Are airstrikes in Syria the next step?

CPT Laurie H. — Wed, 27 Aug 2014 13:16:31 -0400

The Islamic State has captured key Syrian military bases as it's seizing more territory in the north and east. President Obama is under pressure to authorize airstrikes in Syria, but he says it will take more than military strikes to defeat the Islamic State. What is the President's best course of action in this situation? How can we combat the 80,000 troops spanning Iraq and Syria?

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 27 at 2014 2:27 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 27 Aug 2014 14:27:41 -0400

This is going to take more than "strategic air strikes" to assist the countries in need. Are we the ones to assist? I'm not sure, I don't feel that America alone should police the world. With all that is going on internally in America, we need to concentrate on the citizens of this country more (not 100%) than we do on aiding other countries with humanitarian, financial or military support.

Response by CW2 Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 28 at 2014 9:47 PM

CW2 Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 28 Aug 2014 21:47:32 -0400

Premature withdraw of our forces. I was in Sinjar near the end of our time there--we were still dealing with people getting across and the illegal traffic of goods. The only way these jokers are going to be stopped is if the U.S. and her allies take the fight to them. From what I've seen coverage wise airstrikes just aren't cutting it. In addition if you go by that image how long until Kuwait gets pulled into this crap? We're looking at a more sophisticated enemy that only the best in the world can put an end to.

Response by LTC Paul Labrador made Aug 28 at 2014 9:49 PM

LTC Paul Labrador — Thu, 28 Aug 2014 21:49:13 -0400

I find it amusing how people think "air strikes" are a cure-all...

Response by SSG Pete Fleming made Aug 29 at 2014 5:02 AM

SSG Pete Fleming — Fri, 29 Aug 2014 05:02:06 -0400

This is just my opinion... but I think our best strategy against these idiots is not airstrikes, and/or boots on the ground... but removal of finances. We need to stop sending money to the middle east. We send billions and billions in aid money. Where do you think it ends up? And why are we sending so much aid and support? They have oil and could pay for what they need themselves. As long as they don't return to our soil, let them fight it out but, without our money, our resources, or our involvement. Then if they choose to try and drag us back in... we go in with FULL might of our military. Otherwise it is no longer our problem. We have far too many issues here at home we should be spending our money and resources on.

Response by MSG Brad Sand made Sep 23 at 2014 12:01 AM

MSG Brad Sand — Tue, 23 Sep 2014 00:01:26 -0400

Looks like the answer is 'Yes'.

Response by SFC Mark Merino made Sep 23 at 2014 1:24 AM

SFC Mark Merino — Tue, 23 Sep 2014 01:24:17 -0400

As of today I say........YES.

Response by MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca made Sep 23 at 2014 9:00 AM

MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca — Tue, 23 Sep 2014 09:00:08 -0400

As of last night CPT Laurie H., apparently yes! :-)

Response by Cpl Ryan Conroy made Sep 29 at 2014 12:15 PM

Cpl Ryan Conroy — Mon, 29 Sep 2014 12:15:37 -0400

I believe boots on the ground is the only way to succeed and not lose what we have already competed. America has to lead the way unfortunately but none the less it sucks. But let's go Obama and get the wheels rolling already otherwise it will be to late