I've been watching the Republican debate and right now they're talking about Trumps temporary ban on Muslim immigration and Jeb and Kasich have mentioned how we can't to that if we want a coalition and my thought was why do we need a coalition? In my opinion we even in out weakened military state we are still stronger than most nations with militaries worth mentioning. So why do we need a coalition to go in and get the bastards like the Islamic State, Al Qaeda, Al Shabab, etc.? Any opinions?
-
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!
Why?
- Thread starter P0wel1b4
- Start date
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2013
- Messages
- 20,268
- Reaction score
- 28,068
- Location
- Mid-West USA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Well...because we live over HERE :usflag2:
...........................................................................................................................................And they exist way over HERE. :2mad:
....................................Which means we need base permission here :wassat1:
......................................................................................................................................To successfully fight THERE. :duel
Just because we have bases and military forces located in NATO nations does not mean we have absolute privileges to fight from those forward locations without the permission and assistance of the nations those bases are located in. Staging attacks from "neutral" nations turns neutrals into valid retaliatory targets.
Last edited:
But the Islamic state doesn't recognize neutral territory as it is, all they see are infidels, and while I understand the risk of going forward with an attack on ISIS in a country like Syria, the saying 'that enemy of my enemy is my friend' was originated in that region so, plus with an attack into Syria to destroy the terrorists, my plan would be to embed half of my forces with 'friendly' forces fighting the terrorists and send the other half of my forces to battle the Syrian military forces, of course though, I also am in favor of a group outside of all governments fighting groups like Isis, al Qaeda, Al Shabab, and despots like No Korea to try and free the people, if that group becomes known as another terrorist group however, let it be so, so I'm not the most objective person to be coming up with theoretical battle plans for a military
- Joined
- May 6, 2013
- Messages
- 55,602
- Reaction score
- 40,012
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
It's two different things. Banning Muslim immigration and going in to get the bastards. Actually, it's probably not immigrants they want to ban, but refugees. Refugees are trying to get away from the bastards.
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2011
- Messages
- 19,711
- Reaction score
- 5,946
- Location
- kekistan
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Socialist
Because the american military both since it's heavy expansion during and after ww2, and even during it's founding was designed to fight a two front war. The idea was we could fight two enemies at once while still able to defend the homefront. It is not rocket science to see what happens when a military is stretched too far, and no other country as well wishes to overstretch their military if not necessary.
We had two wars for a while, afghanistan is still going on but in smaller numbers, we still have soldiers stationed all over the world. Going in with a coalition means that neither us nor any other country overstretches their military force or budget. And fighting groups like isis will yield nothing unless an overall strategy is used, because after almost 15 years of bombing al quaeda and other islamic groups, islamic terrorism is stronger now than ever. The only way to defeat them is to turn the people in those countries against them, not with just pure military strength.
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2005
- Messages
- 66,429
- Reaction score
- 47,425
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
because that clash is not worth one American soldier's life
if it is that important to them, let them fight for themselves
if it is that important to them, let them fight for themselves