Should U.S. Target ISIS In Syria?

[Tigermike 3,043]

"Military brass, ex-officials pressure White House to expand ISIS fight to Syria"

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/08/22/military-brass-ex-officials-pressure-white-house-to-expand-isis-fight-to-syria/

[channonc 466]

Well, I can see why it is a difficult choice to move into Syria to attack ISIS, as in essence we would be helping al-Assad. If we try to get rid of al-Assad, we are helping ISIS. I don't think it is as simple as just following them across different borders.

[Tigermike 3,043]

It is a mixed up mess to choose from isn't it. But I think ISIS needs to be eliminated. Then whoever is fighting Assad can be helped.

[TexasTiger 12,967]

Yes we should.

[AUUSN 823]

How much is the American public willing to spend? Sequestration has consequences. I say. 'Lets Roll'

#AmessagefromISIStoUS We are in your state We are in your cities We are in your streets You are our goals anywhere

5:47 PM - 9 Aug 2014

[autigeremt 6,657]

Well, I can see why it is a difficult choice to move into Syria to attack ISIS, as in essence we would be helping al-Assad. If we try to get rid of al-Assad, we are helping ISIS. I don't think it is as simple as just following them across different borders.

The lesser of two evils is ISIS. We must destroy them. And I mean destroy. We are going to have to deal with them one way or the other, and I'd like to start by hitting them in droves.

[TexasTiger 12,967]

Well, I can see why it is a difficult choice to move into Syria to attack ISIS, as in essence we would be helping al-Assad. If we try to get rid of al-Assad, we are helping ISIS. I don't think it is as simple as just following them across different borders.

The lesser of two evils is ISIS. We must destroy them. And I mean destroy. We are going to have to deal with them one way or the other, and I'd like to start by hitting them in droves.

Then they're the greater of two evils.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

No one can eliminate ISIS without doing it in their stronghold......Syria. Too bad they don't take out Assad and then we take them out.

[Tigermike 3,043]

"Hostage-Taking Central to Islamic State Strategy in Syria"

http://m.us.wsj.com/articles/hostage-taking-central-to-islamic-state-strategy-in-syria-1408711183?mobile=y

[alexava 6,973]

Here we go again.

[Tigermike 3,043]

Here we go again.

Should they not?

[Tigermike 3,043]

"Islamic State goes beyond a terror group with its tactics"

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/08/22/isil-hagel-pentagon-iraq/14437665/

[channonc 466]

Well, I can see why it is a difficult choice to move into Syria to attack ISIS, as in essence we would be helping al-Assad. If we try to get rid of al-Assad, we are helping ISIS. I don't think it is as simple as just following them across different borders.

The lesser of two evils is ISIS. We must destroy them. And I mean destroy. We are going to have to deal with them one way or the other, and I'd like to start by hitting them in droves.

Not saying I don't want to destroy them, but I also want this to be given careful consideration with those in the government that possess far more information than me on this subject. I want pros and cons weighed, I want to ensure that destroying them does not give rise to an even worse group-- much like we have now seen in Iraq. All I am saying is we need to proceed with caution and make sure we are having very serious conversations with our European allies. We must be on the same page (unlike how we have dealt with those being held by ISIS).

[alexava 6,973]

Here we go again.

Should they not?

i dont know. I need to know what is to be gained. what are the costs, chance of success. Is there always going to be someone to fight in Iraq? I do think we as a nation owe the people of Iraq who want a peaceful existence some help in obtaining it. we took it from them and called it "Iraqi Freedom". we cant stop the secular,civil war but maybe can blast this ISIS or L or whatever they call themselves. I guess we have to, but like my first sentence says i really dont know.

[cooltigger21 0]

Absolutely we should. You have to have a concerted effort to take these people out. Knocking them out of Iraq but leaving them in Syria is like taking out the cancer in your lung but leaving the cancer in your liver.

[Tigermike 3,043]

Do you think Obama has a philosophy, a worldview that can encompass his doing what he would need to do to war on ISIS successfully? Whatever that may be? Does he have the conviction and the nads for the long haul?

Eli Lake thinks so. Obama vs. ISIS: This Time It's Personal

But I'm really not sure. I hope and pray if he decides to go after ISIS that he will do it with no reservations. That he and his administration will not micromanage the war but let the military do what they do and what they think needs to be done.

[cooltigger21 0]

Well, I can see why it is a difficult choice to move into Syria to attack ISIS, as in essence we would be helping al-Assad. If we try to get rid of al-Assad, we are helping ISIS. I don't think it is as simple as just following them across different borders.

The lesser of two evils is ISIS. We must destroy them. And I mean destroy. We are going to have to deal with them one way or the other, and I'd like to start by hitting them in droves.

Not saying I don't want to destroy them, but I also want this to be given careful consideration with those in the government that possess far more information than me on this subject. I want pros and cons weighed, I want to ensure that destroying them does not give rise to an even worse group-- much like we have now seen in Iraq. All I am saying is we need to proceed with caution and make sure we are having very serious conversations with our European allies. We must be on the same page (unlike how we have dealt with those being held by ISIS).

ISIS did not come about because of our involvement in Iraq. That is the big misconception out there. Isis, Hamas, Hezbollah, Al-Qeida, they are all the same. They may have slightly different tactics but they are all the same with the same goal in mind, establishing the worldwide islamic caliphate. ISIS was known under a previous name, which hasn't been told too often. They were one known as Al-Qeida in Iraq.

[Tigermike 3,043]

ISIS was too brutal, too bloodthirsty for AlQuada.

