US Needs to Send Ground Troops to Fight ISIS, NOW.

[georgephillip]

Yeah. Everybody is war weary. Oh yeah. Well, that's been the popular thought for a few years now (even though there's been less deaths in Iraq/Afghanistan over 13 years, than a single World War II battle). Well, I'm afraid to say folks, that little notion has very quickly gone out of style. As they used to say in college, "form follows function" Well, the function now has changed from "Bush just wants to get oil", and "Obama will get us out of there", to "fight them there now, or fight them here very soon." Every national security expert agrees that ISIS fully intends to attack the US, once it accomplishes it's goals in the Middle East. Looking at all the relevant variables, it's hard to make the case that they couldn't attack here, and impose massive genocide + massive structural damage. Guess what folks > The "war weary" era is now over.

ISIS has tons of money (to purchase bombs, nukes, biological weapons, gas, and bribe traitors). On top of that, the "Open Target" (name of the book that former Homeland Security Inspector General, Clark Kent Ervin wrote a few years ago) hasn't gotten much less open, since Ervin wrote that book. Have the ports gotten better since Lou Dobbs exposed their vulnerable status? (5% of shipping containers being inspected) Are water treatment plants (containing Chlorine tanks) any better secured than they have been (with a lone unarmed, security guard). Do all citizens have gas masks ? Are all streets surveilled with street camera/recorders ? Do we even come close to the level of security that is practiced routinely in Israel ?

Many more questions than these could be asked, and all with the same qualitative result. That we in America, are not well prepared for a well-organized, well-financed military force, coming here and attacking us, with 2014 methodology.

Conclusion ? Time for Obama to get past the 2007 notion of removing troops from the Middle East and "no boots on the ground" which got him elected in 2008, and get up to speed. This is 2014. There is a real threat to America talking place before our eyes, and this is no time to play political games, or cling to outdated mantras. Obama's "no boots on the ground" is as dead as a doornail. The US needs to go after ISIS in Iraq, in Syria, and wherever they are, and obliterate them, and we need to do it with whatever it takes, and it looks that that includes ground troops, and we need to do it NOW.

Because "boots on the ground" worked so well in Iraq? It's time to break up the military industrial congressional complex and start spending war money on domestic needs:

"The total debt of all state governments in the U.S. is now $130 billion.

"The U.S. will spend $170 billion on our wars in Iraq-Afghanistan-Pakistan this year.

Forty-six states in the US today are in fiscal crisis.

"We must demand that our Congressional delegation vote against any further war spending and that they become leaders in the Congress on this important issue.

"We must also urge all elected officials (local, state, and federal) to speak out against continued war spending... demand that we Bring Our War $$ Home now.

Bring Our War Home

YES, because boots on the ground worked very well in Iraq. That's right. Iraq was under control of the Iraq govt supported by US troops. It remained that way until the troops left. THEN, things went awry, as ISIS moved into the vacuum.

And if you ignore the ISIS threat, you'll be bringing the war home all right. With nuclear bombs, poison gas, and deadly biological agents sweeping through American cities.

For whom do you imagine "boots on the ground worked very well in Iraq?" Certainly not the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who have died since March of 2003? Maybe you're referring to the millions of Iraqis who have become displaced since that time? IS would not even exist today absent the US invasion of Iraq, and your solution is to repeat the same action that enabled the extremists to come to power? Which side are you on...Halliburton's?

Haliburton is an outdated, long overused ploy. Don't be ridicuolous. As for ISIS, they don't need a US invasion of Iraq. They've got the Koran. The marauding Muslims who killed 270 million non-Muslims around the world didn't need a "US invasion of Iraq" for their attacks, did they ?

Attacks by Muslims upon non-Muslims >>

Basra attacked/conquered - 634 AD

Damascus attacked/conquered - 635 AD

Ctesiphon attacked/conquered - 636 AD

Alexandria attacked/conquered - 641 AD

Sicily attacked/conquered - 666 AD

Kabul attacked/conquered - 670 AD

Jerusalem attacked/conquered - 687 AD

Carthage attacked/conquered - 698 AD

Southern Spain attacked/conquered - 711 AD

Narbonne (Southern France) attacked/conquered - 720 AD

Battle of Poitiers (France) - Muslim advance halted - 732 AD

Armenia attacked/conquered - 1064 AD

Battle of Manzikert - 1071 AD

Nicaea attacked/conquered - 1331 AD

Kosovo attacked/conquered - 1389 AD

Bulgaria attacked/conquered - 1393 AD

Constantinople attacked - 1453 AD

Greece attacked/conquered - 1460 AD

Belgrade attacked/conquered - 1521 AD

Siege of Vienna (attacked) - Muslim advance halted - 1683 AD

Many more after.

