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

[Siete]

"We lost sight of one of the cardinal maxims of guerrilla war: the guerrilla wins if he does not lose. The conventional army loses if it does not win."-Henry Kissinger


The war on terror is a guerrilla war. Large forces fighting small forces that blend into the population.

The End

 

[U2Edge]

Nah, not under Obama... he'd send them over there with nothing but rainbow flags and peashooters.

How many American civilians would you be willing to watch die from ISIS attacks while we wait 14 more months to get a new President?

 

[M14 Shooter]

No. We don't need to spend another 9 years and thousands of American lives in that shit hole. They've been fighting for over 1000 years; we do not need to be part of that war which is not even ours and which continue will for another 1000 years;

And so, your response to ISIS and its international terrorism...?

Beef up security here and bomb the shit out of them if they pull off a terrorist attack here.

In other words, nothing effective.

In other words, not doing to another IraqNam which as we can see, would never end.

Sadly, the Obama appears to agree with you.

 

[Faun]

Nah, not under Obama... he'd send them over there with nothing but rainbow flags and peashooters.

How many American civilians would you be willing to watch die from ISIS attacks while we wait 14 more months to get a new President?

More Americans would die fighting the war you want -- and it still doesn't protect folks here.

 

[U2Edge]

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.

That strategy was employed against Saddam in the 1990s and it failed every time it was tried. Some problems require large professional military forces. Saddam did not come down until he faced one. The local forces may work eventually, but how many thousands of innocent civilians will die around the world while we wait.

Got a cite that shows how we trained Iraqis to bring down Saddam? Whatever was done was preliminary at best. Cite the failures. Just saying so isn't good enough.

It became the policy of the United States government in 1998/1999 to remove Saddam from power. Approved by congress and signed by Clinton. Before that there were extensive CIA operations training Kurds and others to try and overthrow Saddam. They all failed. The 1996 operation which stared in Kurdistan and turned into a route when Saddam's Republican Guard forces broke it up. A good book that goes over this is the Threatening Storm by Kenneth Pollack 2002. The book gives a wealth of information and examples on why internal revolt to remove Saddam would not work and had already occurred and full scale invasion by a foreign military was the only way. Turns out he was exactly right!

 

[bendog]

This is stupid. If anyone could identify who would offer to secure the borders of the territory with ISIS killed or run to ground, Obama would have had the 101st and a mechanized division in there months ago. But he's not going into a war without an exit strategy.

 

[mikegriffith1]

We don't need to send American ground troops. The Kurds would be more than happy to do the job for us, if we would just fully arm and support them.

But Obama still won't fully arm and back the Kurds, even though the Kurds have been the one group that has had success in taking on ISIS. Indeed, just a few days ago the Kurds retook a key highway from ISIS in northern Iraq with support from U.S. air strikes, but, incredibly, Obama still won't give them large amounts of heavy weapons and artillery.

Obama's incompetence is becoming epic in scale. He is clearly in way, way over his head.

 

[the_human_being]

 

[U2Edge]

No.

I support Iraq and Syria taking back territory ruled by ISIS and leaving us out of their petty squabbles.

Even if that means in waiting for that to happen, thousands of American civilians are killed in terrorist attacks here in the U.S.A.? How much risk do you want yourself or other civilians, your family to be placed under why we wait for weak local military forces to try and carry that out? A Sarin Gas attack on the Washington D.C. Subway system could kill 100,000 people in that city. There are 60 pounds of enriched uranium that have been missing from Russia since the early 1990s. Say ISIS uses that to make a bomb and detonates it in a shipping container in a major harbor in the United States? You think trusting our security to a bunch of locals in Iraq still learning how to fight is the wisest thing to do?

 

[Siete]

Nah, not under Obama... he'd send them over there with nothing but rainbow flags and peashooters.

How many American civilians would you be willing to watch die from ISIS attacks while we wait 14 more months to get a new President?

so bomb America ? or invade Syria and still see American civilians die?

 

[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!

enter the majority of mid eastern countries ... play hop scotch around the globe chasing our tail ... Belgium played a big role in the paris attack ...

100,000 boots on the ground is pointless.

Belgian civilians that had trained in Caliphate and went back played a big role. 100,000 ground troops is not pointless and does far more to achieving better security than what is being currently done.

guess what?

those nasty bastards can crawl under a damn rock for a decade while we spend countless dollars only to crawl out, hit a major city SOMEWHERE in the world, then crawl back under their rock for another decade .. boots on the ground is playing to their hand..

NEWS FLASH !!!!! THIS ISN'T A CONVENTIAL WAR .... HELLOOOOOOOOOOOOO !

It is a conventional war in the parts of Syria and Iraq controlled by the ISIS caliphate. ISIS operates in those areas like a regular nation state. They are not underground or under any rocks. They control the banks, oil wells, the people who live there, the medical facilities, food distribution, EVERYTHING like a normal nation state. The people currently fighting them, the Iraqi military in the south, the Kurds in the north go up to a FRONT LINE and fight ISIS from there.

I am shocked so many people here do not understand this. ISIS has not been an underground organization in over two years! WAKE UP PEOPLE and INFORM YOURSELF!

 

[U2Edge]

"We lost sight of one of the cardinal maxims of guerrilla war: the guerrilla wins if he does not lose. The conventional army loses if it does not win."-Henry Kissinger


The war on terror is a guerrilla war. Large forces fighting small forces that blend into the population.

