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

[EdwardBaiamonte]

ISIS has only tried to do that it has done because it correctly perceives the leadership of the US to be weak.

exactly, they assume WW 2 style bombing is out of the question and so will bleed us just enough to stay just under that threshold.

So they get to parade around cutting heads off of living people and looking real good to would be recruits. Our strategy is not good.

 

[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?

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

You reduce the probability that American civilians will die in a terrorist attack when you destroy the base they are using to train and finance these terrorist attacks.

When crime hear happens in the United States we don't let criminals continue to operate from certain locations with impunity. Why are you willing to let ISIS have blank check to attack you and your family from territory it controls in Syria and Iraq. That is where they train and get the money for these terror operations.

I'd assume you want police to crack down on people and keep order in your community and expect the fire department to come save you if your house is on fire, but if someone trains and finances an attack from a large area of Syria/Iraq your like NO, let them be. Don't send anyone to deal with the problem.

What, you got a special feeling for something for foreign criminals?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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?

You need to stop with the "kill 10,000" rhetoric. That will never happen.

 

[the_human_being]

Hillary is toast. She is slipping every day. After Paris, Americans see Trump, Clinton as most able to address terrorism: poll

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

You need to stop with the "kill 10,000" rhetoric. That will never happen.

suppose they wipe out NYC with bioweapons?????

 

[KissMy]

No we did not. Obama abandoned that mission completely in 2011. That abandonment weakened Iraq and the Iraqi military making it easy pickens for the ISIS invasion in 2014. This time we would stay and not take the training wheels off until the Iraqi military and security forces were ready to handle things on their own.

That is precisely why OBAMA is EXTENDED the US presence in Afghanistan rather than withdrawing completely!

We have been in Afghanistan for 15 years now & will take at least another 15 to 30 to keep it from descending into another ISIS. Nation Building takes a lifetime & cost a shit-pile of wealth & US lives.

You want us to occupy Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Egypt, North Korea, the entire Middle East & bankrupt the USA. You can kiss my ass! I say stay out & let them kill each-other.

 

[U2Edge]

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.

ISIS grew into a large organization AFTER the United States withdrew all of its troops from Iraq and after the Syrian military focused all its resources on securing the western areas of Syria. ISIS formed because of the lack of local or foreign military forces that were there. Restore that force and ISIS will decline and you will earn the praise and support of the local population.

ISIS has grown so large and been so effective because the WEST has done very little at this point to effectively stop it!

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?

Does it make sense to kill a few thousand and wound thousands more American soldiers to stop an attack here that may or may not happen and if it did it certainly wouldn't have as many casualties?

Your plan just turns up the hatred of America. Been there done that.

September 11, 2001 could have been prevented if the United States invaded Afghanistan and uprooted the terror organization in the 1990s. Now your once again allowing a terror organization to exist with impunity because they live outside the United States. You'd be all for stopping criminals in the United States, but now that an essential nation state is launching attacks around the world, your unwilling to do the one thing that will quickly role them up and stop them. Terror attacks can have the ability to kill hundreds of thousands of people with the right means and every day the ISIS caliphate remains in existence that grows. A US ground invasion would last weeks and would not exceed more than a couple of hundred casualties if that. The United States never suffered more than 800 dead in any single year, and this invasion to retake territory and hand it back to the Iraqies would not take that long. You've got it wrong, its the revers

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

[

What, you got a special feeling for something for foreign criminals?

the issue is that unless we bomb them good from the air we may well lose more troops on the ground than we ever would have lost from their attacks

 

[Faun]

We're done fighting in that war. It's a civil war that we should not be in the middle of.

too bad ISIS will not agree to let us stay out of their Civil War

We're only in it if we choose to be. France was attacked .... did they fall for it?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

No we did not. Obama abandoned that mission completely in 2011. That abandonment weakened Iraq and the Iraqi military making it easy pickens for the ISIS invasion in 2014. This time we would stay and not take the training wheels off until the Iraqi military and security forces were ready to handle things on their own.

That is precisely why OBAMA is EXTENDED the US presence in Afghanistan rather than withdrawing completely!

We have been in Afghanistan for 15 years now & will take at least another 15 to 30 to keep it from descending into another ISIS. Nation Building takes a lifetime & cost a shit-pile of wealth & US lives.

You want us to occupy Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Egypt, North Korea, the entire Middle East & bankrupt the USA. You can kiss my ass! I say stay out & let them kill each-other.

but they world was controlled by ISIS like organizations before the USA discovered freedom. And it will revert to that again as long as liberals make control of central govt the goal of all political thinking and action everywhere on earth.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

We're done fighting in that war. It's a civil war that we should not be in the middle of.

too bad ISIS will not agree to let us stay out of their Civil War

We're only in it if we choose to be. France was attacked .... did they fall for it?

Dear France surrendered to the Nazi. Only the USA really stands for freedom.
France needed our intelligence to know where to bomb in Syria.

 

[Faun]

[
And you have it completely backwards. ISIS doesn't give a shit if we think more Americans will die fighting them. What they are looking for is a war. More than anything else, a war is what delivers them recruits

ISIS does not want to go to war with the US.
ISIS recognizes that, should they go to war, the US will wipe them of the map and disperse the survivors to the wind.
ISIS has only tried to do what it has done because it correctly perceives the leadership of the US to be weak.

