Do you support sending large U.S. ground forces to retake territory ruled by ISIS in Syria/Iraq?

[U2Edge]

Do you support sending large U.S. ground forces to retake territory ruled by ISIS in Syria/Iraq?

I say yes!


Obama is correct in saying that they are doing everything they can to fight and destroy the Islamic State but with one big exception, sending in large numbers of U.S. Ground combat forces to retake the territory currently controlled by ISIS in Iraq and Syria.

ISIS territory cannot be retaken with Air Power alone. There has to be a ground army that fights them on the ground and re-establishes control of these areas. The current ground operators, the Iraqi Army along with Iraqi Shia Arab militias are somewhat weak and slow in their progress although they have had limited success. The Kurds have had limited success and continue to do so, but their numbers are small and they are poorly equipped.

Assad in Syria has his military busy fighting primarily other forces like the Free Syrian Army rather than ISIS.

Its been 18 months since ISIS in a matter of days doubled the size of its caliphate by taken large areas of Iraq. They have been pushed back gradually since then but still control large amounts of territory from which to train, plan, and begin the execution of their global terrorism. ISIS thrives in territory they control and it attracts recruits from around the world giving new recruits and easy area to find and get to. The survival of the caliphate, control of large areas of Iraq and Syria makes it look successful and attractive to potential recruits around the world.

There is a chance that Obama's plan of using relatively weak local forces on the ground and U.S. airpower will eventually work, but it will take a long time. U.S. ground forces could achieve the same objective in much shorter time there by saving thousands of lives and protecting U.S. and international security.

Over the past two weeks ISIS has killed 225 Russians on airplane, attacked and killed 130 people in Paris and wounded 350 there, and blown up 50 people in a well guarded area of Beirut. Obama's plan at the current pace could take years. How many of these types of attacks is the world willing to endure while it waits for Obama's plan to work. Large U.S. ground forces could retake this territory in weeks and place it under the control of friendly forces which would end the caliphate and heavily reduce the probability of future global terrorist attacks and lead to a sharp decline in ISIS ability to recruit and train new fighters.

In my view, large ground forces what is needed and they were used and worked in Afghanistan and Iraq. Obama ramped up US involvement in Afghanistan in 2009 from 35,000 to 100,000 with what I feel were good results. Its frustrating to see him not do the same to take on a worse threat than Al Quada has been.

I think Obama's plan will eventually work, the question is what price innocent civilians around the world will have to pay while we wait or it to work. There is another option, large U.S. ground forces to take back control of these ISIS areas and it could be accomplished in a matter of weeks after the forces get there. It would be much faster and potentially save thousands of innocent civilian lives around the world.

 

[TNHarley]

I say we either beat them or leave it be. One or the other.

 

[U2Edge]

I say we either beat them or leave it be. One or the other.

Don't forget to vote in the poll!

 

[Siete]

sending large U.S. ground forces to retake territory ruled by ISIS doesn't do a damn thing to quell splinter groups like the shithooks that went nuts in France. NOTHING AT ALL !!!

when moron RW's understand that simple fact of dealing with terrorists the better off we'll be ....

 

[jwoodie]

In case anyone has forgotten, WE WON the war in Iraq. Obama's withdrawal of all of our forces from that country demonstrated his profound ignorance of history: What if we had withdrawn from Germany after WW2? Is there any limit to his ideological conceit?

 

[TNHarley]

sending large U.S. ground forces to retake territory ruled by ISIS doesn't do a damn thing to quell splinter groups like the shithooks that went nuts in France. NOTHING AT ALL !!!

when moron RW's understand that simple fact of dealing with terrorists the better off we'll be ....

I partly agree with this numb nut.
My view isn't as simple as yes or no on ground troops. Would ground troops finish them off?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Not under Obungle's leadership. He has no idea how to wage a war

 

[blackhawk]

You won't defeat ISIS or take back the land they control without sending in a large ground force the U.S. should be part of that but it should not be solely American troops.

 

[Skull Pilot]

There's no need to invade all that has to be done is to completely close the borders to all traffic establish no fly zones blockade all ports and allow no country to engage in any commerce whatsoever let them sit there and pray 5 times a day until they all starve to death or kill each other

 

[BluesLegend]

If we send in ground forces any land we take we keep, it becomes a US colony, we also keep their oil. We'll station about 2,000 battle tanks there and blast hell out of anything that comes near our new colony. If Iran starts running their big mouths we'll go blast hell out of them, shut it Iran you punks.

 

[Siete]

we could OWN Syria ... how does that stop terrorists in France?

 

[NYcarbineer]

If we send in ground forces any land we take we keep, it becomes a US colony, we also keep their oil. We'll station about 2,000 battle tanks there and blast hell out of anything that comes near our new colony. If Iran starts running their big mouths we'll go blast hell out of them, shut it Iran you punks.

Retard meltdown. Wet cleanup in aisle 2!

That is the dumbest post of the year. Well, okay, tied for 1st place with about 10,000 other dumb RWnut posts.

 

[U2Edge]

sending large U.S. ground forces to retake territory ruled by ISIS doesn't do a damn thing to quell splinter groups like the shithooks that went nuts in France. NOTHING AT ALL !!!

when moron RW's understand that simple fact of dealing with terrorists the better off we'll be ....

It does reduce the number of terrorist that will be recruited and attracted to their cause and reduces the money, resources and areas in which they will have to train. Destroying the caliphate will decrease the number of recruits. The Caliphates success attracts recruits, its failure reduces recruits and resources it will have available to do attacks.
No it does not 100% eliminate the threat, but the point here is to do everything possible to reduce the threat and this is one thing that is NOT being done at this time!

 

[jwoodie]

I say we either beat them or leave it be. One or the other.

Don't forget to vote in the poll!

Whether by accident or design, the poll question is faulty. What, exactly, does "large" mean and in relation to what military strategy? Almost no one advocates a permanent occupation by US ground forces, although a UN peace keeping force in some areas might be warranted.

However, I do believe that a US base should have been established in Iraq as a stabilizing presence and counterweight to Iranian threats to its neighbors.

 

[Londoner]

ISIS wants a massive western military response because the civilian casualties will drive moderates into the hands of extremists.

ISIS wants US Citizens to reject Muslim refugees fleeing Syria because this will drive them into the hands of the extremist.

ISIS wants a large unified Islamic Republic (just as Christian evangelists want everyone to be orthodox Christians).

Western violence in Muslim territory gives ISIS what they want. Western hatred of moderate non-violent Muslims gives ISIS what they want.

ISIS and the Republican Party want the same thing, without seeing it. They want the West to conquer Muslim territories so they can recruit ALL Muslims.

 

[U2Edge]

sending large U.S. ground forces to retake territory ruled by ISIS doesn't do a damn thing to quell splinter groups like the shithooks that went nuts in France. NOTHING AT ALL !!!

when moron RW's understand that simple fact of dealing with terrorists the better off we'll be ....

I partly agree with this numb nut.
My view isn't as simple as yes or no on ground troops. Would ground troops finish them off?

No, but it would vastly reduce their numbers, resources, training areas and money. Why would anyone NOT want to do that?

 

[Timmy]

sending large U.S. ground forces to retake territory ruled by ISIS doesn't do a damn thing to quell splinter groups like the shithooks that went nuts in France. NOTHING AT ALL !!!

when moron RW's understand that simple fact of dealing with terrorists the better off we'll be ....

Exactly . Say we invaded 2 months ago . Paris still would've been attacked.

I don't want our troops in the front line .

 

[jwoodie]

sending large U.S. ground forces to retake territory ruled by ISIS doesn't do a damn thing to quell splinter groups like the shithooks that went nuts in France. NOTHING AT ALL !!!

when moron RW's understand that simple fact of dealing with terrorists the better off we'll be ....

It does reduce the number of terrorist that will be recruited and attracted to their cause and reduces the money, resources and areas in which they will have to train. Destroying the caliphate will decrease the number of recruits. The Caliphates success attracts recruits, its failure reduces recruits and resources it will have available to do attacks.
No it does not 100% eliminate the threat, but the point here is to do everything possible to reduce the threat and this is one thing that is NOT being done at this time!

So much for Obama's closing of Gitmo.

 

[konradv]

I support arming and training the people of Iraq and Syria to defend themselves and retake territory from ISIS. We can provide aerial and material support, but the actual fighting should be done by the Iraqis and Syrians themselves. All of this could have been avoided, if we'd employed that strategy to depose Saddam in the first place.

 

[U2Edge]

There's no need to invade all that has to be done is to completely close the borders to all traffic establish no fly zones blockade all ports and allow no country to engage in any commerce whatsoever let them sit there and pray 5 times a day until they all starve to death or kill each other

The Caliphate is currently larger than Indiana and effectively blockade it would take large ground forces as well. The Caliphate is self sustaining as well controlling large cities and populations, and resources. The continued existence of the caliphate inspires home grown terrorism and no blockade is full proof or long lasting, plus the Caliphate has oil to bribe anyone to break the blockade. Just as a Blockade would not stop Hitler its not going to stop the caliphate ISIS now has.