Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The poll was taken before the San Bernardino terror attack. I'll bet the % supporting sending ground troops has shot up significantly in the last few days.
I don't believe the poll at all. Same kind of crap they used to try to brainwash people about the majority wanting a pathway to citizenship for the illegals. The majority of citizens want to preserve our country.
As everyone should know, our military strength has seen numerous cuts. Why should our citizens die to protect people who won't stand up for themselves? I never have gotten that. They have infected our nation and are just waiting. If we are going to take them out, we need to start within our own country.
A good reason why US policy should not be based on polls. If they want ground troops back into the ME so much let them elect a candidate that will accomodate them, good luck.
I don't believe the poll at all. Same kind of crap they used to try to brainwash people about the majority wanting a pathway to citizenship for the illegals. The majority of citizens want to preserve our country.
As everyone should know, our military strength has seen numerous cuts. Why should our citizens die to protect people who won't stand up for themselves? I never have gotten that. They have infected our nation and are just waiting. If we are going to take them out, we need to start within our own country.
ISIS camps in Mexico from Judicial Watch, incredible.
Time to head to the bunker with the dry rations and ammo.
well, I don't know if there are training camps in Mexico, but, There are jihadist training camps in the United States, You don't worry about that? Which Country allows this type of insanity?! Simply absurd.
That's because most Americans are unaware of the costs.
This may be true. The best way to stop our wars is to require that the president get enough people to donate their OWN money to a "war fund" and when he gets enough money donated, he can then go to war.
That would stop all foreign wars because almost nobody would send their own money to Washington to fund a war.
No, the longer we allow ISIL to coordinate and train new recruits, the longer and more difficult our war with them will continue to be.
Obama should have never allowed ISIL to cross into IRAQ. Then again there were a lot of mistakes Obama made with regards to Iraq.
You probably didn't read my last paragraph:
Quote:
But I wonder if it isn't a workable plan just to let northern Iraq be the permanent place to corral this cloud of "restless warriors"--as long as the rest of the world can find a way to starve it from the outside.
The recruitment is being done outside the Syria/Northern Iraq zone. Unless that problem is solved, fighting them anywhere is useless. Wars are not won by fighting forces-in-being...we re-learned that lesson in Vietnam. You have to destroy the factories.
So where are the "restless warriors" heading to the area from and how are they being created? That differs quite a bit from area to area: Radicals from the US are not created the same way as radicals from France.
However, a near absolute commonality is their recruitment from Saudi-supported Wahabi sources. Trace them all back, and they all will show they were radicalized through Saudi money. Saudi Arabia is the common denominator.
Lots of good arguments made on both sides in this thread. How are we going to pay for it, and let's create a new tax to pay for it.....I like the fiscal responsibility of that one. We still have budget deficits to deal with, it would drain our resources. We should be knocking out ISIS oil production first, Turkey is buying their oil and I would not give a damn if Russia did whatever to Turkey as I think they should be kicked out of NATO anyway. I think Russia's involvement in Syria has been more positive than negative as a whole, and I don't care that much about Assad one way or the other. And YES, arm the Kurds and support them, they deserve it, and deserve to have their own country, IMO, carved out of Iraq and Turkey.
As has been well said by other posters, I do not trust Obama to oversee any ground troop surge, he is overly sympathetic to Muslims in general and I do not trust his judgement on national security or immigration policy. However, he is better on economic policy and has used fiscal responsibility in containing the growth of government spending, in comparison to past presidents. It would be better to stay on that course for another year while Europe and other allies tune up for military engagement in Iraq and Syria.
I think Trump is better prepared than Hillary to deal with the problems we face as a whole, looking forward. He is a 'get things done' type of guy that can't be bought. His business experience could be beneficial in helping control costs, cutting waste in both government and military spending. He is pretty sharp where it counts. Bernie Sanders is what we needed in 2008, but I'm not sure that's what we need in 2016, and I don't trust Hillary.
I do not mock those of you that want ground troops now, ISIS is a major threat and I don't think it would do any harm to send in 10K troops to help push them back.....but not under Obama...lol.
To get rid of ISIS, we'll need to invade a larger portion of Syria and Iraq. Actually taking the territory won't be the problem. We'll win ever stand up battle we fight. The ISIS loyalists will just fade back into the population.
The question becomes, what do we do with the territory after we take it? At that point we have to deal with guerrilla warfare, IED and suicide bomber attacks, etc.. How long are we willing to hold, manage this territory after we take it, and what can we constructively do with it?
I do not mock those of you that want ground troops now, ISIS is a major threat and I don't think it would do any harm to send in 10K troops to help push them back.....but not under Obama...lol.
That's where understanding the costs becomes important. It will take a lot more than 10K troops. Actual military plans are for 250,000 to 300,000 troops. And there would still need to be that secure surface logistical route I keep talking about.
"Operations wins battles; logistics wins wars." --probably said by someone in Julius Caesar's army, but also enunciated by General Nathan Bedford Forrest.
12-07-2015, 12:15 PM
i7pXFLbhE3gq
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by BBMW
To get rid of ISIS, we'll need to invade a larger portion of Syria and Iraq. Actually taking the territory won't be the problem. We'll win ever stand up battle we fight. The ISIS loyalists will just fade back into the population.
The question becomes, what do we do with the territory after we take it? At that point we have to deal with guerrilla warfare, IED and suicide bomber attacks, etc.. How long are we willing to hold, manage this territory after we take it, and what can we constructively do with it?
And this is why it'd be best to stay off the ground.
The same people saying to go in now will be whining in five or ten years that we've been there too long. And then a year after we pull out and it's back to chaos, they'll be whining that we shouldn't have left.
There is no political will to actually solve the problem.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
