• 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

JANFU

Land by the Gulf Stream
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Dec 27, 2014
Messages
59,290
Reaction score
38,842
Location
Best Coast Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
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.
 
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...

I have to agree with SocialDemocrat...too vague.

Also, are you assuming that some particular country...say, France...is going to invite us to deploy troops on their land? Or do you think we are going to invade someone?
 
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.
 
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...

Nope. Not now. The free riders should step up to the plate. But if countries like China, Germany or India should help carry the weight.

We can help substatially.
 
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.
 
I voted no.

The question was way to vague to answer a SPECIFIC why, so I chose my own scenario for my choice.

I assume what you mean when you say putting troops on the ground is, put troops on the ground of countries whose governments support, either openly, or somewhat covertly, terrorists, or terrorist organizations.

To which, I say not. I will quote a movie I saw on the subject one..."The military is not a scalpel...it's a battle axe."

Well, in this day and age, where no one fights anyone else very openly, battle axes are all but useless, other than as an implicit threat to those governments who WOULD consider attacking. We can't use our armies, at least not effectively, because armies are tools of WAR, and we are not engaging in WAR against, say, Iran. We are engaging in "war" against specific minorities of citizens in Iran.

In my opinion, the only real way to deal with terrorism, is with selective, delicate strikes. No collateral. We go in, we kill the guy we want, we get out. Espionage is the proper tool, in this instance. We need to step down the money we spend on troop deployment, and step UP the money we spend on international intel, and develop a system of collaboration between elite military units (SEAL, SF, etc) and clandestine CIA operatives in the areas most likely to produce terrorists.

The other option is to counter terrorize. Which is to say, what we have already done, but MUCH more aggressively, MUCH more violently, and with MUCH less concern for collateral damage and public opinion. And for my money, no one has the stomach or the political will for this option.
 
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...

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.
 
Should we start by testing the OP idea on street gangs (domestic terrorists) in Chicago?

This poll question is WAY too vague to answer.
 
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...

Not unless we can tag them. When they take off their clothes, they look just like their neighbors and can easily assimilate into the crowd. They'd be damned fools to attempt large scale battle against better financed forces. terrorism has always been the alternative of the dis-enfranchised. It goes back to hearts and minds, not threats and bombs.
 
Mycroft said:
I have to agree with SocialDemocrat...too vague.

Also, are you assuming that some particular country...say, France...is going to invite us to deploy troops on their land? Or do you think we are going to invade someone?
Click to expand...

Not vague - countries in the ME where there bases of ops are.
Vague- Funny.
 
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...

Using the current rules of engagement, the only place we should have troops is Ft. Bragg. Remove the impediments our soldiers currently have and we could easily take out any terrorist force in
a very short time and the world would be a better place if we did.
 
sawdust said:
Using the current rules of engagement, the only place we should have troops is Ft. Bragg. Remove the impediments our soldiers currently have and we could easily take out any terrorist force and a very short time and the world would be a better place if we did.
Click to expand...

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.
 
sawdust said:
Using the current rules of engagement, the only place we should have troops is Ft. Bragg. Remove the impediments our soldiers currently have and we could easily take out any terrorist force in
a very short time and the world would be a better place if we did.
Click to expand...

OK.
How about this Province in Pakistan.
Pakistan's North Waziristan Problem: Wagah Blast Casts Doubts Over Army Offensive Against Militancy

Check the terrain out.
Detailed Google Hybrid Map of N. Waziristan
 
JANFU said:
Not vague - countries in the ME where there bases of ops are.
Vague- Funny.
Click to expand...

Okay...countries in the ME. Do you expect them to invite us? Or must we invade?
 
Mycroft said:
Okay...countries in the ME. Do you expect them to invite us? Or must we invade?
Click to expand...

Like any party it would need to be by invite, unless using drones and air power.
 
JANFU said:
Not vague - countries in the ME where there bases of ops are.
Vague- Funny.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. How about the term "West" that you used? Who, exactly, commands those West forces, pays those troops or sets their "rules of engagement"? Even using your OP example of the latest Paris attacks - which country (countries?) would you send troops to and to do, exactly, what?
 
Goshin said:
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.
Click to expand...

Are you aware of a location where tens of thousands of terrorists congregate? If you, you should email the CIA or something....
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Nonsense. How about the term "West" that you used? Who, exactly, commands those West forces, pays those troops or sets their "rules of engagement"? Even using your OP example of the latest Paris attacks - which country (countries?) would you send troops to and to do, exactly, what?
Click to expand...

Rather picky today. West - EU- North America as it is normally referred to.
 
JANFU said:
Like any party it would need to be by invite, unless using drones and air power.
Click to expand...

Do you move those goal posts much? The OP specifically said troops on the ground.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Do you move those goal posts much? The OP specifically said troops on the ground.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Obviously not. That is why the Rumsfeld Doctrine worked so well, whereas the Surge failed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom