Do you support sending large U.S. ground forces to retake territory ruled by ISIS in Syria/Iraq?

[bendog]

My God, more meddling? Really?? The West, especially the U.S., has caused the bloody carnage we're currently seeing in the Middle East. They've done enough damage. They should now just apologize to the Peoples' families they massacred, and then come home. We don't belong in their lands. We never did.

Defending yourself is not meddling. In the United States, when a killer is on the lose, you hunt him down and kill him. When the killers live abroad, you do the same. Its self defense. We did it in World War II, this is no different. The Islamic State Caliphate in Syria/Iraq is essentially no different than Hitler's Germany in that its territory must be taken as soon as possible.

Germany had a civilization, and even then we occupied it for 40 years. What's your plan for Iraq?

 

[U2Edge]

I say we either beat them or leave it be. One or the other.

Don't forget to vote in the poll!

Whether by accident or design, the poll question is faulty. What, exactly, does "large" mean and in relation to what military strategy? Almost no one advocates a permanent occupation by US ground forces, although a UN peace keeping force in some areas might be warranted.

However, I do believe that a US base should have been established in Iraq as a stabilizing presence and counterweight to Iranian threats to its neighbors.

I said large ground forces, in the sense of those sufficient to retake the territory from ISIS and hand it back to the legitimate government authorities in Iraq and Syria. This is about resetting the battlefield so the locals can handle it themselves, this is not about a permanent occupation.

 

[bendog]

Locals? The Iraqi Army than ran faster than American Pharoe at the mere sight of a hundred poorly armed terrorists?

 

[Faun]

No. We don't need to spend another 9 years and thousands of American lives in that shit hole. They've been fighting for over 1000 years; we do not need to be part of that war which is not even ours and which continue will for another 1000 years;

 

[U2Edge]

ISIS wants a massive western military response because the civilian casualties will drive moderates into the hands of extremists.

ISIS wants US Citizens to reject Muslim refugees fleeing Syria because this will drive them into the hands of the extremist.

ISIS wants a large unified Islamic Republic (just as Christian evangelists want everyone to be orthodox Christians).

Western violence in Muslim territory gives ISIS what they want. Western hatred of moderate non-violent Muslims gives ISIS what they want.

ISIS and the Republican Party want the same thing, without seeing it. They want the West to conquer Muslim territories so they can recruit ALL Muslims.

ISIS grew into a large organization AFTER the United States withdrew all of its troops from Iraq and after the Syrian military focused all its resources on securing the western areas of Syria. ISIS formed because of the lack of local or foreign military forces that were there. Restore that force and ISIS will decline and you will earn the praise and support of the local population.

ISIS has grown so large and been so effective because the WEST has done very little at this point to effectively stop it!

 

[Faun]

I say we either beat them or leave it be. One or the other.

Don't forget to vote in the poll!

Whether by accident or design, the poll question is faulty. What, exactly, does "large" mean and in relation to what military strategy? Almost no one advocates a permanent occupation by US ground forces, although a UN peace keeping force in some areas might be warranted.

However, I do believe that a US base should have been established in Iraq as a stabilizing presence and counterweight to Iranian threats to its neighbors.

I said large ground forces, in the sense of those sufficient to retake the territory from ISIS and hand it back to the legitimate government authorities in Iraq and Syria. This is about resetting the battlefield so the locals can handle it themselves, this is not about a permanent occupation.

They are never going to be able to handle it themselves. We're done there. We should never have gone in, in the first place; we shouldn't go back in now.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No. We don't need to spend another 9 years and thousands of American lives in that shit hole. They've been fighting for over 1000 years; we do not need to be part of that war which is not even ours and which continue will for another 1000 years;

And so, your response to ISIS and its international terrorism...?

 

[U2Edge]

sending large U.S. ground forces to retake territory ruled by ISIS doesn't do a damn thing to quell splinter groups like the shithooks that went nuts in France. NOTHING AT ALL !!!

when moron RW's understand that simple fact of dealing with terrorists the better off we'll be ....

