Does Anyone Think That The US Should Send Combat Troops

mark46 · Nov 24, 2015

A year ago, lots of folks wanted the US to send more combat troops. How do you all feel now? Most of are fine with the US strongly supporting efforts by France, Russia, the Kurds and even the Iraqi military.

WE ARE WHERE WE ARE

IRAQ
It seems that the US can do significant good in helping the Kurds and the Iraqi military in Iraq. And yes, we are destroying ISIL oil in Iraq. Do you think that US troops should send troops to take Mosul (a very large city being run by ISIL)? I would not that ALL factions in Iraq (except the Kurds) do not want to see US combat troops, and in fact opposed the recent rescue mission.

SYRIA
It seems that we can do significant good in joining France and Russia in attacking ISIL, and in supporting the Kurds. Of course, Turkey continues to attack Assad forces, and very few ISIL targets.

BOTTOM LINE
As Rubio has argued, only Arab Sunni troops can stabilize the Arab Sunni areas now held by ISIL. Others could defeat ISIL for a time. However, others would come back. Shia troops can't stabilize these areas. Kurdish troops can't stabilize these areas. Turkish troops can't stabilize this area. US troops can't stabilize the area. It is up to Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the emirates.

Armoured · Nov 24, 2015

Heck no. On record here and elsewhere saying no, don't do it, yes, it's our mess, but we can't fix it, we'll jut make it worse...yadda yadda yadda, no one listens, what would I know, so on.

football5680 · Nov 24, 2015

No. This is a problem the region needs to sort out on their own. We can aid them but the countries themselves have to retake and stabilize their own land gradually. Sending our troops in would destroy them quickly but all this would accomplish would be sending these people underground. After this the only way to maintain stability would be a long and costly occupation and unless we would be willing to stay their forever, it would not work. They would just wait until the US pulled out and then they would start up again because they have no respect for the military of their own country.

Armoured · Nov 24, 2015

football5680 said:
No. This is a problem the region needs to sort out on their own. We can aid them but the countries themselves have to retake and stabilize their own land gradually. Sending our troops in would destroy them quickly but all this would accomplish would be sending these people underground. After this the only way to maintain stability would be a long and costly occupation and unless we would be willing to stay their forever, it would not work. They would just wait until the US pulled out and then they would start up again because they have no respect for the military of their own country.

More or less this.

Tallguy88 · Nov 24, 2015

No more US troops killed in another ME war. Let them kill each other, keep our boys home.

LivingWordUnity · Nov 24, 2015

No. The United States should get out of the way since whatever it's done has helped ISIS by blocking efforts to destroy them.
.

Armoured · Nov 24, 2015

LivingWordUnity said:
No. The United States should get out of the way since whatever it's done has helped ISIS by blocking efforts to destroy them.
.

Where do you get this nonsense?

MikeK · Nov 24, 2015

Armoured said:
Where do you get this nonsense?

All of the ISIS players that we've killed, all of them that we've directed others to kill - that's all been part of a clever rouse to hid the fact that we've been protecting ISIS. Secret Muslim Jade Helm Birth Certificate Grassy Knoll.

LivingWordUnity · Nov 24, 2015

MikeK said:
All of the ISIS players that we've killed, all of them that we've directed others to kill

Is that why ISIS has been expanding by leaps and bounds?

Or do you believe Obama's claim that ISIS are "JV" and "contained"?
.

MikeK · Nov 24, 2015

LivingWordUnity said:
Is that why ISIS has been expanding by leaps and bounds?

Or do you believe Obama's claim that ISIS are "JV" and "contained"?
.

ISIS, as a military force, is certainly JV. They have very little ability to project power effectively, as evidenced by their consistent inability to effectively strike the USA in spite of their threats to the contrary. ISIS is also contained, the only territory they "own" is territory where power vacuums existed, territory that virtually nobody really wants. They will continue to strike as they have been, with improvised munitions and terrorist strikes, and these efforts will continue to have little or no effect on their adversaries' ability to do as they please outside of the immediate territory ISIS possesses. Have you made any lifestyle changes as a result of ISIS threats?

Armoured · Nov 24, 2015

LivingWordUnity said:
Is that why ISIS has been expanding by leaps and bounds?

Or do you believe Obama's claim that ISIS are "JV" and "contained"?
.

Read MikeK's excellent comment. ISIS only manages to do what they do because they operate in a region of failed states. You, and people like you, hand them victory by taking them far more seriously than they warrant.

MikeK · Nov 24, 2015

Armoured said:
Read MikeK's excellent comment. ISIS only manages to do what they do because they operate in a region of failed states. You, and people like you, hand them victory by taking them far more seriously than they warrant.

Agreed. This is not to downplay the very serious and very real evil ISIS is doing (and would be doing at a greater rate without Obama-ordered airstrikes by the thousand), only to note that they aren't a real threat to us and aren't a serious military force.

Armoured · Nov 24, 2015

MikeK said:
Agreed. This is not to downplay the very serious and very real evil ISIS is doing (and would be doing at a greater rate without Obama-ordered airstrikes by the thousand), only to note that they aren't a real threat to us and aren't a serious military force.

While I understand your perfectly well said and valid point, prepare for cherry picking arguments "well what about Paris?" etc. Because perspective is something only commies and feminists use.

MikeK · Nov 24, 2015

Armoured said:
While I understand your perfectly well said and valid point, prepare for cherry picking arguments "well what about Paris?" etc. Because perspective is something only commies and feminists use.

Such people would be displaying their ignorance. Trying for years to inflict casualties on a country from a distance and failing to inflict anything more than a few hundred casualties here or there is the definition of a JV force.

Armoured · Nov 24, 2015

MikeK said:
Such people would be displaying their ignorance. Trying for years to inflict casualties on a land from a distance and failing to inflict anything more than a few hundred casualties here or there is the definition of a JV force.

You would think. But these guys LOVE the "we're under siege! Everybody panic" narrative. In a good year they can come up with 2 or 3 solid "Our civilisation is doomed! DOOOOOOOMED! flaps. The fact that they never actually turn out to be civilisation ending in no way seems to alloy them against the next one.

But hey, what with Turkey shooting down Russian aircraft, maybe this time all their demands for sabre rattling at inconsequential threats might inadvertently lead to the real thing. Real no foolin' nation state vs. nation state wars have started over less.

MikeK · Nov 24, 2015

Armoured said:
Real no foolin' nation state vs. nation state wars have started over less.

Like the great one, for example.

MikeK · Nov 24, 2015

Not this Great One:

Fantine · Nov 25, 2015

I agree that we should best participate as part of a true multinational force and in advisory and support categories.

And we must find a more effective way of treating PTSD before we lose another generation of young man to this devastating disorder. I think we need to anticipate it and make it part of an essential and intensive debriefing process for every soldier leaving a war zone. Good rehab works for drug addicts and alcoholics; let's give every soldier a good solid therapeutic program to help him/her as he returns to society and tries to process and deal with all he has experienced. Those who are really struggling can work with group therapy back in their home towns or home bases.

mark46 · Nov 25, 2015

A couple of months ago, many were calling for the US to send Us combat forces to both Iraq and Syria. Graham thought that no one who felt differently was qualified to run. Most Republicans agreed, except for Paul and Chafee.

Now, there is almost no one who is calling on the US to send combat forces.

Armoured · Nov 25, 2015

mark46 said:
A couple of months ago, many were calling for the US to send Us combat forces to both Iraq and Syria. Graham thought that no one who felt differently was qualified to run. Most Republicans agreed, except for Paul and Chafee.

Now, there is almost no one who is calling on the US to send combat forces.

Usual suspects included. But good luck getting them to admit to changed positions.

Does Anyone Think That The US Should Send Combat Troops

Well-Known Member

So is America great again yet?

Well-Known Member

So is America great again yet?

We shall see the King when he comes!

Unchanging Deposit of Faith, Traditional Catholic

So is America great again yet?

Traditionalist Catholic

Unchanging Deposit of Faith, Traditional Catholic

Traditionalist Catholic

So is America great again yet?

Traditionalist Catholic

So is America great again yet?

Traditionalist Catholic

So is America great again yet?

Traditionalist Catholic

Traditionalist Catholic

Dona Quixote

Well-Known Member

So is America great again yet?

Similar threads