Are Republicans for or against sending US ground troops back to Iraq and also Syria?

[Bitek]

Yes. And No. Definitely opposed to voting on it. Would be going better if Obama did what we said and went to war and not got involved. We need to be arming the rebels, which only a fool would do as they will only end up on the hands of Isis.

 

[Jhhnn]

What you say he wants even if true doesn't mean that's what we'll get. Obama has invoked Iraq war rhetoric with his talk of destroying IS and that is a significant commitment to war. He's using the Bush playbook. It will be interesting to see if he acts smarter than his banter suggests.

Oh, please. Short of collapse of Iraqi forces, there's no indication that American combat units will be deployed.

There's also no political blackmail for a war resolution using 9/11 as a bludgeon ahead of the midterms. No raving about WMD's, reconstituted nuclear programs, undertones of revenge & bloodlust for 9/11, or the rest of it, either.

What we have here is a failure to create false equivalency.

 

[rudder]

All I am saying is that the "Muslim world" is not going to rally to ISIS's side.
That kind of thinking is very ignorant, and shows you have no idea what's going on

Let's look at the Iraqi insurgency then. Was the resistance to the coalition troops the work of Al-qaeda or other terrorist organization? No, and even while the Sunnis and Shiites were killing each other there was still a common enemy in the U.S. occupation. The resistance which started by the way when Bush's selection (Paul Bremer) to oversee the rebuilding of Iraq thought it would be smart to fire the whole Iraqi army. The U.S. went from mission accomplished to fighting insurgents for the next decade.

And do you not see a common theme in the lone wolf attacks in the U.S.? Nadal Hassan... who was upset about having to go to Afghanistan and kill fellow muslims. The Tsarnaev brothers bombed Boston as payback for U.S. operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Mohammed Taheri-azar drove into a crown of people at UNC to "avenge the death of muslims worldwide." Again all the while Sunnis and Shiites kill each other.

I think it is ignorant to discount the mindset of these people. U.S. ground forces going after ISIL will be a bad move.

 

[Orignal Earl]

Let's look at the Iraqi insurgency then. Was the resistance to the coalition troops the work of Al-qaeda or other terrorist organization? No, and even while the Sunnis and Shiites were killing each other there was still a common enemy in the U.S. occupation. The resistance which started by the way when Bush's selection (Paul Bremer) to oversee the rebuilding of Iraq thought it would be smart to fire the whole Iraqi army. The U.S. went from mission accomplished to fighting insurgents for the next decade.

And do you not see a common theme in the lone wolf attacks in the U.S.? Nadal Hassan... who was upset about having to go to Afghanistan and kill fellow muslims. The Tsarnaev brothers bombed Boston as payback for U.S. operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Mohammed Taheri-azar drove into a crown of people at UNC to "avenge the death of muslims worldwide." Again all the while Sunnis and Shiites kill each other.

I think it is ignorant to discount the mindset of these people. U.S. ground forces going after ISIL will be a bad move.

The common theme does seem to be the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

[Dannar26]

As long as there's a black man in the Oval Office, Republicans aren't for anything except getting him out.

Inflammatory seraph strikes again.

The question of war requires lots of scrutiny, I don't care who you are or what your melanin count is.

I for one think it isn't worth it. I don't know if going to war will help, and it seems like a bad idea to go to battle on a "maybe."

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Oh, please. Short of collapse of Iraqi forces, there's no indication that American combat units will be deployed.

There's also no political blackmail for a war resolution using 9/11 as a bludgeon ahead of the midterms. No raving about WMD's, reconstituted nuclear programs, undertones of revenge & bloodlust for 9/11, or the rest of it, either.

What we have here is a failure to create false equivalency.

Oh I hope you're right about troops, but your obsession with Obama's virtue never fails. Perhaps not being identical does not mean there is a lack of similarity. Now that you've signed up for not only relief for those afflicted by is, you support incursions into Syria. If things go south , and the demigod status you confer on Obama isn't proof against that, I think you'll gladly support escalating the conflict and use Bush for justification. Your Leader certainly wasn't above beating his party members to support his attack on syria, was he?

Good luck with your war.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Good luck with your war.

...and hope it turns out better than their last one (Libya is in shambles!).

 

[fskimospy]

Oh I hope you're right about troops, but your obsession with Obama's virtue never fails. Perhaps not being identical does not mean there is a lack of similarity. Now that you've signed up for not only relief for those afflicted by is, you support incursions into Syria. If things go south , and the demigod status you confer on Obama isn't proof against that, I think you'll gladly support escalating the conflict and use Bush for justification. Your Leader certainly wasn't above beating his party members to support his attack on syria, was he?

Good luck with your war.

You realize that very few Democrats supported bombing Syria, right?

http://www.people-press.org/2013/09/03/public-opinion-runs-against-syrian-airstrikes/

 

[Paul98]

Seems we never learn, just keep doing the same shit over and over again

 

[Paul98]

Here's an idea stay the F out, let them fight each other.

You want to save lives??? spend the money at home on something other than war...

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

You realize that very few Democrats supported bombing Syria, right?

http://www.people-press.org/2013/09/03/public-opinion-runs-against-syrian-airstrikes/

Where did I say otherwise? That is to their credit and why they had to be pressured.

 

[irishScott]

Ah..Fundamentalist Islam
Is that Muslims who want to take over the world?
Good thing even in primitive countries they are very few in number

No, it's Fundamentalist Islam. Look it up.

Fact is Islam has a problem. An Israeli Colonel put it nicely. "Not all Muslims are terrorists, but almost all terrorists are Muslim." It's fashionable in the more liberal corners of the west to thumb one's nose at such rhetoric, but fashion and nose-thumbing doesn't make it any less true. No other religion is producing groups like ISIS, Al-Shabaab, Hamas, Islamic-Jihad, the Taliban, Boko Haram, and others in anything resembling such numbers or depth of sophistication. Likewise these groups and their allies, far from being very few in number, often wield substantial political power and influence, in some cases like ISIS and Al-Shabaab they can even be dominant without outside intervention.

And reasonable Muslims know it too. That's why you hear stories like these:
http://www.ted.com/talks/karima_bennoune_the_side_of_terrorism_that_doesn_t_make_headlines

All admirable, even heroic efforts, but somewhat lacking in scale by comparison to the fundamentalists.

 

[Jhhnn]

Oh I hope you're right about troops, but your obsession with Obama's virtue never fails. Perhaps not being identical does not mean there is a lack of similarity. Now that you've signed up for not only relief for those afflicted by is, you support incursions into Syria. If things go south , and the demigod status you confer on Obama isn't proof against that, I think you'll gladly support escalating the conflict and use Bush for justification. Your Leader certainly wasn't above beating his party members to support his attack on syria, was he?

Good luck with your war.

Remarkable how you double down on false equivalency with false attribution & a straw man argument as to what I might support.

There likely won't be any air raids on Syrian territory without tacit Syrian support despite urgent pleas from America's right wing. Like this-

http://www.politico.com/blogs/polit...s-fight-administration-delusional-195424.html



If you want to argue that Obama is more like Republicans than I'd like, I'll agree, but let's not forget who's who & how we got here.

 

[fskimospy]

No, it's Fundamentalist Islam. Look it up.

Fact is Islam has a problem. An Israeli Colonel put it nicely. "Not all Muslims are terrorists, but almost all terrorists are Muslim." It's fashionable in the more liberal corners of the west to thumb one's nose at such rhetoric, but fashion and nose-thumbing doesn't make it any less true. No other religion is producing groups like ISIS, Al-Shabaab, Hamas, Islamic-Jihad, the Taliban, Boko Haram, and others in anything resembling such numbers or depth of sophistication. Likewise these groups and their allies, far from being very few in number, often wield substantial political power and influence, in some cases like ISIS and Al-Shabaab they can even be dominant without outside intervention.

And reasonable Muslims know it too. That's why you hear stories like these:
http://www.ted.com/talks/karima_bennoune_the_side_of_terrorism_that_doesn_t_make_headlines

All admirable, even heroic efforts, but somewhat lacking in scale by comparison to the fundamentalists.

What does make it less true is that there are tons of terrorist groups that aren't Islamic, we just don't hear about them as much because the US isn't involved.

For example did you know that the group often recognized as the deadliest terrorist group in the world was not Islamic? (the LTTE). Hell, they are even the people who invented the explosive suicide vest.

 

[irishScott]

What does make it less true is that there are tons of terrorist groups that aren't Islamic, we just don't hear about them as much because the US isn't involved.

For example did you know that the group often recognized as the deadliest terrorist group in the world was not Islamic? (the LTTE). Hell, they are even the people who invented the explosive suicide vest.

Well that quote was originally used to defend Israeli racial profiling, so I assume it's specific to Israel's situation. Still, even if by some chance there are more non-Islamic terrorist organizations than Islamic ones, the proof is in the casualty numbers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Lankan_Civil_War
The LTTE killed 23,327 and wounded about 60,000 over the course of a 26 year civil war. By comparison, ISIS alone is and has been killing over a thousand per month, let alone adding up all other Islamic terrorist groups. If the LTTE was recognized as the deadliest terrorist group, they're getting some stiff competition.

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/210288.pdf
Also, according to the State Department there were 11,098 deaths due to terrorist attacks in 2012. Note that the of the top 10 list of countries where they occurred, almost all are Islamic or have substantial Islamic demographics.

 

[fskimospy]

Well that quote was originally used to defend Israeli racial profiling, so I assume it's specific to Israel's situation. Still, even if by some chance there are more non-Islamic terrorist organizations than Islamic ones, the proof is in the casualty numbers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Lankan_Civil_War
The LTTE killed 23,327 and wounded about 60,000 over the course of a 26 year civil war. By comparison, ISIS alone is and has been killing over a thousand per month, let alone adding up all other Islamic terrorist groups. If the LTTE was recognized as the deadliest terrorist group, they're getting some stiff competition.

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/210288.pdf
Also, according to the State Department there were 11,098 deaths due to terrorist attacks in 2012. Note that the of the top 10 list of countries where they occurred, almost all are Islamic or have substantial Islamic demographics.

I'm not saying that there aren't plenty of Islamic terrorist organizations out there, I'm just saying that describing terrorism as an Islamic phenomenon is inaccurate. The LTTE, FARC, etc, etc are all organizations that have killed a lot of people.

 

[Jaepheth]

I, for one, welcome the new 51st state of Iraq!

 

[Orignal Earl]

No, it's Fundamentalist Islam. Look it up.

Fact is Islam has a problem. An Israeli Colonel put it nicely. "Not all Muslims are terrorists, but almost all terrorists are Muslim." It's fashionable in the more liberal corners of the west to thumb one's nose at such rhetoric, but fashion and nose-thumbing doesn't make it any less true. No other religion is producing groups like ISIS, Al-Shabaab, Hamas, Islamic-Jihad, the Taliban, Boko Haram, and others in anything resembling such numbers or depth of sophistication. Likewise these groups and their allies, far from being very few in number, often wield substantial political power and influence, in some cases like ISIS and Al-Shabaab they can even be dominant without outside intervention.

And reasonable Muslims know it too. That's why you hear stories like these:
http://www.ted.com/talks/karima_bennoune_the_side_of_terrorism_that_doesn_t_make_headlines

All admirable, even heroic efforts, but somewhat lacking in scale by comparison to the fundamentalists.

Every Muslim leader has condemned these groups and say they have nothing to do with Islam