Exactly . Say we invaded 2 months ago . Paris still would've been attacked.

I don't want our troops in the front line .

ISIS became a major threat 18 months ago, not 2 months. Had the United States invaded 18 months ago like it should have I think Paris, and the Russian airliner bomb might have been prevented. In fact the people who carried out those attacks may have been killed or wouldn't of had the opportunity to train in Syria. There is a large role for military force to play against ISIS because ISIS is conventionally occupying large amounts of territory in a conventional manner.

U.S. troops should be on the front line because they can get the job done faster than anyone and save more lives!

 

[Faun]

ISIS wants a massive western military response because the civilian casualties will drive moderates into the hands of extremists.

ISIS wants US Citizens to reject Muslim refugees fleeing Syria because this will drive them into the hands of the extremist.

ISIS wants a large unified Islamic Republic (just as Christian evangelists want everyone to be orthodox Christians).

Western violence in Muslim territory gives ISIS what they want. Western hatred of moderate non-violent Muslims gives ISIS what they want.

ISIS and the Republican Party want the same thing, without seeing it. They want the West to conquer Muslim territories so they can recruit ALL Muslims.

ISIS grew into a large organization AFTER the United States withdrew all of its troops from Iraq and after the Syrian military focused all its resources on securing the western areas of Syria. ISIS formed because of the lack of local or foreign military forces that were there. Restore that force and ISIS will decline and you will earn the praise and support of the local population.

ISIS has grown so large and been so effective because the WEST has done very little at this point to effectively stop it!

Holyfuckingshit! eusa_doh:

More, they will greet us with candy and flowers, nonsense.

 

[bendog]

I say we either beat them or leave it be. One or the other.

Don't forget to vote in the poll!

Whether by accident or design, the poll question is faulty. What, exactly, does "large" mean and in relation to what military strategy? Almost no one advocates a permanent occupation by US ground forces, although a UN peace keeping force in some areas might be warranted.

However, I do believe that a US base should have been established in Iraq as a stabilizing presence and counterweight to Iranian threats to its neighbors.

I said large ground forces, in the sense of those sufficient to retake the territory from ISIS and hand it back to the legitimate government authorities in Iraq and Syria. This is about resetting the battlefield so the locals can handle it themselves, this is not about a permanent occupation.

They are never going to be able to handle it themselves. We're done there. We should never have gone in, in the first place; we shouldn't go back in now.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting (or hoping) for a different result.

60 Well, here's another nice mess you've gotten me into!

 

[U2Edge]

I support arming and training the people of Iraq and Syria to defend themselves and retake territory from ISIS. We can provide aerial and material support, but the actual fighting should be done by the Iraqis and Syrians themselves. All of this could have been avoided, if we'd employed that strategy to depose Saddam in the first place.

That strategy was used against SADDAM many times in the 90s and it failed. It might work against ISIS because ISIS is much weaker than SADDAM, but it will take longer and put American and European civilians at greater risk because of the much greater time it will take. We have already been doing this for 18 months in fact. The United States military could role up ISIS in a matter of weeks if you sent them in on the ground.

 

[Fueri]

As the geopolitical landscape currently sits - no.

With the current president in office - no.

It is clear that bombing isn't enough. Ground forces are required, however, simply deploying the US military isn't the answer.

The world at large needs to wake up to this problem and man up instead of simply asking Uncle Sam to do the job. This is simply a re-run of every prior conflict of this type.

And I wouldn't send in American men and women to get shot at, knowing that this administration is far too interested in political expedience to really wage a war. Turn it over to the Joint Chiefs and give them their best case scenario, not some strategy that balances military strategy with political strategy/expedience. This administration will never do that, so in other words, HELL NO.

