Where do you stand: ISIL action

[ivwshane]

Let's see where everyone stands, please pick an option, if you don't see your view represented then pick "other" and then explain your position in a post.


To me, at most we could (not necessarily should) offer support only (drone strikes, intelligence, no arms, no boots on the ground). This only goes for Iraq, for Syria we shouldn't be involved at all. If anything happens in Iraq it should be at the hands of the locals.

I'm not opposed to any humanitarian effort we provide though.

 

[cubby1223]

if you don't see your view represented then pick "other" and then explain your position in a post.

Will do.

I'm not over in the region to know exactly what's going on. For me to take a stand on what should or should not be done is, to me, foolish. I'm not opposed to military intervention so long as it is deemed necessary by a consensus of people who are involved in the situation.

Military action is a necessity sometimes. But so long as the drought in the region continues, we're not actually solving a whole lot. And part of the water problem was Turkey damming up a few rivers cutting off water flow through Syria & Iraq. It's a delicate balance. The region needs international help to correct the recent problems, but at the same time aid cannot be seen as a positive response to a violent group.

So, yeah, I don't have a hard stance on what should or should not happen.

 

[ivwshane]

I'm not asking what you think should happen (I agree none of us are knowledgable enough), what I'm asking is what would you support.

Nothing is black or white so it's kind of a difficult poll to do which is why I added the "other" option.

Will do.

I'm not over in the region to know exactly what's going on. For me to take a stand on what should or should not be done is, to me, foolish. I'm not opposed to military intervention so long as it is deemed necessary by a consensus of people who are involved in the situation.

Military action is a necessity sometimes. But so long as the drought in the region continues, we're not actually solving a whole lot. And part of the water problem was Turkey damming up a few rivers cutting off water flow through Syria & Iraq. It's a delicate balance. The region needs international help to correct the recent problems, but at the same time aid cannot be seen as a positive response to a violent group.

So, yeah, I don't have a hard stance on what should or should not happen.

 

[Fern]

I'm not asking what you think should happen (I agree none of us are knowledgable enough), what I'm asking is what would you support.-snip-

I'd support boots on the ground in Iraq. I'm thinking overwhelming force to push ISIS out of Iraq and back into Syria.

I don't support much in Syria. I fear supplying weapons to any side there may well end up being a mistake. I certainly wouldn't support any troops there. I guess i could support bombing ISIS targets in Syria, but that's about it.

Fern

 

[werepossum]

I voted "other" because I think what should be done depends on how this develops. If we absolutely need boots on the ground in Iraq, we should do it, but we're seriously cutting our infantry capability AGAIN so we need to fight like hell to avoid it. I'd entertain seriously arming the Kurds and allowing them to stand as a separate (or defacto separate) nation rather than using them or the Iraqi army as a surrogate ground force to retake Iraq or Syria. In Syria, I think it's likely that arming any one faction will rebound on us. I'd prefer to see what we can squeeze out of Asad in return for intelligence and possibly air strikes before we jump either way.

EDIT: As to support, I tend to support whatever my President decides unless it's blatantly stupid. Our Syria policy to date certainly qualifies, but I see no reason to assume Obama's decisions will continue to be stupid. Threading the best (or even a non-disastrous) course in the Middle East is always difficult, and at least now we have a clear opponent rather than two sucky sides whose moral value is always unclear.

 

[Jaskalas]

I do not support boots, because I do not believe in our military leadership. They who ordered our men to play police, who sat our men on the streets waiting to be sniped for over a decade.

The extent of the President's plan of action is agreeable. If the Middle East wants their land back, they can fight for it and we will enable them.

 

[MongGrel]

I want no boots.

If you want to get really serious, nah you don't want to know.

OK I will, if you want to get ugly BUFFS and a lot of these.

End of problem.

Neutron bomb

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_bomb

 

[TreVader]

We should fuck them up, but not spend a lot of money doing it. And even fewer lives.


The US Navy have 22 missle cruisers and at least 2 aircraft carriers. The hard part would be getting as many ISIS guys in one place before you bomb them.

 

[xaeniac]

stay out of this mess....

 

[alzan]

Will do.

I'm not over in the region to know exactly what's going on. For me to take a stand on what should or should not be done is, to me, foolish. I'm not opposed to military intervention so long as it is deemed necessary by a consensus of people who are involved in the situation.

Military action is a necessity sometimes. But so long as the drought in the region continues, we're not actually solving a whole lot. And part of the water problem was Turkey damming up a few rivers cutting off water flow through Syria & Iraq. It's a delicate balance. The region needs international help to correct the recent problems, but at the same time aid cannot be seen as a positive response to a violent group.

So, yeah, I don't have a hard stance on what should or should not happen.

^This.

I'd much rather see the ME do something about it; they're in the region, they have the most to lose. We can certainly help with air and logistical support but for the good of the Americas and a lot of Europe, it should be Arab vs. Arab. We have more than enough historical perspective that shows how meddling in ME affairs can bite us in the ass...hard.

 

[werepossum]

I want no boots.

If you want to get really serious, nah you don't want to know.

OK I will, if you want to get ugly BUFFS and a lot of these.

End of problem.

Neutron bomb

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_bomb

I certainly wouldn't mind a return to ARCLIGHTS.

"ISIS has captured a major airport with eleven airliners!"

"Ten minutes from now that is going to be a field of craters. Problem solved."

I am against using the neutron bomb. I dislike the idea of leaving their buildings standing.

 

[DominionSeraph]

If Obama doesn't make a decision, I want a leader who doesn't have such a glaring lack of foreign policy on such an obviously important issue.

If Obama makes a decision, I want a leader who doesn't jump the gun.

If Obama's decision is to intervene, I'm against it because he's making us less safe. What do you think ISIL is going to do? They're not going to just sit there and take it.

If Obama's decision is not to intervene, I'm against it because he's making us less safe. How do you think ISIL is going to respond to such weakness? It's an open invitation to attack.

If Obama's decision is to only use air strikes, what's that going to accomplish? This is what you get from a President with no military experience, he has no concept of the lessons learned in Vietnam. I'm against such a stupid plan.

If Obama's decision is to put boots on the ground, it just shows how little he cares about American lives. Air strikes should be good enough. I'm against such an un-American plan.

And any Republican who agrees with Obama is a RINO and a traitor and needs to be voted out of office.

 

[Kadarin]

The real problem here is that Wahhabist Islamic ideology tends to lead to forms like the Taliban and ISIS. Not only does ISIS need and deserve extermination, Wahhabist ideology does as well. If that doesn't happen, another form of ISIS will return.

Islam believes in the superiority of Islam over all else.

My opinion is that every last member of ISIS deserves death at the hands of a drone strike.

 

[xaeniac]

My opinion is that every last member of ISIS deserves death at the hands of a drone strike.

The question is, how do you do this when they are hiding in schools and hospitals?

 

[Anarchist420]

Um, I don't want an american julius caesar ever coming to power. That is because ron paul could be accused of being responsible for a misfortune (when the problem was really too much centralization of power), then charged with treason, then executed by the american pontius pilate in the most brutal way possible when he can only help one individual at a time while trying to help everyone.

So I answered "stay out" because the U.S is in a similar position to the Roman Republic around the time Julius Caesar took power.

And that fucking sucks major cock because the vast majority of people who become "complete and supreme dictators" (as the good warren g harding who is now in heaven said when talking about the evil tom wilson) or simply members of any ruling class are tyrants and they arent really even satisfied no matter how much power they have. They become paranoid about losing any power which is highly correlated with their prenatal Testosterone and with STJ... for that i am paranoid about myself gaining power. i could become drugged or homeless and then have no choice but to become powerful. I even have a macho-monkeyish ruler-shaped body after all and it scares me, children, and women.

 

[master_shake_]

how is the american army going to stabilize a country they destabilized?

you broke it and you can't fix it.

 

[alcoholbob]

I prefer UN Authorization, the US engaging in more unilateral action leads to bad precedents.

 

[ivwshane]

The question is, how do you do this when they are hiding in schools and hospitals?

Exactly and even if there is a way, ISIL is an ideology, ideologies don't die just because you killed some people who held them.

It's a never ending endeavor.

 

[pcgeek11]

I'd support boots on the ground in Iraq. I'm thinking overwhelming force to push ISIS out of Iraq and back into Syria.

I don't support much in Syria. I fear supplying weapons to any side there may well end up being a mistake. I certainly wouldn't support any troops there. I guess i could support bombing ISIS targets in Syria, but that's about it.

Fern

I support this also. Push them all out of Iraq. The unfortunate part is they are basing in Syria, so I say Bomb the ever loving shite out of them there.

 

[pcgeek11]

The question is, how do you do this when they are hiding in schools and hospitals?

We could use the same method that Israel uses... No Quarter.

 

[trenchfoot]

I like the idea of pushing them out of Iraq, but now you have to spend a seemingly endless amount of resources keeping them out.

Ask Israel how that's going with Hamas and their interminable rocket launching/tunneling projects.

Cutting off ISIL's financing and logistics train is to me the immediate problem to solve.

The other really big problem facing the West is how to change the prevailing attitudes of those ISIL fighters who wish to turn the clock back on the region and establish a harsh and strict version of Islam on a population that won't be able to choose for themselves how they practice their religion.

It may be what the Middle East needs to attain some semblance of peace and quiet for all I know, but my western sense of freedom of religion is something I put my life on the line for, and I am as adamant toward protecting that freedom as those ISIL fighters are for establishing their forced version of Islam on the peoples over there.

 

[HOSED]

From what little I read IS is embedded with civilians so "collateral" civilian death and destruction are assured with US drone / plane bombing. So more people may tend to gather hatred for the US and join with our latest enemy

 

[Genx87]

Air strikes in Iraq. Iraq army needs to do the heavy lifting on the ground. Syria? Let Syria deal with these scumbags.

 

[Jaskalas]

From what little I read IS is embedded with civilians so "collateral" civilian death and destruction are assured with US drone / plane bombing. So more people may tend to gather hatred for the US and join with our latest enemy

ISIS requires supplies, they can be surrounded and cut off.

Not to give our people credit, but strikes can be done with intelligence against military targets that move out to attack Iraqi forces. It's not impossible to draw them out either, if they're looking for oil, food, water.

 

[bshole]

I support this also. Push them all out of Iraq. The unfortunate part is they are basing in Syria, so I say Bomb the ever loving shiite out of them there.

Pretty sure that they are Sunni, so they have no Shiite to bomb out.

No intervention. This group is a bitter bitter enemy of Iran. Let them duke it out with Iran.