"A New Kind of Terrorist Threat

There's a good reason no one is protesting Obama's bombing of Iraq"

http://m.us.wsj.com/articles/a-new-kind-of-terrorist-threat-1408662080?mobile=y

[cooltigger21 0]

ISIS was too brutal, too bloodthirsty for AlQuada.

"A New Kind of Terrorist Threat

There's a good reason no one is protesting Obama's bombing of Iraq"

http://m.us.wsj.com/...662080?mobile=y

that is another misconception. There were beheadings and brutal terrorist activites long before Isis was known. Remember Richard Pearl? The taliban has been performing executions for years. Six of one half a dozen of the other.

[alexava 6,973]

Well, I can see why it is a difficult choice to move into Syria to attack ISIS, as in essence we would be helping al-Assad. If we try to get rid of al-Assad, we are helping ISIS. I don't think it is as simple as just following them across different borders.

The lesser of two evils is ISIS. We must destroy them. And I mean destroy. We are going to have to deal with them one way or the other, and I'd like to start by hitting them in droves.

Not saying I don't want to destroy them, but I also want this to be given careful consideration with those in the government that possess far more information than me on this subject. I want pros and cons weighed, I want to ensure that destroying them does not give rise to an even worse group-- much like we have now seen in Iraq. All I am saying is we need to proceed with caution and make sure we are having very serious conversations with our European allies. We must be on the same page (unlike how we have dealt with those being held by ISIS).

ISIS did not come about because of our involvement in Iraq. That is the big misconception out there. Isis, Hamas, Hezbollah, Al-Qeida, they are all the same. They may have slightly different tactics but they are all the same with the same goal in mind, establishing the worldwide islamic caliphate. ISIS was known under a previous name, which hasn't been told too often. They were one known as Al-Qeida in Iraq.

Iraq was in control of Iraq because the extremist feared Saddam. We removed that fear. We gained nothing by doing so. We gave them what they want and need. so it did come about from our involvement.

[TexasTiger 12,967]

Well, I can see why it is a difficult choice to move into Syria to attack ISIS, as in essence we would be helping al-Assad. If we try to get rid of al-Assad, we are helping ISIS. I don't think it is as simple as just following them across different borders.

The lesser of two evils is ISIS. We must destroy them. And I mean destroy. We are going to have to deal with them one way or the other, and I'd like to start by hitting them in droves.

Not saying I don't want to destroy them, but I also want this to be given careful consideration with those in the government that possess far more information than me on this subject. I want pros and cons weighed, I want to ensure that destroying them does not give rise to an even worse group-- much like we have now seen in Iraq. All I am saying is we need to proceed with caution and make sure we are having very serious conversations with our European allies. We must be on the same page (unlike how we have dealt with those being held by ISIS).

ISIS did not come about because of our involvement in Iraq. That is the big misconception out there. Isis, Hamas, Hezbollah, Al-Qeida, they are all the same. They may have slightly different tactics but they are all the same with the same goal in mind, establishing the worldwide islamic caliphate. ISIS was known under a previous name, which hasn't been told too often. They were one known as Al-Qeida in Iraq.

Iraq was in control of Iraq because the extremist feared Saddam. We removed that fear. We gained nothing by doing so. We gave them what they want and need. so it did come about from our involvement.

We did what Iran and jihadist couldn't do for themselves.

[alexava 6,973]

Well, I can see why it is a difficult choice to move into Syria to attack ISIS, as in essence we would be helping al-Assad. If we try to get rid of al-Assad, we are helping ISIS. I don't think it is as simple as just following them across different borders.

The lesser of two evils is ISIS. We must destroy them. And I mean destroy. We are going to have to deal with them one way or the other, and I'd like to start by hitting them in droves.

Not saying I don't want to destroy them, but I also want this to be given careful consideration with those in the government that possess far more information than me on this subject. I want pros and cons weighed, I want to ensure that destroying them does not give rise to an even worse group-- much like we have now seen in Iraq. All I am saying is we need to proceed with caution and make sure we are having very serious conversations with our European allies. We must be on the same page (unlike how we have dealt with those being held by ISIS).

ISIS did not come about because of our involvement in Iraq. That is the big misconception out there. Isis, Hamas, Hezbollah, Al-Qeida, they are all the same. They may have slightly different tactics but they are all the same with the same goal in mind, establishing the worldwide islamic caliphate. ISIS was known under a previous name, which hasn't been told too often. They were one known as Al-Qeida in Iraq.

Iraq was in control of Iraq because the extremist feared Saddam. We removed that fear. We gained nothing by doing so. We gave them what they want and need. so it did come about from our involvement.

We did what Iran and jihadist couldn't do for themselves.

just opened the door for them.

[AUUSN 823]

Iraq was ten years ago. Keep harping on it if you must but we are currently in a new asymetric warfare. There will always be more unkowns heading into battle, now it's all about the adjustments.

[alexava 6,973]

Iraq was ten years ago. Keep harping on it if you must but we are currently in a new asymetric warfare. There will always be more unkowns heading into battle, now it's all about the adjustments.

well i was replying to the charge that our involvement didnt cause the current problem. it obviously did. you are right as now we have a new war. we just need to look ahead 10 years and ask ourselves if it is worth it. so yes i harp.

[Tigermike 3,043]

Iraq was ten years ago. Keep harping on it if you must but we are currently in a new asymetric warfare. There will always be more unkowns heading into battle, now it's all about the adjustments.

well i was replying to the charge that our involvement didnt cause the current problem. it obviously did. you are right as now we have a new war. we just need to look ahead 10 years and ask ourselves if it is worth it. so yes i harp.

You say ask if it's worth it, is there any other choice?