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.
What a disgrace you are! Did you really say that all of our Military are either just warmongers or freeloaders? How disresepctful.
Most join the military to serve their country, maybe even defend it, but to imply that the only reason to join is if you are pro-war, or in it for the freebies is beyond disrespectful.
You have no right to call anyone names!
No, I didn't say that. How about you lay off the personal attacks and attempt to address the thread topic: whether we should deploy ground troops in Iraq.
Theirs or ours? If you mean Yazidis, shiites, etc, then there is no number of them that is worth a US death. It is not a moral calculus. It is simply not our concern. If it is US journalists, then the same thing. These guys chose to go over there; they took the risk. It is not the business of our county to engage in a foreign war to protect or rescue them.
Well, that's one perspective.
By your logic, we should have let the Germans exterminate the Jews because that wasn't our concern either.
No, I didn't say that. How about you lay off the personal attacks and attempt to address the thread topic: whether we should deploy ground troops in Iraq.
Thanks in advance.
I read it differently, but to your point:
I think they need to be stopped, but I am not supportive of sending in ground troops yet.
Why?:
First and foremost, I don't think it's a battle we can win. You can defeat a country, but you can't defeat an ideology. As another poster said, this ideology has been going on for 100's of years.
Secondly, will you still be supportive if it's a complete disaster? Not "goes south down the road", but if we go in to wipe ISIS out, and fight them for 10 years, and nothing happens? Or will you say I was supportive of the effort, but [whoever is in charge at the time] Screwed it up. Because it seems that is what people on both sides of the aisle do these days. Point fingers rather than fix sh*t.
As for "how many do they have to kill before I'd support it"? Well, any American that is in the region knows the risks. I personally would not be in Syria, or Iraq. (I've been to the middle east several times, and both enjoyed it, and had the crap scared out of me). Obviously I don't condone in anyway what has happened to them, but they did know the risks going in, and had the option to get out, or never go.
In my end analysis, we should let their own enemies fight them. Fight each other and solve their own problems. When the fight spills outside their borders and into ours, or when the threat approaches something that we may not be able to handle, then we have no choice but to go in and deal with them.
Another poster in another thread said let them take Iraq or Syria. Let them have the government, then take them out as a legitimate country. That seems to make more sense.
Our track record of trying to "fix" countries halfway around the world is overwhelmingly poor.
Just want to go on record as saying that if Obama decides to take out ISIS by putting troops on the ground, I would 100% support him in that endeavor.
Even if things were to go south later, I would not second guess him and anklebite like the liberals have done with President Bush's decision to invade Afghanistan and Iraq after 9/11.
He was not criticized over Afghanistan, but he deserved every bit of criticism for Iraq, where we lost 4000 Americans because if his lies.
He was not criticized over Afghanistan, but he deserved every bit of criticism for Iraq, where we lost 4000 Americans because if his lies.
He most certainly has been criticized by the left over Afghanistan. I can't count the number of times liberals have bemoaned his "starting two unnecessary wars." If one of the two isn't Afghanistan, what are liberals talking about when this is said?
He most certainly has been criticized by the left over Afghanistan. I can't count the number of times liberals have bemoaned his "starting two unnecessary wars." If one of the two isn't Afghanistan, what are liberals talking about when this is said?
I don't' remember, but you can add quotes if you want.
He most certainly has been criticized by the left over Afghanistan. I can't count the number of times liberals have bemoaned his "starting two unnecessary wars." If one of the two isn't Afghanistan, what are liberals talking about when this is said?
Surely there are some people that are just anti-war (Ron Paul would be one of them), but the VAST majority of Americans supported the invasion of Afghanistan as a direct response to 9/11, while many (especially on the left) have criticized GWB for his invasion of Iraq, especially in light of the fact that the so-called "evidence" he used to sell the war to a supportive Congress turned out to be bunk.
[quote=Myghost;36193936]I read it differently, but to your point:
I think they need to be stopped, but I am not supportive of sending in ground troops yet.
Why?:
Quote:
First and foremost, I don't think it's a battle we can win. You can defeat a country, but you can't defeat an ideology. As another poster said, this ideology has been going on for 100's of years.
We can defeat an ideology. We defeated the personality cult of the Emperor of Japan in WWII. The difficulty with accomplishing a total victory is the limitations placed on our troops with respect to limiting the scope of the war and the rules of engagement, as someone else noted above. While I would support ground troops, that support is premised on the perhaps impossible predicate that we put troops in to totally destroy ISIS and totally win the war.
Quote:
Secondly, will you still be supportive if it's a complete disaster? Not "goes south down the road", but if we go in to wipe ISIS out, and fight them for 10 years, and nothing happens? Or will you say I was supportive of the effort, but [whoever is in charge at the time] Screwed it up. Because it seems that is what people on both sides of the aisle do these days. Point fingers rather than fix sh*t.
I'm not sure. I don't believe there is a scenario in which we are fighting ISIS for 10 years in Iraq. I believe that ISIS would be destroyed quickly because their real strength isn't in fighting soldiers but rather in terrorizing civilians.
Quote:
As for "how many do they have to kill before I'd support it"? Well, any American that is in the region knows the risks. I personally would not be in Syria, or Iraq. (I've been to the middle east several times, and both enjoyed it, and had the crap scared out of me). Obviously I don't condone in anyway what has happened to them, but they did know the risks going in, and had the option to get out, or never go.
I wouldn't put the Middle East on my list of vacation destinations either. Just because someone is traveling abroad doesn't mean they are to blame when they are kidnapped and have their head sawed off either. Why are we spending billions on the military and intelligence if not to identify and eliminate these threats?
Quote:
In my end analysis, we should let their own enemies fight them. Fight each other and solve their own problems. When the fight spills outside their borders and into ours, or when the threat approaches something that we may not be able to handle, then we have no choice but to go in and deal with them.
I don't think we disagree too much. It's only a matter of time before this threat spills over. The problem with waiting for that date is that ISIS only becomes more powerful as time goes on. We have seen that develop since the Syria unrest.
Quote:
Another poster in another thread said let them take Iraq or Syria. Let them have the government, then take them out as a legitimate country. That seems to make more sense.
Seems to me that the only thing that would accomplish is to give ISIS the opportunity to commit mass murder against any non-Islamofascist. Bad idea.
Quote:
Our track record of trying to "fix" countries halfway around the world is overwhelmingly poor.
Not really. Germany, Japan and Korea are all good examples of the U.S. fixing a problematic country.
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.
