• 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!

Should the West place troops on the ground to take out terrorists?

Should the West place troops on the ground to take out terrorists?

  • Yes

    Votes: 5 16.7%
  • No

    Votes: 22 73.3%
  • Not sure

    Votes: 3 10.0%

  • Total voters
    30
I have read it. I wrote it. You're seeing things that don't exist.

We're not doing it out of the blue, we're doing it as the only solution to terrorism. These people cannot be reasoned with, they cannot be convinced that they're wrong, they aren't afraid of dying, their purpose is to convert the world by force to their religion and nothing less is acceptable to them. If we stop bothering them, they won't stop. The only thing that will stop them is the death of every single extremist Muslim on the planet. Before doing that, I'd rather try something a little less drastic. Nothing less drastic than killing their families has been shown to work.


You posted that it was shown to work. Now you are backing away from that statement
 
You posted that it was shown to work. Now you are backing away from that statement

Are you denying that killing all the extremist Muslims will stop extremist Muslim violence? Are you suggesting that somehow, dead extremist Muslims can still perform violence? It seems rather self-evident to me.
 
You posted that it was shown to work. Now you are backing away from that statement

Are you denying that killing all the extremist Muslims will stop extremist Muslim violence? Are you suggesting that somehow, dead extremist Muslims can still perform violence? It seems rather self-evident to me.
Deflection- Yeah a dead extremists is going to haunt me.
You posted it- denied it - now are walking away from it.
Claim it as your own or did you make a mistake in the original post?
 
Are you denying that killing all the extremist Muslims will stop extremist Muslim violence? Are you suggesting that somehow, dead extremist Muslims can still perform violence? It seems rather self-evident to me.
Deflection- Yeah a dead extremists is going to haunt me.
You posted it- denied it - now are walking away from it.
Claim it as your own or did you make a mistake in the original post?
 
Deflection- Yeah a dead extremists is going to haunt me.
You posted it- denied it - now are walking away from it.
Claim it as your own or did you make a mistake in the original post?

No, you asked me to prove it, I proved it. Dead men commit no atrocities. Apparently you don't like the proof. That's your problem.
 
No, you asked me to prove it, I proved it. Dead men commit no atrocities. Apparently you don't like the proof. That's your problem.

No, your problem. You made it, clear as glass, now backtracking like crazy.
 
No, your problem. You made it, clear as glass, now backtracking like crazy.

Yes, the fact that what I said was true is clear as glass. If you deny it, all you have to do is prove that a dead terrorist can cause any further physical harm. Go ahead.
 
Yes, the fact that what I said was true is clear as glass. If you deny it, all you have to do is prove that a dead terrorist can cause any further physical harm. Go ahead.

Play in the playground- Denial, Plain and simple- Deflection- I expected better, quite disappointed.
 
Play in the playground- Denial, Plain and simple- Deflection- I expected better, quite disappointed.

I don't care about your disappointment, I care about what you can actually demonstrate and the only thing you've demonstrated is your dishonesty.
 
I don't care about your disappointment, I care about what you can actually demonstrate and the only thing you've demonstrated is your dishonesty.

Not me buck. It was your post- now you wander away with deflection.
I am not being dishonest.
Take it what ever way you wish.
 
Should the West place troops on the ground to take out terrorists?

Yes- why

No – Why

If yes- what countries would they be deployed to?

With the recent attacks in Paris I see a number of people that want to go in and take them out.
You opinion on what the West should do.
Large scale deployments of troops will not work.
Look to Iraq and Afghanistan and lessons learned.
Place ground troops where? In Paris? :confused:
 
Double post-
 
We're not doing it out of the blue, we're doing it as the only solution to terrorism. These people cannot be reasoned with, they cannot be convinced that they're wrong, they aren't afraid of dying, their purpose is to convert the world by force to their religion and nothing less is acceptable to them. If we stop bothering them, they won't stop. The only thing that will stop them is the death of every single extremist Muslim on the planet. Before doing that, I'd rather try something a little less drastic. Nothing less drastic than killing their families has been shown to work.

How does killing their entire family work?
 
We were at war with Iraq and Afghanistan, which when the war started was governed by the Taliban. We are not at war with any terrorist organization at this time. We are occasionally using drones to kill random people and we are dropping bombs on selected targets in Syria. These two activities are not war. They are a confused foreign policy which will not commit itself to facing our enemies and only involve itself in symbolism. We would rather drone innocents to death than risk taking a prisoner and sending them to Gitmo because that would interfere with the administrations intention to release the terrorists there and close the base.

wars by definition are fought between countries.
 
