i think we can and should help in certain situations, but i am in agreement with bamachile about proper approvalI honestly want nothing more than to see evil eradicated from places like this, but our troops don't need to be the ones doing it.
Who then?I honestly want nothing more than to see evil eradicated from places like this, but our troops don't need to be the ones doing it.
IMO, the police/military of the country in question should be responsible for defending their citizens. I don't have a problem, when it comes to allies, of providing support in the form of intelligence, logistics, etc. But, I'm not in a rush to have our troops bleed for other people.Who then?
I view Isis as a global threat so while I generally agree with letting other countries solve their own problems, when it comes to Isis I disagree.IMO, the police/military of the country in question should be responsible for defending their citizens. I don't have a problem, when it comes to allies, of providing support in the form of intelligence, logistics, etc. But, I'm not in a rush to have our troops bleed for other people.
The more American boots off the ground, the better. We cannot solve all the problems of the world. Period...I honestly want nothing more than to see evil eradicated from places like this, but our troops don't need to be the ones doing it.
They can solve it themselves or ask the UN for help.Who then?
The level of incompetency of NATO and UN forces without USA and U.K. Involvement pretty much makes it better that if there need to be boots on the ground then it needs to be ours.They can solve it themselves or ask the UN for help.
Yeah just think, had we waited for proper approval from congress for that silly territorial issue in 1950, we wouldn't have concerns about Shortround invading or bombing lands south of his border... we would just have to worry about overthrowing their former overlords in the east. *** blue font***i think we can and should help in certain situations, but i am in agreement with bamachile about proper approval
yes, i am aware of all of that.Yeah just think, had we waited for proper approval from congress for that silly territorial issue in 1950, we wouldn't have concerns about Shortround invading or bombing lands south of his border... we would just have to worry about overthrowing their former overlords in the east. *** blue font***
Last time war was formally declared was WWII. You can't tell me every military engagement since then was unwarranted. Yes there are some, but a big reason we haven't formally declared since June 5, 1942 is because of our status as a super power and Cold War and post Cold War politics. Honestly presidential war powers resolution of 90 days is the best solution. So since January 6th, 2002 our involvement in Afghanistan has been on congressional extension.
The mission of US Army Special Forces (commonly called Green Berets) is to train allied nations to fight, especially fight against insurgents (called Foreign Internal Defense), or, alternatively, to recruit, organize, and train insurgents to fight against their government (Unconventional Warfare). SF can also fight directly, but their primary roles are FID and UW.IMO, the police/military of the country in question should be responsible for defending their citizens. I don't have a problem, when it comes to allies, of providing support in the form of intelligence, logistics, etc. But, I'm not in a rush to have our troops bleed for other people.
It's the Aussies neighborhood, they should take pointThe level of incompetency of NATO and UN forces without USA and U.K. Involvement pretty much makes it better that if there need to be boots on the ground then it needs to be ours.
Fwiw the Aussies and the Canadians are also effective but they only go in if either of the two are in it.
That's fine, but really, it's not our problem.The level of incompetency of NATO and UN forces without USA and U.K. Involvement pretty much makes it better that if there need to be boots on the ground then it needs to be ours.
Maybe not, but the problem with the Non US coalition route is that they have the tendency to either half heartedly go in or mess up so bad that we get involved anyways, and usually it's worse due to the ground we have to make up.That's fine, but really, it's not our problem.
My point is if it's not affecting us directly, we shouldn't be involved at all. Non US coalition screws it up badly? Fine. I really don't care.Maybe not, but the problem with the Non US coalition route is that they have the tendency to either half heartedly go in or mess up so bad that we get involved anyways, and usually it's worse due to the ground we have to make up.
I received a phone call today from a Filipino pastor in Mindanao. They are apparently under martial law. As he was born Muslim and then converted, he is under a lifelong death sentence. ISIS is a genuine presence in Mindanao right now. Needless to say, things are a bit tense there at the moment.
***-To the OP, I don't agree with American boots on the ground without Congressional approval and a formal declaration of war. I just had this situation in the forefront of my mind as I only received the message an hour or two ago.
You're probably right, but with the hatred in the world toward us and the alleged arrogance that we hold, maybe it's time for us to pull back a bit and let others use their "elite" problem solving skills to unwind some of these messes instead of big brother coming to bail their arses out time and time again.The level of incompetency of NATO and UN forces without USA and U.K. Involvement pretty much makes it better that if there need to be boots on the ground then it needs to be ours.
Fwiw the Aussies and the Canadians are also effective but they only go in if either of the two are in it.