In fact, I think another ground war would actually piss off the American people.

Oh absolutely. We just don't have the WWII levels of confidence Americans had in the Armed Forces today. Granted WWII was a completely different time and type of war, today the American people are starting to ask questions about what we do, and want to be more involved, especially after the bloody war of Vietnam. That war was so instrumental, I personally mark it the beginning of the 21st century, as it changed so much in America. Also, once people have a mindset of "Down with the War" or "Is it in America's best interest to fight these people?", it's hard to change them. With that said though, in many cases, I applaud the American people to be skeptical, and ask questions about the intentions of their government. An unchecked government is a bad government. 

 

I agree with that, it is not a war to be fought on the ground, it would only backlash onto us. However constant military support from forces such as France, US & UK will support their own development. There is no way that we can try to make them Western, but we can bring an end to the unrest in the region. Support their Government and allow their own armed forces to fight back will be the best way forwards, if things are too difficult for them then they can have our support. But they should be able to count on us for support, letting them continue to spread extremism is not in our best interest. People who have been brainwashed into being martyrs and carrying out acts for their God will only see the West as a threat and will continue to attempt attacks. 

What I don't justify is the attitude of sit back and let it happen, "its not our problem", well it soon will be. Certainly for Europe, they can access pretty much from anywhere, even England (being an island) isn't untouchable, they can come from Turkey or Africa or Russia if they want. It's only a matter of time. 

Well said, obviously we'll have to coexist with the people in the Middle East for peace, because we can't just eradicate them because we don't like them. Additionally, the vast majority of Muslims anyways are not the radical extremists of Al-Qaeda, ISIL, Al-Shabaab, ect. 

 

We can't just ignore this, the debate comes into how we shouldn't ignore this. Military Action? Tried it. Withdraw completely? Unlikely/Impossible. Coalitions? Perhaps. Unilateral decisions? Works sometimes, but often influences more people to join for their cause. 

 

It's a fine line, but I think our Military forces are doing a good job with the task at hand. Very noticeably they have learned what's worked and what's not, and are actively adapting new strategies. 

At the end of the day, how much more indication of a 'clear and present danger' does the Western world need?

 

"A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan executed next week." - George S. Patton

Oh absolutely. We just don't have the WWII levels of confidence Americans had in the Armed Forces today. Granted WWII was a completely different time and type of war, today the American people are starting to ask questions about what we do, and want to be more involved, especially after the bloody war of Vietnam. That war was so instrumental, I personally mark it the beginning of the 21st century, as it changed so much in America. Also, once people have a mindset of "Down with the War" or "Is it in America's best interest to fight these people?", it's hard to change them. With that said though, in many cases, I applaud the American people to be skeptical, and ask questions about the intentions of their government. An unchecked government is a bad government. 

 

Well said, obviously we'll have to coexist with the people in the Middle East for peace, because we can't just eradicate them because we don't like them. Additionally, the vast majority of Muslims anyways are not the radical extremists of Al-Qaeda, ISIL, Al-Shabaab, ect. 

 

We can't just ignore this, the debate comes into how we shouldn't ignore this. Military Action? Tried it. Withdraw completely? Unlikely/Impossible. Coalitions? Perhaps. Unilateral decisions? Works sometimes, but often influences more people to join for their cause. 

 

It's a fine line, but I think our Military forces are doing a good job with the task at hand. Very noticeably they have learned what's worked and what's not, and are actively adapting new strategies. 

I agree, and some even say that a government that fears it's people is a good government. The government should fear the people, not the other way around.

"A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan executed next week." - George S. Patton

"Have patience. All things are difficult before they become easy." -Saadi

Edited February 4, 201511 yr by CriminalKillaz

I think to go into Iraq, again, would prove we've learned nothing from the past 50-60 years of military adventurism. It doesn't end well, especially when our army isn't particularly effective against insurgencies defending their homeland or whatever they've laid claim to. Military interventionism just breeds further conflict. 

 

Lets look at the 2003 Iraq War. The Iraqi army was little to no trouble for coalition forces. The problems came from the insurgency that followed the toppling of the Iraqi government (an insurgency that did not exist before our invasion). So we stay for several years, the body count grows as we attempted to establish the Iraqi government. We left, and look what happened. These kind of interventions never truly end. Unless you're dedicated to spending trillions of dollars for decades, this practice will not succeed. 

 

A distinction that needs to be made, and too often people either ignore or discredit, is that non-interventionism is not isolationism. The U.S. can participate in the world economy and world politics without going on military adventures whenever "U.S. interests" are threatened. 

Well Jordan hanged their prisoner as well as another suspected terrorist, in response to IS. Good for you, Jordan. If only the rest of the world had a pair.

do you really think the muslim in chief is going to attack his own creation? keep dreaming

do you really think the muslim in chief is going to attack his own creation? keep dreaming

I hear this stuff makes quite a nice hat. 

Edited February 4, 201511 yr by SIR_Sergeant

My opinion still stands that japan should have a regular military like all other countries, they paid for the damages and apologize for what they did, plus we happen to be good trading partners with them and they are our allies,  I think they've had enough already.  

The Japanese are not that interested in building up a large army. They have a defense force that is sufficient enough to protect themselves and they also have a huge backing from the U.S. so they are doing pretty well for themselves actually.

 

I don't want us to be world police. Definitely against that, but when the US is having their citizens executed for no reason, then that goes beyond just being world police. Now this is happening all over the world with different countries' citizens, and their influence is sparking domestic terrorism. Normally I wouldn't care if this was just an issue in the Middle East, but it's not. If left unchecked, they'll grow in power and influence. They went from peasant hill dwellers, to fanatics that have control of parts of countries with modern military equipment. 

Again, how is this different than what is going on in Africa. There are U.S. citizens getting killed in Africa and just like there are US citizens joining ISIS there are also US citizens going to Africa to fight there too. The only difference is that the media doesn't talk about it so few people know what is going on. Boko Haram is also growing in power and influence but I don't see anyone saying we need to go into West Africa and stop them. Boko Haram controls large parts of Nigeria and Niger, they also have ties to ISIS and al-Qaida and they have been around a lot longer than ISIS.

do you really think the muslim in chief is going to attack his own creation? keep dreaming

This is what I mean when I say this stuff gets funny.

Im willing to hear you out man, even if it doesn't make any logical sense. Do you mind elaborating? What and who is this "Muslim in chief"? What is his creation? Why wouldn't this Chief attack his own? Any sources or links or facts or proof?

 

 

Again, how is this different than what is going on in Africa. There are U.S. citizens getting killed in Africa and just like there are US citizens joining ISIS there are also US citizens going to Africa to fight there too. The only difference is that the media doesn't talk about it so few people know what is going on. Boko Haram is also growing in power and influence but I don't see anyone saying we need to go into West Africa and stop them. Boko Haram controls large parts of Nigeria and Niger, they also have ties to ISIS and al-Qaida and they have been around a lot longer than ISIS.

 Because they're directly responsible for attacks in the West. They're ideology is responsible for many attacks that have been foiled. It's not a matter of if, but when there is another attack in the US. At some point, we will have another 9/11 or Charlie Hebdo. I'd prefer not to wait for it to happen.

 

I don't differentiate between al-Qaeda and IS. While their long term goals are different, they're both Islamic extremists who would kill you if you were Christian, Jewish, or "Western". They use the same tactics. Besides, many cells of the taliban and al-Qaeda have joined with IS. Haram is just another warlord who has ties to IS. Going after him would prove futile. "Cut off the head of the snake". While that is harder said than done, the problem and "leaders" originate in the Middle East not Africa.

This is what I mean when I say this stuff gets funny.

Im willing to hear you out man, even if it doesn't make any logical sense. Do you mind elaborating? What and who is this "Muslim in chief"? What is his creation? Why wouldn't this Chief attack his own? Any sources or links or facts or proof?

No need to play stupid. Everyone knows who he is talking about and it is just trolling. Don't need to go into more detail about it because it is not related to this topic.

 

 Because they're directly responsible for attacks in the West. They're ideology is responsible for many attacks that have been foiled. It's not a matter of if, but when there is another attack in the US. At some point, we will have another 9/11 or Charlie Hebdo. I'd prefer not to wait for it to happen.

 

I don't differentiate between al-Qaeda and IS. While their long term goals are different, they're both Islamic extremists who would kill you if you were Christian, Jewish, or "Western". They use the same tactics. Besides, many cells of the taliban and al-Qaeda have joined with IS. Haram is just another warlord who has ties to IS. Going after him would prove futile. "Cut off the head of the snake". While that is harder said than done, the problem and "leaders" originate in the Middle East not Africa.

If we do what you suggest then we will never leave the middle east. No matter what we do there will always be groups over there that hate us and want to kill us. I feel like nobody has learned anything about the last 14 years. 8 year in Iraq and this is the result. Why is the result going to be any different the next time? In the end it comes down to the population of those countries, they allowed it to happen. All of this time and money we spent training the Iraqi Security Forces and they got rolled over by the same people they were fighting when we were there. The War on Terror is just like the War on Drugs, they are both never ending. I say instead of wasting all this manpower and money on fighting over pieces of land that nobody cares about (even the people that live there apparently) we should invest in better security measures and new technology to prevent attacks because that will keep us safer than fighting a never ending war.

 

How is going after Boko Haram futile but going after IS is not. Is it because another person will take over and continue Boko Haram's mission? Why would that be any different than organizations like al-Qaeda or IS? They will just have another person step up and take over.

Just wanted to mention that this debate coming from two separate standpoints by two military veterans is rather an interesting argument. Nice to see two military guys share their different opinions on the same topic.

If we do what you suggest then we will never leave the middle east. No matter what we do there will always be groups over there that hate us and want to kill us. I feel like nobody has learned anything about the last 14 years. 8 year in Iraq and this is the result. Why is the result going to be any different the next time? In the end it comes down to the population of those countries, they allowed it to happen. All of this time and money we spent training the Iraqi Security Forces and they got rolled over by the same people they were fighting when we were there. The War on Terror is just like the War on Drugs, they are both never ending. I say instead of wasting all this manpower and money on fighting over pieces of land that nobody cares about (even the people that live there apparently) we should invest in better security measures and new technology to prevent attacks because that will keep us safer than fighting a never ending war.

How is going after Boko Haram futile but going after IS is not. Is it because another person will take over and continue Boko Haram's mission? Why would that be any different than organizations like al-Qaeda or IS? They will just have another person step up and take over.

I agree. We'll never leave the ME. People were already calling it when we were all Iraq; "even if we eliminate IS, another group will come along." and that's exactly what happened. We'll never purge the idea of extremism from the ME. I'm more concerned with IS than I ever was with Al-Qaeda, due to the fact that them rapidly expanding in both area, and military equipment. The rag-tag armies of Syria, Iraq, etc are no match for IS's numbers. Those armies are barely trained, and corruption is rampant. Now IS has been getting free equipment everytime they over run a military position.

IS has leadership (if you can even call it that) in the ME. Haram is just another idiot waving a Qu'ran around. If we destroy their leadership, eventually IS will crumble away.

Even if we invest in security measures, at some point they'll fail. At some point an attack will happen. No matter what we do. I, personally, don't like standing idly by while a growing threat against the entire West builds.

I agree. We'll never leave the ME. People were already calling it when we were all Iraq; "even if we eliminate IS, another group will come along." and that's exactly what happened. We'll never purge the idea of extremism from the ME. I'm more concerned with IS than I ever was with Al-Qaeda, due to the fact that them rapidly expanding in both area, and military equipment. The rag-tag armies of Syria, Iraq, etc are no match for IS's numbers. Those armies are barely trained, and corruption is rampant. Now IS has been getting free equipment everytime they over run a military position.

IS has leadership (if you can even call it that) in the ME. Haram is just another idiot waving a Qu'ran around. If we destroy their leadership, eventually IS will crumble away.

Even if we invest in security measures, at some point they'll fail. At some point an attack will happen. No matter what we do. I, personally, don't like standing idly by while a growing threat against the entire West builds.

 

You are constantly downplaying Boko Haram when in reality they are not that different from ISIS. They are just as dangerous and have the same goals. What makes you think destroying ISIS leadership will make them crumble. Last I checked we took out a lot of al-Qaeda and Taliban leadership and there are still plenty of them running around too. The founder of Boko Haram (Mohammed Yusuf) was captured and executed back in 2009 and a new leader stepped up. I would say that Boko Haram has become even more dangerous since their founder was killed.

 

While I don't think we should just sit back and watch I also don't think sending troops back into Iraq will accomplish anything in the long run, it will just be another waste of American money and lives.

I think the greater reluctance to become involved in African affairs is simply because the US has never really been involved in Africa, whereas numerous European countries, to various extents, have. There isn't really as a much of a historical precedence. We've got a much stronger "tradition" of Middle East involvement in comparison to African involvement.  

After hearing the news about the Jordanian pilot I was so pissed I actually thought about joining the Kurds. These assholes will not stop you cannot reason with them and they proved recently theres no negotiating with them. They will kill anyone who objects their extreme beliefs with a tiny hard on and they will not stop until everyone converts to Islam or dies. They need to be erased there is no place for them on this planet.

I think the greater reluctance to become involved in African affairs is simply because the US has never really been involved in Africa, whereas numerous European countries, to various extents, have. There isn't really as a much of a historical precedence. We've got a much stronger "tradition" of Middle East involvement in comparison to African involvement.  

Really the only time I can recall the US having a serious presence in Africa would be during the whole Joseph Kony thing, and the Rhodesia to Zimbabwe genocide.

Really the only time I can recall the US having a serious presence in Africa would be during the whole Joseph Kony thing, and the Rhodesia to Zimbabwe genocide.

 

We have had significant presence in Africa before and still do now to a certain extent. We were in Somalia for a few years, we have been involved in lots of anti-piracy operations off the east cost of Africa, the US Air Force and Navy sent a pretty decent size contingent during the conflict in Libya to set up no fly zones and launch cruise missiles, and we have sent lots of troops to several countries in Africa to help train their military. The Marines and Army Special Forces have both spent lots of time in Africa training several different countries over there.

 

Granted our presence in Africa hasn't been as significant as it has been in the middle east but most people don't know how much we actually do over there, and not because its classified or anything just because the media doesn't focus on it. The DoD actually created Africa Command (AFRICOM) a few years ago because operations there are starting to pick up.

 

*Unrelated note*

For those of you who don't know, each region of the world has a geographic command associated with it (NORTHCOM, SOUTHCOM, EUCOM, AFRICOM, CENTCOM, and PACOM) which are responsible for everything in their area of responsibility (AOR). Africa didn't get its own command until 2007, prior to that Africa was split between European Command (EUCOM), Central Command (CENTCOM), and Pacific Command (PACOM).

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_Combatant_Command

You know, I have to agree with everyone saying we shouldn't invade the Middle East, that would just a waste of time and money.

Here's what I propose, I say we send special ops groups over there (Delta force, green berts, CIA, ect.) along with other countries, once that happens, we round up and train soldiers in the Middle East, that way they can go fight ISIS head on, and other countries can just sit back and watch, helping them only if needed.

With all the history in the Middle East, an invasion is the last thing we need, too much money being thrown away, as someone said earlier, what we really need to focus on is stability for the Middle East (economically and politically) that way we can come one step closer to peace with other nations and make this world a better place.

You know, I have to agree with everyone saying we shouldn't invade the Middle East, that would just a waste of time and money.

Here's what I propose, I say we send special ops groups over there (Delta force, green berts, CIA, ect.) along with other countries, once that happens, we round up and train soldiers in the Middle East, that way they can go fight ISIS head on, and other countries can just sit back and watch, helping them only if needed.

With all the history in the Middle East, an invasion is the last thing we need, too much money being thrown away, as someone said earlier, what we really need to focus on is stability for the Middle East (economically and politically) that way we can come one step closer to peace with other nations and make this world a better place.

We already do that. We have hundreds if not thousands of military advisers operating in the region. We give tons of aid to these countries. 

 

If the military powers of the Middle East (Turkey, Saudi Arabia, etc...) actually wanted to go into Iraq or Syria, they're more than capable of doing so and performing well.