Tigermike 3,078 Posted August 22, 2014 Share Posted August 22, 2014 "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/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
channonc 466 Posted August 22, 2014 Share Posted August 22, 2014 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigermike 3,078 Posted August 22, 2014 Author Share Posted August 22, 2014 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 13,138 Posted August 22, 2014 Share Posted August 22, 2014 Yes we should. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUUSN 823 Posted August 22, 2014 Share Posted August 22, 2014 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
autigeremt 6,776 Posted August 22, 2014 Share Posted August 22, 2014 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 13,138 Posted August 22, 2014 Share Posted August 22, 2014 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Proud Tiger 4,261 Posted August 22, 2014 Share Posted August 22, 2014 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigermike 3,078 Posted August 22, 2014 Author Share Posted August 22, 2014 "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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexava 6,973 Posted August 22, 2014 Share Posted August 22, 2014 Here we go again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigermike 3,078 Posted August 22, 2014 Author Share Posted August 22, 2014 Here we go again. Should they not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigermike 3,078 Posted August 22, 2014 Author Share Posted August 22, 2014 "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/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
channonc 466 Posted August 22, 2014 Share Posted August 22, 2014 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). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexava 6,973 Posted August 22, 2014 Share Posted August 22, 2014 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooltigger21 0 Posted August 22, 2014 Share Posted August 22, 2014 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigermike 3,078 Posted August 22, 2014 Author Share Posted August 22, 2014 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooltigger21 0 Posted August 23, 2014 Share Posted August 23, 2014 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigermike 3,078 Posted August 23, 2014 Author Share Posted August 23, 2014 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooltigger21 0 Posted August 23, 2014 Share Posted August 23, 2014 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexava 6,973 Posted August 23, 2014 Share Posted August 23, 2014 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 13,138 Posted August 23, 2014 Share Posted August 23, 2014 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexava 6,973 Posted August 23, 2014 Share Posted August 23, 2014 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUUSN 823 Posted August 23, 2014 Share Posted August 23, 2014 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexava 6,973 Posted August 23, 2014 Share Posted August 23, 2014 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigermike 3,078 Posted August 23, 2014 Author Share Posted August 23, 2014 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.