Boots On The Ground, Or Not?

[deltex1]

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.

Nerve gas is better: no damage to infrastructure, no survivors, no radiation.

So you want us to be war criminals.

I would not send troops anywhere under the command of a moron.

Here's how a moron fights a war...drop leaflets to warn your enemy...a year too late.

US Launches Mass Airstrikes Against Oil Trucks To Cut Off ISIS Revenue

 

[The Rabbi]

All those advocating bombing alone: you realize that will last only until the first "hospital", "kindergarten" or "old age home" gets bombed, right? And then its back to Obama personally approving every target.

 

[bendog]

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?"

If there was any rational answer to Odierno's question of who or what replaces Isis as a govt, I'd say yes, and support the necessary tax hike.
Sending 150,000 Troops To Iraq To Defeat ISIS Would Be Totally Futile, Army Chief Of Staff Says

 

[Avatar4321]

I'm extremely hesitant to send ground troops in while we have a leader who.won't fight to win.

Much better to focus on securing ourselves at home and let those who were attacked to fight over there.

 

[paulitician]

Hopefully one day Americans will figure it out. The more countries your Government bombs, the less safe you become, and the closer your own country moves to becoming a miserable Police State. It's time to stop the meddling and end the Endless War policy. If not, suffer the bloody consequences.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

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.

That's what his plastic surgeon said.

 

[bendog]

Hopefully one day Americans will figure it out. The more countries your Government bombs, the less safe you become, and the closer your own country moves to becoming a miserable Police State. It's time to stop the meddling and end the Endless War policy. If not, suffer the bloody consequences.

Worked well for France, didn't it.

 

[g5000]

Hopefully one day Americans will figure it out. The more countries your Government bombs, the less safe you become, and the closer your own country moves to becoming a miserable Police State. It's time to stop the meddling and end the Endless War policy. If not, suffer the bloody consequences.

Worked well for France, didn't it.

France has not been isolationist. They have been a part of the coalition fighting ISIS in Iraq and Syria for a while now, which is why they incurred the wrath of ISIS.

 

[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?"

If there was any rational answer to Odierno's question of who or what replaces Isis as a govt, I'd say yes, and support the necessary tax hike.
Sending 150,000 Troops To Iraq To Defeat ISIS Would Be Totally Futile, Army Chief Of Staff Says

The general is correct about "and then what"? What do we do after ISIS is wiped out? How do we prevent more chaos arising in the power vacuum?

There has to be some kind of occupation. The general prefers occupation by Arab states friendly to us.

I just don't see Saudi Arabia stepping up, though.

And this is probably why the US has not been more aggressive toward ISIS.

 

[bendog]

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?"

If there was any rational answer to Odierno's question of who or what replaces Isis as a govt, I'd say yes, and support the necessary tax hike.
Sending 150,000 Troops To Iraq To Defeat ISIS Would Be Totally Futile, Army Chief Of Staff Says

The general is correct about "and then what"? What do we do after ISIS is wiped out? How do we prevent more chaos arising in the power vacuum?

There has to be some kind of occupation. The general prefers occupation by Arab states friendly to us.

I just don't see Saudi Arabia stepping up, though.

And this is probably why the US has not been more aggressive toward ISIS.

Yeah, the "what next" question is Obama's sticking point, and it's very pertinent. It's exactly what W failed to contemplate, and what directly led to ISIS's ability, and reason, to form. And again, the real criticism I have of Obama, and what I'd have no problem using US boots to accomplish, is creating a safe zone for the refugees. Whatever entity occupies Syria, it has to be Syrian. W failed to achieve a united and politically inclusive civilian govt in Iraq. We should be trying to allow the Syrian refugees to form some social and political unity.

 

[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?"

If there was any rational answer to Odierno's question of who or what replaces Isis as a govt, I'd say yes, and support the necessary tax hike.
Sending 150,000 Troops To Iraq To Defeat ISIS Would Be Totally Futile, Army Chief Of Staff Says

The general is correct about "and then what"? What do we do after ISIS is wiped out? How do we prevent more chaos arising in the power vacuum?

There has to be some kind of occupation. The general prefers occupation by Arab states friendly to us.

I just don't see Saudi Arabia stepping up, though.

And this is probably why the US has not been more aggressive toward ISIS.

