Boots On The Ground, Or Not?

[g5000]

Ask some people what they would do about ISIS, "Whatever Obama is doing, we're against that." Never an actual plan. Just a cowardly running away while throwing spitballs at what someone else is trying to do.

So let's strike while the Parisian iron is hot.

Should we send in the necessary ground troops to finish off ISIS, or not?

It is currently estimated it would take about 30,000 to 40,000 troops to do so.

Let's assume for the sake of argument no other country is going to send troops. It's obvious they are not going to. Maybe once we sent troops, they would join, but we cannot assume that.

So, no wiggling, no waffling bullshit about how Obama would never send troops. The question is, "SHOULD we?"

 

[DarkFury]

No boots on the ground! None.

 

[g5000]

No boots on the ground! None.

Thank you for your response.

Follow-up question. If ISIS terrorists perpetrate an attack on US soil like the recent attack on Paris, would this change your answer?

 

[DarkFury]

No boots on the ground! None.

Thank you for your response.

Follow-up question. If ISIS terrorists perpetrate an attack on US soil like the recent attack on Paris, would this change your answer?

Yes, then I say bomb them into the stone age.

 

[LoneLaugher]

No......and no.

The response to ISIS requires the use of military pressure from the region, diplomatic efforts to build a coalition which squeezes them and their source of income and good old fashioned intelligence and police work.

 

[HenryBHough]

No boots!

Nukes.

As many as it takes to make a sea of glass.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

You won't win w/o boots on the ground. With that said if boots are on the ground don't handcuff them with ROE, turn them loose and ISIS will be annihilated

 

[Bassman007]

Ask some people what they would do about ISIS, "Whatever Obama is doing, we're against that." Never an actual plan. Just a cowardly running away while throwing spitballs at what someone else is trying to do.

So let's strike while the Parisian iron is hot.

Should we send in the necessary ground troops to finish off ISIS, or not?

It is currently estimated it would take about 30,000 to 40,000 troops to do so.

Let's assume for the sake of argument no other country is going to send troops. It's obvious they are not going to. Maybe once we sent troops, they would join, but we cannot assume that.

So, no wiggling, no waffling bullshit about how Obama would never send troops. The question is, "SHOULD we?"

Where should Obama send troops, and who should they fight. ISIS will just disappear into the crowd, they do not wear black hoods all the time you know. Furthermore you nerds who blamed Bush for sending troops, now want Obama to do the same.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Take note....DF agrees with Henry. He suggests that we deploy nuclear weapons against ISIS.

He didn't want to say it in his post for some reason.

 

[saveliberty]

No boots on the ground! None.

Thank you for your response.

Follow-up question. If ISIS terrorists perpetrate an attack on US soil like the recent attack on Paris, would this change your answer?

First, good question g5000. To get good actionable intel, you need boots on the ground. So as few as possible is my answer. If they strike US soil, I think you invoke the nuclear option and make them well aware that is how we will respond.

 

[DarkFury]

You won't win w/o boots on the ground. With that said if boots are on the ground don't handcuff them with ROE, turn them loose and ISIS will be annihilated

Should we remind democrats that under Carter who killed the Newtron bomb. You remember the bomb that killed people but left no radiation.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

You won't win w/o boots on the ground. With that said if boots are on the ground don't handcuff them with ROE, turn them loose and ISIS will be annihilated

Should we remind democrats that under Carter who killed the Newtron bomb. You remember the bomb that killed people but left no radiation.

Actually I didn't know that, thanks

 

[LoneLaugher]

Would the OP kindly define wha is meant by "Boots on the ground" for purposes of this discussion.

I believe he wants to say 30,000 troops......an invading force and an occupation for some period of time. I don't believe he refers to special ops teams or intelligence forces.

Thanks.

 

[DarkFury]

Take note....DF agrees with Henry. He suggests that we deploy nuclear weapons against ISIS.

He didn't want to say it in his post for some reason.

I prefer air/fuel bombs. {MOABS}

 

[blackhawk]

Doesn't really matter Obama has made it very clear he won't change his current ISIS strategery. There is really no point in putting in ground forces if your going to tie their hands.
It is fatal to enter any war without the will to win it.

 

[LoneLaugher]

You won't win w/o boots on the ground. With that said if boots are on the ground don't handcuff them with ROE, turn them loose and ISIS will be annihilated

Should we remind democrats that under Carter who killed the Newtron bomb. You remember the bomb that killed people but left no radiation.

Perfect. The "newtron" bomb. 214 baby.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Should we send in troops? Not right now.

Why? Because it's been other countries that have been attacked (Beruit, France, Russia), and THOSE countries should bear the lion's share of the ground forces. I know that it's been the USA that has been doing most of the heavy lifting and other countries need to help out as well, especially places like Saudi Arabia.

Now, if Russia and France decide to get a coalition and can get the mideast countries to join up, I wouldn't be opposed to sending in a small force that can join up with other forces to form a coalition to take out ISIL.

And, to be fair, it's more of a problem for ME and European countries right now than it is for us. I think we've got the intel and the security that we could stop any ISIL attacks from being carried out here in the US.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Take note....DF agrees with Henry. He suggests that we deploy nuclear weapons against ISIS.

He didn't want to say it in his post for some reason.

I prefer air/fuel bombs. {MOABS}

Then WHY ARE YOU AGREEING WITH ANYONE WHO CALLS FOR NUKES? Is it a reflex?

 

[LoneLaugher]

You won't win w/o boots on the ground. With that said if boots are on the ground don't handcuff them with ROE, turn them loose and ISIS will be annihilated

Should we remind democrats that under Carter who killed the Newtron bomb. You remember the bomb that killed people but left no radiation.

Actually I didn't know that, thanks

You still don't know it.

 

[HenryBHough]

Is anyone comforted by the fact that The Democrat Party still has well over a year to experiment with peaceful politeness, capitulation and apology to make America (let alone the world) safe and secure?

I mean any rational person....we know how our laughing asshole will react....