How does killing their entire family work?

It may not, it depends on the specific situation, but a terrorist who doesn't care about his own life may very well care about the lives of those closest to him. The threat that if he continues, that it won't just be his sacrifice, but everyone he knows and loves as well, may be enough to stop these animals. We just have to be willing to carry through on the threat to show we're serious.
 
I've changed my mind on this issue. I now support a military solution. I favour the surgical, special-forces approach over full-scale invasion, though.
 
If we're going to do it, we should either do it right (massive bombing followed by well-supported ground troops slaughtering the opposition by the tens of thousands), or not do it at all. Half ass measures rarely accomplish much.

Well said. The folks in the Middle East have just as much interest in kicking their ass as anybody else. If they need help, let them do it or pay to have it done.

Myself, I'd just as soon nuke the whole goddamn place and let Allah sort them out. But I realize that position isn't very popular. The U.S. cannot continue being the world's policemen extinguishing squirmishes here and there. If we get into it, it should all or nothing. Go big or stay home.
 
If we're going to do it, we should either do it right (massive bombing followed by well-supported ground troops slaughtering the opposition by the tens of thousands), or not do it at all. Half ass measures rarely accomplish much.

That won't work. You might as well throw rocks into a pond to catch a bass. Yeah, you might get lucky, but mostly you're just going to tear up the pond. We need to be targeting the leaders, communications and financiers. Yes, that means at times we're going to have boots on the ground to make sure that when gather intel, that we can protect those who give the intel (what we were doing when we drove AQI out of Iraq and gutted it's leadership and what allowed ISIS/ISIL to capture Iraq when we stepped back too soon). We need to remove the strength of these kind of orgs. by taking out their leaders and financiers and silencing their voices (coupled with expanding the voices of the anti-violence moderate Muslims). You can bomb all the cities you want, all that will do is provide pictures of dead kids and bombed out schools and hospitals to drive recruitment (like what happened with Abu Ghraib). We need to de-motivate people to join, not provide more motivation. If you use your tactic, the leaders will rarely be touched and for every one you kill, 3 more will join as a result.
 
It may not, it depends on the specific situation, but a terrorist who doesn't care about his own life may very well care about the lives of those closest to him. The threat that if he continues, that it won't just be his sacrifice, but everyone he knows and loves as well, may be enough to stop these animals. We just have to be willing to carry through on the threat to show we're serious.

That was the point I thought I was making. Killing a terrorist no issues- the problem we have seen in Yemen is that collateral damage leads to recruitment.
Problem is the family travels with them. Review the drone attacks in Yemen and Pakistan as an example. Causes more problems on average than problems solved
The US has spent a lot of money in Yemen which is going thru a civil war. Both sides trying to take power are in a long running conflict with AQ in Yemen.
Reason whey the West and the Sunni should provide training and weapons.
The underlying causes also need to be addressed. But that should not be a western problem. Leave it to Saudi, Qatar, UAE and such to pay for all training and weapons.
Trying to instil western values on a medevil society ain't gonna work.
 
Do ground troops even help? It seems to destabilize regions and any terrorist infrastructure we destroy is recreated in another failed state. It's like whack-a-mole.

If we could just land troops and wipe out Islamic terrorists once and for all I'd be for it. It doesn't seem to work out that way though.
 
Absolutely NOT. There will be terrorist on Earth until the end of time no matter what anybody does. Putting troops on the ground will accomplish getting people on both sides killed.

We should just learn to live with the casualties on our side?
 
Do ground troops even help? It seems to destabilize regions and any terrorist infrastructure we destroy is recreated in another failed state. It's like whack-a-mole.

If we could just land troops and wipe out Islamic terrorists once and for all I'd be for it. It doesn't seem to work out that way though.

Did ground troops help during WW2?
 
That was the point I thought I was making. Killing a terrorist no issues- the problem we have seen in Yemen is that collateral damage leads to recruitment.
Problem is the family travels with them. Review the drone attacks in Yemen and Pakistan as an example. Causes more problems on average than problems solved
The US has spent a lot of money in Yemen which is going thru a civil war. Both sides trying to take power are in a long running conflict with AQ in Yemen.
Reason whey the West and the Sunni should provide training and weapons.
The underlying causes also need to be addressed. But that should not be a western problem. Leave it to Saudi, Qatar, UAE and such to pay for all training and weapons.
Trying to instil western values on a medevil society ain't gonna work.

The problem, is that we don't kill enough of them.
 
Back
Top Bottom