So how does the number of North Americans killed by marauding Muslims compare with the number of Muslims maimed, murdered, displaced, and incarcerated by greedy Christians in the current century?

Since there are NO Muslims maimed, murdered, displaced, and incarcerated by greedy Christians in the current century, the number of North Americans killed by marauding Muslims, would a much higher number (than zero). What Muslims have been maimed, murdered, displaced, and incarcerated, have had that happen to them as a result of maniacal jihad, such as all the Palestinians killed because of Hamas lunacy.

"Documented civilian deaths from violence
'128,982 – 144,450"

Iraq Body Count

 

[protectionist]

US Needs to Send Ground Troops to Fight ISIS, NOW.

No we need to butt out.

And wait for ISIS to arrive HERE in America, only much stronger, due to the increased wealth and power they are gaining with every passing day. Is that what I understand you to be saying ?

Yeah they'll load up their Atlantic fleet and steam on over lol.

No they'll arrive with passports on jet planes, and then calmly, infect your neigborhood with contagious lethal bacteria, choke it with poison gas, blow it to bits with bombs (maybe nuclear), and show up in shopping malls firing machine guns, and tossing hand grenades. Got it now ?

But the Airports are guarded by TSA! So are you implying that TSA is worthless and cannot do the job they were hired to do? After all they have a giant database with a N0-Fly List which has the names of suspected terrorist.
I would also think that database would contain names of people that have gone into countries with ISIS training camps. So what would you have us do? Close our borders to anyone from those countries or has traveled to those countries in the last 5 years?

Many of the young ISIS fighters are too new to be on No-Fly lists. Absolutely our borders should be closed to travel from Syria, Iraq, Iran, with only those let back in after rigorous inspection of their activity, and people from European visa-waiver countries, should be required to be checked too. The whole visa-waiver scenario needs to be scrapped.

 

[protectionist]

No----there is no reason to spill US blood there. NONE.

There or HERE. I'll choose there.

No----there is no reason to spill US blood there. NONE.

There or HERE. I'll choose there.

WOW this is like Kennedy and Johnson trying to explain why we had to stop communism in Viet Nam.

Not at all like it. Because the Vietnamese were no threat to America. ISIS is.

Apparently so was Communism

No it wasn't. Not from Vietnam anyway.

So, the US intervened in a civil war by propping up a government it installed, killed 55,000 of its own and untold numbers of civilians and opponent combatants not over an idealogical struggle but in a global game of my dick is bigger than yours.

This nonsense is why I counsel any young person to stay as far away from the military as possible.

That is an idiotic thing to tell them. Nobody was more opposed to the Vietnam War than I was, but I'm not so naive that I can't realize that was half a century ago. Times have changed. The Vietnamese didn't set us up as their enemy. ISIS does. I would tell young people to join the military and go to OCS.

 

[dilloduck]

No----there is no reason to spill US blood there. NONE.

There or HERE. I'll choose there.

No----there is no reason to spill US blood there. NONE.

There or HERE. I'll choose there.

WOW this is like Kennedy and Johnson trying to explain why we had to stop communism in Viet Nam.

Not at all like it. Because the Vietnamese were no threat to America. ISIS is.

Apparently so was Communism

No it wasn't. Not from Vietnam anyway.

So, the US intervened in a civil war by propping up a government it installed, killed 55,000 of its own and untold numbers of civilians and opponent combatants not over an idealogical struggle but in a global game of my dick is bigger than yours.

This nonsense is why I counsel any young person to stay as far away from the military as possible.

That is an idiotic thing to tell them. Nobody was more opposed to the Vietnam War than I was, but I'm not so naive that I can't realize that was half a century ago. Times have changed. The Vietnamese didn't set us up as their enemy. ISIS does. I would tell young people to join the military and go to OCS.

And then you would send them to some spot in the Middle East to kill all terrorists before they got to America ?

 

[protectionist]

Yep, we need to, but the thing that will be hardest is convincing Muslims that the Earth is not theirs to rule alone with their religion forced upon the human inhabitants...

Perhaps you could stop invading Muslim lands, supporting mass murder of Muslims and stop all the hate shit.
There were no attacks on the US by Muslims until you started to interfere and kill them.
Now, I await the Barbary pirates to come up. One idiot always tries to point that out, but neglects to mention many were Christians and Jews, and it was just piracy, not just targeted at America.

Attacks by Muslims upon non-Muslims >>

Basra attacked/conquered - 634 AD

Damascus attacked/conquered - 635 AD

Ctesiphon attacked/conquered - 636 AD

Alexandria attacked/conquered - 641 AD

Sicily attacked/conquered - 666 AD

Kabul attacked/conquered - 670 AD

Jerusalem attacked/conquered - 687 AD

Carthage attacked/conquered - 698 AD

Southern Spain attacked/conquered - 711 AD

Narbonne (Southern France) attacked/conquered - 720 AD

Battle of Poitiers (France) - Muslim advance halted - 732 AD

Armenia attacked/conquered - 1064 AD

Battle of Manzikert - 1071 AD

Nicaea attacked/conquered - 1331 AD

Kosovo attacked/conquered - 1389 AD

Bulgaria attacked/conquered - 1393 AD

Constantinople attacked - 1453 AD

Greece attacked/conquered - 1460 AD

Belgrade attacked/conquered - 1521 AD

Siege of Vienna (attacked) - Muslim advance halted - 1683 AD

Many more after.

Perhaps you could also mention Jewish attacks and occupations.
Map of the Nations Defeated by King David Bible History Online

David conquered Jerusalem from the Jebusites and made it his capital and center of worship. He expanded his kingdom by victories over the Philistines, Moabites, Ammonites, and Edomites, and suppressed many rebellions.

What, the Jews weren't always there, they stole it in the first place.
What the fuck are you moaning about?

YOU KNOW what I'm moaning about, Mohas of jihad mmed. So don't play dumb with me. How about 1400 years of jihad, and killing 270 million people around the world, which no religion, cult, or nation even comes close to.

I made a point that Israel invaded the land.
Please tell me why that invasion of old allows claim to the modern Palestine.

That invasion doesn't allow claim. Israel living peacefully allows claim, and especially that it is not Muslim jihadist, of which nobody of that ilk should have one square foot of ANY land, and every last one of the filthy, jihad vermin should be exterminated.

 

[protectionist]

Yeah. Everybody is war weary. Oh yeah. Well, that's been the popular thought for a few years now (even though there's been less deaths in Iraq/Afghanistan over 13 years, than a single World War II battle). Well, I'm afraid to say folks, that little notion has very quickly gone out of style. As they used to say in college, "form follows function" Well, the function now has changed from "Bush just wants to get oil", and "Obama will get us out of there", to "fight them there now, or fight them here very soon." Every national security expert agrees that ISIS fully intends to attack the US, once it accomplishes it's goals in the Middle East. Looking at all the relevant variables, it's hard to make the case that they couldn't attack here, and impose massive genocide + massive structural damage. Guess what folks > The "war weary" era is now over.

ISIS has tons of money (to purchase bombs, nukes, biological weapons, gas, and bribe traitors). On top of that, the "Open Target" (name of the book that former Homeland Security Inspector General, Clark Kent Ervin wrote a few years ago) hasn't gotten much less open, since Ervin wrote that book. Have the ports gotten better since Lou Dobbs exposed their vulnerable status? (5% of shipping containers being inspected) Are water treatment plants (containing Chlorine tanks) any better secured than they have been (with a lone unarmed, security guard). Do all citizens have gas masks ? Are all streets surveilled with street camera/recorders ? Do we even come close to the level of security that is practiced routinely in Israel ?

Many more questions than these could be asked, and all with the same qualitative result. That we in America, are not well prepared for a well-organized, well-financed military force, coming here and attacking us, with 2014 methodology.

Conclusion ? Time for Obama to get past the 2007 notion of removing troops from the Middle East and "no boots on the ground" which got him elected in 2008, and get up to speed. This is 2014. There is a real threat to America talking place before our eyes, and this is no time to play political games, or cling to outdated mantras. Obama's "no boots on the ground" is as dead as a doornail. The US needs to go after ISIS in Iraq, in Syria, and wherever they are, and obliterate them, and we need to do it with whatever it takes, and it looks that that includes ground troops, and we need to do it NOW.

Because "boots on the ground" worked so well in Iraq? It's time to break up the military industrial congressional complex and start spending war money on domestic needs:

"The total debt of all state governments in the U.S. is now $130 billion.

"The U.S. will spend $170 billion on our wars in Iraq-Afghanistan-Pakistan this year.

Forty-six states in the US today are in fiscal crisis.

"We must demand that our Congressional delegation vote against any further war spending and that they become leaders in the Congress on this important issue.

"We must also urge all elected officials (local, state, and federal) to speak out against continued war spending... demand that we Bring Our War $$ Home now.

Bring Our War Home

YES, because boots on the ground worked very well in Iraq. That's right. Iraq was under control of the Iraq govt supported by US troops. It remained that way until the troops left. THEN, things went awry, as ISIS moved into the vacuum.

And if you ignore the ISIS threat, you'll be bringing the war home all right. With nuclear bombs, poison gas, and deadly biological agents sweeping through American cities.

For whom do you imagine "boots on the ground worked very well in Iraq?" Certainly not the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who have died since March of 2003? Maybe you're referring to the millions of Iraqis who have become displaced since that time? IS would not even exist today absent the US invasion of Iraq, and your solution is to repeat the same action that enabled the extremists to come to power? Which side are you on...Halliburton's?

Haliburton is an outdated, long overused ploy. Don't be ridicuolous. As for ISIS, they don't need a US invasion of Iraq. They've got the Koran. The marauding Muslims who killed 270 million non-Muslims around the world didn't need a "US invasion of Iraq" for their attacks, did they ?

Attacks by Muslims upon non-Muslims >>

Basra attacked/conquered - 634 AD

Damascus attacked/conquered - 635 AD

Ctesiphon attacked/conquered - 636 AD

Alexandria attacked/conquered - 641 AD

Sicily attacked/conquered - 666 AD

Kabul attacked/conquered - 670 AD

Jerusalem attacked/conquered - 687 AD

Carthage attacked/conquered - 698 AD

Southern Spain attacked/conquered - 711 AD

Narbonne (Southern France) attacked/conquered - 720 AD

Battle of Poitiers (France) - Muslim advance halted - 732 AD

Armenia attacked/conquered - 1064 AD

Battle of Manzikert - 1071 AD

Nicaea attacked/conquered - 1331 AD

Kosovo attacked/conquered - 1389 AD

Bulgaria attacked/conquered - 1393 AD

Constantinople attacked - 1453 AD

Greece attacked/conquered - 1460 AD

Belgrade attacked/conquered - 1521 AD

Siege of Vienna (attacked) - Muslim advance halted - 1683 AD

Many more after.

So how does the number of North Americans killed by marauding Muslims compare with the number of Muslims maimed, murdered, displaced, and incarcerated by greedy Christians in the current century?

Since there are NO Muslims maimed, murdered, displaced, and incarcerated by greedy Christians in the current century, the number of North Americans killed by marauding Muslims, would a much higher number (than zero). What Muslims have been maimed, murdered, displaced, and incarcerated, have had that happen to them as a result of maniacal jihad, such as all the Palestinians killed because of Hamas lunacy.

"Documented civilian deaths from violence
'128,982 – 144,450"

Iraq Body Count

What Muslims have been maimed, murdered, displaced, and incarcerated, have had that happen to them as a result of maniacal jihad, such as all the Palestinians killed because of Hamas lunacy.

 

[protectionist]

No----there is no reason to spill US blood there. NONE.

There or HERE. I'll choose there.

No----there is no reason to spill US blood there. NONE.

There or HERE. I'll choose there.

WOW this is like Kennedy and Johnson trying to explain why we had to stop communism in Viet Nam.

Not at all like it. Because the Vietnamese were no threat to America. ISIS is.

Apparently so was Communism

No it wasn't. Not from Vietnam anyway.

So, the US intervened in a civil war by propping up a government it installed, killed 55,000 of its own and untold numbers of civilians and opponent combatants not over an idealogical struggle but in a global game of my dick is bigger than yours.

This nonsense is why I counsel any young person to stay as far away from the military as possible.

That is an idiotic thing to tell them. Nobody was more opposed to the Vietnam War than I was, but I'm not so naive that I can't realize that was half a century ago. Times have changed. The Vietnamese didn't set us up as their enemy. ISIS does. I would tell young people to join the military and go to OCS.

And then you would send them to some spot in the Middle East to kill all terrorists before they got to America ?

Absolutely. Every last jihad terrorist. 100% EXTERMINATION.

 

[dilloduck]

While other countries sit by and do nothing ?

 

[MisterBeale]

How is ISIS a worse threat to the US than Saddam was ?

You need to watch the news shows more. You're not even in the ballpark.

You need to watch less, much less TV. Try some gardening shows.

News shows are in the pocket of the elites. It's quite clear you are thoroughly, and I do mean, thoroughly conditioned. How are a bunch of rag tag dessert bums, funded and outfitted by the CIA, M16, the Mossad, Turkey and Saudi Arabia a threat to the people here at home?

 

[Esmeralda]

Lots'a back seat drivers in this thread.

 

[Indofred]

That invasion doesn't allow claim. Israel living peacefully allows claim, and especially that it is not Muslim jihadist, of which nobody of that ilk should have one square foot of ANY land, and every last one of the filthy, jihad vermin should be exterminated.

Ah, a supporter of the final solution.
What a moron.

 

[Kurmugeon]

We don't have the economy or military budget to DO anything substantial about ISIS.

The only country with enough money to address the ISIS threat is China, and they're not threatened by them.

Nothing substantial is going to happen until ISIS kills several thousand Americans on American Soil.

Even then, we might not act, if Obama is still President.

Sorry, that's the truth of the situation.

-

 

[Indofred]

We don't have the economy or military budget to DO anything substantial about ISIS.

The only country with enough money to address the ISIS threat is China, and they're not threatened by them.

Nothing substantial is going to happen until ISIS kills several thousand Americans on American Soil.

Even then, we might not act, if Obama is still President.

Sorry, that's the truth of the situation.

-

The only reason ISIS would do such a thing is if America killed thousands of innocent Muslims civilians, say by illegally invading a country - oh, you did.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

Absolutely. Every last jihad terrorist. 100% EXTERMINATION.

No, only when they are attacking us - we aren't the police of the entire planet nor should we even attempt to be.

The more you kill, the more that rise up to fill the niche. You would think people would start getting this, but they are too filed with self-righteous indignation to be concerned with common sense.

I for one, am not about to fund your hobby of killing people.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Unless you're writing this from the MEPS center OP, quit volunteering my friends to fight YOUR battles for YOU. This is a local problem only that we in the west are inflating into another al-Qaeda boogeyman which only benefits think tanks and busiensses who'll make a ton of money from more never-ending warfare.

So sick of people pushing us into another war they themselves are too chicken-shit to fight themselves. Want war, go volunteer. Wars always need stupid people fighting as mercenaries.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Show me a war we can actually win that isn't being conducted solely as a thank you to some corporate donor and is right and just and I'll get in line with everyone else.

This is not that war. This is a war for empire against a made-up threat just to benefit the companies who sell the government everything from Q-tips to cruise missiles and who don't make money unless we're at war with somebody.

Democrats need to look tough to get another Dem into the Oval Office. And Republicans need to look even tougher. So everybody's blowing the horns of war to get stupid people to vote and support them.

Every time we intervene somewhere we cause massive resentment which is a recruitment day for our opposition.If we were really serious about things we'd do whatever works, and going to war doesn't work as evidenced by the fact that we've been half-assing it for a generation now and only made things infinitely worse. We won World War 2 in under 4 years. There is no earthly reason these flareups can't be handled in about amonth. When they take more than a decade then the only logical conclusion is they're not being fought to win but to benefit somebody.

"There is no instance in history of a country having benefitted from prolonged warfare." - Sun Tzu, "The Art of War"

Of course, that was before corporations got involved...

 

[protectionist]

That invasion doesn't allow claim. Israel living peacefully allows claim, and especially that it is not Muslim jihadist, of which nobody of that ilk should have one square foot of ANY land, and every last one of the filthy, jihad vermin should be exterminated.

Ah, a supporter of the final solution.
What a moron.

NO, it is NOT moronic. Islam is a CANCER, and it isn't just ISIS. It is the disgusting, vile ideology (masquerading as a religion) itself, as proven by its horrific 1400 year history of conquest and killing (270 million innocent people around the world)

Any YOU are the moron to not know that.

 

[protectionist]

How is ISIS a worse threat to the US than Saddam was ?

You need to watch the news shows more. You're not even in the ballpark.

You need to watch less, much less TV. Try some gardening shows.

News shows are in the pocket of the elites. It's quite clear you are thoroughly, and I do mean, thoroughly conditioned. How are a bunch of rag tag dessert bums, funded and outfitted by the CIA, M16, the Mossad, Turkey and Saudi Arabia a threat to the people here at home?

How, you say ? Try some of these on for size >

1. 9-11 Attacks (2001)

2. Shoe bomber (2001)

3. LAX shooter attacks (2002)

4. Beltway sniper attacks (2002)

5. Jose Padilla (Nuclear bomb attempt - 2002)

6. Lackawanna Six (2002)

7. Uzair and Saifullah Paracha (bombing gas stations attempt - 2003)

8. Iyman Faris (attempt to destroy Brooklyn Bridge - 2003)

9. Ahmed Omar Abu Ali (attempted to kill US President - 2003)

10. Nuradin M. Abdi - (plot to bomb a local shopping mall - 2003)

11. Dhiren Barot - 2004 (attempt to bomb US Stock Exchange w/dirty bomb + car bombs - 2004)

12. . James Elshafay and Shahawar Matin Siraj - (attempt to bomb NY subway - 2004)

13. Levar Haley Washington, Gregory Vernon Patterson, Hammad Riaz Samana, and Kevin James - (attempted to attack National Guard facilities, synagogues, and other targets in the Los Angeles area - 2005)

14. Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar - (drove his SUV into a crowd of students at the University of North Carolina–Chapel Hill, injuring six people on March 3, 2006. The reasoning, he stated, behind the attack was retribution for the treatment of Muslims around the world)

15. Syed Haris Ahmed and Ehsanul Islam Sadequee (plotted to attack potential targets in the Washington, D.C., area, including the U.S. Capitol and the World Bank headquarters - 2006)

Want more ? PLENTY more available to look up >>

60 Terrorist Plots Since 9 11 Lessons in Domestic Counterterrorism

 

[protectionist]

Absolutely. Every last jihad terrorist. 100% EXTERMINATION.

No, only when they are attacking us - we aren't the police of the entire planet nor should we even attempt to be.

The more you kill, the more that rise up to fill the niche. You would think people would start getting this, but they are too filed with self-righteous indignation to be concerned with common sense.

I for one, am not about to fund your hobby of killing people.

I wouldn't expect Muslim ass-kissers (if not jihadists themselves) to help fund the war against Muslim jihadist lunacy. No problem. The USA didn't get funds from Nazi sympathizers in World War II either. That didn't stop
Eisenhower from crushing the Nazi war machine ( and more did NOT rise up "to fill the niche" ) It was 100% EXTERMINATION of the dirtbags. And EARTH TO MC: Muslim jihadists are always attacking us (the non-Muslim innocent people of the world). It's what they do.

 

[georgephillip]

That invasion doesn't allow claim. Israel living peacefully allows claim, and especially that it is not Muslim jihadist, of which nobody of that ilk should have one square foot of ANY land, and every last one of the filthy, jihad vermin should be exterminated.

Ah, a supporter of the final solution.
What a moron.

NO, it is NOT moronic. Islam is a CANCER, and it isn't just ISIS. It is the disgusting, vile ideology (masquerading as a religion) itself, as proven by its horrific 1400 year history of conquest and killing (270 million innocent people around the world)

Any YOU are the moron to not know that.

Do you happen to know which nation state qualifies as the "greatest purveyor of violence in the world?" I only ask because you seem ignorant of the US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan that have produced millions of dead, maimed, displaced, and incarcerated Muslims half-a-world away from DC.