• 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
JANFU said:
The US is using drones on a regular basis -
My Lord you are picky.
When do you put troops on the ground without air cover.
Troops deployed in Iraq, presently in non combat roles in have US Air cover.
Click to expand...

The US is not the West and there is no such thing as non-combat air cover.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The US is not the West and there is no such thing as non-combat air cover.
Click to expand...

Read it again. I stated troops in a non combat role- they have air support.
Now do you want a discussion or a pissing match?
 
JANFU said:
You have an issue with Canadian Troops?
Click to expand...

I am trying to show you that each nation of "the West" acts largely independently - Canada now has "non-combat" troops in Iraq and has left Afghanistan. As far as I can tell Canada has decided to do absolutely nothing militarily in response to the recent Paris terror attacks.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
i will type this as clearly as possible.


We are only Supposed to Kill the Terrorists

Those Impediments exist because we are not at war with a countrie, we are supposed to not kill civilians that are unaffiliated with terrorist organizations.
Click to expand...

Those who think like you are part of the problem. World War 2 ended because our enemy understood how terrible war is. Now they have become our ally. When we bombed Dresden there were lots of civilian casualties. Certainly now that we have smart bombs our targeting ability has improved but consider this.

https://www.change.org/p/us-army-lt...th-murder-for-protecting-his-men-from-taliban

War is an ugly business but if we fight it, we should fight to win and not let foolish rules that put our troops at risk limit our ability to fight. Honestly, as far as I'm concerned, during Vietnam they used to say, kill them all and let God sort it out. Frankly, I'm good with that.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
I am trying to show you that each nation of "the West" acts largely independently - Canada now has "non-combat" troops in Iraq and has left Afghanistan. As far as I can tell Canada has decided to do absolutely nothing militarily in response to the recent Paris terror attacks.
Click to expand...

Pissing match. I have no need of that. Enjoy your evening.
 
JANFU said:
Read it again. I stated troops in a non combat role- they have air support.
Now do you want a discussion or a pissing match?
Click to expand...

How does one fight terrorists using the military in a non-combat role? Explain that and we shall go from there.
 
sawdust said:
Those who think like you are part of the problem. World War 2 ended because our enemy understood how terrible war is. Now they have become our ally. When we bombed Dresden there were lots of civilian casualties. Certainly now that we have smart bombs our targeting ability has improved but consider this.

https://www.change.org/p/us-army-lt...th-murder-for-protecting-his-men-from-taliban

War is an ugly business but if we fight it, we should fight to win and not let foolish rules that put our troops at risk limit our ability to fight. Honestly, as far as I'm concerned, during Vietnam they used to say, kill them all and let God sort it out. Frankly, I'm good with that.
Click to expand...

We are at war with terrorist orginizations, not countries.

i would only support total war in terms of fighting countries. if the terrorists have a government, run a country, have identifiable borders and cities, then i would support a war that uses tactics like area bombing againist the civilian population, they are fair game since they pledge allegiance to the country we are at war with.
 
We don't have the balls to do what has to be done. We need to take the biggest concentration of terrorists, wherever ISIL is headquartered, etc. and go in, drop the biggest sub-nuclear bombs we have, napalm the whole place, just kill everyone there without regard for civilian casualties and show them we're not messing around. No announcements, no warnings, no allowing them to truck in innocents to hide behind, we just show up with no warning and blow the crap out of them. Screw the Geneva Convention, it already specifically allows the massacre of such combatants.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
How does one fight terrorists using the military in a non-combat role? Explain that and we shall go from there.
Click to expand...

As you mentioned Canada has troops on the ground. The story up here is JTF2 is on the front lines with the Kurds.
Training- the Iraqi Military is riven with corruption and sectarianism.
It is their fight to win.
Then you have the Shia Militias, they will conduct their own revenge attacks on Sunni's as they have been doing since Maliki took power. Now he is out. How will the new guy do - up in the air on that, but I do not see a radical change.
The present Govt has to address that.
Lastly- my opinion- The US should not have deployed into Iraq proper in the 2nd Gulf War. They should have taken the oil fields, then sat back.
Negotiated permanent leases for bases within the newly created State of Kurdistan.

Let the country split along sectarian lines.
Iraq like many countries created after WW1 are artificial constructs imposed by western powers.
 
Cephus said:
We don't have the balls to do what has to be done. We need to take the biggest concentration of terrorists, wherever ISIL is headquartered, etc. and go in, drop the biggest sub-nuclear bombs we have, napalm the whole place, just kill everyone there without regard for civilian casualties and show them we're not messing around. No announcements, no warnings, no allowing them to truck in innocents to hide behind, we just show up with no warning and blow the crap out of them. Screw the Geneva Convention, it already specifically allows the massacre of such combatants.
Click to expand...

That would be Genocide.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Where did more innocent people die - in Paris, Columbine, or Sandy Hook? By that metric, it would make more sense to put ground troops in our schools!

Of course that is silly. But so is putting troops on the ground to defeat a word.
Click to expand...

...9-11?
 
JANFU said:
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.
Click to expand...

