• 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 or OPPOSE the actions taken in ISIS by the US?

Do you FAVOR or OPPOSE the actions taken in ISIS by the US?

  • I am a REPUBLICAN and I FAVOR the actions taken AND support grounded troops

    Votes: 1 4.5%
  • I am a DEMOCRAT and I FAVOR the actions taken AND support grounded troops

    Votes: 1 4.5%
  • I am INDEPENDENT and I FAVOR the actions taken AND support grounded troops

    Votes: 5 22.7%
  • I am a REPUBLICAN and I FAVOR the actions taken BUT do not support grounded troops

    Votes: 1 4.5%
  • I am a DEMOCRAT and I FAVOR the actions taken BUT do not support grounded troops

    Votes: 2 9.1%
  • I am INDEPENDENT and I FAVOR the actions taken BUT do not support grounded troops

    Votes: 3 13.6%
  • I am a REPUBLICAN and I OPPOSE the actions taken

    Votes: 1 4.5%
  • I am a DEMOCRAT and I OPPOSE the actions taken

    Votes: 3 13.6%
  • I am INDEPENDENT and I OPPOSE the actions taken

    Votes: 5 22.7%

  • Total voters
    22

TSAE

New member
Joined
Oct 3, 2014
Messages
4
Reaction score
2
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Hi, I am doing an assignment for my sociology class, and I would like to hear from the League community about what they think about what's been going on in the Middle East currently. So my question is,

1. Do you Favor or Oppose the military action the United States is taking in Iraq and Syria against Islamic Militants commonly known as ISIS?

Also,
2. Would you Favor or Oppose the United States sending ground troops to Iraq and Syria in order to assist groups in those countries that are fighting the Islamic Militants commonly known as ISIS?

Also, state if you are a Republican, Democrat, or Independent.

If you are unfamiliar with the current issue (which in these forums, I'd hope it's unlikely), here are some fast facts you can catch up with on CNN
ISIS Fast Facts - CNN.com

July 2014 - In Syria, all the cities between Deir Ezzor city and the Iraq border have fallen to ISIS, says Omar Abu Leila, a spokesman for the rebel Free Syrian Army.
July 3, 2014 - ISIS takes control of a major Syrian oil field, al-Omar. It is the country's largest oil field and can produce 75,000 barrels of oil daily.
July 17, 2014 - In Syria's Homs province, ISIS claims to have killed 270 people after storming and seizing the Shaer gas field.
July 24, 2014 - ISIS militants blow up Jonah's tomb, a holy site in Mosul.
August 8, 2014 - Two U.S. F/A-18 jet fighters bomb artillery of Sunni Islamic extremists in Iraq. President Barack Obama has authorized "targeted airstrikes" if needed to protect U.S. personnel from fighters with ISIS. The U.S. military also could use airstrikes to prevent what officials warn could be a genocide of minority groups by the ISIS fighters.
August 19, 2014 - In a video posted on YouTube, U.S. journalist James Foley, missing in Syria since 2012, is decapitated by ISIS militants. The militants then threaten the life of another captured U.S. journalist, believed to be Steven Sotloff.
September 2, 2014 - ISIS releases a video showing the beheading of U.S. journalist Steven Sotloff. Sotloff's apparent executioner speaks in what sounds like the same British accent as the man who purportedly killed Foley. He's dressed identically in both videos, head to toe in black, with a face mask and combat boots. He appears to be of similar build and height. He waves a knife in his left hand, as did the militant in the video of Foley's death.
September 11, 2014 - The CIA announces that the number of people fighting for ISIS may be more than three times the previous estimates. Analysts and U.S. officials initially estimated there were as many as 10,000 fighters, but now ISIS can "muster between 20,000 and 31,500 fighters across Iraq and Syria," a CIA spokesman tells CNN.
September 13, 2014 - ISIS militants post video on a website associated with the group, showing the apparent execution of British aid worker David Haines. This makes him the third Western captive to be killed by the Islamist extremist group in recent weeks. ISIS directs a statement at British Prime Minister David Cameron, threatening more destruction if Britian continues its "evil alliance with America." At the end of the video, the executioner threatens the life of Alan Henning, another British citizen held captive. The executioner appears to be the same one who killed both Steven Sotloff and James Foley.
September 23, 2014 - The United States carries out airstrikes against ISIS. The bombing is focused on the ISIS stronghold of Raqqa, a city in northern Syria.
 
I am libertarian, and typically don't support any military action, and I did not support the Iraq or Afghanistan actions. I do support trying to kill every member of ISIS that is possible.
 
I am a Democrat and I oppose actions taken. Going after terrorists will prove to be an endless war.
 
