Should the USA start full scale operations vs ISIS?

Sgt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 13 Jun 2016 19:07:39 -0400

Response by SFC Everett Oliver made Jun 13 at 2016 7:09 PM

SFC Everett Oliver — Mon, 13 Jun 2016 19:09:57 -0400

ISIS needs to be destroyed. Hopefully with assistance...

Response by Sgt William Hampton made Jun 13 at 2016 7:16 PM

Sgt William Hampton — Mon, 13 Jun 2016 19:16:42 -0400

Sure lets all go over to Langly and tell them to fuck off.

Response by MSgt Keith Hebert made Jun 13 at 2016 7:23 PM

MSgt Keith Hebert — Mon, 13 Jun 2016 19:23:40 -0400

While I agree that they need to be destroyed.
I have to wonder, if it would actually do any good.
This is an idealogy and religion that has for over 1400 years taught and believed with the utmost fervor that Islam is the only relegion.
So by going in and killing the ones that are associated with isis

Response by MSgt Keith Hebert made Jun 13 at 2016 7:34 PM

MSgt Keith Hebert — Mon, 13 Jun 2016 19:34:38 -0400

(Continuation from previous post, hit send by accident)
So by going in and killing everyone associated with isis, assuming you can identify all of them, would that kill the idea?
I do not believe so; is the next step to destroy the whole Muslim religion, again that is not the answer.
I personally believe that if we could 100% isolate them from the world, by that I mean electronically, physically, militarily , transportation, financially.
This IMHO is the only way to stop them.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 13 at 2016 7:41 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 13 Jun 2016 19:41:24 -0400

Absolutely!

Response by SSG Roger Ayscue made Jun 13 at 2016 7:44 PM

SSG Roger Ayscue — Mon, 13 Jun 2016 19:44:27 -0400

Beginning with unrestricted carpet bombing and use of AC 130 gunships.

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 13 at 2016 7:47 PM

Sgt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 13 Jun 2016 19:47:10 -0400

War is hell. We should only start if we have the will and determination to see it through to the end.

Response by Capt Tom Brown made Jun 13 at 2016 7:58 PM

Capt Tom Brown — Mon, 13 Jun 2016 19:58:47 -0400

I think we should 'ramp up' operations against World Terrorism by using a variety of strategies and tactics, many of which are mentioned in this thread. Don't feel it is practical or even possible to go at them full force on the ground in Syria and Iraq because I get the feeling a majority of Americans don't support such or the potential casualties and other costs. After 10+ years of Iraq and Afgan IMO people are seriously tired and against further wide scale unconventional ground wars. As of now, people do not consider World Terrorism to be a direct threat or imminent danger to the US. A few more terrorist attacks on US soil may get people mad enough to support additional military actions. It's further necessary to get more involvement from our 'allies' before we take it all on ourselves. Trying to eradicate Daesh with troops on the ground by ourselves would be harder than trying to stomp out a massive cockroach nest with one foot.

Response by Capt Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 13 at 2016 8:05 PM

Capt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 13 Jun 2016 20:05:35 -0400

Many years ago in the barracks in Japan an airman suggested giving a certain group their own land. No one else could live on that land and all of the group had to live there.

Then nuke em.

Response by Sgt David G Duchesneau made Jun 13 at 2016 8:05 PM

Sgt David G Duchesneau — Mon, 13 Jun 2016 20:05:43 -0400

You bet your sweet ass we should but it will never happen with this current fu-king Administration. It takes a POTUS with balls to do something like this and right now, Terrorism and ISIS are not his top priority.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 13 at 2016 8:53 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 13 Jun 2016 20:53:47 -0400

Sgt Private RallyPoint Member I wish there was a way to launch an all out assault against isis, but how would that work? As isis is a stateless entity, an ideal if you will, where should the first round impact? We have isis members and/or sympathizers here in the US as does most every other country in the world. How do we determine who the enemy is?

Response by SSG Pete Fleming made Jun 13 at 2016 9:26 PM

SSG Pete Fleming — Mon, 13 Jun 2016 21:26:37 -0400

We should have stop them before they even got a foot hold. Now it is like putting on a condom after sex. We are trying to abort the abomination with only coat hangers. Enough, take them out completely with all the proper tools of the trade!

Response by SCPO Larry Knight Sr. made Jun 13 at 2016 10:23 PM

SCPO Larry Knight Sr. — Mon, 13 Jun 2016 22:23:38 -0400

There's no point in sending anymore people into the theater now. We should develop a plan which would only include weapons systems and no further troops in theater.

