Amazon.com Widgets

Should US ground troops become involved in anti-ISIS operations?

Asked by: nmonaco
  • Only sound strategy.

    US ground troops, in some form, will eventually be necessary to achieve some sort of victory. The use of special forces in targeted actions and reconnaissance roles would add precision to the air campaign and help target ISIS leadership. Even regular troops may need to be deployed. I support this, so long as it does not involve occupying Syria.
    These terrorists have killed three Americans publicly. We need to be serious about defeating them and the only way is through putting some boots on the ground.

  • Yes we should

    Yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes justin beiber is gay yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes

  • Yes we should

    Yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes justin beiber is gay yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes

  • If we want to destroy them yes

    Its going to take more then crappy airstrikes which from Syrian free fighters say "dont work" to win. We will need soldiers and major ground forces to kill and destroy them. Plus their leader is recruiting tons of new soldiers now and they say the airstrikes are helping them get more members and fighters so yeah just send forces there and kill them all quick unless you want more problems in this world

  • Depends on the footware

    Under no circumstances should americans put boots on the ground back in iraq. After all of the boots deployed over the bush years, and after many tragic loses of those boots, we simply cannot afford to do go through that again. There were protests against the loss of boots line in iraq throughout the war, and after the repeated promises by this administration the people clearly wouldn't stand for it. However, alternatives such as sandals, tennis shoes, or perhaps even crocs as possible footware for american soliders. All of them are much more expendable, better for desert terrain, and they have not been lost yet in the war. Deployment of flip flops on the ground should be seriously considered to fight isis.

  • A battle that is neither ours nor able to be won

    We have been over the for a decade, and nothing is changing. Boots on the ground would only suck us back into years of war, and would put so many lives at risk unnecessarily. We will never be able to eradicate them, no matter how hard we try.

    Yes, our troops should protect us. But we need to protect them too.

  • R r r r

    R r r r2 r rr r r rr r rr r r r r r r r r r r r r r r rr r r r r r r r r r r r r r rr r r rr r r r r r r r

  • R r r r

    R r r r2 r rr r r rr r rr r r r r r r r r r r r r r r rr r r r r r r r r r r r r r rr r r rr r r r r r r r

  • R r r r

    R r r r2 r rr r r rr r rr r r r r r r r r r r r r r r rr r r r r r r r r r r r r r rr r r rr r r r r r r r

  • International relations will be destroyed

    Let us affirm then, that the United States does deploy troop to combat the Islamic State. Then all troop deployment will be aimed at capturing one city, that is, Raqqah, and this would destroy the sovereignty of Syria. This, in turn, would be seen as an 'American Invasion' of "Syria" which would lead Russia, China and Iran to go all nuts on the United States. Russia has sent guns and weapons to regime forces for a long time, and Iran is just a mere supporter of the Assad regime. It has trained the National Defense Forces and has been training other militias to fight the Salafist Rebellion.

    Apart from that, the regime is winning. Few days ago, I saw a video of Ba'ath Brigades (the best trained and one of the most elite men in the whole armory of regime forces) entering the province of al-Raqqah. The FSA has withdrawn 15,000 men from Aleppo, leaving the Syrian Arab Army, NDF and other militias face on with the less trained but better equipped Jabhat al-Nusra and Islamic State. If Aleppo falls, Raqqah will succumb. Whoever controls Aleppo controls Syria, so goes the saying. SAA is losing in Daraa, but ultimately, if the Daraa front falls, Hezbollah might send more men to reclaim Daraa as they did with other rebel strongholds. In the last month, IS has been losing battles in Ayn Al-Arab, Shaer Gas Fields, Aleppo, and around Sakr Island. Although IS has an army of 200,000 men, many actual trained men are part of the old Ba'ath Loyalists whose ideology is fundamentally different from IS (I don't consider these guys true Ba'athist). The Iraqi Army and Pershmega forces have also been threatening to destroy IS, and since losing Mosul Dam to Pershmega fighters, IS has been facing a deficit of man-power (due to Syria) and airstrikes. If Mosul falls, IS is effectively destroyed in Iraq. The Ba'ath followers won't follow IS over to fight in Syria; they're Iraqis.

    So henceforth, ground action is unnecessary, as IS is already losing ground and being pushed back.

  • Sure Go ahead

    Well they are the strongest nation on Earth. Feel free do whatever you want. Kill innocents,steal oil,get your own men killed and gain moral support back home. And then leave your weapons behind so that you can go there again after a decade and then steal oil again. :) Feel free


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.