Boots On The Ground, Or Not?

[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.

Perfect. The "newtron" bomb. 214 baby.

I'm in the middle of moving AND posting. Screw the spelling.

 

[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?"

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.

Our intelligence agencies already have a list of targets for such operations.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Nukes should NOT be dropped. We have enough conventional weapons that can eliminate targets almost as easy as a nuke, but without the dangerous radiation that nukes leave behind.

 

[DarkFury]

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?

NO, HELL NO, they got us here in the first place.

 

[g5000]

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.

I mean everything. Special ops, CIA and their assets, and regular troops.

 

[saveliberty]

Nukes, the ultimate way to terrorize the enemy.

 

[deltex1]

Feinstein says Isis is not contained. Get over it Obama. Attack and destroy...no roe...no whining from Libtards.

 

[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.

I mean everything. Special ops, CIA and their assets, and regular troops.

Well then.......you can't get an answer. I am not opposed to special ops and CIA doing police work to root out plots and locate these fuckheads. But......regular troops.......invasion and occupation......nope.

 

[g5000]

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.

A very reasoned and well thought out response.

However...

We pre-emptively invaded another country not too long ago, purportedly to prevent an attack by that country on the US or its allies.

If one were to argue that it is just a matter of time before ISIS strikes us here at home, then wouldn't the same rationale dictate we attack them now?

Would your opinion change if ISIS had access to chemical or biological weapons and a means to deliver them to the US?

 

[ABikerSailor]

Do any of you civilians that are advocating throwing out the ROE (Rules of Engagement) really believe it's a good idea to do that? Most military people won't.

If we throw out the rules, we become no better than the terrorists.

 

[Votto]

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.

To be fair though, Obama it not a man of his word.

 

[g5000]

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.

I mean everything. Special ops, CIA and their assets, and regular troops.

Well then.......you can't get an answer. I am not opposed to special ops and CIA doing police work to root out plots and locate these fuckheads. But......regular troops.......invasion and occupation......nope.

The initial wave of our invasion of Afghanistan was the CIA and its assets there. They were incredibly successful and made the follow-up by special ops and regular troops that much easier.

I am talking about doing something along the same lines against ISIS.

 

[guno]

No boots!

Nukes.

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

Nukes.

Because we all know that nuke fall out only effects terrorists and not the entire region and the world

 

[g5000]

Do any of you civilians that are advocating throwing out the ROE (Rules of Engagement) really believe it's a good idea to do that? Most military people won't.

If we throw out the rules, we become no better than the terrorists.

I think the kid uses ROE terminology without really understanding what it means. Something she heard from her granddad.

 

[Votto]

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.

A very reasoned and well thought out response.

However...

We pre-emptively invaded another country not too long ago, purportedly to prevent an attack by that country on the US or its allies.

If one were to argue that it is just a matter of time before ISIS strikes us here at home, then wouldn't the same rationale dictate we attack them now?

Would your opinion change if ISIS had access to chemical or biological weapons and a means to deliver them to the US?

I say take over the entire Middle East and give it to the Jews.

Think about it, the flow of refugees would stop and all of the Muslim refugees in Europe would go running back to the Middle East to try and reclaim it for Allah their war god. In addition, civilians in these hell hole Islamic countries would be treated better.

 

[g5000]

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.

A very reasoned and well thought out response.

However...

We pre-emptively invaded another country not too long ago, purportedly to prevent an attack by that country on the US or its allies.

If one were to argue that it is just a matter of time before ISIS strikes us here at home, then wouldn't the same rationale dictate we attack them now?

Would your opinion change if ISIS had access to chemical or biological weapons and a means to deliver them to the US?

I say take over the entire Middle East and give it to the Jews.

I'm thinking Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are not the friends we like to think they are.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Do any of you civilians that are advocating throwing out the ROE (Rules of Engagement) really believe it's a good idea to do that? Most military people won't.

If we throw out the rules, we become no better than the terrorists.

I think the kid uses ROE terminology without really understanding what it means. Something she heard from her granddad.

These dummies think the ROE were forced on real men by liberal pansies. If only the real men were allowed to fight to win!! Blah, blah fucking blah.

 

[Timmy]

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.

To be fair though, Obama it not a man of his word.

Sure he is . He promised to get us out of Iraq and h did . Thank good !

 

[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.

A very reasoned and well thought out response.

However...

We pre-emptively invaded another country not too long ago, purportedly to prevent an attack by that country on the US or its allies.

If one were to argue that it is just a matter of time before ISIS strikes us here at home, then wouldn't the same rationale dictate we attack them now?

Would your opinion change if ISIS had access to chemical or biological weapons and a means to deliver them to the US?

Actually, the pre-emptive war in Iraq was so that Jr. could try to make his daddy's legacy a bit better, because in Desert Storm, Sr. let Saddam live. Also, it was because Jr. thought he could get more oil, and he went into Iraq rather than doing what he should have and taking out OBL.

We don't really know if ISIL has the capability to hit targets in the US (yet), but they have shown an ability to hit targets in Europe and Russia, so those are the ones who should do the heavy lifting on this one. Because if we do it, then the other countries are just going to let us do the fighting while they watch like they have done before.

And, I kinda doubt that ISIL has the capability to use chemical or bio weapons against anyone, because those 2 platforms have a very sophisticated delivery system. It's not as easy as just spraying chemicals in the air or strapping them to a bomb, because they have to be refined to the point where the droplets of chemicals or bio agents will be small enough to stay in the air for a long time. Granted, they might be able to buy one or two from rogue states, but they won't be able to get them in any sufficient quantity to make much of a difference.

 

[Pop23]

Yes, with NATO.