It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: Willtell
And us boots on the ground would make it worse, how do you ignore that truth?
We have to let other middle east countries carry the load.
originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: crazyewok
you should know Im about as Anti war on ATS as it gets.
I was against Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and any future wars against Iran.
So you are for violating Syrian and Iraqi Sovereign territory now, though?
Just say it… Boots on Ground!
if Israel sends an army to Iraq, the # has well and truly hit the fan.
originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: tothetenthpower
Last time I checked the atlas, there were 2 stand-out allies a lot closer to the action than the continental US of A.
Mobilization of ground forces from Saudi Arabia and Israel should be considered, nay, demanded.
Geographically, militarily and $$ wise it makes more sense and if either of them said no then the US should personally cut all diplomatic ties - just to say thanks for helping out, having their backs and assisting to collectively address this issue.
Gloves are off - so far, both those countries have delivered a plague of **crickets** regarding ISIS.
I mean WTF!!!!
The US needs to concentrate on the state of it's own back yard before jumping back over the fence to help clean up someone elses.
That's right, I forgot..........bloody Oil and Gas, oh well, I guess the US will need to deliver 3.3 Mega-freedoms of democracy to ISIS's doors if it wants to secure those assets.
originally posted by: EternalSolace
I can say that I'm tired of it. America and Britain are not the only countries out there with a military. ISIS has executed people from many different nations. It's time for some of them to step up to the plate as well. I mean, ISIS has killed people from France, Japan, Israel, America, UK, and who knows how many other countries. They even killed three Chinese, even though they were fighting with ISIS. But the point remains...
ISIS needs to be put down, but America shouldn't be spearheading everything all the time.
regardless of what force opposes them that situation is the same. Granted our troops would be a hell lot more effective in clearing the city but where does it end after that? It's an easy situation to get involved in and a hard one to exit.
originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: sg1642
Holding thousands of people hostage is one reason.
Murdering all non mooslims and raping children and marring them is another reason
originally posted by: sg1642
if Israel sends an army to Iraq, the # has well and truly hit the fan.
originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: tothetenthpower
Last time I checked the atlas, there were 2 stand-out allies a lot closer to the action than the continental US of A.
Mobilization of ground forces from Saudi Arabia and Israel should be considered, nay, demanded.
Geographically, militarily and $$ wise it makes more sense and if either of them said no then the US should personally cut all diplomatic ties - just to say thanks for helping out, having their backs and assisting to collectively address this issue.
Gloves are off - so far, both those countries have delivered a plague of **crickets** regarding ISIS.
I mean WTF!!!!
The US needs to concentrate on the state of it's own back yard before jumping back over the fence to help clean up someone elses.
That's right, I forgot..........bloody Oil and Gas, oh well, I guess the US will need to deliver 3.3 Mega-freedoms of democracy to ISIS's doors if it wants to secure those assets.
originally posted by: bucsarg
I'm totally against another USA lead ground offensive. I will support USA providing training and weapons. It's time for other countries to send in ground troops. It's time for Muslim nations to step up as well.
a reply to: tothetenthpower
the British army has been over stretched and war weary since the dawn of time to be fair. It's almost a tradition. the average French infanteer isn't much better a soldier than those in the Middle East either.
originally posted by: crazyewok
originally posted by: bucsarg
I'm totally against another USA lead ground offensive. I will support USA providing training and weapons. It's time for other countries to send in ground troops. It's time for Muslim nations to step up as well.
a reply to: tothetenthpower
You see US foreign policy over the last 60 years has seen most of Europe disarm itself.
US have put itself in the position of being the sole military power in the west.
Ok the US has let both France and UK keep credible projection forces.
Yet the UK has been at the side of the US in every war in the last 30 years. So thanks to again your foreign police we are over stretched and war weary.
So that leaves France...... They have formidable forces but doubt they can go in alone.
originally posted by: sg1642
regardless of what force opposes them that situation is the same. Granted our troops would be a hell lot more effective in clearing the city but where does it end after that? It's an easy situation to get involved in and a hard one to exit.
originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: sg1642
Holding thousands of people hostage is one reason.
Murdering all non mooslims and raping children and marring them is another reason
yep. The smaller the military footprint in Iraq the better. But what is there has to count. Intelligence gathering, fire support, training and mentoring can be provided by special forces. The key to this mess lies in the Middle East. In Iraq and the countries surrounding it. The people of the Middle East need to learn to become cooperative and sort this mess out. Yes it's not their mess to clean up it's ours, that much is true but regardless of that it is a very real problem and it is on their doorstep.
originally posted by: deadeyedick
originally posted by: sg1642
regardless of what force opposes them that situation is the same. Granted our troops would be a hell lot more effective in clearing the city but where does it end after that? It's an easy situation to get involved in and a hard one to exit.
originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: sg1642
Holding thousands of people hostage is one reason.
Murdering all non mooslims and raping children and marring them is another reason
Good point.
I think many heroic stories often end after the day is saved and there is never much thought givin to part 2
and Mr tax payer will pick up the bill.
originally posted by: PizzaAnyday505
a reply to: tothetenthpower
If creation of ISIS costs 1 billion lets say
But military complex makes 10 billion of the war
That's profit, of course minus small things like countless dead and destroyed lives