I am a liberal and I believe everyone within ISIS's official territory should be massacred (I'm also 1 in a million on that matter).
 
I am libertarian, and typically don't support any military action, and I did not support the Iraq or Afghanistan actions. I do support trying to kill every member of ISIS that is possible.

I didn't know if I should give you a "Like" or a "?"

Weren't you one of the 99% who was looking for pay back after 9-11-01 ?

Weren't you glued to CNN for weeks and asking when is Bush and the military going to do something ?

Bin Laden was in Afghanistan on 9-11-01.

This morning (Fri. Pacific time) around 7:30 A.M. I was going through my files and came across something that was released eight years ago, How Osama bin Laden was able to escape from Bora Bora in Afghanistan. It wasn't President Bush's fault but the National Security Act of 1947 that gave civilians to much control over the military.

I thought about starting a thread on the DP Military Forum.

Having U.S. military special operations forces running the game made it worse. Special Ops are not grunts, they are no more than commandos. They don't know how to do it.

That any Vietnam War Army or Marine grunt with more than a few months "in-country" knows how to conduct a sweep, you have to have a blocking force. There was no blocking force because civilians over ruled the regular infantry that weren't used. (And they were available.)

The Taliban after getting their butts whooped bloody red and after licking their wounds in Pakistan for years came back to Afghanistan when they saw that the war in Iraq had been politicized in America. Lessons learned by all of America's enemies from the Vietnam War.

A couple weeks ago Mil. Times conducted a unscientific poll of our military. 70% don't want to put American boots on the ground to destroy ISIS/ISIL with the current CNC (Obama) in command.
 
While I despise ISIS and everything they stand for, it is clear that the 'war on terror' will never be won by soldiers. It has to be won through the education and empowerment of the prosecuted in the affected countries. If we can expedite that process by bombing the hell out of strategic ISIS locations then great, but while it may be viscerally satisfying to send over a bunch of men and watch them dominate ISIS on the battlefield, boots on the ground are fruitless in the long run.
 
I am Independent and have no idea what the hell to believe since the war on terror has been such a monumental success so far and Assad is now apparently a worthy ally and miraculously no longer a murderous dictator. Throwing endless money, bombs, and soldiers at a network of ideologically driven young men with little to lose appears to be a winning long term strategy.
 
I didn't know if I should give you a "Like" or a "?"

Weren't you one of the 99% who was looking for pay back after 9-11-01 ?

Weren't you glued to CNN for weeks and asking when is Bush and the military going to do something ?

Bin Laden was in Afghanistan on 9-11-01.

This morning (Fri. Pacific time) around 7:30 A.M. I was going through my files and came across something that was released eight years ago, How Osama bin Laden was able to escape from Bora Bora in Afghanistan. It wasn't President Bush's fault but the National Security Act of 1947 that gave civilians to much control over the military.

I thought about starting a thread on the DP Military Forum.

Having U.S. military special operations forces running the game made it worse. Special Ops are not grunts, they are no more than commandos. They don't know how to do it.

That any Vietnam War Army or Marine grunt with more than a few months "in-country" knows how to conduct a sweep, you have to have a blocking force. There was no blocking force because civilians over ruled the regular infantry that weren't used. (And they were available.)

The Taliban after getting their butts whooped bloody red and after licking their wounds in Pakistan for years came back to Afghanistan when they saw that the war in Iraq had been politicized in America. Lessons learned by all of America's enemies from the Vietnam War.

A couple weeks ago Mil. Times conducted a unscientific poll of our military. 70% don't want to put American boots on the ground to destroy ISIS/ISIL with the current CNC (Obama) in command.
I liked Bush. I dont like Obama. This isn't political for me. ISIS is different from what we have been dealing with, from what I can tell, and they are bringing it much closer to home.
 
Last edited:
I liked Bush. I dont like Obama. This isn't political for me. ISIS is different from what we have been dealing with, from what I can tell, and they are bringing it much closer to home.

Cutting off heads in Afghanistan is closer to home than 9-11? I think you have been duped by Obama's game to justify his military intervention by saying these guys are worse than Alquiada.
 
I liked Bush. I dont like Obama. This isn't political for me. ISIS is different from what we have been dealing with, from what I can tell, and they are bringing it much closer to home.

Al Qaeda brought it far closer to home on 9/11 and after all the blood and treasure, they live, and along with their various offshoots and affiliates are menacing far more territory then they ever were prior to A-Stan and Iraq.
 
Al Qaeda brought it far closer to home on 9/11 and after all the blood and treasure, they live, and along with their various offshoots and affiliates are menacing far more territory then they ever were prior to A-Stan and Iraq.
YOu guys apparently aren't understanding what I'm saying. They are bringing their cultural saveragery to western democracies, and they have Western accents. This is a different type of terrorism from what we've seen before. These people are more than ideological. They are bloodthirsty.
 
