Act of War

[Rustic]

Boy, the French are on a pretty big losing streak as far as Wars go. So I wouldn't be too optimistic on this one. If it were just the French VS. ISIS/Al Qaeda, i might have to go with ISIS/Al Qaeda winning it. That would be the smart money.

If you have any interest in understanding what ISIS really wants, you should take a look at this article. It's not light reading but it's worth the effort.

ISIS does not want to establish a nation, they want to establish a territory that they can operate out of. They have no interest in peace or treaties, or cease fires. Notice that they make no demands on the West. They seek reputation. They only want one thing, to kill all those that are not true believers. They seek to die in service of God unlike most Christians, Jews or Muslims who seek to live to serve God. ISIS is an apocalyptic cult. This is quite different than Al Qaeda.

What ISIS Really Wants

Some of their demands seem pretty reasonable. The West especially the U.S., should leave those lands it doesn't belong in. I mean, why the hell are we fighting a war in Syria anyway? It isn't our fight. We shouldn't have meddled. In fact if we hadn't, there would be no ISIS. We need to end the endless War policy. It's time to come home and secure our border.

Al Qaeda made lot's of demands but not ISIS. What demands has ISIS made of the west other than ransoms? The only thing they want from non-believes is their life.

ISIS targets, Muslims, Jews, Christians, and anyone who's not a true believer. ISIS seeks to form their Islamic state in Syria and Iraq and expand it within 5 years to include the entire Middle East. You would think this would bring every nation in the region together but deep seated animosities keep that from happening. Unfortunately, the United States is probably the only nation that could pull the various Muslim countries together to engage ISIS.

Will not happen, our leadership is too weak...

 

[eagle1462010]

Boy, the French are on a pretty big losing streak as far as Wars go. So I wouldn't be too optimistic on this one. If it were just the French VS. ISIS/Al Qaeda, i might have to go with ISIS/Al Qaeda winning it. That would be the smart money.

They just kicked their asses in Chad...............and are fighting them now...........

Chad?? Really? Without the U.S., France would be in some serious trouble. In a one on one matchup, France VS. Al Qaeda/ISIS, i'd have to go with Al Qaeda/ISIS. But regardless, bombing another defenseless country won't make them safer. In fact, it's only gonna breed more anger. Just creating more people who will seek revenge someday.

The U.S., France, and Great Britain have done an awful lot of damage around the world. They're constantly meddling and murdering. The chickens have to come home to roost at some point. It is inevitable.

You under estimate France, and overestimate ISIS...............They went in and saved Chad, and deserve the credit for doing so..........

Bombing more countries will only make France less safe. And it'll move closer to becoming a miserbable Police State. The same is true of the U.S. and Great Britain.

They'll pay a heftly bloody price for all the meddling. I would suggest those nations rethink their Endless War policy. Otherwise, suffer the inevitable consequences.

As you ignore that Muslim countries are doing the same danged thing..............Most of the middle east is BOMBING ISIS...............did that little fact escape your liberal pea brain..........................

 

[paulitician]

Boy, the French are on a pretty big losing streak as far as Wars go. So I wouldn't be too optimistic on this one. If it were just the French VS. ISIS/Al Qaeda, i might have to go with ISIS/Al Qaeda winning it. That would be the smart money.

If you have any interest in understanding what ISIS really wants, you should take a look at this article. It's not light reading but it's worth the effort.

ISIS does not want to establish a nation, they want to establish a territory that they can operate out of. They have no interest in peace or treaties, or cease fires. Notice that they make no demands on the West. They seek reputation. They only want one thing, to kill all those that are not true believers. They seek to die in service of God unlike most Christians, Jews or Muslims who seek to live to serve God. ISIS is an apocalyptic cult. This is quite different than Al Qaeda.

What ISIS Really Wants

Some of their demands seem pretty reasonable. The West especially the U.S., should leave those lands it doesn't belong in. I mean, why the hell are we fighting a war in Syria anyway? It isn't our fight. We shouldn't have meddled. In fact if we hadn't, there would be no ISIS. We need to end the endless War policy. It's time to come home and secure our border.

Al Qaeda made lot's of demands but not ISIS. What demands has ISIS made of the west other than ransoms? The only thing they want from non-believes is their life.

ISIS targets, Muslims, Jews, Christians, and anyone who's not a true believer. They seek to form their Islamic state in Syria and Iraq and expand it within 5 years to include the entire Middle East. You would think this would bring every nation in the region together but deep seated animosities keep that from happening. Unfortunately, the United States is probably the only nation that could pull the various Muslim countries together to engage ISIS.

