Quote:
Originally Posted by Lune
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Please explain to me how you would propose we "go after isis"?
Do we just invade and flood Syria with American troops?
What happens when they put away their black flags and towels and start planting IED's as 'civilians'?
How would it be any different than Iraq, Vietnam, or Afghanistan when, over 10 years and hundreds of billions of dollars later, we'd have accomplished nothing and probably just made things worse?
You cannot "win" a counter-insurgency occupation under the current rules of engagement. People who support deploying American troops against ISIS are fucking retarded.
|
I'd go with not funding and arming isis
in the first place. Odd you being a dem supporter and complaining about war now, which is what 0bama got elected on and just accelerated all the wars instead.
It's been the dems rattling the sword about boots on the ground in Syria (along with some rep neocons), and while supporting a proxy war vs. Russia. Even that's not good enough now, we are practically in the era of the Cuban missile crisis again, but reversed, we put them next to Russia blatantly breaking the treaty, and no dems take note. Where's code pink? Where's all the war protesters now? Oh yeah... it's not really an issue of war, but who gets to wage it, really
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]