Should we send ground troops to fight ISIS?

Started by Lestov163 pages

Should we send ground troops to fight ISIS?

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?

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

No.

Originally posted by Mindset
Yes

Why yes?

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.

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.

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.

Lets just wait until they come here.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
[b]Lets just wait until they come here. [/B]
👆

Just turn the entire region into a glass bowl.

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?

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

You some kinda terrorist recruiter, boy?

😆

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

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
😆

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

He'd still bomb London.

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.

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.