Should we send ground troops to fight ISIS?

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Lestov16
Following the tragic Paris attacks and Obama's polarizing support of airstrikes over soldiers, the question of a second (3rd?) Iraq War has become more prominent than ever before.

What do you think?

Time-Immemorial
Yes, but Obama spent the fighting ISIS budget on 4 Syrian Rebels that cost us $500 million.

Since we have no money left. Drones will do, pig.

Tzeentch
10 years, 1.6 trillion dollars and nearly 7000 dead American troops. Result: Terrorism as prolific today as it was before, just under a different name.

America: Maybe if we do it again things will be different!

What's the definition of insanity, again?

Robtard
Originally posted by Tzeentch
10 years, nearly 7000 dead American troops. Result: Terrorists as strong today as they were before, just under a different name.

America: Maybe if we do it again things will be different!

What's the definition of insanity, again?

Minor correction: terrorist are seemingly stronger now than they were prior to Bush's war. Seems this is what happens when you destroy a country and turn it into a terrorist breeding ground.

Time-Immemorial
Bush didn't hit them hard enough, he was weak just like his old man was.

Newjak
I would hope we have since learned from the second gulf war. It just can't be blind aggression to get vengeance.

We need to be invited in with a collation and not just the people we force to be our allies because we will be upset with them if we don't.

We need middle eastern countries to align with us and commit troops. We need the UN to hopefully endorse this and commit.

We also need to remember war is costly and brutal not just for us but the innocent people that will be put in harms way. If all we do is destabilize the region more. If we don't do a good job protecting civilians then the next generation of radicals will be well supplied with willing bodies and we will be right back here in another ten years.

Time-Immemorial
Originally posted by Newjak
I would hope we have since learned from the second gulf war. It just can't be blind aggression to get vengeance.

We need to be invited in with a collation and not just the people we force to be our allies because we will be upset with them if we don't.

We need middle eastern countries to align with us and commit troops. We need the UN to hopefully endorse this and commit.

We also need to remember war is costly and brutal not just for us but the innocent people that will be put in harms way. If all we do is destabilize the region more. If we don't do a good job protecting civilians then the next generation of radicals will be well supplied with willing bodies and we will be right back here in another ten years.

This is a good plan, Obama will surely succeed if he does this.

Mindset
No.

Time-Immemorial
Originally posted by Mindset
Yes

Why yes?

Omega Vision
Originally posted by Newjak
I would hope we have since learned from the second gulf war. It just can't be blind aggression to get vengeance.

We need to be invited in with a collation and not just the people we force to be our allies because we will be upset with them if we don't.

We need middle eastern countries to align with us and commit troops. We need the UN to hopefully endorse this and commit.

We also need to remember war is costly and brutal not just for us but the innocent people that will be put in harms way. If all we do is destabilize the region more. If we don't do a good job protecting civilians then the next generation of radicals will be well supplied with willing bodies and we will be right back here in another ten years.
I think if there wasn't already a proxy war going on between Russia and the US this would have already happened. Unfortunately, there's that proxy war.

There are too many conflicting interests at play, and at the moment, IS isn't seen by the major powers as enough of a threat to shelve those interests in favor of taking them on.

If America were to try to get Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey to work together to stop ISIS, they'd have to somehow balance out those parties' competing desires regarding the Al-Assad regime. Turkey, our most important partner in the region re: Syria, has ISIS as its third priority after the Kurds and Al-Assad.

Omega Vision
Originally posted by Tzeentch
10 years, 1.6 trillion dollars and nearly 7000 dead American troops. Result: Terrorism as prolific today as it was before, just under a different name.

America: Maybe if we do it again things will be different!

What's the definition of insanity, again?
I don't think we should be concerned about a ground intervention making Iraq and Syria worse necessarily. The real disconcerting thing is that if Iraq can't tend its own house without our direct involvement, we might never rid ourselves of Middle Eastern entanglements.

Newjak
Originally posted by Omega Vision
I think if there wasn't already a proxy war going on between Russia and the US this would have already happened. Unfortunately, there's that proxy war.

There are too many conflicting interests at play, and at the moment, IS isn't seen by the major powers as enough of a threat to shelve those interests in favor of taking them on.

If America were to try to get Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey to work together to stop ISIS, they'd have to somehow balance out those parties' competing desires regarding the Al-Assad regime. Turkey, our most important partner in the region re: Syria, has ISIS as its third priority after the Kurds and Al-Assad. Agreed. It is easy on paper what we need to be but there are plenty of logistics that are going to get in the way.

Flyattractor
Lets just wait until they come here.

Mindset
Originally posted by Flyattractor
Lets just wait until they come here. thumb up

Tattoos N Scars
Just turn the entire region into a glass bowl.

Mindset
Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
Just turn the entire region into a glass bowl. They'd just make more terrorist.

You some kinda terrorist recruiter, boy?

Tattoos N Scars
Originally posted by Mindset
They'd just make more terrorist.

You some kinda terrorist recruiter, boy?

laughing

Nah, I just ask myself, what would Hitler do?

Lord Lucien
Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
laughing

Nah, I just ask myself, what would Hitler do? He'd still bomb London.

Tattoos N Scars
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
He'd still bomb London.

I was speculating if Nazi Germany was a current world power and ISIS conducted mass terrorist attacks in Berlin.

Mindset
Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
I was speculating if Nazi Germany was a current world power and ISIS conducted mass terrorist attacks in Berlin. They would probably be best buds.

Lord Lucien
Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
I was speculating if Nazi Germany was a current world power and ISIS conducted mass terrorist attacks in Berlin.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
He'd still bomb London.

Flyattractor
Originally posted by Mindset
thumb up

Good news...

Isis World Tour of IsloNazi Fun Time aand family good will tour. First Paris Next stop;;

Mindset
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
And invade Russia.

Adam Grimes
We should make them sick.

Flyattractor
Once they try the Russian food it should be a pretty good bet that it will.

Q99
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Yes, but Obama spent the fighting ISIS budget on 4 Syrian Rebels that cost us $500 million.

There were notably more trained. It's just a lot died or been driven out- and I doubt the program spend near it's full budget.

A failure so far to be sure, but it's not like we spent the money on five people.




We've got tons of money. The military budget's huge.


Also, aside from drones, there's backing local powers like the Kurds, which has been a lot more successful than training forces ourselves and where we have been giving them military advisors- and they just retook a major city.

Mindset
I don't understand why we haven't started a super soldier program, or even a clone army.

Flyattractor
Originally posted by Q99





We've got tons of money. The military budget's huge.


.

Then why does Obama keep laying off the troops he brings home?

Lucius
Its not necessarily in the interest of the regional powers to destroy ISIS. The Turks hate the Kurds more than ISIS. The Saudis silently praise ISIS's actions. Iran doesn't want a unified Iraq because they don't want to have Sunni participation in an Iraqi government. Even the Kurds don't really want to destroy ISIS; they want to protect their land. A shattered Iraq can't reign in on what is essentially Kurdistan.

Basically, these people all hate each other more than they hate ISIS.

Q99
Originally posted by Flyattractor


Then why does Obama keep laying off the troops he brings home?

Because after two wars, we still have a lot more troops than we need post war, of course. It's lowering costs when we don't need as many- and doesn't the Republicans complain about the debt all the time? Debt's not really a big of a deal as they make it, but not paying for a wartime army is an easy way to lower costs.


Heck, if we did need more money, we could do what has traditionally been done during war and raise, dun dun dun, taxes. If that didn't cause Republicans to break out into hives, at least.

S_W_LeGenD
Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
laughing

Nah, I just ask myself, what would Hitler do?
- Concentration camps?
- Mass executions?
- Carpet bombing of settlements?

Time-Immemorial
Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
Just turn the entire region into a glass bowl.

No one cares if anyone says this kinda stuff as long as it's not Long Pig or Star.

Interestinglaughing out loud

Q99
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
No one cares if anyone says this kinda stuff as long as it's not Long Pig or Star.

Interestinglaughing out loud
'

No, it's still dumb no matter who says it.

People don't *always* respond when you or Star or such do it either... it's just you lot say it enough that people do get around to responding.

I don't know why you think, "Ah ha! People didn't respond to something!" is a useful debating tactic. All it says is you wanna manufacture 'gotchas' outa nothing... and it's also funny that sometimes you do it when people have responded.

Bardock42
Yeah, I for one hadn't read this thread until now. Now that I did I would like to point out that generally asking "What would Hitler do" and using that as a role model is misguided.

It's similar to how some people say "Well ISIS would do that, so why shouldn't we"...if we (the west) give up our honor and beliefs in fighting our enemies, what is the point?

Time-Immemorial
Originally posted by Q99
'

No, it's still dumb no matter who says it.

People don't *always* respond when you or Star or such do it either... it's just you lot say it enough that people do get around to responding.

I don't know why you think, "Ah ha! People didn't respond to something!" is a useful debating tactic. All it says is you wanna manufacture 'gotchas' outa nothing... and it's also funny that sometimes you do it when people have responded.

I don't recall asking your opinion. Now your just doing that thing you do where you blame something someone else did on someone else, as usually do. Try and remain objective.

Omega Vision
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
No one cares if anyone says this kinda stuff as long as it's not Long Pig or Star.

Interestinglaughing out loud
I don't see your point.

0mega Spawn
Ground troops? No

Constant indiscriminate barrage of airstrikes until nothing is left but a steaming pile of ash? Yes

FinalAnswer
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
I don't recall asking your opinion. Now your just doing that thing you do where you blame something someone else did on someone else, as usually do. Try and remain objective.

No, Q99 is basically right, Tattoos N Scars's post doesn't come close to the never ending stream of bile put out by Star and Long Pig, God rest his soul.

EDIT: Also the fact those two openly mock and attack the opinions of others probably has something to do with it.

Utrigita
Originally posted by Lucius
Its not necessarily in the interest of the regional powers to destroy ISIS. The Turks hate the Kurds more than ISIS. The Saudis silently praise ISIS's actions. Iran doesn't want a unified Iraq because they don't want to have Sunni participation in an Iraqi government. Even the Kurds don't really want to destroy ISIS; they want to protect their land. A shattered Iraq can't reign in on what is essentially Kurdistan.

Basically, these people all hate each other more than they hate ISIS.

Add in the conflict in Yemen as a bit of icing on the cake, and oh my...

Time-Immemorial
Originally posted by FinalAnswer
No, Q99 is basically right, Tattoos N Scars's post doesn't come close to the never ending stream of bile put out by Star and Long Pig, God rest his soul.

EDIT: Also the fact those two openly mock and attack the opinions of others probably has something to do with it.

Saying they should be nukes ranked ower then what? I don't care what anyone says, it's called free speach but if you going to critize others, everyone should be held to the same standard.

Ushgarak
It was just a dumb throwaway comment, TI- it had none of the genuine viciousness (or trolling nature) that other posters were clocked for. If he crosses that line, he'll be dealt with in the same way.

Surtur
If we ask what Hitler would do the answer would be..generally something really stupid. The man had no clue how to fight a war. He made decisions that literally a child with no experience but who was sane would not make.

Q99
On significant numbers of ground troops I would say.... I'm not actually sure. If there's an international coalition, it'd make sense to join in, but only if there's a plan. Going in without a plan last time is what helped make Daesh, so if we go in again, it must be done right.

It's a complex situation and I'm not going to commit to one way or other.

Q99
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
I don't recall asking your opinion. Now your just doing that thing you do where you blame something someone else did on someone else, as usually do. Try and remain objective.

You posted your opinion in a public forum as an attempt to take a swipe at a number of people for *inaction*.

I'm blaming you for how you act, nothing else. I'm not blaming anyone for what they didn't do, I'm not blaming anyone for what someone else did. Just you for you.

Time-Immemorial
Do you even know what you are still talking about. Tattoos made multiple comments on nuking Islam and doing to them like hitter. What on earth are you blaming me for now? Oh that's right, nothinglaughing out loud

When you can grasp something else then straws man, come back when you have something. Till then, my comment stands.

Adam Grimes
Originally posted by Surtur
If we ask what Hitler would do the answer would be..generally something really stupid. The man had no clue how to fight a war. He made decisions that literally a child with no experience but who was sane would not make. He didn't do that bad. He lasted 3 years against the heaviest hitters at the time while carrying dead weight in his two clowns sidekicks, Hirohito and Mussolini.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Adam Grimes
He didn't do that bad. He lasted 3 years against the heaviest hitters at the time while carrying dead weight in his two clowns sidekicks, Hirohito and Mussolini.

Yeah, though Hitler's record as commander is a mixed bag, the German military leaders on the whole did quite well in both world wars.

Flyattractor
Anybody here surprised that Bardy is a Hitler Fan?

Bardy on the side of Extreme Right Wing Policies?

GASP. SHOCK!

Bardock42
That's literally the opposite of what I said....

red g jacks
Originally posted by Tzeentch
10 years, 1.6 trillion dollars and nearly 7000 dead American troops. Result: Terrorism as prolific today as it was before, just under a different name.

America: Maybe if we do it again things will be different!

What's the definition of insanity, again? i think the real mistake they made with iraq was basically dismantling the baath party by blacklisting anyone who was involved in the state... in a one party state. so virtually every qualified person who couldve made up the new regime was disqualified.

BJPOtPl-0NI

so yea the way they went about it is a recipe for failure. that doesn't mean you can't eliminate a regime and reconstruct a country. see: germany and japan in ww2. it just takes a hell of a lot of work to do so.

Tattoos N Scars
I didn't mean for my comments to be taken seriously. I'd love for ISIS to be wiped out, but not through nukes..too many innocents would die. The Hitler comment was just tongue in cheek.

TI, I do not post enough for people in these forums to really know what I believe. I'm rarely here to rock the boat on sensitive issues.

Time-Immemorial
Dude I don't care say whatever, it's freedom of speech, my point is she's blaming me for something I didn't do. It's piss poor.

Flyattractor
Originally posted by Bardock42
That's literally the opposite of what I said....

But it sounded Pro German.

So...

Bardy is Pro Hitler.


Sorry. That is just the way it works.

red g jacks
Originally posted by Flyattractor
Anybody here surprised that Bardy is a Hitler Fan?

Bardy on the side of Extreme Right Wing Policies?

GASP. SHOCK! you're just a hitler hater tbh... everything is black and white to people like you. if a guy is an enemy then you can't give him any credibility whatsoever. i can almost guarantee that hitler was more competent than you are.

Bardock42
I've been listening to a history podcast on the rise of the mongol empire, the sub-theme of which was, that as time passes the human cost of events is often forgotten about in history.

Surtur
Originally posted by Adam Grimes
He didn't do that bad. He lasted 3 years against the heaviest hitters at the time while carrying dead weight in his two clowns sidekicks, Hirohito and Mussolini.

He actually did do bad though. When you have several times where your generals are begging you not to do something and you still continually do it..that isn't good. Hitler had good people working for him and he did well when he listened to them, but there were certain things he didn't. Check this:

GK419Nlp8eU

Omega Vision
Originally posted by Bardock42
I've been listening to a history podcast on the rise of the mongol empire, the sub-theme of which was, that as time passes the human cost of events is often forgotten about in history.
A lot depends on who writes the history. We still remember Draco of Athens as a horrible guy because of what was written by his contemporaries, and because he gave us the word "Draconian," though IIRC many historians now don't think Draco was that much worse than others of his era.

quanchi112
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Dude I don't care say whatever, it's freedom of speech, my point is she's blaming me for something I didn't do. It's piss poor. thumb up

Q99
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Do you even know what you are still talking about. Tattoos made multiple comments on nuking Islam and doing to them like hitter. What on earth are you blaming me for now? Oh that's right, nothinglaughing out loud

When you can grasp something else then straws man, come back when you have something. Till then, my comment stands.


Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Dude I don't care say whatever, it's freedom of speech, my point is she's blaming me for something I didn't do. It's piss poor.

Nope, you did do something- you tried to blame others for not jumping on Tattoo.

Your exact words:

"No one cares if anyone says this kinda stuff as long as it's not Long Pig or Star.

Interesting laughing out loud "



You know, I don't really get this 'you're blaming me for something I didn't do!/prove it' thing you occasionally do when, y'know, we're on a message board and often talking about something that happened just a page or two back. You get caught out with it a lot.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.