• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do you favor putting boots on the ground in the Midddle East to combat the threat?

Do you favor putting boots on the ground in the Midddle East to combat the threat?


  • Total voters
    67
Re: Do you favor putting boots on the ground in the Midddle East to combat the threa

What say you?

I say no, not right now, for sure. I firmly believe the only way to make ISIS/ISIL/IS/whatever you want to call them irrelevant is to destroy them. Hopefully this can be accomplished with Kurdish militias, the Iraqi military, and airstrikes. Though, if this fails and ISIS gains considerable ground, I would be in favor of sending some troops. I'd hope that it would be a NATO effort initially before the U.S. officially declares sending troops unilaterally. There's a chance that would suffice and it would be more politically acceptable, I believe. But this is conjecture at the moment. I don't think ground troops are a necessity at present.

Also, if anyone is interested that might not know, The Institute for the Study of War does frequent, detailed updates on the happenings of the conflict over at their blog. Some very good information that is a lot more fleshed out and usable than a lot of other media coverage.
 
Re: Do you favor putting boots on the ground in the Midddle East to combat the threa

If the threat is here, why send the troops there?

A plane ticket to Mexico, and the terrorist threat can just walk over, if they get caught, they will join the Mexicans in getting a bus ticket wherever they want to go in the country.
 
Re: Do you favor putting boots on the ground in the Midddle East to combat the threa

or bomb them into oblivion without having to use ground troops

Term that goes along with that - Collateral Damage. Translation- pictures of dead kids on CNN. Just sayin'. Not that I'm against bombing them, it's just that it doesn't work nowadays like it did in WWII, when civilian deaths were expected - not necessarily accepted, but expected.
 
Re: Do you favor putting boots on the ground in the Midddle East to combat the threa

What say you?

Certainly not before the Europeans have dedicated the equal number.
 
Re: Do you favor putting boots on the ground in the Midddle East to combat the threa

I voted yes, but with an exception - that exception being that we do it such a way that it doesn't take ten years... overwhelming force with overwhelming firepower and a disarming of everyone over there, and holding any other country responsible militarily that tries to help them. And yes, that would mean the Saudi's (and any other of our so called friends), the Iranians (and any other of our so called enemies) and any-damned-one else that feeds the fire of hate.

This thing is going to blow up the whole damned world at some point anyway.

We may as well do it now when the damage would be so much less and the fight would be so less wide spread.

Either that, or just sit it out completely until a mushroom cloud rises over Manhattan or something similar in scope to 9/11 hits us square in the teeth.

Call me a war monger if you must, but you can't talk or negotiate with people that behead innocent people, rape women and children en masse, blow themselves up as suicide bombers and actually believe that GOD is demanding that they do so and that when they die they will be better off and go to heaven as praised warriors of God being lavished with pleasures in the afterlife.

They have nothing to loose in their mind. We have everything to loose.

But... maybe that's just me, since I've actually been in the cross hairs of people just like these, been under fire from them, wounded in action by them, and seen first hand what they can and will gladly and gleefully do, I may have a skewed view.
 
Re: Do you favor putting boots on the ground in the Midddle East to combat the threa

If the threat is here, why send the troops there?

A plane ticket to Mexico, and the terrorist threat can just walk over, if they get caught, they will join the Mexicans in getting a bus ticket wherever they want to go in the country.

Yeah.

And why is it that they haven't seemed to have done so, yet?
 
Re: Do you favor putting boots on the ground in the Midddle East to combat the threa

Support the regional powers in their fight against ISIL.

It is in their vested interest to eradicate the group. Let them bear the primary burden.
 
Re: Do you favor putting boots on the ground in the Midddle East to combat the threa

Certainly not before the Europeans have dedicated the equal number.

You have a good point. However, when in history has Europe come to our aid like that. The Britts came close in Iraq, but then backed out quick. Germany and especially France will never do so. Australia (although not European) would be there but not in the numbers we would need because of their local politics.

NATO action would be the only chance of getting a large number of other nations to participate, but... Turkey is neck deep in subterfuge in the ISIS mess already, and would potentially destabilize a NATO mission to the ME. And, forget action in Ukraine. No European country will go up against Russia as long as the current Administration is in power. They can't rely that we would stick it out, much less do all that is required in the mean time. Red lines mean nothing. Withdrawal dates published to the enemy are incongruent with winning a war. I could go on, but you get my meaning.
 
Re: Do you favor putting boots on the ground in the Midddle East to combat the threa

Support the regional powers in their fight against ISIL.

It is in their vested interest to eradicate the group. Let them bear the primary burden.

The governments in that region are so unstable that the soldiers can't trust that the next guy in power tomorrow won't be one of the enemy that they're fighting today. That's why they turn and run. Not because they are cowards, but because one day they're fighting Sunni's and the next day they may be saluting them.. or if that happens, being beheaded by them. Many of those folks are fierce warriors, but they can't trust that the guy they are taking orders from will be their tomorrow to protect their families.

