Obama: I will send US troops to fight ISIS if they get nukes

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

I do not support U.S. or Allied troop involvement, aside from our allies already in the ME. I believe that the theatre should be allowed to play out regionally. Let the ME fight it out and if the victor is not in our favor and attempts to go beyond the region, then the U.S. and our allies still standing and/or standing with us should exterminate them.

I realize that the ME is a mess, and we (U.S.) have shared in creating the beasts which currently reside there. Our mistakes in the ME will cost U.S. troops their lives. The U.S. and any willing allies must either finish the game or walk away. I believe we should walk away, go silent, and keep our hands out of the fire. This is not an American problem. This is a lost cause. Walk away, or be prepared to nuke and be nuked.

originally posted by: Wookiep
This is just the same old "weapons of mass destruction" sell again to put boots on the ground in the ME. Rinse, wash, repeat. Nothing ever changes...

Obama is not a war president if seen with impartial light. He is more of a "war ender" than "war starter". Even where his hand is forced by pleas and shouts like in Libya 2011, he will go to the maximum to avoid putting boots on the ground.

Case of nukes in the hands of fanatic group like ISIS is different. Any and all nations should/would run/ship/deploy their troops to thousands of miles away in order to fight off and destroy a terrorist group which has gotten its hands on the nukes. Worst, ISIS has a barbaric history of mass crimes so heinous and brutal that world would not care if ISIS troop concentrations are itself NUKED.

a reply to: xuenchen

Ding, Ding, "Hold Tight Now",

originally posted by: mysterioustranger
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs
It is exactly the same as the "they-got-weapons-of-mass-destruction-we-gotta-go-ther-with boots n-die-in-the-process". What, you missed that story?

Actually, it isnt.

See, Saddam and Iraq was done under Bush's term. You know Bush? the same guy that had a hand in the planning and execution of 911?

Saddam and Iraq were no threat to anyone, accept themselves. They didn't do anything wrong, they didn't threaten the US and they weren't beheading western folk.

Now ISIS, ISIS are threatening everyone. ISIS and gaining so much control and ground that eventually they will take a stake of Pakistan and BOOM - nuclear weapons.

Saddam always had chemical weapons in the 80's and early 90's and never used them against the west.

If ISIS got their hands on a nuclear weapon, how long do you think until they use it?

Sometime, you all need to think, pull your head out your ''American number 1'' behind and understand the world isnt black and white and everything your hearing on the TV is a load of crap.

it might make you think a little more clearly.

a reply to: Agit8dChop

Ok....Im gonna throw this out there....Im certified in Emergency Management by Homeland Security/FEMA, and trained as a 1st responder. Ok...THAT ISNT MY ISSUE....Im using that so its can be understood this comes up in training all the time....

Its one thing to have a nuke....another thing to have the firing mechanism TO use it...and thirdly...a DELIVERY system to get it to the target...even in the middle of a mall or city.

So...they have 3 things to deal with....$$$$$, access, convenience or not...

1. They need to HAVE one that will function....all parts without fail
2. They need to have a working control/firing/operations system...all parts without fail....INCLUDING along with #1 above
3. They need a way to deliver it. (Admittingly, this is the easiest if they just want to set it off and not SEND it off).

Its highly unlikely...and highly improbable...but not impossible...to get all those together and working with each other without fail....to go off.

I dont see them being able to get it all together even with their oil $$$$.

Now...a radiological weapon? Now thats something else. They could pull that off in a nano-second almost anywhere....