The End

ISIS has not been a guerilla force in over 2 years. ISIS fights above ground, launches large scale attacks, uses field artillery, Mortars, tanks and other conventional weapons to SIEZE and HOLD territory. Guerilla forces don't sieze, hold, and defend territory. They HIDE. That's not what ISIS is doing in Syria and Iraq. They have actually formed their own nation state there. Its a nation with banks, and oil, and land they can use to train more terrorist to conduct more attacks around the world. WAKE UP and learn these things!

 

[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 ....

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!

enter the majority of mid eastern countries ... play hop scotch around the globe chasing our tail ... Belgium played a big role in the paris attack ...

100,000 boots on the ground is pointless.

Belgian civilians that had trained in Caliphate and went back played a big role. 100,000 ground troops is not pointless and does far more to achieving better security than what is being currently done.

guess what?

those nasty bastards can crawl under a damn rock for a decade while we spend countless dollars only to crawl out, hit a major city SOMEWHERE in the world, then crawl back under their rock for another decade .. boots on the ground is playing to their hand..

NEWS FLASH !!!!! THIS ISN'T A CONVENTIAL WAR .... HELLOOOOOOOOOOOOO !

It is a conventional war in the parts of Syria and Iraq controlled by the ISIS caliphate. ISIS operates in those areas like a regular nation state. They are not underground or under any rocks. They control the banks, oil wells, the people who live there, the medical facilities, food distribution, EVERYTHING like a normal nation state. The people currently fighting them, the Iraqi military in the south, the Kurds in the north go up to a FRONT LINE and fight ISIS from there.

I am shocked so many people here do not understand this. ISIS has not been an underground organization in over two years! WAKE UP PEOPLE and INFORM YOURSELF!

and they all take off their black clothes and put on a robe then disappear in the crowd when the fight starts ... hardly conventional.

sorry, this isn't 1940

 

[U2Edge]

We don't need to send American ground troops. The Kurds would be more than happy to do the job for us, if we would just fully arm and support them.

But Obama still won't fully arm and back the Kurds, even though the Kurds have been the one group that has had success in taking on ISIS. Indeed, just a few days ago the Kurds retook a key highway from ISIS in northern Iraq with support from U.S. air strikes, but, incredibly, Obama still won't give them large amounts of heavy weapons and artillery.

Obama's incompetence is becoming epic in scale. He is clearly in way, way over his head.

The Kurds alone even with the right weaponry are unlikely to be able to retake all of ISIS territory. Its been 18 months and most of the territory is still controlled by ISIS. The U.S. military could retake this territory in a matter of weeks and it would save thousands of lives!

 

[Siete]

pick out the ISIS members.

 

[U2Edge]

France is not sending Ground Troops into Syria or Iraq & has not asked UN to send any. Why are Republicans & FOX Propagandist pounding the war drums for US troops to invade? The EU has more than enough resources to invade & defend itself. If they aren't concerned enough to invade, then we should not attempt it in their name.

Iraq was not a threat to US until Bush attacked. North Korea & Iran did not have Nukes until Bush started attacking & threatening the Mid-East. We need to keep killing terrorist instead of creating more.

Iraq Oil Exports are only worth $40 billion a year before production cost. It cost far more than that for US troops to occupy Iraq. Making it a US territory has not proven to be a profitable venture. NeoCon Repubtards LIED about the US being "Greeted as Liberators", Cost of War, Success, Plan to Win the Peace & Build a New Better Iraq Nation! It was all LIES!!!

So we can help to prevent the next 9/11, the next Paris, and the next airliner with 300 people being shot down. There people on the lose out there massacring people and they are training them and financing them from the ungoverned space of part of Syria and Iraq. That is why it must be retaken so we can prevent or at least reduce the probability of future attacks.

SADDAM became a threat to the U.S. when they invaded Kuwait. That's ultimately why Saddam had to be removed although that did not finally occur until 12 years later.

The United States never made Iraq a U.S. territory and by the way when it comes to defense spending, the United States spent less on defense as a percentage of GDP the past 15 years than it spent on defense during the peacetime of the 1980s!

 

[bravoactual]

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.

As long as the same people advocating for this ass hat of an idea are willing put their feet in those boots and do the fighting....oh ConJobs/NeoNuts/RePugs/TeaHadists never ever put their life on the line for single fucking thing.

It's all somebody else doing the fighting and dying.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

As long as the same people advocating for this ass hat of an idea are willing put their feet in those boots and do the fighting....oh ConJobs/NeoNuts/RePugs/TeaHadists never ever put their life on the line for single fucking thing.

It's all somebody else doing the fighting and dying.

And liberals such as yourself can only whine and cry and offer no effective alternative.

 

[bravoactual]

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

As opposed Deserter George and Draft-Dodging Dick(less)?

 

[U2Edge]

ISIS has already been rolled back by 25% of their maximum land holdings. If NATO or the UN decides to put together a force,

we should honor our treaty obligations, but no more.

Would you still feel that way if 6 months from now ISIS successfully attacks the Washington D.C. Subway system with sarin gas or anthrax killing 100,000 people? Do you really want to wait and risk thousands of U.S. lives because you want some procedural process. Is that how you would go about defending your home or one of your family members if you were attacked personally?