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.
So... the plan is more US involvement, closer to the front, and more US troops on the ground. What could possibly go wrong?
You are right, we should let ISIS burn people, throw them off buildings, and your-all-time-favorite cut off their heads with a knife... what could go wrong, if ISIS expands bigger...
From what I understood, part of the reason for the growing 'lone wolf' attacks claimed by ISIS is that ISIS has lost and is losing their hold in the Middle East and they are scrambling. This just didn't happen in the last three months but has been talked about from numerous sources for at least 9 months now right?
So not sure what Trump has done to add to that YET.
Boots on the ground is code for going to war...that's what boots on the ground mean -- didn't Trump say he wouldn't do that?
you could knock me down with a feather, i had no idea trump even knew what a strategy was, nevermind actually forming one.
So? What is his strategy? i would love someone to link to it, because what i see is Trump is doing zero new. The defeat of isis is happening exactly as planned and explained the last couple of years. Nothing new, nothing changed.
lol.. His strategy is his massive intoxicating hyperbole.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,400,252 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by ahzzie
This is the only thing Trump and I see eye to eye on. Destroying this Islamic state will benefit the world in untold ways.
And why shouldn't those in the region more directly threatened by ISIS bear more of the burden? We have more than enough domestic issues that need attention.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,400,252 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by evilnewbie
You are right, we should let ISIS burn people, throw them off buildings, and your-all-time-favorite cut off their heads with a knife... what could go wrong, if ISIS expands bigger...
Since you feign such concern for others I guess you also believe we should intervene in N Korea too?
The only difference between ISIS and any other Islamic domination group is that the provide a fat, inviting target. They are as close to an organized force, operating by more conventional means of lines of battle as such groups get. They have mechanized infantry, artillery, tanks, and move more conventionally than any other group. By doing so, they play into the strategies our military is trained to handle. Engagement of enemy forces head on. We can use aircraft and artillery, drones and missile strikes, and if troops are needed it need not be strictly a SOCOM proposition. Forward light infantry like The 82nd or 101st, or Marine expeditionary forces can be put into play. ISIS is fighting in a manner that our forces are designed to deal with. Clearly defined fronts with specific goals of occupying territory, and large scale staging of men and equipment in specific areas. That sort of operation is tailor made for how our forces are geared to fight.
Via heavy head on assault designed to smash their warfighting capability. That said, that's not saying I believe we should do so.
Ah, so disregarding whether it is good or not, Obama drone strikes = baaaad, Trump = good? Obama did a lot of them and was criticized. Why should we want more?
Yeah, they complained like Hell when Obama did it, said it was criminal. Now that shining boy does it, it is fine.
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.