Posted on 11/19/2015 6:47:17 AM PST by McGruff
The United States could 'take out' the Islamic State (IS) group with the deployment of 10,000 ground troops, US Senator John McCain has told FRANCE 24 in an exclusive interview.
The Republican former presidential candidate said the IS group posed "a direct threat" to the United States that could be dealt a knock-out blow with a ground deployment in Syria.
"Ground troops [means] about 10,000 Americans with a coalition of Arab countries, hopefully NATO countries, maybe even France, where we could go in on the ground with sufficient air support to take out ISIS," McCain said, using another acronym for the Islamic State militants. "They are not invincible, there are not unbeatable."
“Because Putin is on the side of Assad, McCain is on the side of anti-Assad rebels.”
Agreed.
I’ve often wondered why the RINO’s and O’Barky insist that “Assad must go”. All Assad ever did was gas a few moose limbs while protecting the Christians.
OK, I know that it is a bit off topic, but I am SICK AND TIRED of terrorists being called "militants."
Militants go out into the streets, where they yell and chant a lot, and possibly shake their fists at someone/something that they don't like. IOW, militants are annoying a$$holes, but they don't kill people.
Terrorists blow people up, shoot people, TERRORIZE people with threats to do more of the same, etc. IOW, terrorists kill people (and they may be annoying a$$holes also, but that's not their defining characteristic).
Send 10,000 troops to the southern border and to the known Muslin training camps scattered throughout the country.
McCain would decapitate the remaining Alawites and Christians himself if he could.
Who cares about what that idiot say anymore?
You could replace this moron with a parrot.
Think of oil being as necessary to life as water. If ISIS took the oil from a regime that could not fight back because if a multi-sided and complicated war - it would have no choice but to buy back the oil ISIS stole because the country would cease to function without oil. It does not indicate a partnership at all.
It's a sign of low intelligence that this propaganda point makes any sense to someone.
So we have Barry insisting we TAKE IN 10,000 refugees while,
On the other hand,
We have crazy Johnny insisting we send 10,000 American soldiers over THERE???
He started this whole Syria thing.
Didn’t he and Linda want 50,000 a few weeks ago? He’s like, Please give a war, any war, just so I can be on TV
every night pontificating.
Good Lord, I despise this jerk. Goodwill for his”service”
is all used up for me.
Is this Bambi's new "Reset Button" or is it a new "Red Line"? Putin will show the lack of strength that is our usurper CinC. Can't believe I'm rooting for Putin. The world is truly upside-down.
So says Obama, the GOPe and the internationalists. Assad is not a good guy at all... he’s basically the Saddam Hussein of Syria, but unfortunately an iron-fisted secular dictator is exactly what those countries need.
Who would McCain and Obama wish to have him replaced with? Probably by the US backed Muslim Brotherhood that replaced government in Egypt.
“MeCain should STFU, he doesn’t know his ass from a hole in the ground!”
Alas, I think he knows very well what he is doing. He is malevolent, not a fool. I just don’t understand why he is such an eager catamite for the House of Saud. On the other hand, Songbird just seems to follow the vultures. Like them, he is drawn to death.
Thank you for posting that picture. It needs to go up every time McCain opens his yap.
We can just send the 10,000 orphans over there.
10,000 ground troops in Iraq could re-take Mosul. What’s your point, John? RESIGN you Obama butt-kissing, Arab spring idiot.
I’m appealed he’d want to send just 10,000 as overwhelming numbers and / or disproportionate response is how you minimize your losses and the time needed in any conflict.
By wanting to send so few troops he may as well be honest enough to say they may never leave (in more than one sense of the term).
Frankly, even discounting Russian claims about what US air strikes have been targeting, bombing ISIL with precision weapons will never work either: we are using high value munitions against an opponent of only low to moderate value targets ... or as I’ve said in the past, we’re in lust with precision strikes.
Rather if anything we should try to utterly obliterate every living ISIL soldier when they form up in the field to go on the offensive and to do so we could use the present form of our daisy cutter bomb technology dropped in coordinated fashion with overlapping areas of effect (the same sort of idea behind using multiple smaller nukes to do more damage than just one big one).
Deny ISIL the ability to maneuver in the field, to concentrate their forces as armies, and you deny them the ability to go on the offensive outside of towns or cities. You put them on the defensive. This would permit opposition forces to better selectively concentrate their forces (into those urban areas) when and where they wanted to.
Let the “locals”, or the Russians if they really want to, Duke it out from street to street.
But if we go, please, please, please send enough troops and come with enough raw, over the top, terrifying violence and resolve that even the most fanatical ISIL fighter will opine: “Well, we’re boned!”
This just in:
355 ISIS targets in Syria destroyed by Russian air force in last 48 hours: (en.abna24.com)
My question is. Why were there 355 targets still left to bomb?
Ah, to hear the sounds of civil libertarians serving all whines before their time....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.