who's your foreign policy advisor, the tooth fairy?




Don't even bother replying. I'm not responding to your jingoistic fairy-tale nonsense I'm just playing around with this "nested quote" business to see if I can get any control over it.