Page 54 of 76 FirstFirst ... 444525354555664 ... LastLast
Results 531 to 540 of 754

Thread: Gov. Scott Walker: Don't Rule Out 'Boots on the Ground' Against ISIS

  1. #531
    Villiage Idiot
    imagep's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Upstate SC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    23,584

    Re: Gov. Scott Walker: Don't Rule Out 'Boots on the Ground' Against ISIS

    Quote Originally Posted by JoeTrumps View Post
    so what is it you would like a person running for President to say?

    In your opinion Walker should have promised no boots on the ground against ISIS???

    ANY presidential hopeful who would be foolish enough to say such a thing doesn't deserve a single vote.

    it's that type of small thinking that got us into this situation. Under Bush you people couldn't stand that the United States was "hated" by other countries. Well you got your wish. we aren't hated anyone. Instead we are the world's PUNCHING BAG. I'm glad that helps you sleep better, but I PROMISE YOU the rest of us in this country would much rather be the first than be the second. And nothing will change until the highest political office is out of democrat control.
    Yea, we are the worlds punching bag alright. We keep on getting attacked by countries all over the world. right.
    Quote Originally Posted by ocean515 View Post
    ...I'm not interested in debating someone who is trolling for an argument....
    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    I see a big problem with the idea that whatever the majority wants is OK.

  2. #532
    Professor
    JoeTrumps's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Memphis
    Last Seen
    12-14-17 @ 09:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,570

    Re: Gov. Scott Walker: Don't Rule Out 'Boots on the Ground' Against ISIS

    Quote Originally Posted by imagep View Post
    Yea, we are the worlds punching bag alright. We keep on getting attacked by countries all over the world. right.
    do I have to give examples of the dictators and scumbag countries Obama has made "peace deals" with that got us exactly NOTHING in return(no help in security, no help in spreading democracy)?
    do you think if "crazy" Bush was still in office ISIS would feel so comfortable cutting heads of our own citizens?

    do I really have to point these things out or have you been living in a cave?

  3. #533
    Villiage Idiot
    imagep's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Upstate SC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    23,584

    Re: Gov. Scott Walker: Don't Rule Out 'Boots on the Ground' Against ISIS

    Quote Originally Posted by JoeTrumps View Post
    do I have to give examples of the dictators and scumbag countries Obama has made "peace deals" with that got us exactly NOTHING in return(no help in security, no help in spreading democracy)?
    Sure, why don't you do that. I obviously need to be edumacated.

    do you think if "crazy" Bush was still in office ISIS would feel so comfortable cutting heads of our own citizens?
    I dunno, but they did't seem to have an issue with killilng thousands of our own citizens on US soil, and using US aircraft to do it.

    do I really have to point these things out or have you been living in a cave?
    I guess we all live in our own little worlds. In your world, everything Obama is bad, and everything Bush is good. In my world, there is a little good and bad in every POTUS.
    Quote Originally Posted by ocean515 View Post
    ...I'm not interested in debating someone who is trolling for an argument....
    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    I see a big problem with the idea that whatever the majority wants is OK.

  4. #534
    Left the building
    Fearandloathing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Vancouver, Canada Dual citizen
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,484

    Re: Gov. Scott Walker: Don't Rule Out 'Boots on the Ground' Against ISIS

    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernDemocrat View Post
    You obviously haven't read the thread then.

    The discussion you are responding to pertained to the origin of ISIS. It was my contention that ISIS would not exist were it for our going into Iraq in the first place back in 2003 and that going back in is pointless when the real problem is that the government of Iraq is so corrupt and inept that it cannot defeat ISIS in its own country when most estimates put the total size of ISIS in both Syria and Iraq as just 30,000 or so militants while the Iraqi Defense Force constitutes 271,500 active personnel and 528,000 in reserve (Iraqi Armed Forces - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).

    Even if some how we miraculously killed every single member of ISIS overnight, it would only be a matter of time before another Islamist group took its place. If a nation with a military the size of the one we left Iraq with cannot defend itself against just 30,000 militants, then what can we do other than occupy the nation indefinitely.

    Moreover, origins of a terrorist organization do indeed matter because we don't want to simply create more such organizations by our actions. The entire neo-conservative ideology as it relates to terrorism was built around the notion that our containing and or supporting strong man dictators in the Middle East was the central catalyst for Islamic extremism and that by democratizing the Middle East we remove that catalyst for the creation of extremists. The traditional conservatives as well as many moderates believed that the only thing keeping radical Islam in check in much of the Middle East was the brutal repression by strongman dictators and attempting to impose western style democracy on a culture that never went through the enlightenment would only result in more terrorists.

    In the case of Iraq, prior to our going in it was a country ruled by a dictator that was contained and no longer a threat to us. The forerunner to ISIS, Al Qaeda in Iraq did not exist until 2004 - after we went in. So we took a country that was contained and not a threat to us and created an environment that fostered the growth of radical Islamist groups that were a threat to us. So yes, facts and details do matter here.

    http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/u...e_20_Zelin.pdf

    http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf

    And where in all that diversionary bull**** is there an answer to

    My assertion is that ISIS is the new name for Al Qaeda in Iraq, which came into being after we invaded Iraq in 2004. Furthermore, that its precursor organization was working with a Kurdish militant organization prior to the war in Iraq that was hostile to Saddam.

