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

[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.

 

[protectionist]

So we're going to send our troops to kill every single terrorist in the world so they can't come here ?

You're beginning to get the idea (slowly)

You're insane

I haven't figured out if he really is insane or just terminally paranoid

He's slipping. Sorta sad, really.

And you also don't agree with all the US national security experts ?

And I take it, you do not agree with Gen. Martin Dempsey who happens to be the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Joint Chiefs chairman says ISIS not a direct threat to US, won't recommend Syria strikes yet
Joint Chiefs chairman says ISIS not a direct threat to US won t recommend Syria strikes yet Fox News

What a dumb post. Dempsey is an employee of Obama. If you want the advice of Generals who aren't under the duress of the Pacifist in Chief, try FORMER 4 star Generals Jack Keane, Barry McCaffery, and Lt. General Thomas McInerney, all of whom support Extermination of ISIS, NOW.

 

[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.

 

[protectionist]

If Isis wants war with us. They're welcome to invade.

No they're not. We are not well equipped or set up to repel a 2014 type of invasion. We'd have 9-11s, Boston Marathons, and Fort Hoods going on all over the place, intermixed with suicide bombers, and quite possibly nuclear bombs going off too. You want all that ? Better to obliterate this cancer over in the ME.

There is a gun behind every blade of grass. The libs will love us gun owners when they huddle up behind us as we mow down any ISIS invasions on main street USA

-Geaux

Nice thought, but plenty of people in Boston were armed the day of the Boston Marathon bombings. The Tsanaev boys still succeeded in pulling off a bombing. The Beltway sniper killed 19 people. And guns in their pockets didn't help the victims of 9-11. Or the London and Madrid subway bombings, or the gas attack in Japan.

 

[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.

 

[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.

When will you be signing up to go? You could probably go join the Iraqi army and give them a hand.

It's not our fight. They are a threat to Turkey - let Erdogan send in his army. ISIS would be gone in a week.

Or let the Saudis do some bombing runs with the F-16s that we sold them.

Or the Egyptians with the F-16s we sold them.

Or the Jordanians, with the F-16s we sold them.

Get it?

What I get is that we already letting all those countries do that. We're not stopping them. But do you see them doing it ?

As for me I was "signing up" in April 1964, and served 5 years, until 1969. Frankly, if the USA would let me, I WOULD go there and fight, but the consensus is I'm too old now. But I did it when I was young.

 

[AntiParty]

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.

You clearly need to learn more about the Petrol Dollar. You also and probably more importantly need to learn about the Military Industrial Complex, always top donors to Politicians. Here are 2 links that might help you learn more and type less..





And one more, to grow on

 

[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.

You clearly need to learn more about the Petrol Dollar. You also and probably more importantly need to learn about the Military Industrial Complex, always top donors to Politicians. Here are 2 links that might help you learn more and type less..





And one more, to grow on

These MIC raps have been used by isolationists since the 1960s. Old. Very old and outdated. You can forget it now. Even "our" Pacifist in Chief is getting on board (finally) with going after ISIS.

 

[Synthaholic]

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

I suggest you just hide under your bed, you pussy.

 

[Indofred]

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?

 

[Indofred]

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

You attacked Vietnam, murdering thousands of people and, when you attacked Muslim countries, you laid the seeds for fools such as IS.
The threat to America, is purely because America attacked first.
Like all bullies, you cry when someone hits back.

 

[Politico]

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.

 

[Geaux4it]

If Isis wants war with us. They're welcome to invade.

No they're not. We are not well equipped or set up to repel a 2014 type of invasion. We'd have 9-11s, Boston Marathons, and Fort Hoods going on all over the place, intermixed with suicide bombers, and quite possibly nuclear bombs going off too. You want all that ? Better to obliterate this cancer over in the ME.

There is a gun behind every blade of grass. The libs will love us gun owners when they huddle up behind us as we mow down any ISIS invasions on main street USA

-Geaux

Nice thought, but plenty of people in Boston were armed the day of the Boston Marathon bombings. The Tsanaev boys still succeeded in pulling off a bombing. The Beltway sniper killed 19 people. And guns in their pockets didn't help the victims of 9-11. Or the London and Madrid subway bombings, or the gas attack in Japan.

And your point?

-Geaux

 

[JWBooth]

Nice thought, but plenty of people in Boston were armed the day of the Boston Marathon bombings. The Tsanaev boys still succeeded in pulling off a bombing. The Beltway sniper killed 19 people. And guns in their pockets didn't help the victims of 9-11. Or the London and Madrid subway bombings, or the gas attack in Japan.

And your point?

-Geaux

His point? More war, more government, more surveillence, report your neighbors; you know what a paradise East Germany was, they had nothing to fear from world wide terror.

 

[Desperado]

Interesting article on ISIS
The Covert Origins of ISIS
Would it interest you to know who helped these psychopaths rise to power? Would it interest you to know who armed them, funded them and trained them? Would it interest you to know why?
The Covert Origins of ISIS UPDATED 9.03.14 SCG News

 

[JakeStarkey]

Protectionist, SU, please, and let the adults figure this out.

 

[Peach]

Senator Nelson, Florida, introduced legislation giving the President broader powers:

Nelson wants to authorize ISIS airstrikes in Syria - Orlando Sentinel

House member Kevin McCarthy also introduced a bill, both address airstrikes IN Syria.

 

[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

 

[TakeAStepBack]

The OP should be the first set of boots on the ground. And anyone like him. If you want to fight, go do it. Stop demanding others do it while you armchair QB events 1,000s of miles away.

 

[JWBooth]

The OP should be the first set of boots on the ground. And anyone like him. If you want to fight, go do it. Stop demanding others do it while you armchair QB events 1,000s of miles away.

Damn skippy