• 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!

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

T

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
34,951
Reaction score
16,311
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
EDGARTOWN, Mass. — A top national security adviser to President Obama vowed Friday that the United States would “do what is necessary” in Syria to protect American interests and said that direct military action was possible against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, known as ISIS.Benjamin J. Rhodes, the deputy national security adviser, said ISIS had become an increased threat to the United States, a threat the American government was taking seriously.
“If you come against Americans, we are going to come after you,” Mr. Rhodes said.
He declined to say whether the president was considering expanding airstrikes to include ISIS targets in Syria as well as in Iraq, where raids began this month. “We’re actively considering what’s going to be necessary in dealing with that threat,” Mr. Rhodes said. “We’re not going to be restricted by borders.”
Click to expand...


Read more @: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/23/w...litary-action-possible-against-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?
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Read more @: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/23/w...litary-action-possible-against-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]
Click to expand...

Our bombs will blow them to smithereens, man, of course it will have an impact. Why? Because our drones and planes will pin them down if we want them to. They'll have to operate clandestinely because if they go about things willy nilly then they are opening themselves up to the greatest Air Force our species has ever seen. And it just so happens that our Special Forces & Intelligence Community are World Class too. If we put the necessary effort behind our choices we will squash them like flies.
 
ecofarm said:
You're asking if I remember a youtube video? Please. Not everyone gets their geopolitical understanding from youtube.
Click to expand...

You said the same thing in the last thread. Our government said it wont have a drastic effect and a major setback to them.
 
Jango said:
Our bombs will blow them to smithereens, man, of course it will have an impact. Why? Because our drones and planes will pin them down if we want them to. They'll have to operate clandestinely because if they go about things willy nilly then they are opening themselves up to the greatest Air Force our species has ever seen. And it just so happens that our Special Forces & Intelligence Community are World Class too. If we put the necessary effort behind our choices we will squash them like flies.
Click to expand...

To weaken them it will have to be a full front war. I believe it will have to be cutting off their funding, pushing them back to a specific area they control, then working with all governments, and forces against them to weaken them (being Iraq, Turkey, Syria, and all Kurd forces).
 
TheDemSocialist said:
You said the same thing in the last thread. Our government said it wont have a drastic effect and a major setback to them.
Click to expand...

Your youtube video proves opposing ISIS is useless? Sounds like a terrorist's wet dream.
 
ecofarm said:
Your youtube video proves opposing ISIS is useless? Sounds like a terrorist's wet dream.
Click to expand...

It was Reuters, and was stating the Pentagons positions. Is Reuters now not a good source?
 
TheDemSocialist said:
It was Reuters, and was stating the Pentagons positions. Is Reuters now not a good source?
Click to expand...

The problem is not the source or the data, it's your BS analysis and slant created not by the aforementioned but by your cheerleading of terrorists. You'll take any youtube, from any source and with any analysis, to push your warped narrative. This is clearly illustrated by your perversion of pentagon analysis in order to claim the pentagon is now credible (a claim you vehemently oppose).


Your position is VOID of intellectual integrity. It's just cheerleading for terrorists. Your terrorist apology and support knows no bounds.
 
Last edited:
Jango said:
Our bombs will blow them to smithereens, man, of course it will have an impact. Why? Because our drones and planes will pin them down if we want them to. They'll have to operate clandestinely because if they go about things willy nilly then they are opening themselves up to the greatest Air Force our species has ever seen. And it just so happens that our Special Forces & Intelligence Community are World Class too. If we put the necessary effort behind our choices we will squash them like flies.
Click to expand...


Yeah like how Afghanistan has been a success. I love how after 13 years of uninterrupted "bombs and drones' has eliminated the terrorist threat and destroyed Al Qaeda.

Yes! With that great and tarnished track record we will "bomb them into the stone age", the great war cry of the Vietnam era..

The only problem is the US has started countless wars and seldom if ever finish one. It was the road kill that is Obama's support who seem to forget that it was Obama who declared the war in Iraq over...and pulled troops which improved his all important popularity rating. Now here we are, going back in, expecting a quick defeat like the North before Bull Run.

One of the true marks of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and over and expecting different results = American foreign policy.

Sorry, but this revolving door of invasions and withdrawals is getting old and costing a lot of lives.
 
ecofarm said:
The problem is not the source or the data, it's your BS analysis and slant created not by the aforementioned but by your cheerleading of terrorists. You'll take any youtube, from any source and with any analysis, to push your warped narrative. This is clearly illustrated by your perversion of pentagon analysis in order to claim the pentagon is now credible (a claim you vehemently oppose).


Your position is VOID of intellectual integrity. It's just cheerleading for terrorists. Your terrorist apology and support knows no bounds.
Click to expand...

What is my "narrative"? Im "cheerleading" ISIS? What!?
 
Fearandloathing said:
Yeah like how Afghanistan has been a success. I love how after 13 years of uninterrupted "bombs and drones' has eliminated the terrorist threat and destroyed Al Qaeda.

Yes! With that great and tarnished track record we will "bomb them into the stone age", the great war cry of the Vietnam era..

The only problem is the US has started countless wars and seldom if ever finish one. It was the road kill that is Obama's support who seem to forget that it was Obama who declared the war in Iraq over...and pulled troops which improved his all important popularity rating. Now here we are, going back in, expecting a quick defeat like the North before Bull Run.
One of the true marks of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and over and expecting different results = American foreign policy.
Sorry, but this revolving door of invasions and withdrawals is getting old and costing a lot of lives.
Click to expand...
Politicians have recently invented the word "surge" when any serious war should be a constant surge until the enemy is eliminated. Another new term is "exit strategy", which was once know as 'retreat', or "terms of surrender". It is clear that opposition parties will uses these terms for political purposes and not what is best for winning a declared war.
 
ecofarm said:
We'll agree to disagree.
Click to expand...

wsr5t1.jpg
 
TheDemSocialist said:
To weaken them it will have to be a full front war. I believe it will have to be cutting off their funding, pushing them back to a specific area they control, then working with all governments, and forces against them to weaken them (being Iraq, Turkey, Syria, and all Kurd forces).
Click to expand...

We should have been doing that for months, now.

Don't worry, the airstrikes are just for show. Obama has no intention of trying to destroy ISIS.
 
fmw said:
Wherever the military determines the tactical targets are.
Click to expand...

I know. Just saying if they do deem to attack its going to be interesting where they attack. Because it may very well help the Syrian state.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Read more @: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/23/w...litary-action-possible-against-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]
Click to expand...

But the question is, will this be with or without president Assad's permission. Sense were always harping about sovereign borders and all. The US has been trying to get into Syria for years. Regime change is a long term pentagon ambition, it was attempted legally and overtly, at the UN level, its been attempted covertly with the CIA and smuggling of arms through the Benghazi annex into Syria, and this looks like a new way to get our noses in. Wonder what Russia will have to say about this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom