HenryBHough
Diamond Member
Kill 'em all and let Allah sort 'em out.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Kill 'em all and let Allah sort 'em out.
Again, when I think "boots on the ground", I am talking about large combat forces upwards of 1000 soldiers and support in harm's way. Special forces, drones, low-risk (to pilots and civilians) bombing runs....okay.
Despite the right wing fervor, ISIS is the JV team. They have limited numbers, limited capability and the future looks quite dim. Yes, I am aware of their operation in Paris. Basically the same thing was pulled off by 2 brothers in Boston. It doesn't take any special training or capability to kill people. It is, as Sun Tzu said, the goal to kill one and terrorize 10,000. The GOP has been effectively terrorized it would seem. Forgotten is the other idiom that goes something like, "If you can decide when to fight and when not to fight, your victory is assured." We needn't do jack shit to ISIS right now. Collect intel, wait until they get a bit more comfortable then attack.
And, yes, there will likely be times when an attack is not carried out because there may be collateral damage of women and kids. This is what separates us from the terrorists.
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?"
Again, when I think "boots on the ground", I am talking about large combat forces upwards of 1000 soldiers and support in harm's way. Special forces, drones, low-risk (to pilots and civilians) bombing runs....okay.
Despite the right wing fervor, ISIS is the JV team. They have limited numbers, limited capability and the future looks quite dim. Yes, I am aware of their operation in Paris. Basically the same thing was pulled off by 2 brothers in Boston. It doesn't take any special training or capability to kill people. It is, as Sun Tzu said, the goal to kill one and terrorize 10,000. The GOP has been effectively terrorized it would seem. Forgotten is the other idiom that goes something like, "If you can decide when to fight and when not to fight, your victory is assured." We needn't do jack shit to ISIS right now. Collect intel, wait until they get a bit more comfortable then attack.
And, yes, there will likely be times when an attack is not carried out because there may be collateral damage of women and kids. This is what separates us from the terrorists.
First off, it is the president's job to run foreign policy and that includes military engagements. So no one is obligated to come up wth a policy.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?"
No boots on the ground as long as a Democrat is Commander in Chief. Liberals blame everything on everyone one else, take no responsibility and will cut and run at the first sign of trouble. Iraq was stable and obama fucked it up big time because like most liberals he cannot see cause and effect.
Well, I agree with that 'no boots on the ground while a Democrat is CiC' perspective.No boots on the ground as long as a Democrat is Commander in Chief. Liberals blame everything on everyone one else, take no responsibility and will cut and run at the first sign of trouble. Iraq was stable and obama fucked it up big time because like most liberals he cannot see cause and effect.
Followed by the ever-popular "How many US troops are going to die eventually because Obumble blew the disengagement?"...How many US troops have died in Iraq since 2012????
Followed by the ever-popular "How many US troops are going to die eventually because Obumble blew the disengagement?"...How many US troops have died in Iraq since 2012????