We bomb them and they’ll probably retreat. What happens when we stop bombing them?

They just come back.

It seems to me that President Obama is good at reading the polls. The American people want to do something about ISIS, but the polls say they don't want troops on the ground. I'm not a military expert, but I believe for a bombing campaign to be really effective, we need troops on the ground to identity the targets. There's only so much you can do through the air.

Is it really wise to arm the Syrian Rebels? How moderate are they? The rebels in Syria have beheaded people as well. Also, a spokesperson for one of the families of the slain American journalist, says they believe the rebels in Syria took their son, and traded him to ISIS for cash. The Obama Admin refutes the claim , but it’s spooky to think we're going to train and arm people we don't know a whole lot about.

Why do I have a hunch that in 10-20 years we'll regret giving some of these rebels arms? Didn’t we do that in the '80s with the Taliban? They were fighting the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, so we armed them. Twenty years later they used the weapons we gave them against us. Feels like history is repeating itself all over again.

Honestly, though, I’m very torn on this whole thing. Part me believes we should just stay out and let the region take care of itself. No matter what we do, there are always going to barbaric people in the world that want to kill Americans. However, there's part of me that believes that is incredibly naive. Seems to me we're approaching this with a half measure. Perhaps we should go all in or all out. Again, I’m pretty torn on this.

Originally Posted by: porky88 

We bomb them and they’ll probably retreat. What happens when we stop bombing them?

They just come back.

It seems to me that President Obama is good at reading the polls. The American people want to do something about ISIS, but the polls say they don't want troops on the ground. I'm not a military expert, but I believe for a bombing campaign to be really effective, we need troops on the ground to identity the targets. There's only so much you can do through the air.

Is it really wise to arm the Syrian Rebels? How moderate are they? The rebels in Syria have beheaded people as well. Also, a spokesperson for one of the families of the slain American journalist, says they believe the rebels in Syria took their son, and traded him to ISIS for cash. The Obama Admin refutes the claim , but it’s spooky to think we're going to train and arm people we don't know a whole lot about.

Why do I have a hunch that in 10-20 years we'll regret giving some of these rebels arms? Didn’t we do that in the '80s with the Taliban? They were fighting the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, so we armed them. Twenty years later they used the weapons we gave them against us. Feels like history is repeating itself all over again.

Honestly, though, I’m very torn on this whole thing. Part me believes we should just stay out and let the region take care of itself. No matter what we do, there are always going to barbaric people in the world that want to kill Americans. However, there's part of me that believes that is incredibly naive. Seems to me we're approaching this with a half measure. Perhaps we should go all in or all out. Again, I’m pretty torn on this.

Originally Posted by: porky88 

I believe in the way the Founders set up the separation of powers, so I would want a Congressional declaration. None of this "resolution" crap; that's as bad as war-by-executive-order. I would be okay with the vote taking place electronically (to speed the reaction), but I would want a declaration.

The reality, though, is I'm not sure we're capable of electing that kind of Congress any more. They're too worried about what CNN and the New York Times says.

And as far as the UN goes, I could care less what they think anymore. I've come to believe that Wilsonian internationalism is about a bad an idea as people have ever come up with.

I'm very Clausewitzian in my approach to war. Avoid war if you can. Never shoot first. But if someone else shoots first, and if we're stuck with these nation things (as opposed to the anarchic ideal I dream of), then if you fight, you fight until its over. Until the other side surrenders to your will unconditionally and completely.

I don't believe in armies as peacekeepers. I believe armies are there to beat the shit out of the scumbags who attacked you and ensure they roll over on their back like the pissants they are.

(Not surprisingly, no one is going to hire me to teach military history any time soon. I can hide a lot of my non-PC character, but I couldn't do it if I were teaching war, strategic and tactical choice, etc.)

(On the other hand, maybe I'm not qualified anyway, given that I've never had to deal with lead flying over my head.)

Originally Posted by: Wade 

I always hear liberals say, "the majority of Muslims are good people."

Here's the problem. Its common practice in Muslim countries for little girls to be forced into marriage. If the majority of Muslims are good people, why do they allow this to happen? If the majority of Muslims are good people, why do they allow women to be stoned to death?

And if the majority of Pakistanis are peace loving Muslims, why did they let Bin Laden hide out there for so long?

Originally Posted by: IronMan 

So, your recommendation is?

Originally Posted by: DoddPower 

Stop funding them. We send hundreds of millions of dollars every year in "aid" to these shitholes. And they use the money to buy weapons, fund terrorist groups/suicide bombers, etc. We will never stop them from trying to kill us. But we cann stop helping them do it.

Originally Posted by: IronMan 

Stop funding them. We send hundreds of millions of dollars every year in "aid" to these shitholes. And they use the money to buy weapons, fund terrorist groups/suicide bombers, etc. We will never stop them from trying to kill us. But we cann stop helping them do it.

Originally Posted by: IronMan 

I think we could use more of that "aid" right here in the 'ole U.S.A. If nothing else (and among many other things), the highways through the Central Valley of CA are some of the worse I have ever driven on. They are simply horrible. Especially Highway 99, pretty much the main road through the Central Valley. Pathetic.

Originally Posted by: DoddPower