Should the U.S. send ground troops to fight ISIS?
Would you say yes or no? In Iraq, ISIS is already fighting the Kurds and the Shiite led Iraqi forces and Iran has sent in troops in Iraq to side with the Shiites in Iraq against ISIS, In Syria there is Bashar Assads military forces fighting ISIS. and the Syrian rebels linked to Al Qaeda fighting both Assads military and ISIS. And Russia is already giving weapons to the governments in Iraq and Syria to fight ISIS. Since our enemies are fighting each other in the Middle East, should we send ground troops? or should we just stay out of it and let our enemies kill each other?
If 62% of Americans polls say we should send ground troops to fight ISIS, should that 62% (or their children over 18 years of age) be the ones drafted and sent to fight?
I guess one could make a sort of rhetorical case for that sort of thing, but of course in reality it never works that way and likely never will. There won't be another draft, I'm predicting; not in our times at least. And certainly not because of ISIS. In reality we've got plenty military already, we spend more on defense than like the next 25 countries combined I believe, and we clearly should have enough servicemen (and women) to go -- back -- over there again if need be, without having to draft the unwilling. The fact is there will always be phenomena like 'armchair-warriors' and "chicken-hawks" (the politically hawkish who've never served and do not have serving children or relatives and so on). Beyond all that, in reality Americans don't really get very much of a direct say either way as to when and where and why their government ends up putting ground troops in somewhere. About all the citizenry can really do is ultimately decisively vote out an administration that did so unpopularly, or where the whole thing went really badly, and perhaps keep that president's party out of office the next time around also.
Why is the US is pressing Turkey to send troops on the ground to fight ISIS without sending any itself?
It's not outrageous, it's expected. Turkey is the biggest ally of the USA in the region, so of course the USA will turn to Turkey first. Just like Turkey turns to the USA. But it's unfair to pressure or act like it's Turkey's responsibility. It's not Turkey's responsibility to send troops. Of course it's also not the USA's responsibility to send troops. Despite some conspiracy theories neither countries have anything to do with ISIS. Yes, Turkey did a poor job at controlling its border. Yes, ISIS took the control of the weapons the USA left in Iraq. But such level of connections and more exist with quite a few other countries. Why is it Turkey's or the USA's job to take the lead on cleaning the mess?How I see it is that Turkey did its part by accepting more than 2 million refugees from Syria and Iraq. That's more than any other country did in the world. Turkey spent 4 billion dollars for refugees and it will continue. Currently Kurdish YPG fighters who fight against ISIS are getting treated at Turkish hospitals for free. If there is a coalition, they need to act like one and split the job. The USA sends air strikes. Turkey accepted more refugees than any other country. If a country will send troops on the ground (and seems like it's needed), that country should be another. Saudi Arabia, United Arab Estimates, Iran...these three countries' economies are close to Turkey's, they also have a large army, but unlike Turkey they accepted zero refugees. If I were in the coalition somehow I would turn to one of these three to send troops in.I'm not going to claim I know well about military strategies, this is just a personal opinion: I believe there is more security risk for Turkey. Turkey shares a border with Syria on its southeastern side, which would make it easy for ISIS to send bombs...etc Logically a country that is at least a little more far away should send troops in so ISIS can't respond back, not that easily at least.
Why aren't Republicans campaigning on sending troops to fight ISIS, even though Boehner wants boots on the ground?
So predictable. In July, I asked whether or not cons supported boots on the ground. They said no, even though I knew they were going to say yes in the future. Now, Boehner agrees.
If ISIS attacked the White House?
They keep saying they will, they targeted the white house next after they attacked Paris France. If some ISIS terrorists did attack the White House,. Could they get passed the secret service?. We've seen that ISIS are no bluffers like the North Koreans are for the most part, they actually have attacked other countries.