We can't rely on them either. If we are going to do anything, we have to do as we did at that dam, and use them as perimeter defense, not direct attack.

The only exception to this would be the Kurds, but every other power in that region - Iraqi, Iranian, Syrian, Russian, Turkish, etc. - hates the Kurds. It's just a matter of time before they are attacked by other powers as well.
 
Re: Do you favor putting boots on the ground in the Midddle East to combat the threa

What say you?

Favor it?

Of course I don't FAVOR it - but if that's what it takes then so be it. Nevermind the painful irony that our initial involvement furthered this present situation.

But please - not while Obama's the one calling the shots. :roll: He's an idiot of epic proportions and would much sooner have our armed forced sucks his **** and dribble his basketballs than work up an organized plan without telling the world about it. After 6 years you'd think he would have figured out how presidency works but he's still on day 1.
 
Re: Do you favor putting boots on the ground in the Midddle East to combat the threa

Favor it?

Of course I don't FAVOR it - but if that's what it takes then so be it. Nevermind the painful irony that our initial involvement furthered this present situation.

But please - not while Obama's the one calling the shots. :roll: He's an idiot of epic proportions and would much sooner have our armed forced sucks his **** and dribble his basketballs than work up an organized plan without telling the world about it. After 6 years you'd think he would have figured out how presidency works but he's still on day 1.

Tell us how you really feel? Don't hold back...
 
Re: Do you favor putting boots on the ground in the Midddle East to combat the threa

And, forget action in Ukraine. No European country will go up against Russia as long as the current Administration is in power. They can't rely that we would stick it out, much less do all that is required in the mean time. .

I don't want to derail this thread, but what do you think the USA is required to do in the Ukraine?
The Europeans are worried about their economies being damaged by sanctions.
If the Euros aren't willing to take something as insignificant as a hit to their pocketbook, why should we make any sacrifices?
 
Re: Do you favor putting boots on the ground in the Midddle East to combat the threa

I don't want to derail this thread, but what do you think the USA is required to do in the Ukraine?
The Europeans are worried about their economies being damaged by sanctions.
If the Euros aren't willing to take something as insignificant as a hit to their pocketbook, why should we make any sacrifices?

If Europe is fine with allowing a country to annex other countries by force, then don't call us to help after it gets to their own front porch. It's not like this hasn't happened before. And, so we don't derail the thread, that's all I'll say at this point.
 
Re: Do you favor putting boots on the ground in the Midddle East to combat the threa

Yeah.

And why is it that they haven't seemed to have done so, yet?

I think major terrorist attacks are much more difficult to accomplish than the doom-and-gloomers like to admit.
You'd think the terrorists would be machine-gunning Americans in the streets.
Nothing......hell, our own citizens massacre more of their fellow American's than the jihadists.
 
Re: Do you favor putting boots on the ground in the Midddle East to combat the threa

You have a good point. However, when in history has Europe come to our aid like that. The Britts came close in Iraq, but then backed out quick. Germany and especially France will never do so. Australia (although not European) would be there but not in the numbers we would need because of their local politics.

NATO action would be the only chance of getting a large number of other nations to participate, but... Turkey is neck deep in subterfuge in the ISIS mess already, and would potentially destabilize a NATO mission to the ME. And, forget action in Ukraine. No European country will go up against Russia as long as the current Administration is in power. They can't rely that we would stick it out, much less do all that is required in the mean time. Red lines mean nothing. Withdrawal dates published to the enemy are incongruent with winning a war. I could go on, but you get my meaning.

You are certainly right on the European score card. The largest European country has never paid its dues. That has meant that the others have be loath to pay in full, especially as they are in head on competition with Germany within the EU and cannot afford to spend much, because that money reduces their competitiveness economically.

But There we are running into a problem. The US cannot go on this way. Sure, it could do the boots in Kiev and Damascus and Mosul thing and beat the Islamists with relative ease. But it would cost 5.000 lives, 20.000 wounded, 30.000 temporarily deranged and $ 3 Trillion. Sure, it can still pay that. But we are nearing the end of that method of installing security. We will need a global approach and architecture and until then, we should keep as much powder dry as possible.

So, if we want to clean that field, we should think no troops but mean weapons. The war crimes stuff is going to go down the drain anyway, if we do not sort out the global security issue, because in the growing wars to come that dam will break, when one or another nation, dictator or warlord thinks it can save it self from the engorging flames. But to do this, we will have to be very clear on the point that the emerging multipolar system need stopping and that the UN or some other Organization had better deal with everyone's security or everyone will be dealing with what he considers dangers to his national security with whatever means he has.