The U.S./West is responsible for the bloody carnage we're currently seeing in the Middle East. There are more terrorists there than ever before. And that's due to constant U.S. meddling. So the U.S./West can't help. They're part of the problem.

The U.S. invasion of Iraq helped terrorist groups like Al Qaeda immensely. There would be no Al Qaeda/ISIS foothold in the Middle East if not for all the U.S. meddling. It shouldn't have funded & armed any groups in Syria. It had no right meddling in its Civil War. The West, especially the U.S., need to stop the meddling and go home. They don't belong in those lands.

 

[paulitician]

Boy, the French are on a pretty big losing streak as far as Wars go. So I wouldn't be too optimistic on this one. If it were just the French VS. ISIS/Al Qaeda, i might have to go with ISIS/Al Qaeda winning it. That would be the smart money.

They just kicked their asses in Chad...............and are fighting them now...........

Chad?? Really? Without the U.S., France would be in some serious trouble. In a one on one matchup, France VS. Al Qaeda/ISIS, i'd have to go with Al Qaeda/ISIS. But regardless, bombing another defenseless country won't make them safer. In fact, it's only gonna breed more anger. Just creating more people who will seek revenge someday.

The U.S., France, and Great Britain have done an awful lot of damage around the world. They're constantly meddling and murdering. The chickens have to come home to roost at some point. It is inevitable.

You under estimate France, and overestimate ISIS...............They went in and saved Chad, and deserve the credit for doing so..........

Bombing more countries will only make France less safe. And it'll move closer to becoming a miserbable Police State. The same is true of the U.S. and Great Britain.

They'll pay a heftly bloody price for all the meddling. I would suggest those nations rethink their Endless War policy. Otherwise, suffer the inevitable consequences.

As you ignore that Muslim countries are doing the same danged thing..............Most of the middle east is BOMBING ISIS...............did that little fact escape your liberal pea brain..........................

ISIS is a U.S./Saudi creation. And there would be no Al Qaeda/ISIS foothold in the Middle East if not for all the U.S. meddling. The U.S. is responsible for there being more terrorists there than ever before. It started with its invasion in Iraq. It's continued with its funding & arming of groups in Syria. One of those groups was ISIS.

And all because they wanted Assad dead. Declaring 'Regime Change' is illegal. The International Justice System should look into that practice. Those nations who do it, should be held acountable.

 

[Flopper]

Boy, the French are on a pretty big losing streak as far as Wars go. So I wouldn't be too optimistic on this one. If it were just the French VS. ISIS/Al Qaeda, i might have to go with ISIS/Al Qaeda winning it. That would be the smart money.

If you have any interest in understanding what ISIS really wants, you should take a look at this article. It's not light reading but it's worth the effort.

ISIS does not want to establish a nation, they want to establish a territory that they can operate out of. They have no interest in peace or treaties, or cease fires. Notice that they make no demands on the West. They seek reputation. They only want one thing, to kill all those that are not true believers. They seek to die in service of God unlike most Christians, Jews or Muslims who seek to live to serve God. ISIS is an apocalyptic cult. This is quite different than Al Qaeda.

What ISIS Really Wants

Some of their demands seem pretty reasonable. The West especially the U.S., should leave those lands it doesn't belong in. I mean, why the hell are we fighting a war in Syria anyway? It isn't our fight. We shouldn't have meddled. In fact if we hadn't, there would be no ISIS. We need to end the endless War policy. It's time to come home and secure our border.

Al Qaeda made lot's of demands but not ISIS. What demands has ISIS made of the west other than ransoms? The only thing they want from non-believes is their life.

ISIS targets, Muslims, Jews, Christians, and anyone who's not a true believer. They seek to form their Islamic state in Syria and Iraq and expand it within 5 years to include the entire Middle East. You would think this would bring every nation in the region together but deep seated animosities keep that from happening. Unfortunately, the United States is probably the only nation that could pull the various Muslim countries together to engage ISIS.

The U.S./West is responsible for the bloody carnage we're currently seeing in the Middle East. There are more terrorists there than ever before. And that's due to constant U.S. meddling. So the U.S./West can't help. They're part of the problem.

The U.S. invasion of Iraq helped terrorist groups like Al Qaeda immensely. There would be no Al Qaeda/ISIS foothold in the Middle East if not for all the U.S. meddling. It shouldn't have funded & armed any groups in Syria. It had no right meddling in its Civil War. The West, especially the U.S., need to stop the meddling and go home. They don't belong in those lands.

At this point the US has only several bad options, lead a coalition to destroy ISIS's will to continue the battle or sit back and bomb the hell out of them and hope someone else in addition to the Kurds puts some boots on the ground which is the key to a militarily victory. Possibly sending 5,000 or 10,000 US special forces working with the Kurds and Iraqis while maintaining US and Russian bombings would be enough to send ISIS fighters back to where they came from. I really don't think there's any real possibility of destroying ISIS. At best we can beat them militarily and end the battle, but of course not the war. They will just disperse into northern Africa or Yemen or someplace else like Al Qaeda has done. Terrorist groups like ISIS are completely mobile. They are not depend on any one country for their support.

 

[ChrisL]

Boy, the French are on a pretty big losing streak as far as Wars go. So I wouldn't be too optimistic on this one. If it were just the French VS. ISIS/Al Qaeda, i might have to go with ISIS/Al Qaeda winning it. That would be the smart money.

If you have any interest in understanding what ISIS really wants, you should take a look at this article. It's not light reading but it's worth the effort.

ISIS does not want to establish a nation, they want to establish a territory that they can operate out of. They have no interest in peace or treaties, or cease fires. Notice that they make no demands on the West. They seek reputation. They only want one thing, to kill all those that are not true believers. They seek to die in service of God unlike most Christians, Jews or Muslims who seek to live to serve God. ISIS is an apocalyptic cult. This is quite different than Al Qaeda.

What ISIS Really Wants

Some of their demands seem pretty reasonable. The West especially the U.S., should leave those lands it doesn't belong in. I mean, why the hell are we fighting a war in Syria anyway? It isn't our fight. We shouldn't have meddled. In fact if we hadn't, there would be no ISIS. We need to end the endless War policy. It's time to come home and secure our border.

Al Qaeda made lot's of demands but not ISIS. What demands has ISIS made of the west other than ransoms? The only thing they want from non-believes is their life.

ISIS targets, Muslims, Jews, Christians, and anyone who's not a true believer. They seek to form their Islamic state in Syria and Iraq and expand it within 5 years to include the entire Middle East. You would think this would bring every nation in the region together but deep seated animosities keep that from happening. Unfortunately, the United States is probably the only nation that could pull the various Muslim countries together to engage ISIS.

The U.S./West is responsible for the bloody carnage we're currently seeing in the Middle East. There are more terrorists there than ever before. And that's due to constant U.S. meddling. So the U.S./West can't help. They're part of the problem.

The U.S. invasion of Iraq helped terrorist groups like Al Qaeda immensely. There would be no Al Qaeda/ISIS foothold in the Middle East if not for all the U.S. meddling. It shouldn't have funded & armed any groups in Syria. It had no right meddling in its Civil War. The West, especially the U.S., need to stop the meddling and go home. They don't belong in those lands.

At this point the US has only several bad options, lead a coalition to destroy ISIS's will to continue the battle or sit back and bomb the hell out of them and hope someone else in addition to the Kurds puts some boots on the ground which is the key to a militarily victory. Possibly sending 5,000 or 10,000 US special forces working with the Kurds and Iraqis while maintaining US and Russian bombings would be enough to send ISIS fighters back to where they came from. I really don't think there's any real possibility of destroying ISIS. At best we can beat them militarily and end the battle, but of course not the war. They will just disperse into northern Africa or Yemen or someplace else like Al Qaeda has done. Terrorist groups like ISIS are completely mobile. They are not depend on any one country for their support.

Why do we have to fight with them? According to the liberals if we just stay out of their business, they will leave us alone. Is that right? Staying out of "their business" means helping them in any way as well.

 

[IsaacNewton]

If you have any interest in understanding what ISIS really wants, you should take a look at this article. It's not light reading but it's worth the effort.

ISIS does not want to establish a nation, they want to establish a territory that they can operate out of. They have no interest in peace or treaties, or cease fires. Notice that they make no demands on the West. They seek reputation. They only want one thing, to kill all those that are not true believers. They seek to die in service of God unlike most Christians, Jews or Muslims who seek to live to serve God. ISIS is an apocalyptic cult. This is quite different than Al Qaeda.

What ISIS Really Wants

Some of their demands seem pretty reasonable. The West especially the U.S., should leave those lands it doesn't belong in. I mean, why the hell are we fighting a war in Syria anyway? It isn't our fight. We shouldn't have meddled. In fact if we hadn't, there would be no ISIS. We need to end the endless War policy. It's time to come home and secure our border.