YOu guys apparently aren't understanding what I'm saying. They are bringing their cultural saveragery to western democracies, and they have Western accents. This is a different type of terrorism from what we've seen before. These people are more than ideological. They are bloodthirsty.
But the old type of terrorist was pretty savage, ideological and bloodthirsty and brought it home to the US on 9/11. They resided in Afghanistan and going in there to get them is exactly the type of war the US should be involved in.
 
YOu guys apparently aren't understanding what I'm saying. They are bringing their cultural saveragery to western democracies, and they have Western accents. This is a different type of terrorism from what we've seen before. These people are more than ideological. They are bloodthirsty.

Fair enough I suppose.
 
I am not going to answer your poll and I think all it does is politicize and divide rather then actually allow for a meaningfull exchange of ideas between people on how to deal with ISIS. However, to answer your question I am against how we are handling it. Airstrikes alone won't do anything. At most, they will only slow progress. At millions of dollars each, we simply cant afford enough bombs and missiles to be effective in eliminating ISIS. The only way we will defeat ISIS, is by sending in massive amounts of ground troops. Or, there would have to be a concerted effort by someone else, and they would need to send in a massive amount of ground troops. Otherwise, ISIS will only grow stronger and gain more influence.
 
Hi, I am doing an assignment for my sociology class, and I would like to hear from the League community about what they think about what's been going on in the Middle East currently
. So my question is,

1. Do you Favor or Oppose the military action the United States is taking in Iraq and Syria against Islamic Militants commonly known as ISIS?

Also,
2. Would you Favor or Oppose the United States sending ground troops to Iraq and Syria in order to assist groups in those countries that are fighting the Islamic Militants commonly known as ISIS?

Also, state if you are a Republican, Democrat, or Independent.

If you are unfamiliar with the current issue (which in these forums, I'd hope it's unlikely), here are some fast facts you can catch up with on CNN
ISIS Fast Facts - CNN.com



I don't see any reason why those of us who use this forum should help you do your schoolwork.

You'll learn a lot more if you knuckle down and do it yourself.
 
This morning (Fri. Pacific time) around 7:30 A.M. I was going through my files and came across something that was released eight years ago, How Osama bin Laden was able to escape from Bora Bora in Afghanistan. It wasn't President Bush's fault but the National Security Act of 1947 that gave civilians to much control over the military.

Actually that was Secretary Rumsfelds' fault.

I thought about starting a thread on the DP Military Forum.

Having U.S. military special operations forces running the game made it worse. Special Ops are not grunts, they are no more than commandos. They don't know how to do it.

What do you mean by "running the game"? Because if you mean "Direct Action" or "Foreign Internal Defense", those are part of their Core Activities. No one does it better.

That any Vietnam War Army or Marine grunt with more than a few months "in-country" knows how to conduct a sweep, you have to have a blocking force. There was no blocking force because civilians over ruled the regular infantry that weren't used. (And they were available.)

If civilians such as SECDEF overruled military members such as the SOCOM CG, what makes you think that they wouldn't have overruled a Battalion or Regimental CO?

The Taliban after getting their butts whooped bloody red and after licking their wounds in Pakistan for years came back to Afghanistan when they saw that the war in Iraq had been politicized in America. Lessons learned by all of America's enemies from the Vietnam War.

A couple weeks ago Mil. Times conducted a unscientific poll of our military. 70% don't want to put American boots on the ground to destroy ISIS/ISIL with the current CNC (Obama) in command.

I think deploying regular echelons might prove problematic - but we would do much better if we put SOF on the ground to do things like work with the Peshmerga and perform a JTAC function.
 
I am not going to answer your poll and I think all it does is politicize and divide rather then actually allow for a meaningfull exchange of ideas between people on how to deal with ISIS.

Translation: Liberal, against. ;)
 
Last edited:
Al Qaeda brought it far closer to home on 9/11 and after all the blood and treasure, they live, and along with their various offshoots and affiliates are menacing far more territory then they ever were prior to A-Stan and Iraq.

Yeah.... it's almost as if electing a President dedicated to the notion that US intervention in the world waas the problem, and that the situation would benefit if we pulled back was a bad thing....
 
Translation: Liberal, against.

Ha... you politically brainwashed people make me chuckle. All of you! Who are all lined up in and told by your political leaders what to think and who to identify yourself as. And of course, try to put other people in political boxes as well in order to make any real discussion on the issue, impossible. Its nonsensical drivel like this that divides this nation, raises an uneducated populace because you don't have to think for yourself. Here is your label.... This is what we believe, and this is our church, no need to think! We have the answers for you! If your with us, we will show you who to hate... I am so sick of politics! Current day politics mirrors religion in the sense that people follow it and stick to their label just as many religious people do. As a result, many cant see past the trees and think for themselves.

Anyway, you are completely incorrect. I agree with military intervention in the Middle East. But its intervention very few if any Americans would ever support. 500-750K troops, with more on standby. A war of overwhelming and decisive force to rid the ME of its extremists and free its populace so that society there could reach its full potential. Potential which has been stifled by thousands of years of religious oppression. Not many people know, or really care, but at one point the middle east was a leader in just about every scientific category. It was only after religious extremists took over and called math the work of the devil that progress stopped. The entire planet would greatly benefit from the freedom of minds in the ME.
 
Can somebody explain to me if what we have been trying for the last 13 years has not worked and has potentially made things worse, why we are continuing to try it? Is that not the very definition of insanity?
 
... and they are bringing it much closer to home.

Why do you say that? Other than a few beheadings, have they attacked us at home?

You don't seriously believe that they are massing troops at the US-Mexico border do you?
 
I don't see any reason why those of us who use this forum should help you do your schoolwork.

You'll learn a lot more if you knuckle down and do it yourself.

If his schoolwork is a poll, I don't see any reason we shouldn't.

this stuff needs to be actively debated and discussed and looked into - by everyone. Especially students.
 
Hi, I am doing an assignment for my sociology class, and I would like to hear from the League community about what they think about what's been going on in the Middle East currently. So my question is,

1. Do you Favor or Oppose the military action the United States is taking in Iraq and Syria against Islamic Militants commonly known as ISIS?

Also,
2. Would you Favor or Oppose the United States sending ground troops to Iraq and Syria in order to assist groups in those countries that are fighting the Islamic Militants commonly known as ISIS?

Also, state if you are a Republican, Democrat, or Independent.

If you are unfamiliar with the current issue (which in these forums, I'd hope it's unlikely), here are some fast facts you can catch up with on CNN
ISIS Fast Facts - CNN.com

Would you like our responses proof read and double spaced or can you handle that?
 
Hi, I am doing an assignment for my sociology class, and I would like to hear from the League community about what they think about what's been going on in the Middle East currently. So my question is,

1. Do you Favor or Oppose the military action the United States is taking in Iraq and Syria against Islamic Militants commonly known as ISIS?

Also,
2. Would you Favor or Oppose the United States sending ground troops to Iraq and Syria in order to assist groups in those countries that are fighting the Islamic Militants commonly known as ISIS?

Also, state if you are a Republican, Democrat, or Independent.

If you are unfamiliar with the current issue (which in these forums, I'd hope it's unlikely), here are some fast facts you can catch up with on CNN
ISIS Fast Facts - CNN.com



Regardless of ideology and whether this a Bush screw up or Obama's, I oppose the actions of the US. Like so many past engagements of limited warfare, it is unlikely to be effective in the way it is being waged.

Clearly Obama is very reluctant to even do this for obvious personal political reasons, he again is going against the advice of his military advisers despite the fact in doing so previously he allowed the formation of ISIS, his dithering and "red line" blather only helped the image of ISIS as stronger than the US. By announcing the bombing weeks in advance, the enemy has dug in a prepared. They are counting on a high rate of civilian deaths to further rally the populace against the US.

Now that the pre-withdrawal stability has been lost, it will have to be reclaimed the hard way, troops on the ground in a multinational force, something Obama has been entirely unable to put together. Then, as with the greatest war successes in America's history, install a Marshal plan like recovery. It's how the US made two of its strongest allies, Germany and Japan.

Massacring thousands of people, as is being called for by some for will only create twice as many new terrorists.
 
I liked Bush. I dont like Obama. This isn't political for me. ISIS is different from what we have been dealing with, from what I can tell, and they are bringing it much closer to home.



First, Liz, we have to ask whether the 'war on terror' has been effective at all.

The first invasion was 13 years ago in the most varied international force ever assembled, even pacifist Canada did some heavy lifting.

The war has no end in sight, military advisers have said it will take another 20 years. In the meantime, instead of the disease being contained, the initial objective, it has spread like bacteria, infesting every opening it can, from Libya to Syria, Iraq.....

We now see the result of pulling troops out, the disease Metastasized quickly spreading across two countries in a matter of months.

Clearly the "enemy" is no weaker than 911, and apparently stronger, greater in number and far, far more vicious [the high publicity ISIS gave itself in that horror suggests taunting, they want the US in country].

I fail to see any success so far other than the US has chased terrorism back to the middle east, which I think was Bush's plan along. The "war on terror" as it is being waged at present is not working. It is only creating more terrorists.
 
Back
Top Bottom