Act of War

[EdwardBaiamonte]

It doesn't always have to be us who makes the sacrifices.

Dear, we are the only ones with Republicans. The left spied for Stalin and gave him the bomb. They are always weak on foreign policy because they really don't like America.

 

[ChrisL]

It doesn't always have to be us who makes the sacrifices.

Dear, we are the only ones with Republicans. The left spied for Stalin and gave him the bomb. They are always weak on foreign policy because they really don't like America.

If you want to discuss something with me, leave the terms of endearment out of it please. I don't know you well enough for you to call me "dear."

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I only want us to leave them alone and for them to leave us alone..

poor poor dear, sadly ISIS is not seeking your advice about what they should do.

How old are you???

 

[ChrisL]

I only want us to leave them alone and for them to leave us alone..

poor poor dear, sadly ISIS is not seeking your advice about what they should do.

How old are you???

Try to speak like a human and maybe I will consider answering you.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Let them stay over there and kill each other.

exactly we have no moral interest anymore than we had a moral interest when Hitler trying to take over the world! How old are you??

 

[Flopper]

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.

As history proves, it's much easy to join the fight than leave it. The problem is we joined the fight over 50 years ago, by supporting the Israelis against the Palestinians, using US dollars and military force to protect American interest in these countries, and overthrowing the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan. We put ourselves squarely in the middle of Middle Eastern affairs and just turning around and walking away would mean serious consequences for the US and the world. It's a mess we should have stayed out of but that's water under bridge.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

just turning around and walking away would mean serious consequences for the US and the world. .

walking away is not an option dear given that we are under attack!!! Do you grasp??????????????

 

[Votto]

So what will the French do? Go into Syria and Iraq? And then what? This has been done already, and it just got worse.

The French don't exactly have a very good military record.

My guess is that the US should do it for them, like Obama did to remove Gaddafi for them.

 

[Votto]

So if it is a war why don't they declare war?

Cowards

 

[Votto]

So if it is a war why don't they declare war?

Cowards

 

[Flopper]

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.

If you're talking about Islamic terrorist organization such ISIS and Al Qaeda, you can't leave them alone because they are going to attack you either at home or abroad. Their lives and deaths are dedicated to destroying you and your culture that they find so offensive.

 

[Timmy]

"An act of war". Did they France prez not realize they were already bombing Isis ? Was that just an act of dislike ?

 

[Flopper]

So if it is a war why don't they declare war?

Cowards

They did. They call it Jihad

 

[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.

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.

Russia has not shown a desire to send ground troops and if they can prop up Assad through an air campaign it's doubtful they would. Russia propping up Assad is entirely consistent with their stated position of destroying ISIS for the reasons I previously stated.
Russia has stated that they would be fine with Assad stepping down so long as it was a political solution and not coerced. I agree, the Syrian people should make the decision, not a contingency of foreign backed jihadists.
Why is it that so many US citizens feel that they retain a right to overthrow foreign governments, it's bizarre? And it always works out so well.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

the Syrian people should make the decision,.

crazy animals at best who cant vote and if they could would have no idea what on earth to vote for!!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Why is it that so many US citizens feel that they retain a right to overthrow foreign governments, it's bizarre? And it always works out so well.

dear we are the last best hope for freedom on earth. That's why. It worked our very well indeed after WW2 when we re-created the civilized modern world in our image! We have an moral obligation to do same in ME.

 

[freemind]

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.

IssacNewton,
Unless any troops go in on the side of the Syran government, any force would be a waste of lives, money and effort. Let's go allong with the bullshit propaganda that the Syrian leader Assad is a "dictator." Consider this. Tunisia got rid of its "dictator." The result? Chaos. Libya got rid of its dictator. The result? Chaos. Egypt got rid of its dictator. The result? Civil unrest and military rule. We got rid of Iraqs dictator. The result? An ongoing disaster. Clearly helping Assad and attacking both ISIS and the rebels in Syria is the only way to go.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

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.

IssacNewton,
Unless any troops go in on the side of the Syran government, any force would be a waste of lives, money and effort. Let's go allong with the bullshit propaganda that the Syrian leader Assad is a "dictator." Consider this. Tunisia got rid of its "dictator." The result? Chaos. Libya got rid of its dictator. The result? Chaos. Egypt got rid of its dictator. The result? Civil unrest and military rule. We got rid of Iraqs dictator. The result? An ongoing disaster. Clearly helping Assad and attacking both ISIS and the rebels in Syria is the only way to go.

I think you're right. It cant be coincidence that all those countries had dictators in the first place. A dictator can be a peace maker.

 

[eagle1462010]

Most of the area has dictators because they are the only ones capable of keeping a lid on the Radical Islamic Sects...........They don't keep the lid on area by being nice about it............

Old Marine Saying..........Some people need to have a boot on their neck for their own good.

 

[Votto]

So if it is a war why don't they declare war?

Cowards

They did. They call it Jihad

No, I mean France. They should declare war instead of random bombings like Obama did in Libya. For you see, Obama is a coward as well.