Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums"Limited to air strikes" = "just the tip". Does anyone really believe there will be no boots on the
ground? What happens when (as always does) one of our planes gets shot down and its a US airman taken hostage? Or if one of the "advisors" on the ground were killed or captured?
Furthermore, campaigns limited to air strikes have never, EVER worked to bring stability to a region.
The US is not responsible for ISIS. Why isn't Iraq fighting them? Where are the neighboring countries, who are threatened by ISIS? Last I'd checked, Turkey and Jordan both have large standing armies.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
3 replies, 462 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (1)
ReplyReply to this post
3 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
"Limited to air strikes" = "just the tip". Does anyone really believe there will be no boots on the (Original Post)
Erose999
Sep 2014
OP
well, I think it's certainly possible that we'll end up with "boots on the ground"but
cali
Sep 2014
#1
cali
(114,904 posts)1. well, I think it's certainly possible that we'll end up with "boots on the ground"but
but, a) no, our planes aren't always shot down and airmen taken hostage. b) I don't think the killing or capture of an adviser would automatically result in "boots..." c) I agree that air strikes usually don't bring stability to region. This one won't, but that's not the aim.
The U.S. may not be responsible for ISIS, but Iraq as clearly demonstrated isn't capable of fighting ISIS.
Erose999
(5,624 posts)2. Does the Administration, in all their infinite 3d Chess wisdom, have an answer for that though?
The rules and responsibilities concerning civillians who go to Syria on their own free will and get themselves taken hostage, versus American military personnel who are captured are quite different. I'd like to know how Obama would respond in that event. It hasn't "always" happened, but its happened more often that not in these types of interventions.
louis-t
(23,295 posts)3. Has anyone noticed the huge increase in tv ads for the military?
Army Reserve and Navy, so far.