This pressure on the international community is important and hopefully it is a wake-up call to the populations and their leaders. Because time is running low for a deal of the type necessary. As a matter of fact, it may very easily be too late already. The upside on that would be that it will then have made no difference, what we did. ;)
 
Last edited:
Re: Do you favor putting boots on the ground in the Midddle East to combat the threa

The governments in that region are so unstable that the soldiers can't trust that the next guy in power tomorrow won't be one of the enemy that they're fighting today. That's why they turn and run. Not because they are cowards, but because one day they're fighting Sunni's and the next day they may be saluting them.. or if that happens, being beheaded by them. Many of those folks are fierce warriors, but they can't trust that the guy they are taing orders from will be their tomorrow to protect their families.

We can't rely on them either. If we are going to do anything, we have to do as we did at that dam, and use them as perimeter defense, not direct attack.

The only exception to this would be the Kurds, but every other power in that region - Iraqi, Iranian, Syrian, Russian, Turkish, etc. - hates the Kurds. It's just a matter of time before they are attacked by other powers as well.

The only soldiers that I know turned and ran were the Iraqis military. Still, there are a number of militias within Iraq fighting ISIL, most formidably the Kurds.

Iraq is literally surrounded by Iran, Syria, Jordan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait. Again, none of those countries like ISIL one bit. And, aside from Syria, they are stable. Not to mention Israel would be threatened by ISIL if they were able to fly through Syria or Jordan.

ISIL will be a threat to those countries long before they are a threat to us, that is, on a real scale. (We need to secure our borders so a small team does not sneak into our country.) I suspect they will clamp down before long. If you scan the news, you will see these countries are growing more and more concerned. As crazy as ISIL is, they simply don't have the numbers to fight off powerful nations on all sides and militias from within.

So what we need to do is encourage those nations to jump into the fray. We need to arm and supply the Kurds, as well as support their independence and let them sell oil. And finally we need to take out the ISIL supply lines and oil supplies.
 
Re: Do you favor putting boots on the ground in the Midddle East to combat the threa

The only soldiers that I know turned and ran were the Iraqis military. Still, there are a number of militias within Iraq fighting ISIL, most formidably the Kurds.

Iraq is literally surrounded by Iran, Syria, Jordan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait. Again, none of those countries like ISIL one bit. And, aside from Syria, they are stable. Not to mention Israel would be threatened by ISIL if they were able to fly through Syria or Jordan.

ISIL will be a threat to those countries long before they are a threat to us, that is, on a real scale. (We need to secure our borders so a small team does not sneak into our country.) I suspect they will clamp down before long. If you scan the news, you will see these countries are growing more and more concerned. As crazy as ISIL is, they simply don't have the numbers to fight off powerful nations on all sides and militias from within.

So what we need to do is encourage those nations to jump into the fray. We need to arm and supply the Kurds, as well as support their independence and let them sell oil. And finally we need to take out the ISIL supply lines and oil supplies.

Very good points. The only thing I would ad is that we cannot just send arms and perform air strikes. Turkey is neck deep, with certain factions in Turkey helping ISIS and sending fighters to aid them... they're a NATO country. And, I would also ad that a military type attack on the US is not the only threat that ISIS posses to the US - yes - oil security. A destabilized ME destabilizes the world's economy, and that translates to more poverty and more unrest here at home, at the very least.

We have to look at these events from a broad spectrum long term impact point of view.

Oh... and YES!!! Kurd independence is a must. I spent a lot of time with the Kurds. Great people. GREAT people.
 
Re: Do you favor putting boots on the ground in the Midddle East to combat the threa

You are certainly right on the European score card. The largest European country has never paid its dues. That has meant that the others have be loath to pay in full, especially as they are in head on competition with Germany within the EU and cannot afford to spend much, because that money reduces their competitiveness economically.

But There we are running into a problem. The US cannot go on this way. Sure, it could do the boots in Kiev and Damascus and Mosul thing and beat the Islamists with relative ease. But it would cost 5.000 lives, 20.000 wounded, 30.000 temporarily deranged and $ 3 Trillion. Sure, it can still pay that. But we are nearing the end of that method of installing security. We will need a global approach and architecture and until then, we should keep as much powder dry as possible.

So, if we want to clean that field, we should think no troops but mean weapons. The war crimes stuff is going to go down the drain anyway, if we do not sort out the global security issue, because in the growing wars to come that dam will break, when one or another nation, dictator or warlord thinks it can save it self from the engorging flames. But to do this, we will have to be very clear on the point that the emerging multipolar system need stopping and that the UN or some other Organization had better deal with everyone's security or everyone will be dealing with what he considers dangers to his national security with whatever means he has.

This pressure on the international community is important and hopefully it is a wake-up call to the populations and their leaders. Because time is running low for a deal of the type necessary. As a matter of fact, it may very easily be too late already. The upside on that would be that it will then have made no difference, what we did. ;)

Well put.
 
Back
Top Bottom