Al Qaeda made lot's of demands but not ISIS. What demands has ISIS made of the west other than ransoms? The only thing they want from non-believes is their life.

ISIS targets, Muslims, Jews, Christians, and anyone who's not a true believer. They seek to form their Islamic state in Syria and Iraq and expand it within 5 years to include the entire Middle East. You would think this would bring every nation in the region together but deep seated animosities keep that from happening. Unfortunately, the United States is probably the only nation that could pull the various Muslim countries together to engage ISIS.

The U.S./West is responsible for the bloody carnage we're currently seeing in the Middle East. There are more terrorists there than ever before. And that's due to constant U.S. meddling. So the U.S./West can't help. They're part of the problem.

The U.S. invasion of Iraq helped terrorist groups like Al Qaeda immensely. There would be no Al Qaeda/ISIS foothold in the Middle East if not for all the U.S. meddling. It shouldn't have funded & armed any groups in Syria. It had no right meddling in its Civil War. The West, especially the U.S., need to stop the meddling and go home. They don't belong in those lands.

At this point the US has only several bad options, lead a coalition to destroy ISIS's will to continue the battle or sit back and bomb the hell out of them and hope someone else in addition to the Kurds puts some boots on the ground which is the key to a militarily victory. Possibly sending 5,000 or 10,000 US special forces working with the Kurds and Iraqis while maintaining US and Russian bombings would be enough to send ISIS fighters back to where they came from. I really don't think there's any real possibility of destroying ISIS. At best we can beat them militarily and end the battle, but of course not the war. They will just disperse into northern Africa or Yemen or someplace else like Al Qaeda has done. Terrorist groups like ISIS are completely mobile. They are not depend on any one country for their support.

Why do we have to fight with them? According to the liberals if we just stay out of their business, they will leave us alone. Is that right? Staying out of "their business" means helping them in any way as well.

Your whole position is you surrender. Yet you feel qualified to judge anyone else. Alllllrighty then.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Now you just have to stop supporting your Government's Endless War policy.

so the stupid liberal wants to surrender to ISIS??

See why we have to be positive that liberalism is based in pure ignorance?

 

[paulitician]

Now you just have to stop supporting your Government's Endless War policy.

so the stupid liberal wants to surrender to ISIS??

See why we have to be positive that liberalism is based in pure ignorance?

Your Government helped create ISIS in the first place. No meddling in Iraq and Syria, no ISIS. Think about that for a bit.

 

[dblack]

Now you just have to stop supporting your Government's Endless War policy.

so the stupid liberal wants to surrender to ISIS??

Surrender how? You're not making any sense. You're simply claiming we want to surrender because we aren't going along with your desire to start a war.

 

[Tehon]

At this point the US has only several bad options, lead a coalition to destroy ISIS's will to continue the battle or sit back and bomb the hell out of them and hope someone else in addition to the Kurds puts some boots on the ground which is the key to a militarily victory. Possibly sending 5,000 or 10,000 US special forces working with the Kurds and Iraqis while maintaining US and Russian bombings would be enough to send ISIS fighters back to where they came from. I really don't think there's any real possibility of destroying ISIS. At best we can beat them militarily and end the battle, but of course not the war. They will just disperse into northern Africa or Yemen or someplace else like Al Qaeda has done. Terrorist groups like ISIS are completely mobile. They are not depend on any one country for their support.

The US handcuffs itself in the fight against ISIS by standing firm on its insistence that Assad must go. If the priority is ISIS, and you need boots on the ground, then it must be pointed out that they already exist on the ground in the form of the legitimate governing authority in Syria.

Your point about not being able to defeat the ISIS ideology is an obvious one and indeed they will scatter but you certainly can't allow them to have a foothold in any country such as we see in Iraq, Syria and Libya.

 

[percysunshine]

French President Calls Attacks an 'Act of War'


The French president calls attacks in Paris an 'Act of War'.

That is what it is. Nato needs to mobilize immediately and neutralize this threat with all due hostility. We aren't at terrorism, we are at war. The ENEMY has made it clear.

Nato should convene, tell the member states we need a quarter million troops and all will participate and land troops in Iraq and Syria FOR STARTERS. And it should make clear to the rest of the world get the fuck out of the way.

The real world is harsh and sometimes deadly force is required and right now is one of those times. And be clear, Nato will have forces in that region for decades to come.

The Nato charter states 'any attack on one member nation is an attack on all'. The time for half measures and yammering is now over, for good. Brutal force is now required, not by our choice but by what has been forced on us.

Socialism isn't working out so well.

.

Hey f*ck for brains...

This has nothing to do with socialism... Look at the reason why France has a large muslim population you ignorant ape but hey don't let any opportunity go without having a go.

Actually, it has everything to do with Socialism. You think everyone from the mid-east is flocking to Europe to see the Louvre?

They expect the promises of free stuff to be kept. Free shit sells...hey...

.

.

 

[ChrisL]

Why would we want to evacuate their men of fighting age and take them as refugees and then send OUR guys over there to fight ISIS? Where on earth does that make sense?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Surrender how? You're not making any sense. You're simply claiming we want to surrender because we aren't going along with your desire to start a war.

100% stupid we are already at war. The only question is do we go on the offensive or stay on the defensive against WMD's and pray our defense is 100% forever.

You seem 100% stupid!. What other conclusion is possible?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Now you just have to stop supporting your Government's Endless War policy.

so the stupid liberal wants to surrender to ISIS??

See why we have to be positive that liberalism is based in pure ignorance?

Your Government helped create ISIS in the first place. No meddling in Iraq and Syria, no ISIS. Think about that for a bit.

dear, our govt created the world after WW2 and saved civilization! THe idea that we should stop is Nazi like despite some failures.

Do you have the IQ to understand?

 

[Flopper]

If you have any interest in understanding what ISIS really wants, you should take a look at this article. It's not light reading but it's worth the effort.

ISIS does not want to establish a nation, they want to establish a territory that they can operate out of. They have no interest in peace or treaties, or cease fires. Notice that they make no demands on the West. They seek reputation. They only want one thing, to kill all those that are not true believers. They seek to die in service of God unlike most Christians, Jews or Muslims who seek to live to serve God. ISIS is an apocalyptic cult. This is quite different than Al Qaeda.

What ISIS Really Wants

Some of their demands seem pretty reasonable. The West especially the U.S., should leave those lands it doesn't belong in. I mean, why the hell are we fighting a war in Syria anyway? It isn't our fight. We shouldn't have meddled. In fact if we hadn't, there would be no ISIS. We need to end the endless War policy. It's time to come home and secure our border.

Al Qaeda made lot's of demands but not ISIS. What demands has ISIS made of the west other than ransoms? The only thing they want from non-believes is their life.

ISIS targets, Muslims, Jews, Christians, and anyone who's not a true believer. They seek to form their Islamic state in Syria and Iraq and expand it within 5 years to include the entire Middle East. You would think this would bring every nation in the region together but deep seated animosities keep that from happening. Unfortunately, the United States is probably the only nation that could pull the various Muslim countries together to engage ISIS.

The U.S./West is responsible for the bloody carnage we're currently seeing in the Middle East. There are more terrorists there than ever before. And that's due to constant U.S. meddling. So the U.S./West can't help. They're part of the problem.

The U.S. invasion of Iraq helped terrorist groups like Al Qaeda immensely. There would be no Al Qaeda/ISIS foothold in the Middle East if not for all the U.S. meddling. It shouldn't have funded & armed any groups in Syria. It had no right meddling in its Civil War. The West, especially the U.S., need to stop the meddling and go home. They don't belong in those lands.

At this point the US has only several bad options, lead a coalition to destroy ISIS's will to continue the battle or sit back and bomb the hell out of them and hope someone else in addition to the Kurds puts some boots on the ground which is the key to a militarily victory. Possibly sending 5,000 or 10,000 US special forces working with the Kurds and Iraqis while maintaining US and Russian bombings would be enough to send ISIS fighters back to where they came from. I really don't think there's any real possibility of destroying ISIS. At best we can beat them militarily and end the battle, but of course not the war. They will just disperse into northern Africa or Yemen or someplace else like Al Qaeda has done. Terrorist groups like ISIS are completely mobile. They are not depend on any one country for their support.

Why do we have to fight with them? According to the liberals if we just stay out of their business, they will leave us alone. Is that right? Staying out of "their business" means helping them in any way as well.

I really don't think doing nothing is an option that we should consider. If the US backed off from bombing and support for the Kurds and Iraqis we would be looking at a new Islamic Republic dedicated to death of all non-believers. Such an event would increase the threat to all countries including the US.

At a minimum we should maintain the bombings, support the Iraqis and Kurds, and encourage other nations to do their share.

 

[ChrisL]

Some of their demands seem pretty reasonable. The West especially the U.S., should leave those lands it doesn't belong in. I mean, why the hell are we fighting a war in Syria anyway? It isn't our fight. We shouldn't have meddled. In fact if we hadn't, there would be no ISIS. We need to end the endless War policy. It's time to come home and secure our border.

Al Qaeda made lot's of demands but not ISIS. What demands has ISIS made of the west other than ransoms? The only thing they want from non-believes is their life.

ISIS targets, Muslims, Jews, Christians, and anyone who's not a true believer. They seek to form their Islamic state in Syria and Iraq and expand it within 5 years to include the entire Middle East. You would think this would bring every nation in the region together but deep seated animosities keep that from happening. Unfortunately, the United States is probably the only nation that could pull the various Muslim countries together to engage ISIS.

The U.S./West is responsible for the bloody carnage we're currently seeing in the Middle East. There are more terrorists there than ever before. And that's due to constant U.S. meddling. So the U.S./West can't help. They're part of the problem.

The U.S. invasion of Iraq helped terrorist groups like Al Qaeda immensely. There would be no Al Qaeda/ISIS foothold in the Middle East if not for all the U.S. meddling. It shouldn't have funded & armed any groups in Syria. It had no right meddling in its Civil War. The West, especially the U.S., need to stop the meddling and go home. They don't belong in those lands.

At this point the US has only several bad options, lead a coalition to destroy ISIS's will to continue the battle or sit back and bomb the hell out of them and hope someone else in addition to the Kurds puts some boots on the ground which is the key to a militarily victory. Possibly sending 5,000 or 10,000 US special forces working with the Kurds and Iraqis while maintaining US and Russian bombings would be enough to send ISIS fighters back to where they came from. I really don't think there's any real possibility of destroying ISIS. At best we can beat them militarily and end the battle, but of course not the war. They will just disperse into northern Africa or Yemen or someplace else like Al Qaeda has done. Terrorist groups like ISIS are completely mobile. They are not depend on any one country for their support.

Why do we have to fight with them? According to the liberals if we just stay out of their business, they will leave us alone. Is that right? Staying out of "their business" means helping them in any way as well.

I really don't think doing nothing is an option that we should consider. If the US backed off from bombing and support for the Kurds and Iraqis we would be looking at a new Islamic Republic dedicated to death of all non-believers. Such an event would increase the threat to all countries including the US.

At a minimum we should maintain the bombings, support the Iraqis and Kurds, and encourage other nations to do their share.

I say let someone else meddle in their affairs for a change. I'm sick of us being the "bad guys" all the time. They all need to just leave us alone, IMO! Fight their own battles or ask someone else to help. It doesn't always have to be us who makes the sacrifices.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

At a minimum we should maintain the bombings, support the Iraqis and Kurds, and encourage other nations to do their share.

actually dear when someone is coming for you with WMD's, at a minimum you should kill them before they kill you.

 

[Flopper]

At this point the US has only several bad options, lead a coalition to destroy ISIS's will to continue the battle or sit back and bomb the hell out of them and hope someone else in addition to the Kurds puts some boots on the ground which is the key to a militarily victory. Possibly sending 5,000 or 10,000 US special forces working with the Kurds and Iraqis while maintaining US and Russian bombings would be enough to send ISIS fighters back to where they came from. I really don't think there's any real possibility of destroying ISIS. At best we can beat them militarily and end the battle, but of course not the war. They will just disperse into northern Africa or Yemen or someplace else like Al Qaeda has done. Terrorist groups like ISIS are completely mobile. They are not depend on any one country for their support.

The US handcuffs itself in the fight against ISIS by standing firm on its insistence that Assad must go. If the priority is ISIS, and you need boots on the ground, then it must be pointed out that they already exist on the ground in the form of the legitimate governing authority in Syria.

Your point about not being able to defeat the ISIS ideology is an obvious one and indeed they will scatter but you certainly can't allow them to have a foothold in any country such as we see in Iraq, Syria and Libya.

If it's true that Russia is sending 150,000 troops into Syria then yes, I think we should drop our insistence that Assad must go. However, Russia's primary interest is to secure the Assad regime. That means stopping rebels groups, some working with ISIS and some fighting against ISIS as well as ISIS itself. My guess is they would limit their military campaign to Syria leaving ISIS in Iraq for others to deal with and that is where the US must take the leadership role.

 

[ChrisL]

If they come here, that's another story entirely. Let them stay over there and kill each other. I don't really care anymore. I'm so sick of this stuff, honestly. I only want us to leave them alone and for them to leave us alone. That's all. Not asking a lot.