With 3 nephews in the military, one of which has been to this war zone 5 times and earned the purple heart, I am clearly opposed to boots on the ground if that means the US military does all the heavy lifting. ISIS is a threat to the world and therefore should be addressed as such.

Well said.

In that vein, I cannot help but wonder where this coalition of 60 countries might be. Iran keeps saying that they are the only ones fighting, and nobody seems to be disagreeing with them. (Iran's growing status is another thread)

I think that those who call for "troops on the ground" might be a bit less forceful, if they knew what was going on.

However when you read..


"This month, when the Islamic State launched a massive attack on the large Iraq provincial capital of Ramadi, the government in Baghdad did what it was supposed to do under Obama’s “strategic plan”: Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi called for a meeting of the US-led coalition to coordinate action against This month, when the Islamic State launched a massive attack on the large Iraq provincial capital of Ramadi, the government in Baghdad did what it was supposed to do under Obama’s “strategic plan”: Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi called for a meeting of the US-led coalition to coordinate action against ISIS.


Very soon, however, it became clear that no such meeting would ever take
The coalition, supposedly consisting of 50 nation, simply has ceased to exist, if it ever did exist.

According to Iraqi sources, al- lowered his expectations by meeting US Ambassador to Baghdad Stuart E. Jones to demand intensified airstrikes on ISIS units advancing on Ramadi.

Why ISIS is beating Obama’s coalition | New York Post

Good post..... We cannot continue to give our young men and women and let the rest of the world off the hook!!

Absolutely true. However, the Republican hawks want the US to send in more Americans to defeat ISIS even though it would mean hundreds or thousands more being killed.

This will not happen as long as Barack Obama is commander-in-chief, maybe when Hillary Clinton is elected. She is much more of a hawk than Obama. That's what cost her the election in 2008, voting for the Iraq war, even though now she says her yes vote was a mistake.

At the end of the Bush Administration the Iraq war was won Iraqi's were trained and signs of Democracy taking hold. Bear in mind it took many many years before America's Independence took full hold.

Along comes Obama and pulls the rug from under the Iraqi's breaking promises and demoralizing them leaving a vacuum filled by ISIS. That is the past we need to focus on the present i order to create the future we desire.

English speaking people since the Magna Carta have been defending freedom since then. Our Three Charters of Freedom are a result of the Magna Carta. Our enemies despise democracy because it is a threat to their authority and so whether we like it nor not they are at war with us

If America does not take the lead here the war will come home to us . This is the lesson of history for so many countries over the ages and all the belly aching, denials and objections by progressives is not going to change the nature of men and the nature of war

Personal Best Regards:

The point of my post, which you obviously fails to get or are simply one of the PARTY first folks, was......

Yes, we needs troops on the ground, or at least it appears that way. When you hear how many planes we fly that do nothing because of that lack....

Where is the 60 nation coalition ? Is anyone but Iran in the ground ? Why don't we know, as the "allies" are driven back ?

I think they are valid questions, and allow me to respectfully suggest that many many democrats are of like mind which does not make them "hawks" but rather concerned Americans.

With all due respect... The pull-out dates were set by the previous administration NOT by Obama. I also remember GW standing under a "Mission Accomplished Banner" very early on and the was NOT true. And last but not least the Iraqi government threw us OUT!

We have heard the "fight them over there instead of over here" one two many times. Because "WE" are not all fighting them over there.... reinstate the draft so WE also share the fight and then we can talk.

I certainly support the re instatement of the draft, using different formulas for the actual numbers. It would serve us well, including beyond military readiness.

I just get confused sometimes. We keep discussing history; my preference would be to discuss the current threat, and I join in asking where is the 60 nation coalition in filling the ground troop void. Of course I think I know the answer; Arab nations set a lot of parameters to even join the fight, and thus I really object to even calling it a 60 nation coalition. Mainly, where are they..is the deal that on the ground is USA or nothing ? Of course Iran maintains that the lead the pack.

Reinstate the draft? Here's your man.

Attachment 51909

OK....for those offering the excuse that the withdrawal dates were set by W.

And what does that have to do with any current event?

ANYBODY in management with half a brain or less will assess the current situation and address what needs to be done, changed, eliminate, modified, etc.

The lame argument of W made him do it is laughable BS.....aspiring to reach school yard level tactics capability.

As much as I hate to do this, let me defend a bit what I think you are speaking to.

The post you refer to simply responded to a one sentence of the post, and not the thought behind the post. Typical at times.

You are correct. We need to address today. We are where we are. If someone needs to begin a history thread, that might work.

I seem to remember that Iraq asked the US to remove the American troops from the country. Am I incorrect about this?

That has sort of been discussed. Not being rude, but we are where we are, but people are hung up on this.

Yes to your point; if you read the inside of this story, most in the U.S. govt were thinking in the neighborhood of 10,000 troops for some time (Gates even said that), but then the Arab Spring came and Iraq got all caught up in that. The only point, and it is just based on some readin is that Iraq, if pressured even slightly would have agreed to troops. We decided not to pursue it.

Question still is about today's events, and I still ask the question...where is that 60 nation coalition relative to ground troops because from all reports we need that ground support if for nothing else to support the air program.

Yes, we are where we are - and that was a decision made by Iraq. The US decided it would be Iraq's responsibility to take care of themself with equipment and training from the US.

The ISIS soldiers were outnumbered but the Iraq soldiers did not want to fight and ran away - leaving their equipment.

No, this is not a US issue anymore. IF a United Nation force would go in - fine. Otherwise, we stay OUT and protect our own country.