Of course they do. There is no other reason to attack any other nations beyond the Levant other than to goad other countries into the world war they want. That's what builds up their recruits.

 

[Faun]

We're done fighting in that war. It's a civil war that we should not be in the middle of.

too bad ISIS will not agree to let us stay out of their Civil War

We're only in it if we choose to be. France was attacked .... did they fall for it?

Dear France surrendered to the Nazi. Only the USA really stands for freedom.

Then your answer is ... no. France was not as dumb as you to fall for the terrorists' ruse.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

[
And you have it completely backwards. ISIS doesn't give a shit if we think more Americans will die fighting them. What they are looking for is a war. More than anything else, a war is what delivers them recruits

ISIS does not want to go to war with the US.
ISIS recognizes that, should they go to war, the US will wipe them of the map and disperse the survivors to the wind.
ISIS has only tried to do what it has done because it correctly perceives the leadership of the US to be weak.

Of course they do. There is no other reason to attack any other nations beyond the Levant other than to goad other countries into the world war they want. That's what builds up their recruits.

it may build up their recruits but only until we bomb them good. Then being a recruit won't look like such a good idea.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

I said large ground forces, in the sense of those sufficient to retake the territory from ISIS and hand it back to the legitimate government authorities in Iraq and Syria. This is about resetting the battlefield so the locals can handle it themselves, this is not about a permanent occupation.

We already did that!!!!

No we did not. Obama abandoned that mission completely in 2011. That abandonment weakened Iraq and the Iraqi military making it easy pickens for the ISIS invasion in 2014. This time we would stay and not take the training wheels off until the Iraqi military and security forces were ready to handle things on their own.

That is precisely why OBAMA is EXTENDED the US presence in Afghanistan rather than withdrawing completely!

Dude they had nearly a million trained troops. They can't even muster a competent 20 or 30k force. You're deluded.

 

[Fueri]

As the geopolitical landscape currently sits - no.

With the current president in office - no.

It is clear that bombing isn't enough. Ground forces are required, however, simply deploying the US military isn't the answer.

The world at large needs to wake up to this problem and man up instead of simply asking Uncle Sam to do the job. This is simply a re-run of every prior conflict of this type.

And I wouldn't send in American men and women to get shot at, knowing that this administration is far too interested in political expedience to really wage a war. Turn it over to the Joint Chiefs and give them their best case scenario, not some strategy that balances military strategy with political strategy/expedience. This administration will never do that, so in other words, HELL NO.

So if ISIS launches a successful attack within the United States next week killing 10,000 or 100,000 people, you would still say the U.S. military should not go in on the ground to remove this threat? How many American civilians would have to die at home to change your thinking on this?

Are we playing what if? That's a kind of limitless game and kinda loads the question more than a bit.

I did not indicate I was completely opposed to ground forces, in fact I stated that I thought they were necessary to actually get the job done of really doing serious damage to these people.

But, with this president in the CURRENT state of affairs and the CURRENT geopolitical landscape, no I would not send in ground troops right now.

I do not think that right now ground forces have a long term impact, unless the world wakes up to the fact that this is a systemic issue for the entire world to deal with. That includes Islamic nations cutting off their back-channel funding and safe havens, and other nations stepping up and realizing this is a long-term thing that must be dealt with globally, not simply by burning American dollars and men.

I do not think the current president has shown that he will do what is militarily necessary as opposed to what is politically expedient, so no, I do not risk American military personnel who may well be just wasting their time, lives and bodies so the politicians can look like they're doing something - right up until the political winds change.

If one of those things changes and therefore changes the scenario, it might change my analysis and therefore my conclusion. I am not opposed to using the military to go kill enemies. It's what they're hired and trained to do. I am opposed to running down a path that we've run down before and basically wasted our time, $$$ and people trying to fix something that isn't fixable with military power alone, so right now, in the current situation, my answer is still 'no'.

 

[Faun]

[
And you have it completely backwards. ISIS doesn't give a shit if we think more Americans will die fighting them. What they are looking for is a war. More than anything else, a war is what delivers them recruits

ISIS does not want to go to war with the US.
ISIS recognizes that, should they go to war, the US will wipe them of the map and disperse the survivors to the wind.
ISIS has only tried to do what it has done because it correctly perceives the leadership of the US to be weak.

Of course they do. There is no other reason to attack any other nations beyond the Levant other than to goad other countries into the world war they want. That's what builds up their recruits.

it may build up their recruits but only until we bomb them good. Then being a recruit won't look like such a good idea.

We don't need to send in troops to bomb them.

Now ya know.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

necessary to actually get the job done of really doing serious damage to these people.
.

dear, we can eliminate them from the air so why risk our troops??

 

[Hutch Starskey]

You need to stop with the "kill 10,000" rhetoric. That will never happen.

suppose they wipe out NYC with bioweapons?????

Bioweapons?
You need to come down to Earth. We aren't fighting a Bond villain. The rhetoric is getting cheesey.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

We don't need to send in troops to bomb them.

Now ya know.

true so why would we send in troops??