Yeah, the "what next" question is Obama's sticking point, and it's very pertinent. It's exactly what W failed to contemplate, and what directly led to ISIS's ability, and reason, to form. And again, the real criticism I have of Obama, and what I'd have no problem using US boots to accomplish, is creating a safe zone for the refugees. Whatever entity occupies Syria, it has to be Syrian. W failed to achieve a united and politically inclusive civilian govt in Iraq. We should be trying to allow the Syrian refugees to form some social and political unity.

A "safe zone" requires an occupying force to maintain.

 

[Avatar4321]

What next needs to be addressed before we can have a real plan of attack

 

[B. Kidd]

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.

Bingo! Thread should have ended with this post as the question is moot.

 

[bendog]

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?"

If there was any rational answer to Odierno's question of who or what replaces Isis as a govt, I'd say yes, and support the necessary tax hike.
Sending 150,000 Troops To Iraq To Defeat ISIS Would Be Totally Futile, Army Chief Of Staff Says

The general is correct about "and then what"? What do we do after ISIS is wiped out? How do we prevent more chaos arising in the power vacuum?

There has to be some kind of occupation. The general prefers occupation by Arab states friendly to us.

I just don't see Saudi Arabia stepping up, though.

And this is probably why the US has not been more aggressive toward ISIS.

Yeah, the "what next" question is Obama's sticking point, and it's very pertinent. It's exactly what W failed to contemplate, and what directly led to ISIS's ability, and reason, to form. And again, the real criticism I have of Obama, and what I'd have no problem using US boots to accomplish, is creating a safe zone for the refugees. Whatever entity occupies Syria, it has to be Syrian. W failed to achieve a united and politically inclusive civilian govt in Iraq. We should be trying to allow the Syrian refugees to form some social and political unity.

A "safe zone" requires an occupying force to maintain.

Yes.

 

[BlindBoo]

Only with the declaration of all out war by Congress.

 

[bendog]

Only with the declaration of all out war by Congress.

THAT would be exactly what ISIS wants. They're mythology requires some epic battle in which Islam finally deals the West a decisive defeat.

 

[BlindBoo]

Only with the declaration of all out war by Congress.

THAT would be exactly what ISIS wants. They're mythology requires some epic battle in which Islam finally deals the West a decisive defeat.

I believe if we took the gloves off, our military would wipe them out in a matter of weeks.

But then again, I don't believe Congress has the balls to declare all out war, too easy to defer, criticize and then plan for the next election cycle.

 

[paulitician]

Hopefully one day Americans will figure it out. The more countries your Government bombs, the less safe you become, and the closer your own country moves to becoming a miserable Police State. It's time to stop the meddling and end the Endless War policy. If not, suffer the bloody consequences.

Worked well for France, didn't it.

France is a staunch U.S. ally, and has been meddling and killing around the world for hundreds of years. It along with nations like the U.S. and Great Britain, have a lot of payback headed their way. The chickens are only just beginning to come home to roost.

 

[paulitician]

Hopefully one day Americans will figure it out. The more countries your Government bombs, the less safe you become, and the closer your own country moves to becoming a miserable Police State. It's time to stop the meddling and end the Endless War policy. If not, suffer the bloody consequences.

Worked well for France, didn't it.

France has not been isolationist. They have been a part of the coalition fighting ISIS in Iraq and Syria for a while now, which is why they incurred the wrath of ISIS.

Correct. And the more countries it bombs, the less safe it will be. And its People can expect many 'State of Emergency' declarations in the future.

 

[JoeB131]

Well, in my earlier scenario, involving broken IFF transponders, Chamberlain's ghost, and Fifth Columnists, we seem to have eliminated the first two.

again, you are very brave with the lives of other people's children.

Just shut the fuck up if you aren't going down to a recruiter tomorrow.

We have never been stupid enough to give them the chance.

No, because they are NOT our enemy. As much as we've sinned against the Iranian people, they really don't do anything but chant.

Do we lose 4,000 now, or 400,000 later?

We don't lose any. Not our problem. But you guys go ahead and run on another war. That's going to work out really well for you.

It's not.

You've been taken out of the loop.

Or, at least, you will have been, after January 20, 2017.

Guy, right now, your frontrunners are Combover and Uncle Tom. Hillary will beat them both easily.