 

[Arianrhod]

Earth to RWers: The Cold War ended almost a quarter of a century ago. Welcome to the 21st Century!

 

[Faun]

No. We don't need to spend another 9 years and thousands of American lives in that shit hole. They've been fighting for over 1000 years; we do not need to be part of that war which is not even ours and which continue will for another 1000 years;

And so, your response to ISIS and its international terrorism...?

Beef up security here and bomb the shit out of them if they pull off a terrorist attack here.

 

[bendog]

Obama's killed over a thousand innocents as collateral damage in the drone war, expended around 2000 dead US soldiers and committed us to decades in Afghan.

Gen Odierno repeatedly says defeating Isis is not that huge an effort, but there's no civilian govt to fill in, so we're essentially looking at another several decades occupying Iraq, which the US public has no appetite for, or doing W all over again, and this time hoping against hope the Shia Iraqis are up to the task .... or MORE likely having Hezbollah take over N. Iraq and half of Syria, with the rest controlled by their pal Assad.

If Hollande or anyone else has a better solution, do tell.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No. We don't need to spend another 9 years and thousands of American lives in that shit hole. They've been fighting for over 1000 years; we do not need to be part of that war which is not even ours and which continue will for another 1000 years;

And so, your response to ISIS and its international terrorism...?

Beef up security here and bomb the shit out of them if they pull off a terrorist attack here.

In other words, nothing effective.

 

[U2Edge]

My God, more meddling? Really?? The West, especially the U.S., has caused the bloody carnage we're currently seeing in the Middle East. They've done enough damage. They should now just apologize to the Peoples' families they massacred, and then come home. We don't belong in their lands. We never did.

Defending yourself is not meddling. In the United States, when a killer is on the lose, you hunt him down and kill him. When the killers live abroad, you do the same. Its self defense. We did it in World War II, this is no different. The Islamic State Caliphate in Syria/Iraq is essentially no different than Hitler's Germany in that its territory must be taken as soon as possible.

WWII ... a conventional war

the war on terror .... not a damn thing conventional about it. NOTHING.

THIS IS TOTALLY DIFFERENT.

Get with the present time.

The way ISIS took Raqah Syria, Mosul Iraq and many other areas in Iraq was a conventional military operation. The ISIS caliphate is currently fighting a conventional war against the Kurds, Syrian military, Iraqi military and Iraqi Shia militia's. They way ISIS will have territory retaken from them, is through conventional military action. After that takes place, there will still be intelligence and counter insurgence to fight, but right now ISIS is operating as a conventional military in Syria and Iraq. They are acting like a nation state that is huge sponser of terror and training terrorist in these activities. That is why there most be some form of a ground invasion to retake this territory from them and drive what ever can't be captured underground where they will be less effective.

 

[Faun]

No. We don't need to spend another 9 years and thousands of American lives in that shit hole. They've been fighting for over 1000 years; we do not need to be part of that war which is not even ours and which continue will for another 1000 years;

And so, your response to ISIS and its international terrorism...?

Beef up security here and bomb the shit out of them if they pull off a terrorist attack here.

In other words, nothing effective.

In other words, not doing to another IraqNam which as we can see, would never end.

 

[Igrok_]

It would be interesting to see. But for US, I think, it would be bad move. However somebody should deal with terrorists on the ground.

 

[bendog]

No. We don't need to spend another 9 years and thousands of American lives in that shit hole. They've been fighting for over 1000 years; we do not need to be part of that war which is not even ours and which continue will for another 1000 years;

And so, your response to ISIS and its international terrorism...?

Beef up security here and bomb the shit out of them if they pull off a terrorist attack here.

In other words, nothing effective.

No, but no one has proposed anything that would be effective.

That said, Obama has not shown any interest in even attempting to form a coalition with Nato, Turkey, the Saudis, the Jordanians who would seal Turkey's border and provide a safe zone for refugees within N. Iraq and Syria until "the natives" can form a society of their own.