More Americans Say Boots Are Needed on the Ground to Fight ISIS

I understand what you are saying, but my point is that "we are at war with terrorism" is the wrong mindset to have, particularly when coupled with the notion of preemptive war, because literally everyone in the world is a potential terrorist. If you say "we are at war with ISIS", then you have a real, defined enemy, and, perhaps even more importantly, a way to define victory. There is no victory over terrorism as a concept, and to be "at war" with it only ensures perpetual war.

 

Boots on the ground lead to more boots to the voting booths (or one day in the streets)
How boots on the ground in the Middle East amplify a political war in the USA.
So the ones that don't care about boots on the ground, because they aren't sent to the Middle East, are still fighting a war, a political war.

ISIS can be stopped without boots on the ground or a political fight, by spreading the message (in Iraq, Syria) that a fight on the ground lead to resistance movements, and these movements will one day be organized by politics when ISIS is 'defeated' (can be done via a propaganda war and politics)
In Libya the same process is going on, locals join the rebels, and resistance movements start to grow, one day these movements will be organized by politics, and mass organized behind a new political or popular figure.

People forget the most fundamental fact of history, that populations are always organized one way of the other.

 

I'm as anti war as anyone could ever be but sometimes there situations that require it, ww2 was one of those situations, bosnia was another and we (western nations) sat back too long and did little for too long, cambodia/pol pot and rawanda where we did nothing at all to end the carnage....there times where morality demands we go to war and this is one of times, isis is an abomination that must be eradicated....this also the time for middle east countries with their expensive modern militaries to get off their collective arses and join in the battle...

 

I don't disagree.

OTOH, when a war has little to no impact on the daily life of the civilian population, they do not appreciate either the sacrifices made nor the horrors inflicted. This emotional and physical detachment is surly a good thing for modern war mongerers and suppliers, but it surely does create ignorance at the mall.

Look at how the expectations regarding war have changed.
America did not have to "mobilize" its population in order to simultaneously fight two wars over a 14 year span.
America has come to expect minimal American causalities in modern warfare.

More Americans were killed in a single battle in ww2 than in the entire Afghanistan and Iraqi war COMBINED. Five times more died in Vietnam than in both of those wars.
Yet once again in Iraq/Afghanistan hundreds of thousand of innocent civilians died with no more than a passing and seemingly detached sense of regret being expressed by most of the public and media.

 

Sure more boots....MIDDLE EASTERN BOOTS....

 

I hate war and I abhor many of the things that the USA has done in the past. But I ask all of you who think we should not send troops to defeat ISIS completely to look up and read the magazine called Dabiq there are 4 issues and it has been put out by ISIS. It is easy to find and they are not all that long. Then come back here and say no.

After reading those magazines I went from a firm "no" too "how can we not?"

 

It seems that for the most part we're on the same page. I just object to the "War on Terror" nomenclature because it is 1. too open-ended. Declare war on Al-Qaeda or ISIS, not "terror". That is just an endless Orwellian War. And 2. it then gets used against American citizens in things like the Patriot Act, NDAA, NSA spying, etc. WE become the "terrorists" whenever it's convenient for those in power to strip us of due process, and lone nuts who could never be a real threat to the US are put in the same category as well-funded organizations.

 

With instant video coverage war has become nighty entertainment for civilians, they're detached from the realities of war...

 

If we put boots on the ground we are waging war. If we are going to wage war then do it. Total destruction war. Scorched earth and take no prisoners especially the ISIS group. General William Tecumseh Sherman said it this way We must make it so terrible that people grow sick of it and do not want any more. There is no such thing as humane war.

 

No. You're far too easily convinced that we need to go charging into foreign countries with our military might.

It's all the funnier when the US government and media then turn around and point accusing fingers at other countries for (allegedly) doing the same.

 

Ya if there ever was a war where take no prisoners was valid this would be it...unfortunately that's just not the way we are, which leaves us with problem of what to do with thousands of prisoners who will revert to their old ways as soon they're released...

 

We wage war when we interfere in the affairs of another country. We don't need this latest "boots on the ground" catch phrase in order for there to be a war underway. Bombing another country from the air is quite sufficient.

Or would you not say that foreign aircraft bombing our territory would be an act of war?

We commit other acts of war, too, like assassinating foreign leaders and attempting to change their governments.

 

99.99% of the time I would agree, this time I would not...there is genocide happening and that can't be tolerated...

 

It's been tolerated elsewhere before, and, we are not the world's government or police force.

 

ISIS is more of a threat to the folks in the ME. So, let the folks in the ME do the heavy fighting.

 

It would be nice to see the US do something to stop rather than escalate violence, wouldn't it? Like cutting off the enemy's financing and arms supplies, rather than just charging in with a bunch of expensive soldiers, equipment and munitions and proceeding to deploy them.

These undeclared wars of ours are, among other things, a business venture. Someone is profiting immsensely from the expenditure of all that life-snuffing stuff.

 

Americans need to understand that the Democrats have absolutely no interest in what Americans want.

 

Precisely. There is nothing in our law preventing the armchair warriors from heading over there right now. Except that they know they can get somebody else to do it by saying "hey, we need more boots on the ground."

 

Baloney. The only people in the military who would support it are colonels wanting to make general before retirement and REMFs.

 

King Abdullah, staunch George Bush ally, and absolute monarch of Saudi Arabia, has people who agitate for democracy beheaded, on a regular basis.
https://www.google.com/search?q=bus...qLZPAggSDpYK4AQ&ved=0CB8QsAQ&biw=1920&bih=873

It wouldn't be politically correct, but would it be within the bounds of permissibility to hope that the Arab Spring movement is able to imitate the French revolutionaries by beheading King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, King Abdullah of Jordan, King Abdullah of Morocco, and all the other kings, queens, princes and princesses, and also military dictators General al Sissi of Egypt and Bashar Assad of Syria, among other miscellaneous elitist parasites, who refuse to renounce their privileges of "royal blood"?

If the Arab Spring revolutionaries actually manage to sweep through the Mid-East, all the kings and military dictators will probably flee to their mansions in Europe, but we can at least hope that the rebels catch a few of them.

 

As much as I hate royalty, the only alternative in the Middle East seems to be the theocrats. John Adams is nowhere to be seen.

 

It was wrong to tolerate it....interventions for oil are absolutely wrong, interventions for people are absolutely the right reason to go to war...interfering in iraq in gw2 was wrong, standing by and watching the rawanda genocide was wrong too...if a war needs to be fought do it for the right reasons

 

what's a little genocide amongst enemies.

- - - Updated - - -

And Democrats need to understand that many republicans have absolutely no idea what Americans want, let alone any interest.