Boots On The Ground, Or Not?

[HenryBHough]

Kill 'em all and let Allah sort 'em out.

 

[Unkotare]

No boots on the ground! None.

It will be necessary.

 

[Unkotare]

Kill 'em all and let Allah sort 'em out.

No, kill the fucking terrorists and not the innocents who have been suffering because of them at least as much as anyone else.

 

[Timmy]

Put France boots down. Turkey boots , Saudi boots , Jordan boots . Not US boots!


By the way, what happened to Jordan never resting !?! Remember ? after Isis burned that pilot to death?

 

[candycorn]

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.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

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.

Interesting you brought the brothers in Boston up....they were "refugees"

 

[CrusaderFrank]

No boots until we have a President who is not a junior Jihadists

 

[Iceweasel]

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.

 

[Eaglewings]

You can see with the fear people have from Paris, it would be easy to take advantage of that fear and go into war for ones own gain...just ask Cheney.

 

[Kondor3]

No. And Hell No.

So long as we start melting down Caliphate mustering points and infrastructure and formations.

Lots of fuel-air (thermobaric) bombs should do the trick.

All the fun of an atomic warhead on a smaller scale and without the radiation...

Fry the little phukkers...

 

[TemplarKormac]

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?"

Yes. Pull the 10,000 out of Afghanistan and redeploy them in Syria and Iraq, that way you don't have to commit as much fresh blood to the fight from the home. Send 20,000 over to join them. If I were in a position of influence in military strategy, I would advise putting more stress on our bombing campaign. Ramp up the sorties from a mere 5 a day to at least 120-140 a day. Don't implement a no-fly zone.

In the meantime, have the joint chiefs devise an effective plan to go in, kick ass, and get out. No need for a protracted campaign. You don't commit troops to a war you have no strategy for.

A counter theory:

Let's say France decides to invade Syria and Iraq first, it then would be wise to follow in the lead with at least 5-10,000 supplementary troops of our own. It is most likely that other members of NATO would jump in from there. If this were the case, the US wouldn't need to commit as many troops as would be necessary for a single nation campaign.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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.

What good are boots unless we can get Obama to switch sides against his brothers in Jihad

 

[The Rabbi]

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?"

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.
That said, you decide ISIS is a threat. You take out that threat. Whatever it takes. But none of this kinder friendlier warfare. Brutal overwhelming force until they capitulate totally or are destroyed. It's the most humane way to do it.

 

[Timmy]

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.

Fool. Obama is smart enough to keep us at arms length .

I have one question for Ya . How many US troops have died in Iraq since 2012????

 

[Kondor3]

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.

We don't need any more "Can't go past the X parallel" bullshit shoved down the throats of our troops, as they have so often in the past.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Or, in short, Article 5 is all you need if you can get all 28 member nations to agree to it. That, or Congress can unilaterally bypass the President and declare war on its own.

 

[Kondor3]

...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?"

 

[nuhuh]

Look, the war against ISIS should be many pronged and doesn't require a large force to subdue it. First, you attack the funding and put an immediate stop to countries that act like our friend while they fill the pockets of our bitterest enemies. Whoever sends a buck needs to pay a price you zip up both ends then punish the state that sponsors it. No excuses, no waivers, no apologies, fund terrorism and you will be blown out of your $250 million dollar yacht or shot out of the sky in your 747, it doesn't matter anymore. Second, play it like a real war, kill communications so they can't get on the internet and snapchat a bombing plan, or Twitter a game plan, it ends today. Target resupply ships, they are not innocent members of free enterprise, they're terrorists, treat them like it. Third destroy enough infrastructure that they cannot function then let a force subdue and take them out.

The two biggest obstacles to success in attacking ISIS are civilian casualties and fear of crossing our wealthy oil friends. Solve those two problems and you'll find success.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Boots On The Ground, Or Not?"

Again, one hopes this is rhetorical.

No sane American would advocate another war in the ME, more Americans dying in a meaningless, pointless conflict, a war which would succeed in only making the terrorists stronger.

 

[Timmy]

...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?"

Can't answer the question ?