    Your assertion as far as I can tell is that ISIS would be a problem today even if we never went into Iraq and I don't think that history in anyway backs your assertion.
    Based on what?

    But, clearly we are done here
    ""You know, when we sell to other countries, even if they're allies -- you never know about an ally. An ally can turn."
    Donald Trump, 11/23/17

  5. #535
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    NJ
    Last Seen
    08-02-17 @ 02:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    13,375

    Re: Gov. Scott Walker: Don't Rule Out 'Boots on the Ground' Against ISIS

    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernDemocrat View Post
    The only Al Qaeda operations at all in Iraq prior to our going in there was in the Kurdish controlled areas of Northern Iraq.

    As to the SOFA agreement. The Iraqi government, which is a puppet of Iran, did not want us to stay. Moreover, if we did stay one of their conditions was that we would have to subject our soldiers to their courts. I am sure that is perfectly acceptable to you.

    Finally, as I pointed out earlier, what difference would it have made. As if that would have kept ISIS from taking over so much of the country... Had we just left a couple of thousand of our soldiers walled off in the green zone. That way not only would ISIS be taking over the county, they would use are presence as propaganda arguing they are liberating Iraq from the western imperialists. At which point we would either have to have another huge buildup for another surge to tamp down the Islamists in the country again, or just pack up and leave under worse circumstances than what we left under.

    Im sorry.. but you need to back that up with something that is reality based and not just fun talking points on MSNBC...

    as far as the SOFA you are 100% incorrect..Obama made it impossible for them to agree on any troops due to his call for for representation ..that was NOT the time...but I think we all get it was all about OBAMA as always and HIS ELECTION...PERIOD...
    Obama is an abject failure...he cant negotiate a pack of gum

  6. #536
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Los Angeles area
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 01:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,868

    Re: Gov. Scott Walker: Don't Rule Out 'Boots on the Ground' Against ISIS

    Quote Originally Posted by Travis007 View Post
    How does ISIS get money? who funds them?..who allows them to be able to operate?... Obamas NOT WANTING A SOFA agreement was the reason ISIS exists today...Obama delcared the war OVER....the JIHAD did not agree...Obama only cared about VOTES... NOT LIVES..

    You post is so error filled my mind is boggled... Did Saddam allow training of AQ?
    Frederick Kagan played an important part in designing the "surge" strategy the U.S. used successfully in Iraq in 2007. This is a paper he put out last fall, which I think is interesting. Note that the plan he suggests would involve a couple thousand or so special forces working with local infantry, but not usually directly engaged in combat. They would be very heavily supported by an army combat aviation brigade, dispersed to several large forward bases in Iraq, Jordan, Syria, and possibly Turkey.

    At these bases there would also be a total of about 7,000 men in a quick reaction force, of which about one-third would be available at any time. The assault and transport helicopters of the combat aviation brigade would take them and possibly some artillery, vehicles, etc. to wherever they might be needed in a fight. Most of the other forces would be supporting these ground and air forces by defending the bases, maintaining equipment, bringing in supplies, etc.

    So only a fraction of the 25,000 total involved in the effort would be within shooting range of the jihadists, and they would have all sorts of resources backing them up, e.g. attack helicopters, search-and-rescue and medevac units, and drones. And in the unlikely event that even more firepower were ever needed, carrier aircraft and even heavy bombers could be brought to bear pretty quickly.

    I agree with Kagan that an effort like this would be very risky--but that letting these people survive is even riskier yet. I remember President Kennedy's speech to the nation on October 22, 1962, when he acknowledged the dangers of the military measures he was taking--sending 100 ships and subs to blockade Cuba, moving 1,000 combat aircraft into striking range, getting 100,000 troops in position to invade Cuba, if necessary--but said the greatest danger of all would be for the U.S. to do nothing about the Soviet nuclear missiles in Cuba. He was right. That would have been an open invitation to the Soviets to take a chance, before long, on invading West Berlin. By being too anxious to avoid World War III over Cuba, we would have been asking for it to break out over Germany.

    I doubt anything like the steps Kagan proposed will happen while this President is in office--and so much the worse for this country. Islamic jihadists are the common enemies of all civilized people, and there is no living in the world with them. They are just like the bastards who attacked us on 9/11, and this time they have an even better safe haven and even more resources. Thanks to Mr. Obama, they are also being given all sorts of time to draw their plans against us.


    http://www.understandingwar.org/site...g%20ISIS_0.pdf
    Last edited by matchlight; 02-04-15 at 04:59 PM.

