CDZ Should we put boots on the ground?

[DarkFury]

Going after Islamic State at this point means going into THREE countries at the SAME time so NO. Anything short of that is a game of Whack-A-Mole and Putin has the hammer. Let him get on with it.

I agree.

Now that Poooting is finally getting off his butt and following Obama's lead, let him have it. However, Poooting is killing innocents where Obama targeted terrorists and it will take pathetic Poooting a long time to catch up to Obama's more than 7000 strikes. Poooting will never catch up to the more than 60 other countries who have already joined Obama is killing terrorists so he better get busy.

It is indeed whack-a-mole, the 5th generation of the mess that Ronnie RayGun started.

There are also something like 5 million soldiers in ME countries and Israel has between 200 and 400 nukes we gave them.

Why should we continue the same mistakes Bush made in the past? More reason to keep the Rs out of the Oval Office.

And now that the cause of the downed Russian plane has been identified as a bomb, Putin will have to put on a shirt and get serious. The downside of that is his seizing the oil assets of whatever country his boots end up in...

That would be the spoils of war and when you do the job you get the spoils.

 

[Fishlore]

The important question behind whether we should put boots on the ground is the question of whether we should put American soldiers into coffins. Let's cut the tired cliche. "Boots on the ground" means combat infantry. Combat infantry in a combat area means casualties.

We put a million boots (500,000 pairs to be more accurate) on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan. Over five thousand pairs of those boot came home with the toes pointing skyward. Thousands more came back with no legs inside them. What did we get for all that bloodshed? Where is that "peaceful, stable, democratic Iraq" we were promised? No wonder three-fourths of Americans want no more boots on the ground in the Middle East. Boots on the ground means Boot Hill.

I wouldn't want to stifle the bloodthirsty patriotism of our armchair warriors bellowing ferociously to send somebody else's kid off to die in the desert. I would support a law permitting any legal American super-PAC to use its money to raise an equip a Lincoln Brigade style force of neocon volunteers eager to put their boots where their mouths are, i.e. up their asses. God bless America.

 

[oldsoul]

The important question behind whether we should put boots on the ground is the question of whether we should put American soldiers into coffins. Let's cut the tired cliche. "Boots on the ground" means combat infantry. Combat infantry in a combat area means casualties.

We put a million boots (500,000 pairs to be more accurate) on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan. Over five thousand pairs of those boot came home with the toes pointing skyward. Thousands more came back with no legs inside them. What did we get for all that bloodshed? Where is that "peaceful, stable, democratic Iraq" we were promised? No wonder three-fourths of Americans want no more boots on the ground in the Middle East. Boots on the ground means Boot Hill.

I wouldn't want to stifle the bloodthirsty patriotism of our armchair warriors bellowing ferociously to send somebody else's kid off to die in the desert. I would support a law permitting any legal American super-PAC to use its money to raise an equip a Lincoln Brigade style force of neocon volunteers eager to put their boots where their mouths are, i.e. up their asses. God bless America.

I agree with your post, but must ask: why the insult? It really discredits what you have to say.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

ISIS cannot be ‘defeated’ using conventional military ground forces– we know this to be true as a consequence of the failed wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; indeed, the failed, unwarranted invasion of Iraq is a factor that contributed to the rise of ISIS.

I'm old enough to remember Vietnam, when guerrillas beat up Americans. We didn't learn from that. We didn't learn anything from a new America fighting the Brits using guerrilla tactics.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Going after Islamic State at this point means going into THREE countries at the SAME time so NO. Anything short of that is a game of Whack-A-Mole and Putin has the hammer. Let him get on with it.

I agree.

Now that Poooting is finally getting off his butt and following Obama's lead, let him have it. However, Poooting is killing innocents where Obama targeted terrorists and it will take pathetic Poooting a long time to catch up to Obama's more than 7000 strikes. Poooting will never catch up to the more than 60 other countries who have already joined Obama is killing terrorists so he better get busy.

It is indeed whack-a-mole, the 5th generation of the mess that Ronnie RayGun started.

There are also something like 5 million soldiers in ME countries and Israel has between 200 and 400 nukes we gave them.

Why should we continue the same mistakes Bush made in the past? More reason to keep the Rs out of the Oval Office.

And now that the cause of the downed Russian plane has been identified as a bomb, Putin will have to put on a shirt and get serious. The downside of that is his seizing the oil assets of whatever country his boots end up in...

Pooting is good at bluster and bullying but very little of substance. IOW, exactly what the right adores.

And yeah, its always about stealing oil. Whether is the US or someone else, its all about the oil.

An observation -- I've been damned annoyed at the constant litany of lies from the right but, watching news coverage right now, I'm beginning to think their ignorance and traitorous lies may well help the president.

 

[oldsoul]

Going after Islamic State at this point means going into THREE countries at the SAME time so NO. Anything short of that is a game of Whack-A-Mole and Putin has the hammer. Let him get on with it.

I agree.

Now that Poooting is finally getting off his butt and following Obama's lead, let him have it. However, Poooting is killing innocents where Obama targeted terrorists and it will take pathetic Poooting a long time to catch up to Obama's more than 7000 strikes. Poooting will never catch up to the more than 60 other countries who have already joined Obama is killing terrorists so he better get busy.

It is indeed whack-a-mole, the 5th generation of the mess that Ronnie RayGun started.

There are also something like 5 million soldiers in ME countries and Israel has between 200 and 400 nukes we gave them.

Why should we continue the same mistakes Bush made in the past? More reason to keep the Rs out of the Oval Office.

And now that the cause of the downed Russian plane has been identified as a bomb, Putin will have to put on a shirt and get serious. The downside of that is his seizing the oil assets of whatever country his boots end up in...

Pooting is good at bluster and bullying but very little of substance. IOW, exactly what the right adores.

And yeah, its always about stealing oil. Whether is the US or someone else, its all about the oil.

An observation -- I've been damned annoyed at the constant litany of lies from the right but, watching news coverage right now, I'm beginning to think their ignorance and traitorous lies may well help the president.

Care to substaniate your claims?

 

[leftwinger]

NO NO NONE American ground soldiers until BHO is gone. BHO has said USA is attacking ISIS/ISIL? BHO rules of engagement blocks progress.

15 mohths we had targets but not strike? Oil trucks roll in and out and we did nothing? Not even take out the highway? BHO is lying to USA.

BHO play games with numbers. Planes go out but come back full......not allowed to drop. Get out now unless we willing to do the job.

We have the best military and air power known to man. This would have been over in months if BHO would listen to the military leaders. BHO seems to be an Islamic radical.

 

[Fishlore]

The important question behind whether we should put boots on the ground is the question of whether we should put American soldiers into coffins. Let's cut the tired cliche. "Boots on the ground" means combat infantry. Combat infantry in a combat area means casualties.

We put a million boots (500,000 pairs to be more accurate) on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan. Over five thousand pairs of those boot came home with the toes pointing skyward. Thousands more came back with no legs inside them. What did we get for all that bloodshed? Where is that "peaceful, stable, democratic Iraq" we were promised? No wonder three-fourths of Americans want no more boots on the ground in the Middle East. Boots on the ground means Boot Hill.

I wouldn't want to stifle the bloodthirsty patriotism of our armchair warriors bellowing ferociously to send somebody else's kid off to die in the desert. I would support a law permitting any legal American super-PAC to use its money to raise an equip a Lincoln Brigade style force of neocon volunteers eager to put their boots where their mouths are, i.e. up their asses. God bless America.

I agree with your post, but must ask: why the insult? It really discredits what you have to say.

Sorry if you feel I have insulted you. Are you thinking of yourself as a neocon armchair warrior?

 

[oldsoul]

The important question behind whether we should put boots on the ground is the question of whether we should put American soldiers into coffins. Let's cut the tired cliche. "Boots on the ground" means combat infantry. Combat infantry in a combat area means casualties.

We put a million boots (500,000 pairs to be more accurate) on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan. Over five thousand pairs of those boot came home with the toes pointing skyward. Thousands more came back with no legs inside them. What did we get for all that bloodshed? Where is that "peaceful, stable, democratic Iraq" we were promised? No wonder three-fourths of Americans want no more boots on the ground in the Middle East. Boots on the ground means Boot Hill.

I wouldn't want to stifle the bloodthirsty patriotism of our armchair warriors bellowing ferociously to send somebody else's kid off to die in the desert. I would support a law permitting any legal American super-PAC to use its money to raise an equip a Lincoln Brigade style force of neocon volunteers eager to put their boots where their mouths are, i.e. up their asses. God bless America.

I agree with your post, but must ask: why the insult? It really discredits what you have to say.

Sorry if you feel I have insulted you. Are you thinking of yourself as a neocon armchair warrior?

There you go again with insults....

 

[jwoodie]

The important question behind whether we should put boots on the ground is the question of whether we should put American soldiers into coffins. Let's cut the tired cliche. "Boots on the ground" means combat infantry. Combat infantry in a combat area means casualties.

