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

[EdwardBaiamonte]

the basis problem with boots

no need for boots when we can bomb them fro mthe air. Do you understand?

 

[Staidhup]

The only option is to support those already fighting ISIS on the ground with arms, air, drone, and satellite surveillance technology. Let the Russians prop up their new puppet, we should remain focused on ISIS.

 

[Faun]

Why are they blowing themselves of if their goal is to save themselves?

100% stupid as always. Read about who blows themselves up. Its not the leadership its usually the dregs.

Crazy Eddie .... ISIS's goal is the apocalypse. The ultimate suicide bombing. Why do you ramble on about things you know nothing about?

 

[jknowgood]

I would be for it if they do away with rules of engagement we have on our soldiers. Let them do what needs to do and win. Then get the hell out of there.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

knowing that terrorists who do not possess any weapons capable of killing millions will probably not attack us.

probably??? and if you're wrong ?? Oh well ??? actually dear bio-weapons are fairly easy these days thanks to modern technology and they are the only weaponary that gives ISIS a chance to survive in the long run. Remember how Al Quaeda had chemists and ISIS is ahead of us in computer science??

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I would be for it if they do away with rules of engagement we have on our soldiers. Let them do what needs to do and win. Then get the hell out of there.

nope, house to house in city after city is a deadly fools errand. Don't know why thats so hard to grasp

 

[Faun]

knowing that terrorists who do not possess any weapons capable of killing millions will probably not attack us.

probably??? and if you're wrong ?? Oh well ??? actually dear bio-weapons are fairly easy these days thanks to modern technology and they are the only weaponary that gives ISIS a chance to survive in the long run. Remember how Al Quaeda had chemists and ISIS is ahead of us in computer science??

Whoaaa, Crazy Eddie .... what if you're wrong about Russia?

We should nuke them before it's too late.

That is your logic.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

Of course not - the notion is idiocy.

 

[KissMy]

I would be for it if they do away with rules of engagement we have on our soldiers. Let them do what needs to do and win. Then get the hell out of there.

If we do away with rules of engagement, then we don't need US soldiers there. Just hit Syria & Northern Iraq with AC-130 Gunships set to kill every living thing & bomb the cities to rubble.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

.... what if you're wrong about Russia?

dear stupid please find someone who feels Russia is more of a threat than ISIS or that we should bomb them the way we are bombing ISIS. Feel stupid now??

 

[jknowgood]

I would be for it if they do away with rules of engagement we have on our soldiers. Let them do what needs to do and win. Then get the hell out of there.

nope, house to house in city after city is a deadly fools errand. Don't know why thats so hard to grasp

Instead of being a standing target?

 

[Faun]

.... what if you're wrong about Russia?

dear stupid please find someone who feels Russia is more of a threat than ISIS or that we should bomb them the way we are bombing ISIS. Feel stupid now??

It doesn't matter if they're more or less of a threat than ISIS. They could kill millions here. What if you're wrong about them?

Using the Crazy Eddie batshit security defense system, we must carpet bomb them before it's too late.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I would be for it if they do away with rules of engagement we have on our soldiers. Let them do what needs to do and win. Then get the hell out of there.

nope, house to house in city after city is a deadly fools errand. Don't know why thats so hard to grasp

Instead of being a standing target?

what?????????????

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

.... what if you're wrong about Russia?

dear stupid please find someone who feels Russia is more of a threat than ISIS or that we should bomb them the way we are bombing ISIS. Feel stupid now??

It doesn't matter if they're more or less of a threat than ISIS. They could kill millions here. What if you're wrong about them?

Using the Crazy Eddie batshit security defense system, we must carpet bomb them before it's too late.

if so I'll pay the submoron liar$10,000. Bet

 

[Faun]

.... what if you're wrong about Russia?

dear stupid please find someone who feels Russia is more of a threat than ISIS or that we should bomb them the way we are bombing ISIS. Feel stupid now??

It doesn't matter if they're more or less of a threat than ISIS. They could kill millions here. What if you're wrong about them?

Using the Crazy Eddie batshit security defense system, we must carpet bomb them before it's too late.

if so I'll pay the submoron liar$10,000. Bet

You don't pay your bets. Last time I saw you make an offer like that, you lost, but to this day have not paid out. You're not a man of your word, Crazy Eddie.

 

[jknowgood]

I would be for it if they do away with rules of engagement we have on our soldiers. Let them do what needs to do and win. Then get the hell out of there.

nope, house to house in city after city is a deadly fools errand. Don't know why thats so hard to grasp

Instead of being a standing target?

what?????????????

That's basically what they are now. A terrorist can shoot at a soldier and then drop his weapon. Then our soldiers can't shoot back at the terrorist. It's a messed up situation, our soldiers are social workers now. Not the killing machines they should be.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I would be for it if they do away with rules of engagement we have on our soldiers. Let them do what needs to do and win. Then get the hell out of there.

nope, house to house in city after city is a deadly fools errand. Don't know why thats so hard to grasp

Instead of being a standing target?

what?????????????

That's basically what they are now. A terrorist can shoot at a soldier and then drop his weapon. Then our soldiers can't shoot back at the terrorist. It's a messed up situation, our soldiers are social workers now. Not the killing machines they should be.

if so I would agree but I don't think that's the case

 

[KissMy]

.... what if you're wrong about Russia?

dear stupid please find someone who feels Russia is more of a threat than ISIS or that we should bomb them the way we are bombing ISIS. Feel stupid now??

It doesn't matter if they're more or less of a threat than ISIS. They could kill millions here. What if you're wrong about them?

Using the Crazy Eddie batshit security defense system, we must carpet bomb them before it's too late.

You have to get the UN to agree to destroy the Middle-East to get Jihadist's to surrender & change it. Or let them have their Civil War & kill themselves.

 

[freemind]

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.

U2Edge,
The U.S. shouldn't send troops into Syria unless it is in support of the Syran government. After all, the Syrian government is more secular and doesn't behead people. The U.S. puts up a shit fit about the Syran government being ruled by a dictator. Well just for argument's sake, let's say it was. Tunesia got rid of its dictator. The result? Chaos. Libya got rid of its dictator. The result? Chaos. Egypt got rid of its dictator. The result? Social unrest and military rule. We got rid of Iraqs dictator. The result? An ongoing disaster. Only a complete and utter shithead wouldn't support Syrias government.

 

[jknowgood]

I would be for it if they do away with rules of engagement we have on our soldiers. Let them do what needs to do and win. Then get the hell out of there.

nope, house to house in city after city is a deadly fools errand. Don't know why thats so hard to grasp

Instead of being a standing target?

what?????????????

That's basically what they are now. A terrorist can shoot at a soldier and then drop his weapon. Then our soldiers can't shoot back at the terrorist. It's a messed up situation, our soldiers are social workers now. Not the killing machines they should be.

if so I would agree but I don't think that's the case

Our great soldiers have rules that is ridiculous. That's why we haven't won a war since the progressives got into government. Ww2 only lasted a couple of years, because soldiers were told to win at all cost. Now, not so much. I feel sorry for our great soldiers fighting now.