Response by PFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 13 at 2016 11:08 PM

PFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 13 Jun 2016 23:08:13 -0400

We go in, kick ass and then what? Undecided. When we have a more appropriate strategy as to how to rebuild the contested area then I might make up my mind.

Response by Maj John Bell made Jun 13 at 2016 11:11 PM

Maj John Bell — Mon, 13 Jun 2016 23:11:20 -0400

I answered yes to the survey, but I want people to understand what I mean when I use the phrase full-scale operations. We need to move to a wartime footing. No formal declaration of war - no full-scale operations.
On the home front,
__No one enters this nation without permission and a full-vetting.
__Attempting to cross the border illegally will be met with the necessary force to prevent that entry, up to and including deadly force.
__There will be limited or no production of luxury items.
__Production will produce only that which is necessary for prosecution of the war.
On the war front.
__We will recognize that we are at war and war is not surgical. It is the responsibility of non-combatants and third party nationals to remove themselves from the war zone. It is not our responsibility to fight around them. WE will use weapons that require the least amount of dollars per kill, without reservation if that is militarily expeditious.
__While we will not target culturally, religiously, or historically significant places. Enemy forces cannot expect any protection in those places. Their presence means it is now a military target that will be reduced in the most militarily expeditious means.
__Any nation providing logistical, financial, or sanctuary support to our enemies opens itself to those reprisals (financial, or military) that we feel are necessary to send the message "Stay out of our business."
__To the degree possible, the resources of the enemy's territory will be stripped to finance our war efforts.
__POW's will not be released until hostilities have ceased the those guilty of war crimes with be dealt with by military tribunals and sentences will be carried out expeditiously for those found guilty.

Response by Capt Seid Waddell made Jun 14 at 2016 2:19 AM

Capt Seid Waddell — Tue, 14 Jun 2016 02:19:15 -0400

Yes; the sooner the better.

Response by Sgt Tom Cunnally made Jun 14 at 2016 5:01 AM

Sgt Tom Cunnally — Tue, 14 Jun 2016 05:01:41 -0400

"Should the USA start full scale operations vs ISIS?"...Sgt Vashey

The USA should have started full scale operations to defeat ISIS a long time ago if you
believe some of the retired military who are speaking out against the Obama foreign policies.
According to Gen Dunford who spoke recently at my high school in Dorchester MA, the military
operations to defeat ISIS have been making some gains but more is needed.

But Obama has to approve a full scale operation and so far he has been reluctant to do that based on advice of his two closest advisors; Susan Rice and Valerie Jarrett. This has caused a lot of frustrations for Ash Carter the SecDef as well as the Pentagon Chiefs.

Response by SGT William Howell made Jun 14 at 2016 9:17 AM

SGT William Howell — Tue, 14 Jun 2016 09:17:41 -0400

You mean fight a war to win? Are you crazy? MacArthur was the last person to say that, look where that got him. I mean look at how awesome North Korea is now. They have a ballistic fireworks show every couple months. How fun is that for the people there?

In Vietnam we did not bomb any real targets in the north and look how that turned out. We got us some really awesome Nike factories now. Our President was just over there kissing ass a couple weeks ago.

Iraq is great too. I don't think we held that little country for just more than a year before giving it back. Look how good that turned out. ISIS is driving around in up armor Hummers. The government is completely corrupt and they can't keep a city for more than a week or two. Yet, Halliburton has never been better.

Afghanistan...ha...ha...ha..Russian Mob...ha...ha...corruption.....ha..opium...fucking disaster...

We only take land to give it back and then kiss what ever corrupt government's ass that is in power for what? So NOPE!

Response by Lt Col Jim Coe made Jun 14 at 2016 11:38 AM

Lt Col Jim Coe — Tue, 14 Jun 2016 11:38:07 -0400

The US should develop a strategy to defeat the ISIS and remove it from the land it currently occupies. This may require Congressional authorization. The fact that they occupy land in the former Iraq and Syria allows them to act as a nation-state on the world stage, recruit Muslim fighters, and demand Muslim loyalty and support for the Caliphate. If they lose the land, the Caliphate will lose power, ISIS will be greatly weakened. Plus we get the added benefit of killing many of those who wish to kill Americans because of who and what we are. This has to include a Presidental order authorizing the military to use all conventional forces necessary to ensure the extermination of ISIS and its removal for all occupied terrirories. Once we've done that, then we redeploy forces to home or the next problem area.