We put a million boots (500,000 pairs to be more accurate) on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan. Over five thousand pairs of those boot came home with the toes pointing skyward. Thousands more came back with no legs inside them. What did we get for all that bloodshed? Where is that "peaceful, stable, democratic Iraq" we were promised? No wonder three-fourths of Americans want no more boots on the ground in the Middle East. Boots on the ground means Boot Hill.

I wouldn't want to stifle the bloodthirsty patriotism of our armchair warriors bellowing ferociously to send somebody else's kid off to die in the desert. I would support a law permitting any legal American super-PAC to use its money to raise an equip a Lincoln Brigade style force of neocon volunteers eager to put their boots where their mouths are, i.e. up their asses. God bless America.

By your "logic" we should never do anything that portends the loss of human life: No police, no fire fighters, no heavy construction, no cars, etc. Accordingly, the best way to avoid putting American soldiers into coffins is to disband the military. You sound like a Reservist who likes to play Army on the weekends and collect a pension, but screams bloody murder if actually deployed.

 

[Fishlore]

The important question behind whether we should put boots on the ground is the question of whether we should put American soldiers into coffins. Let's cut the tired cliche. "Boots on the ground" means combat infantry. Combat infantry in a combat area means casualties.

We put a million boots (500,000 pairs to be more accurate) on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan. Over five thousand pairs of those boot came home with the toes pointing skyward. Thousands more came back with no legs inside them. What did we get for all that bloodshed? Where is that "peaceful, stable, democratic Iraq" we were promised? No wonder three-fourths of Americans want no more boots on the ground in the Middle East. Boots on the ground means Boot Hill.

I wouldn't want to stifle the bloodthirsty patriotism of our armchair warriors bellowing ferociously to send somebody else's kid off to die in the desert. I would support a law permitting any legal American super-PAC to use its money to raise an equip a Lincoln Brigade style force of neocon volunteers eager to put their boots where their mouths are, i.e. up their asses. God bless America.

By your "logic" we should never do anything that portends the loss of human life: No police, no fire fighters, no heavy construction, no cars, etc. Accordingly, the best way to avoid putting American soldiers into coffins is to disband the military. You sound like a Reservist who likes to play Army on the weekends and collect a pension, but screams bloody murder if actually deployed.

Well, actually you are talking to a USMC officer with Vietnam service. It may have been long ago, but my boots have been on the ground. Have yours? You don't forget that sort of experience.

Your idea of logic is pathetic. Nothing I posted suggests that I oppose any risk to military personnel. That crap about firemen and police is just an infantile diversion.

The logic that seems above your head is the logic that weighs risks against potential gain. Experience of the past fifteen years shows that putting combat ground forces into Syria will not work even as well as it did in Afghanistan or Iraq. And it worked there only as long as we were willing to keep hundreds of thousands of combat forces stationed there. We aren't willing to do that and we couldn't afford it even if we wanted to.

We aren't willing to put boots on the ground and keep them there. The alternative is sandals in the sand with US air support. Try discussing the topic instead of attempting to psycho-analyze your imagined interlocutor. I wish you were smarter or had better manners. Either one would make further dialogue something to look forward to.

 

[jwoodie]

The important question behind whether we should put boots on the ground is the question of whether we should put American soldiers into coffins. Let's cut the tired cliche. "Boots on the ground" means combat infantry. Combat infantry in a combat area means casualties.

We put a million boots (500,000 pairs to be more accurate) on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan. Over five thousand pairs of those boot came home with the toes pointing skyward. Thousands more came back with no legs inside them. What did we get for all that bloodshed? Where is that "peaceful, stable, democratic Iraq" we were promised? No wonder three-fourths of Americans want no more boots on the ground in the Middle East. Boots on the ground means Boot Hill.

I wouldn't want to stifle the bloodthirsty patriotism of our armchair warriors bellowing ferociously to send somebody else's kid off to die in the desert. I would support a law permitting any legal American super-PAC to use its money to raise an equip a Lincoln Brigade style force of neocon volunteers eager to put their boots where their mouths are, i.e. up their asses. God bless America.

I agree with your post, but must ask: why the insult? It really discredits what you have to say.

Sorry if you feel I have insulted you. Are you thinking of yourself as a neocon armchair warrior?

So you can dish it out but can't take it, eh?

 

[320 Years of History]

I think the correct answer to the title question is "yes;" however, I don't think the reason for deploying troops has anything to do with Syria, its politics or government. I believe the reason to do so is to squash that branch of ISIS into nothingness. I see ISIS as a cancer, and like many cancers, dealing with early on is far less costly in the long run than is allowing it to develop further. (Apologies for the hackneyed metaphor.)

Debate Now - If the government wants to defeat ISIS, it should get serious and get it over with | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum