Should the U.S. send ground troops into Syria to fight ISIS?
After the November 13th attacks in Paris several Presidential candidates gave new positions on how the U.S. should combat ISIS in the Syria. The U.S. is currently involved in a coalition of 19 countries that has launched 8,000 airstrikes against ISIS. None of the countries currently have ground troops in Syria.
@angelpingz3yrs3Y
If it affects USA then yes. If not who really cares what they do in their lands! If America is using land over there for military exercises then we should stop! Let them fight their own battles. If they kill each other why would we bother, they do this to themselves! Our blood and treasure stays here to defend Americans! Would you give an inbred/brainwashed race a gun to kill you? That is what is/has been done!
@58Z94XR3yrs3Y
this should be a "dark" war, and full out no holds barred, CIA, special forces, etc...
@ISIDEWITH8yrs8Y
@ISIDEWITH8yrs8Y
No, conduct targeted airstrikes instead with other countries under the coordination of the United Nations
@7YNGP9TIndependent3yrs3Y
No, we should stay out of this conflict but at the very least conduct targeted airstrikes if necessary.
@JohnnyJohnnyJohnss1yr1Y
HELL YES, FORMALLY DECLARE WAR AND SEND THE MILITARY TO DESTROY ISIS, THE TALIBAN, AL-QAEDA, AND ALL OTHER TERRORISTS IN THE WORLD. THERE SHALL BE NO MERCY GIVEN TO THESE SAVAGES THAT THREATEN THE FREE WORLD!
@5VC4HYMRepublican4yrs4Y
Yes but only when necessary and preferably as a coordinated effort.
@ISIDEWITH8yrs8Y
@ISIDEWITH8yrs8Y
Deleted1yr1Y
I'd be fine declaring war on the IRS but the ISIS I don't even know what that is.
@ISIDEWITH8yrs8Y
@ISIDEWITH8yrs8Y
@ISIDEWITH7yrs7Y
@9CCBK6Q11mos11MO
No we created Isis by invading Iraq in 2003.
@FilibusterFableLibertarian11mos11MO
Indeed, the invasion of Iraq in 2003 destabilized the region, leading to conditions that allowed ISIS to grow. For example, the dissolution of the Iraqi army left many skilled military personnel unemployed, and some of them eventually joined the ranks of ISIS. Do you think that a different approach, such as diplomacy or economic sanctions, could have been more effective in addressing the issue back then?
Yes, but only with equal participation of troops from the countries we are in coalition with to fight ISIS
No, conduct targeted airstrikes instead as part of a coordinated effort by the United Nations
No, conduct targeted airstrikes and send special operation forces but do not commit ground troops until they attack us on U.S. soil
Yes, send between 500 - 1,000 ground troops in a coalition with other countries' military participation.
Yes, send approximately 500 - 1,000 ground troops, but only as part of a collaborative effort with other NATO allies' military forces participating
Find a multilateral approach combining air and ground forces.
Yes, send approximately 500 - 1,000 ground troops, but only as part of a collaborative effort with other NATO allies' military forces equally participating.
Yes, send approximately 500 - 1,000 ground troops, but only as part of a collaborative effort with other NATO countries' military forces equally participating.
@3K7SPVG3yrs3Y
Send Congressional relatives first. If their children/grandchildren are worth sacrificing, then it is probably a necessary war.
@3K7RXN93yrs3Y
The current admin is playing games. We must conduct airs trikes with validity to the impact towards an end result. If we are to send troops it is all or nothing. With a committed resolution as to who we are backing and how we will ensure the government we intend to set up is fully functional and we can leave with a minimal presence and a means of being reimbursed for the money committed towards the establishment. However this is where I feel obtaining the UNs buy-in is necessary. And that all the countries supporting this action are receiving the same.
The historical activity of users engaging with this question.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
