Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Polls show a solid majority of Americans being against using ground troops against ISIS. I have to wonder why that is. I mean, really, let's think about it.

We have an all volunteer military. Anybody who is a ground troop volunteered to be a ground troop. Ground troops fight. It's their job. If there is a fire, we send firefighters. Their job is to fight fires. If there is a bank robbery going on, we send police. Responding to that kind of thing is their job.

I could understand if we had a draft so that people who did not choose to do that job would be made to risk their lives by doing it. But that's not the situation. We have people who pursued the job of fighting in war situations and got it. Why the reluctance to have them do their job?

To me, if the most effective way to address a situation is to include having ground troops do their jobs then we should have ground troops do their jobs.

Did the constitution provide for us to go fight in sectarian conflicts half a world away?

kalm wrote:Did the constitution provide for us to go fight in sectarian conflicts half a world away?

As long as Congress so decided, the answer is "yes."

JohnStOnge wrote:

kalm wrote:Did the constitution provide for us to go fight in sectarian conflicts half a world away?

As long as Congress so decided, the answer is "yes."

The new answer to the "If [blank] told you to jump off a bridge, would you do it?" question.

The last time we were in THAT SAME LAND AREA, we experienced a costly victory. Then we left and it was lost again. If we are not committed to staying there AFTER we win for a second time (and we aren't), what's the point of sending in our troops? Let those who want the land go fight for it. Yeah, we can help with some training and air attacks, but it makes no sense for our ground troops to go through that again.



Unless of course there is a considerable amount of oil to regain.

CAA Flagship wrote:The last time we were in THAT SAME LAND AREA, we experienced a costly victory. Then we left and it was lost again. If we are not committed to staying there AFTER we win for a second time (and we aren't), what's the point of sending in our troops? Let those who want the land go fight for it. Yeah, we can help with some training and air attacks, but it makes no sense for our ground troops to go through that again.



Unless of course there is a considerable amount of oil to regain.

We'll have fight the chinks for it this time around.

Grizalltheway wrote:

CAA Flagship wrote:The last time we were in THAT SAME LAND AREA, we experienced a costly victory. Then we left and it was lost again. If we are not committed to staying there AFTER we win for a second time (and we aren't), what's the point of sending in our troops? Let those who want the land go fight for it. Yeah, we can help with some training and air attacks, but it makes no sense for our ground troops to go through that again.



Unless of course there is a considerable amount of oil to regain.

We'll have fight the chinks for it this time around.

Fuck those big-headed, short-legged, flat-ass mofos.

JohnStOnge wrote:

kalm wrote:Did the constitution provide for us to go fight in sectarian conflicts half a world away?

As long as Congress so decided, the answer is "yes."

Did congress decide on SS, Medicare, Medicaid, and the EPA?

kalm wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:
As long as Congress so decided, the answer is "yes."

Did congress decide on SS, Medicare, Medicaid, and the EPA?

It figures you would miss on a reference to the specific constitutional requirements for declarations of war.

CID1990 wrote:

kalm wrote:
Did congress decide on SS, Medicare, Medicaid, and the EPA?

It figures you would miss on a reference to the specific constitutional requirements for declarations of war.

He didn't miss, he just hit it thin with the 3-iron. Went right in the ole lumberyard.

CID1990 wrote:

kalm wrote:
Did congress decide on SS, Medicare, Medicaid, and the EPA?

It figures you would miss on a reference to the specific constitutional requirements for declarations of war.

No, no…I get it. The constitution is fine as long as it jives with yours and JSO's ideology.

BTW, I was speaking to a post JSO made in another thread regarding the constitution.

Are you a fan of executive orders? We're the aforementioned acts made absent of congress?

Mole hills, please remember mole hills before we go into another long back and forth...

CAA Flagship wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
It figures you would miss on a reference to the specific constitutional requirements for declarations of war.

He didn't miss, he just hit it thin with the 3-iron. Went right in the ole lumberyard.

We I still had them in the bag, thin long irons were almost always on line. Thin to wind, baby!

The problem with using ground troops is the rules of engagement they are required to operate under. Let them go in to win or otherwise just continue with the air strikes.

Either go in to win and stay as long as it takes, or stay the h*!! away. We were stupid to pull out before the area was stabilized, and give up the costly victory the first time. Repeating that mistake won't be any better.

kalm wrote:

CAA Flagship wrote: He didn't miss, he just hit it thin with the 3-iron. Went right in the ole lumberyard.

We I still had them in the bag, thin long irons were almost always on line. Thin to wind, baby!

Got Drunk?

CAA Flagship wrote:

kalm wrote:
We I still had them in the bag, thin long irons were almost always on line. Thin to wind, baby!

Got Drunk?

LeadBolt wrote:Either go in to win and stay as long as it takes, or stay the h*!! away. We were stupid to pull out before the area was stabilized, and give up the costly victory the first time. Repeating that mistake won't be any better.

Go in to win what?

kalm wrote:

CAA Flagship wrote: Got Drunk?

But wind was intentional.

houndawg wrote:

LeadBolt wrote:Either go in to win and stay as long as it takes, or stay the h*!! away. We were stupid to pull out before the area was stabilized, and give up the costly victory the first time. Repeating that mistake won't be any better.

Go in to win what?

The end of the caliphate.

andy7171 wrote:

houndawg wrote:
Go in to win what?

The end of the caliphate.

Then we can go into Nigeria and end the Caliphate there too!

For the record. I have no problem inserting troops as long as they can do what they need to do to wipe those fuckers out. What I do have a problem with it announcing to our enemy, who ever they be, what we will and won't do before we even do it.

kalm wrote:

kalm wrote:

But wind was intentional.

Then wouldn't it be "into" wind?

andy7171 wrote:For the record. I have no problem inserting troops as long as they can do what they need to do to wipe those fuckers out. What I do have a problem with it announcing to our enemy, who ever they be, what we will and won't do before we even do it.

Well then, why don't we quit pussy footing around and declare a world wide war on radical islam? Invade every country where it rears its ugly head. Would you be ok in starting with Saudi Arabia? They practice Sharia Law there, behead people for non-violent crimes, and privately provide much of the financial support to groups like ISIS.

CAA Flagship wrote:

kalm wrote:
But wind was intentional.

Then wouldn't it be "into" wind?

Perhaps you EC(b) nancy's say "thin into the wind", but out here, the phrase is "thin to wind".