Page 11 of 22 FirstFirst ... 91011121321 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 213

Thread: U.S. Weighs Direct Military Action Against ISIS in Syria

  1. #101
    Sage
    Montecresto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Seen
    03-13-16 @ 11:59 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,561

    Re: U.S. Weighs Direct Military Action Against ISIS in Syria

    Quote Originally Posted by Jango View Post
    No, it is you that is mistaken. I know why we're where we're at. You don't understand that we have a serious problem right now so reflection & introspection of prior U.S. Foreign Policy actions is not an important task to be done right now: we first must survive & resteady ourselves. Then, a thorough reexamination is in order. Sort out your priorities, mate.
    Going at it from that angle will never bring peace. Your advocating focus on cure, but your absent in between when we need to focus on prevention, which means more trouble and then more cure, back and forth.
    Killing one person is murder, killing 100,000 is foreign policy

  2. #102
    Sage
    Caine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    10-05-17 @ 01:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    23,336

    Re: U.S. Weighs Direct Military Action Against ISIS in Syria

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    No, personally I have no reason to fear them. Or anything for that matter.

    Do you feel the terrorists have won? I feel the terrorists are winning, and will continue to do so until the democracies provide some strong leadership. Islamic terrorism is coming at a perfect time for them, with no strong leadership especially, of course, in America. A perfect storm, if you will.

    They're are certainly doing well in Europe. 15% of French people back ISIS militants, poll finds ? RT News

    What makes you so sure that the terrorists will leave the USA alone? Do you think they are lying? ISIS Terrorizes Middle East, Threatens United States
    Our Intelligence and Federal Law Enforcement Agencies have done a pretty good job so far of thwarting terrorist attacks on American soil thus far.
    As a soldier myself, what we have done in the Middle East has, in my opinion, very little effect on whether or not terrorist attacks occur here.

    And of course, a ground invasion of the United States is virtually impossible, even for some of the Strongest Military in the world.....

    Will there be another terrorist attack? Sure at some point, it is inevitable, whether that be an attack perpetrated by a foreign terrorist group or one grown right here at home.

    Does anyone honestly think that sending our troops to foreign lands is going to change that? We've been in that region for over a decade now fighting, tearing down the countries to build them back up again only to find out that the citizens there are unwilling to step up and take control of their own defense. During this process we have managed to sacrifice the lives of thousands of U.S. service members, make living conditions WORSE for many of the citizens of those countries, managed to contribute arms to those who now fight against our goals there, and all this while dumping trillions of U.S. Taxpayer dollars to end up almost right back where we started.

    How many thousand more soldiers lives, trillions of dollars, and years are you willing to waste there?

  3. #103
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Last Seen
    01-03-16 @ 02:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,761

    Re: U.S. Weighs Direct Military Action Against ISIS in Syria

    Quote Originally Posted by Caine View Post
    Our Intelligence and Federal Law Enforcement Agencies have done a pretty good job so far of thwarting terrorist attacks on American soil thus far.
    As a soldier myself, what we have done in the Middle East has, in my opinion, very little effect on whether or not terrorist attacks occur here.

    And of course, a ground invasion of the United States is virtually impossible, even for some of the Strongest Military in the world.....

    Will there be another terrorist attack? Sure at some point, it is inevitable, whether that be an attack perpetrated by a foreign terrorist group or one grown right here at home.

    Does anyone honestly think that sending our troops to foreign lands is going to change that? We've been in that region for over a decade now fighting, tearing down the countries to build them back up again only to find out that the citizens there are unwilling to step up and take control of their own defense. During this process we have managed to sacrifice the lives of thousands of U.S. service members, make living conditions WORSE for many of the citizens of those countries, managed to contribute arms to those who now fight against our goals there, and all this while dumping trillions of U.S. Taxpayer dollars to end up almost right back where we started.

    How many thousand more soldiers lives, trillions of dollars, and years are you willing to waste there?
    Ya, they are good at stopping the ones that they don't setup, take the 93 wtc bombing. They hired the guy to build the bomb, the guy wanted to use fake stuff, since the intention was clear, they gave the guy the real explosive. He began recording conversations with the FBI, who did not stop the bomb from going off as promised.,, and because the guy smelled the setup, you might never have heard of emad salem.

    Obama's biggest fear was a nuke going off in an American city, that week, nukes to missing from an Air Force base that was not even supposed to have nukes, and shipped them to a town, where the veiled threat of a nuke going off in that city. The following week, the top nuke commanders started getting caught "gambling" and other likely made up stuff... By the time that dust settled, it's been over 200 top military commanders have been replaced.

    Oh, and, I hope Isis doesn't read the news, or the forum, because the us no longer protects it's southern border, so they can just walk in with any weapons they want... Perhaps the stinger missiles given to ALQUIADA in the wake of Benghazi.

    That said, nobody wants wars, except for those who profit from wars... And if a person is in the business of profiting from murder, what do you think they might do to maintain the profit margins?

  4. #104
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: U.S. Weighs Direct Military Action Against ISIS in Syria

    Quote Originally Posted by Caine View Post
    Does anyone honestly think that sending our troops to foreign lands is going to change that? We've been in that region for over a decade now fighting, tearing down the countries to build them back up again only to find out that the citizens there are unwilling to step up and take control of their own defense.
    The Iraqis, like most ME countries, never had a democracy before, never had representational government, were tribal and had no experience in running a country whatsoever. To leave them on their own and expect them to "take control of their own defense" was impossible, and either naive or indifferent. Iraq had been won but, as elsewhere in the world, troops and advisers had to remain to defend what was won. To risk everything, the investment of lives and trillions of dollars on the unrealistic hope that they could take control of their own defense, was criminal. Certainly it was a loss, but a loss was not inevitable until all military was withdrawn.
    During this process we have managed to sacrifice the lives of thousands of U.S. service members, make living conditions WORSE for many of the citizens of those countries, managed to contribute arms to those who now fight against our goals there, and all this while dumping trillions of U.S. Taxpayer dollars to end up almost right back where we started.
    Exactly. Packing up and leaving was the worst military decision ever made by any President.
    How many thousand more soldiers lives, trillions of dollars, and years are you willing to waste there?
    That depends on whether the democracies get serious or not. Nothing was wasted until Iraq was abandoned, and only then did it all start to unravel. Making military decisions based on election cycles will guarantee long term failure.

    As far as an invasion of the USA is concerned there will just be Islamists shooting innocent people whenever and wherever they choose, just as those DC snipers did a few years ago, or the Boston terrorists did, or at Fort Hood,. They will never confront the US military, and don't have to. That is 20th century warfare.

    http://townhall.com/columnists/miche...tm_campaign=nl
    Last edited by Grant; 08-24-14 at 04:25 AM.

  5. #105
    Sage

    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Last Seen
    12-04-17 @ 09:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    12,361

    Re: U.S. Weighs Direct Military Action Against ISIS in Syria

    Quote Originally Posted by Montecresto View Post
    In that case, you have no problem with Russian presence in the parts of Ukraine no longer governed by Kiev.
    Russia is fighting to annex territory. It is the aggressor. The U.S. is being defensive by fighting the aggressor. The U.S. has no interest in annexing the territory. Different situation entirely. I would certainly encourage Russia to join the fight against ISIS, however. I think we infidels would do well to join forces to defeat ISIS.

  6. #106
    Sage
    Montecresto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Seen
    03-13-16 @ 11:59 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,561

    Re: U.S. Weighs Direct Military Action Against ISIS in Syria

    Quote Originally Posted by Caine View Post
    Our Intelligence and Federal Law Enforcement Agencies have done a pretty good job so far of thwarting terrorist attacks on American soil thus far.
    As a soldier myself, what we have done in the Middle East has, in my opinion, very little effect on whether or not terrorist attacks occur here.

    And of course, a ground invasion of the United States is virtually impossible, even for some of the Strongest Military in the world.....

    Will there be another terrorist attack? Sure at some point, it is inevitable, whether that be an attack perpetrated by a foreign terrorist group or one grown right here at home.

    Does anyone honestly think that sending our troops to foreign lands is going to change that? We've been in that region for over a decade now fighting, tearing down the countries to build them back up again only to find out that the citizens there are unwilling to step up and take control of their own defense. During this process we have managed to sacrifice the lives of thousands of U.S. service members, make living conditions WORSE for many of the citizens of those countries, managed to contribute arms to those who now fight against our goals there, and all this while dumping trillions of U.S. Taxpayer dollars to end up almost right back where we started.

    How many thousand more soldiers lives, trillions of dollars, and years are you willing to waste there?
    Good question for him. He loves volunteering American blood and treasure!
    Killing one person is murder, killing 100,000 is foreign policy

  7. #107
    Sage
    mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    DC Metro
    Last Seen
    11-13-16 @ 12:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    22,499

    Re: U.S. Weighs Direct Military Action Against ISIS in Syria

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemSocialist View Post
    Read more @: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/23/wo...isis.html?_r=0

    So we are going to selectively bomb in Iraq then in Syria? We know this wont drastically hurt ISIS. But the question is where do we bomb in Syria? [/FONT][/COLOR]
    ISIS has been fighting a conventional war in Syria and Iraq. Our airstrikes will prohibit them from doing that in that we will destroy all their heavy military equipment along with a majority of their forces. Of course it will drastically hurt them.
    ”People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.” --- Ben Franklin

    Quote Originally Posted by The German View Post
    Sterotypes are mostly based on truths.

  8. #108
    Sage
    mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    DC Metro
    Last Seen
    11-13-16 @ 12:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    22,499

    Re: U.S. Weighs Direct Military Action Against ISIS in Syria

    Quote Originally Posted by Montecresto View Post
    It's not that I don't recognise the threat man, its that our policies in the ME have helped to make it possible. The part of this that continues to escape you.
    What continues to escape most is that any policy regarding the middle east helps to make things possible. If we act, something happens, if we don't act, something happens....no matter what, some of that "something" will be negative.
    ”People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.” --- Ben Franklin

    Quote Originally Posted by The German View Post
    Sterotypes are mostly based on truths.

  9. #109
    Sage
    Montecresto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Seen
    03-13-16 @ 11:59 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,561

    Re: U.S. Weighs Direct Military Action Against ISIS in Syria

    Quote Originally Posted by fmw View Post
    Russia is fighting to annex territory. It is the aggressor. The U.S. is being defensive by fighting the aggressor. The U.S. has no interest in annexing the territory. Different situation entirely. I would certainly encourage Russia to join the fight against ISIS, however. I think we infidels would do well to join forces to defeat ISIS.
    Oh for Pete's sake. Again you think propaganda only emanates from other places. Russia is not the aggressor in Ukraine. Remember, the US supported a violent coup that overthrew the elected government of Ukraine installing a pro-Western government, quite naturally completely unacceptable to Russia. What we have seen there is an attempt at NATO expansion eastward. Russia is responding to US intrigue, they are not the aggressors. And they appear willing to pay the price to deny this.

    As to the US, regime change is our goal in the ME, which seems odd that you would deny that as aggression, because Hussein, Mubarak, Gaddafi and Assad see it as very aggressive. And Russia has been supporting president Assad all along in his fight against militant extremism in Syria. It's US support of those fighting to topple President Assad that has emboldened them and given rise to IS which has spread beyond Syria's borders, precisely as China and Russia warned US interference in Syria would cause.
    Killing one person is murder, killing 100,000 is foreign policy

  10. #110
    Sage
    Montecresto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Seen
    03-13-16 @ 11:59 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,561

    Re: U.S. Weighs Direct Military Action Against ISIS in Syria

    Quote Originally Posted by mac View Post
    What continues to escape most is that any policy regarding the middle east helps to make things possible. If we act, something happens, if we don't act, something happens....no matter what, some of that "something" will be negative.
    Oh, I see. Well tell me. How is it that creating power vacuums can ever be positive?
    Killing one person is murder, killing 100,000 is foreign policy

Page 11 of 22 FirstFirst ... 91011121321 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •