Should Obama send US troops to fight against ISIS?

1. 61

   ReneeDC1979posted 9 years ago

   Should Obama send US troops to fight against ISIS?

   replyreport
2. 89

   Ilonagardenposted 9 years ago

   I don't think he will get involved, unless backed into a corner. At that time any opinions about whether he "should" will be moot.
   
   Americans hate the idea of more war involvement, but the day the terrorists bring it back to our soil ( and ISIS is very focused on doing that) is the time no one will be asking this type of question.
   
   Can we afford to ignore the threat? That is the better question.
   
   The idea that we could lightly disengage from the area and leave Iraq vulnerable has now been answered by the the threat of ISIS... Obama will be looking at just how bad a situation has been created and will move ahead accordingly, I think.

   replyreport
   1. 78

      Levellandmikeposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I agree, except for one point: Obama is looking at just how bad a situation he has, but he's looking for a way to squirm out of it.

      replyreport
3. 0

   JThomp42posted 9 years ago

   Yes. The mission at hand cannot be successful without American ground troops. This is the most dangerous threat to the United States and its allies in over 70 years. They must be stopped! Only the United States can do this on the ground. Everyone else will follow our lead.

   replyreport
   1. 58

      Seasunit Americaposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      No US troops on the ground.  Isis is looking to capture and b - head any US soldier. More propaganda videos for recruiting more radicalization Americans. Let them defend their own land. We already lost over 4,000 soldiers in iraq. Plus over 40,000 in

      replyreport
4. 58

   Seasunit Americaposted 9 years ago

   Absolutely NOT...
   That's is what the enemy want. Good Muslims need to stand up to protect the Middle-East.

   replyreport
   1. 91

      WiccanSageposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Unfortunately, IS is rounding up the good Muslims, imprisoning them and killing them. They need help.

      replyreport
5. 91

   WiccanSageposted 9 years ago

   I think he's just prolonging the inevitable, which might have even more dire consequences because it's giving them time to continue growing stronger.

   replyreport
   1. 78

      Levellandmikeposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      You nailed: he's kicking the can down the road, hoping to get out of office before all hell breaks loose.

      replyreport
6. 78

   Levellandmikeposted 9 years ago

   He should, he won't.
   He's kicking the can down the road.
   It'll be up to his successor to take any substantive action.
   Remember, this is the guy who said he was elected to end wars, not start them.
   Seems he's intent on keeping one campaign promise.....

   replyreport
7. 70

   connorjposted 9 years ago

   
   
   If I recall when the Luftwaffe (WWII German Air force) was completely destroyed it was only a matter of relatively short time before the Germans were defeated. Having said that, yes we still had significant troops aligned with aircraft to beat them back and reclaim France and then reach Berlin... What we may have is a so called Democratic Government that may have made under the table agreements not to put troops on the ground for monies. More or less like the acceptance of 100 million from some donor not to build the Keystone pipeline. Wake up! The truth hurts us and it is most significantly far from democracy... Let the people rule.

   replyreport
8. 0

   genuineaid lmposted 9 years ago

   YES, of course he should, and make it clear and powerful, so all of the future terrorists would tremble when they even consider hurting somebody.

   replyreport