  7. #537
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    23,383

    Re: Gov. Scott Walker: Don't Rule Out 'Boots on the Ground' Against ISIS

    Quote Originally Posted by JoeTrumps View Post
    do I have to give examples of the dictators and scumbag countries Obama has made "peace deals" with that got us exactly NOTHING in return(no help in security, no help in spreading democracy)?
    do you think if "crazy" Bush was still in office ISIS would feel so comfortable cutting heads of our own citizens?

    do I really have to point these things out or have you been living in a cave?
    Bush was comfortable with giving aid to Pakistan a country that harbors the Taliban and Bin Laden. Didn't Bush tell the terrorists to "bring it on"? Isn't that what ISIS is doing?

  8. #538
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    NJ
    Last Seen
    08-02-17 @ 02:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    13,375

    Re: Gov. Scott Walker: Don't Rule Out 'Boots on the Ground' Against ISIS

    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernDemocrat View Post
    The only Al Qaeda operations at all in Iraq prior to our going in there was in the Kurdish controlled areas of Northern Iraq.

    As to the SOFA agreement. The Iraqi government, which is a puppet of Iran, did not want us to stay. Moreover, if we did stay one of their conditions was that we would have to subject our soldiers to their courts. I am sure that is perfectly acceptable to you.

    Finally, as I pointed out earlier, what difference would it have made. As if that would have kept ISIS from taking over so much of the country... Had we just left a couple of thousand of our soldiers walled off in the green zone. That way not only would ISIS be taking over the county, they would use are presence as propaganda arguing they are liberating Iraq from the western imperialists. At which point we would either have to have another huge buildup for another surge to tamp down the Islamists in the country again, or just pack up and leave under worse circumstances than what we left under.
    again.. was Saddam part of banking nexus that funded terror and allowed safe haven?..was Clinton wrong also?

    Bush had won the war.. Obama allowed those who fought for freedom to be slaughtered...all Obama haad to to do is negotiate a SOFA.. Malaki had to give lip service we all know that.. but Obama wanted OUT period.. irt was about OBAMA...not Iraq..

  9. #539
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    NJ
    Last Seen
    08-02-17 @ 02:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    13,375

    Re: Gov. Scott Walker: Don't Rule Out 'Boots on the Ground' Against ISIS

    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Frederick Kagan played an important part in designing the "surge" strategy the U.S. used successfully in Iraq in 2007. This is a paper he put out last fall, which I think is interesting. Note that the plan he suggests would involve a couple thousand or so special forces working with local infantry, but not usually directly engaged in combat. They would be very heavily supported by an army combat aviation brigade, dispersed to several large forward bases in Iraq, Jordan, Syria, and possibly Turkey.

    At these bases there would also be a total of about 7,000 men in a quick reaction force, of which about one-third would be available at any time. The assault and transport helicopters of the combat aviation brigade would take them and possibly some artillery, vehicles, etc. to wherever they might be needed in a fight. Most of the other forces would be supporting these ground and air forces by defending the bases, maintaining equipment, bringing in supplies, etc.

    So only a fraction of the 25,000 total involved in the effort would be within shooting range of the jihadists, and they would have all sorts of resources backing them up, e.g. medevac helicopters, and drones. And in the unlikely event that even attack helicopters were not enough, carrier aircraft and even heavy bombers could be brought in pretty quickly.

    I agree with Kagan that an effort like this would be very risky--but that letting these people survive is even riskier yet. I remember President Kennedy's speech to the nation on October 22, 1962, when he acknowledged the dangers of the military measures he was taking--sending 100 ships and subs to blockade Cuba, moving 1,000 combat aircraft into striking range, getting 100,000 troops in position to invade Cuba, if necessary--but said the greatest danger of all would be for the U.S. to do nothing about the Soviet nuclear missiles in Cuba. He was right. That would have been an open invitation to the Soviets to take a chance, before long, on invading West Berlin. By being too anxious to avoid World War III over Cuba, we would have been asking for it to break out over Germany.

    I doubt anything like this will happen while this President is in office, and more's the worse for this country. There is no living in the world with people like these jihadists. They are just like the people who attacked us on 9/11, and this time they have an even better safe haven and even more resources. Thanks to Mr. Obama, they are also being given all sorts of time to draw their plans against us.


    http://www.understandingwar.org/site...g%20ISIS_0.pdf

    great post.. thank you

  10. #540
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    23,383

    Re: Gov. Scott Walker: Don't Rule Out 'Boots on the Ground' Against ISIS

    Quote Originally Posted by Travis007 View Post
    again.. was Saddam part of banking nexus that funded terror and allowed safe haven?..was Clinton wrong also?

    Bush had won the war.. Obama allowed those who fought for freedom to be slaughtered...all Obama haad to to do is negotiate a SOFA.. Malaki had to give lip service we all know that.. but Obama wanted OUT period.. irt was about OBAMA...not Iraq..
    Maliki was a Shiite terrorist who murdered Sunni's in their beds. He also took his orders from Tehran and they wanted us out. There was nothing Obama could do short of ousting Maliki and starting all over again.

Page 54 of 76 FirstFirst ... 444525354555664 ... 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
  •