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

[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.

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.

silly since the firebombing did not cause them to surrender so was not enough. It took 2 nukes
on two cites before they got serious about surrendering

 

[jknowgood]

.... 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.

silly since the firebombing did not cause them to surrender so was not enough. It took 2 nukes
on two cites before they got serious about surrendering

The reason we nuked them, is because they used there own soldiers as missiles. Kinda like the terrorist of today.

 

[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.

silly since the firebombing did not cause them to surrender so was not enough. It took 2 nukes
on two cites before they got serious about surrendering

The reason we nuked them, is because they used there own soldiers as missiles. Kinda like the terrorist of today.

Most of the Jihadist's didn't surrender & that's why Occupation & Nation Building will not work. If we don't agree to bomb all the Jihadist's into submission, then we need to stay the hell out. All we can do short of that is let them kill eachother in their civil war, gather intel & kill terrorist a few at a time over many years until a nation emerges. Then make peace & trade agreements with the new leaders & move on.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. If we don't agree to bomb all the Jihadist's into submission, then we need to stay the hell out.

or work toward an agreement to experiment at least with bombing them into submission. Failing that we have to hope our intelligence is good enough to pick up WMD's they may be working on. Paris does not lead to optimism about our intelligence.

 

[KissMy]

U.S. Republicans see a clash of civilizations. French president says NO!

French President François Hollande addressed the French Parliament specifically to rejected the rhetoric & talking points espoused by Republican politicians in the USA.

"We are not committed to a war of civilizations, because these assassins don't represent any civilization," Hollande said. "We are in a war against terrorism, jihadism, which threatens the whole world."

 

[paulitician]

My God, more meddling? Really?? The West, especially the U.S., has caused the bloody carnage we're currently seeing in the Middle East. They've done enough damage. They should now just apologize to the Peoples' families they massacred, and then come home. We don't belong in their lands. We never did.

Bloody carnage has been going on in the Middle East for thousands of years. But don't let that stop you from blaming the US for all of the world's ills.

Not all the world's ills. But the U.S. has set the Middle East on fire. The bloody carnage we're seeing today is on the U.S. The meddling needs to end. Time to come home.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Is the third time the lucky charm?

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

 

[paulitician]

My God, more meddling? Really?? The West, especially the U.S., has caused the bloody carnage we're currently seeing in the Middle East. They've done enough damage. They should now just apologize to the Peoples' families they massacred, and then come home. We don't belong in their lands. We never did.

Defending yourself is not meddling. In the United States, when a killer is on the lose, you hunt him down and kill him. When the killers live abroad, you do the same. Its self defense. We did it in World War II, this is no different. The Islamic State Caliphate in Syria/Iraq is essentially no different than Hitler's Germany in that its territory must be taken as soon as possible.

No meddling in Syria and Iraq, there wouldn't be an ISIS. There are more terrorists in the Middle East now, than ever before. And the U.S. is reponsible for it. I know most Americans don't wanna except that harsh reality, but it is the reality. We've done enough damage over there. We don't belong there.

 

[paulitician]

My God, more meddling? Really?? The West, especially the U.S., has caused the bloody carnage we're currently seeing in the Middle East. They've done enough damage. They should now just apologize to the Peoples' families they massacred, and then come home. We don't belong in their lands. We never did.

Defending yourself is not meddling. In the United States, when a killer is on the lose, you hunt him down and kill him. When the killers live abroad, you do the same. Its self defense. We did it in World War II, this is no different. The Islamic State Caliphate in Syria/Iraq is essentially no different than Hitler's Germany in that its territory must be taken as soon as possible.

Germany had a civilization, and even then we occupied it for 40 years. What's your plan for Iraq?

Retake the northern areas of Syria and Iraq and hand them back to the current legitimate government forces. Essentially reset the battlefield, drive ISIS underground, so the locals there can handle it on their own.

Assad has slaughtered 250K Syrians, and your plan is to give him back the territory from whence the refugees fled, and where people too poor to even flea are "living?"
I'd laugh if that wasn't so pathetic

It's their Civil War. It isn't our fight. We had no business getting involved. Our funding & arming Syrian rebel groups led to the creation of ISIS. Just more horrific Blowback. When does the meddling end?

 

[Kondor3]

No.

Unless conditions change drastically.

But ask me again, after January 20, 2017, in the event that we have a CiC who knows how to execute the role properly.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I support cluster, fire and nuclear bombing every square each of land held by the isis.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

U.S. Republicans see a clash of civilizations. French president says NO!
"

just goofy BS or do you have evidence of this?????

 

[SwimExpert]

I support US involvement in a large scale NATO operation to eliminate ISIS through the use of overwhelming force.

most importantly do you mean force from the ground or the air???

Both.

The most important part, actually, is that I don't support a US led operation. I'd support US involvement in a large NATO operation where we are just one small contributing force among many.

and since that is impossible do you want to sit and wait till millions of Americans are killed and then respond??

Why is it impossible?

 

[sealybobo]

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.

Why don't the french and Russians go? They attacked Paris and blew up a Russian civilian airplane. Why do we need to get involved?

21 to 2. One person agrees with you. Lol

 

[sealybobo]

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 ....

But Republicans did understand back when Bush was commander in chief. I remember him using the term whack a mole

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I support US involvement in a large scale NATO operation to eliminate ISIS through the use of overwhelming force.

most importantly do you mean force from the ground or the air???

Both.

The most important part, actually, is that I don't support a US led operation. I'd support US involvement in a large NATO operation where we are just one small contributing force among many.

and since that is impossible do you want to sit and wait till millions of Americans are killed and then respond??

Why is it impossible?

there is no large NATO military to mount a large NATO operation. There is only the USA as the last best hope for freedom on earth.

 

[sealybobo]

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?

Why win Iraq for Iraqis who are too lazy to keep it?

We never "won" the Iraq war. Iraq is basically 3 different countries now and very unstable.

Are you going to send your son to police Iraq?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

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 ....

But Republicans did understand back when Bush was commander in chief. I remember him using the term whack a mole

when Bush was commander most experts thought the Iraqis would greet us as conquering heros for saving them from Sadam. Now we know better so should do it all from the air

 

[sealybobo]

I support US involvement in a large scale NATO operation to eliminate ISIS through the use of overwhelming force.

most importantly do you mean force from the ground or the air???

Both.

The most important part, actually, is that I don't support a US led operation. I'd support US involvement in a large NATO operation where we are just one small contributing force among many.

and since that is impossible do you want to sit and wait till millions of Americans are killed and then respond??

Why is it impossible?

there is no large NATO military to mount a large NATO operation. There is only the USA as the last best hope for freedom on earth.

Why can't France and Russia defeat them?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Are you going to send your son to police Iraq?

no just to bomb it when it becomes too dangerous