That is exactly what ISIS and similar wants. Nothing drives recruitment more than Christian soldiers invading Muslim lands.. they can use the whole crusade thing again and again. Why do you think that they have been actively promoting beheading´s of certain western nationalities? They have also been beheading fellow Muslims en mass, but not much around on that is there now.. They want to pull the west in to the conflict in the area and force tribes and religious groupings to finally take sides and finally make it a full blow Islamic civil war.
 
JANFU said:
As you mentioned Canada has troops on the ground. The story up here is JTF2 is on the front lines with the Kurds.
Training- the Iraqi Military is riven with corruption and sectarianism.
It is their fight to win.
Then you have the Shia Militias, they will conduct their own revenge attacks on Sunni's as they have been doing since Maliki took power. Now he is out. How will the new guy do - up in the air on that, but I do not see a radical change.
The present Govt has to address that.
Lastly- my opinion- The US should not have deployed into Iraq proper in the 2nd Gulf War. They should have taken the oil fields, then sat back.
Negotiated permanent leases for bases within the newly created State of Kurdistan.

Let the country split along sectarian lines.
Iraq like many countries created after WW1 are artificial constructs imposed by western powers.
Click to expand...

I can almost agree with that plan. The problem with a "war" that has no defined enemy territory is that it cannot be won (placed under our military control) in any conventionally defined way. Battles, on the other hand, can be won since they end as soon as the shooting stops but that "victory" accomplishes little if the enemy is to regain control of that area as soon as our troops leave the area.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
That would be Genocide.
Click to expand...

I'm fine with that. They earned it. In fact, I'm convinced that the only way to stop these people is to make their own personal losses so utterly horrific that they can't go on. Don't kill the terrorists, kill their families. Kill their children. Destroy their tribes. Make the losses high. They don't care about their own lives, let's see how they feel about their wives and kids, their parents and extended families.
 
PeteEU said:
That is exactly what ISIS and similar wants. Nothing drives recruitment more than Christian soldiers invading Muslim lands.. they can use the whole crusade thing again and again. Why do you think that they have been actively promoting beheading´s of certain western nationalities? They have also been beheading fellow Muslims en mass, but not much around on that is there now.. They want to pull the west in to the conflict in the area and force tribes and religious groupings to finally take sides and finally make it a full blow Islamic civil war.
Click to expand...

Western countries can provide training. Can provide air support- then cannot instil various western values.
Western countries gong into Iraq was the worst possible move. It placed Iraq into the Iranian fold.
And the fables that Bush-Cheney sold have caused irreparable harm to the credibility of the US when in the future, and they will arise real event dictate a military response.
Many will look back to the Iraq war.
 
Which administration did that happen in again?
Which wrong country were we lied into fighting a war again?
Remember, 4,500 dead soldiers for fighting a lie--plus 22 more a day since due to suicide !

AmericanSpartan said:
...9-11?
Click to expand...
 
ttwtt78640 said:
I can almost agree with that plan. The problem with a "war" that has no defined enemy territory is that it cannot be won (placed under our military control) in any conventionally defined way. Battles, on the other hand, can be won since they end as soon as the shooting stops but that "victory" accomplishes little if the enemy is to regain control of that area as soon as our troops leave the area.
Click to expand...

Agreed. These countries like Iraq, Saudi are driving terror.
 
Cephus said:
I'm fine with that. They earned it. In fact, I'm convinced that the only way to stop these people is to make their own personal losses so utterly horrific that they can't go on. Don't kill the terrorists, kill their families. Kill their children. Destroy their tribes. Make the losses high. They don't care about their own lives, let's see how they feel about their wives and kids, their parents and extended families.
Click to expand...

As with the genocide of Iraqi civilians last decade in a war based on Cheney lies ?
 
NIMBY said:
As with the genocide of Iraqi civilians last decade in a war based on Cheney lies ?
Click to expand...

Are you doubting that groups like ISIL and Al Qaeda exist? Or are those lies?
 
Cephus said:
I'm fine with that. They earned it.
Click to expand...

Then in Paris they should have just blown that store to pieces. Why send police in, when they can use your philosophy. You agree?

Cephus said:
I'm fine with that. They earned it. In fact, I'm convinced that the only way to stop these people is to make their own personal losses so utterly horrific that they can't go on. Don't kill the terrorists, kill their families. Kill their children. Destroy their tribes. Make the losses high. They don't care about their own lives, let's see how they feel about their wives and kids, their parents and extended families.
Click to expand...
 
Cephus said:
I'm fine with that. They earned it. In fact, I'm convinced that the only way to stop these people is to make their own personal losses so utterly horrific that they can't go on. Don't kill the terrorists, kill their families. Kill their children. Destroy their tribes. Make the losses high. They don't care about their own lives, let's see how they feel about their wives and kids, their parents and extended families.
Click to expand...

then let me ask you something: if the united states committed such atrocities, how can you justify stating that we are any different then the terrorists themselves.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Yes, that was worse than the Oklahoma City bombing. But what would we be saying today if McVeigh had chosen an even more greatly-populated target? He certainly could have.
Click to expand...

He was not a Christian apples and oranges..
 
JANFU said:
Then in Paris they should have just blown that store to pieces. Why send police in, when they can use your philosophy. You agree?
Click to expand...

Because it isn't hurting the terrorists in that case. It's just killing innocent civilians. Drag the families of the terrorists out in front of the store and put a gun to their heads.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom