• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Poll: Most Americans say send ground troops to fight ISIS

US Conservative

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 11, 2013
Messages
33,522
Reaction score
10,826
Location
Between Athens and Jerusalem
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
While President Barack Obama addressed the nation on ISIS and terrorism Sunday night, a new CNN/ORC Poll finds Americans increasingly displeased with the President's handling of terrorism and more willing to send U.S. ground troops into the fight against ISIS.

For the first time in CNN/ORC polling, a majority of Americans (53%) say the U.S. should send ground troops to Iraq or Syria to fight ISIS. At the same time, 6-in-10 disapprove of the President's handling of terrorism and 68% say America's military response to the terrorist group thus far has not been aggressive enough.

Poll: Most say send ground troops to fight ISIS - CNNPolitics.com

No doubt the ISIS inspired (if not planned) massacre of Americans at a Christmas party last week bumped this up (this poll was conducted before the muslim attack in San Bernardino), but isolationism has been increasingly discredited-because what happens over there in the defacto state of ISIS impacts us here.
 
Horrible idea. Look what ground troops have done in the ME so far.. Oh, made it worse.
 
The biggest proponent of sending ground troops to fight Daesh is Daesh. They know that they would lose in a fight - their mythology is built on the idea that they will lose. But, in the mean time, they will drain the United States of its resources, by using the occupation and associated misery to recruit more fighters, and ground troops makes it a hell of a lot easier for Daesh to kill Americans.
 
We have bigger problems, resulting in far more deaths, right here within our own borders, that has nothing to do with ISIS.

After America cleans up our own streets from the gangs and dangerous extremists, that kill EVERYDAY in far greater numbers, THEN we need to worry about ISIS.

Bloods, Crips, Latin Kings, M13, (just to name a few,) are a FAR greater threat to America than ISIS.

But I know how much fun it is hating on the "Muzzies," so don't let me stand in your way.
 

We need to send the entire USMC in RLT expeditionary force corps level in to flatten ISIS/ISIL's HQ in Syria.

The USN and USAF can fly cover for them.

We need boots on the ground and flame throwers to burn the rats out.
 
This is why they are called the 'ignorant' masses.

Fine.

Then let them go and fight.

If they want to die in the middle of nowhere for a hopeless cause against a bunch of whackos who possess no navy or air force and are thus ZERO threat to American sovereignty...go ahead.

What brave fools.
 
Last edited:

MUZZIES !!!

I love it !!!

A new word is born.
 

Yep. They also want us to turn against the majority of Muslims who are peaceful people and be scared of them, they want us to alienate them. They want us to turn away refugees, they want us to bomb innocent people so they get more volunteers..
 
Riveroaks said:
We need to send the entire USMC in RLT expeditionary force corps level in to flatten ISIS/ISIL's HQ in Syria.

The USN and USAF can fly cover for them.

We need boots on the ground and flame throwers to burn the rats out.
Click to expand...

They will be destroyed. Sometimes people need to be killed.
 
BTW, I wonder how gung ho the masses will be for American ground troops fighting in Syria when several are captured and slowly tortured to death live on the internet? Or if any female American servicewomen are captured and they are raped repeatedly before they too are slowly tortured to death - all on the internet?

Many civilians will be pissed. But after it happens enough times, I bet most will lose their stomach for the fight, finally come to their senses and demand the troops come home.

If U.S. troops fight ISIL - it WILL end badly for America. Not because they cannot defeat ISIL - but because they have no business being over there and they will be in a giant quagmire. American military missions go MUCH better when things are clear cut. Syria is ANYTHING but clear cut. And ISIL should just be left alone until they fight themselves/each other to death (as all whacko groups eventually do).

How ISIL should be handled? Just beef up security at home, stay out of the quagmire over there COMPLETELY and wait until it runs it's course.
 
Last edited:

A really good well planned Marine airborne/air mobile assault in multi regimental corps force should not have anything like that.

There will be dead and wounded sure. But Marines like to get wounded and get metals and that.

Marines pray for war.
 

The question...
"9. Do you favor or oppose the United States sending ground troops into combat operations against ISIS forces in Iraq or Syria?"

While 53% of respondents did favor the idea, 45% opposed with 2% having no opinion. It is majority but it is not overwhelming, and it presents us with a few issues. One, we are already committing troops to certain missions in Syria and Iraq. This is something we may have limited to specialized operations for exclusive goals but we already are engaging ISIS on the ground with something other than an airstrike. Two, there is no real context for the question. Is it asking for something more along the lines of what we are doing now, or is it asking for some long term massive troop invasion similar to Afghanistan or Iraq under Bush 43. We simply do not know, and context would be helpful but CNN did not go to that level.

BTW, this jumped post the Paris attacks... all other polling results before hand shows majority not wanting ground troops engaging ISIS (p10 of the report.)

Ironically, another question in the data set asked...
"11. Whose policies do you blame for the problems that the U.S. is currently facing in Iraq -- the policies of George W. Bush or the policies of Barack Obama?"

42% hold Bush responsible, 39% hold Obama responsible, 17% assume both or neither are to blame, 1% had no opinion.

Again, majority but not overwhelming showing a real disconnect over the intentions to do something in Iraq (which would be trip #3 into that nation, in the past 4 Presidents) to clean up some problem.

I would offer all of us here at DP that we have no real idea as a nation what we want to do. Obama, by the polling history included, has had majority disapproval of handling foreign affairs but without much follow up as to why. It becomes argumentative to say it is those who lean conservative wanting another war in Iraq / Syria *or* liberal leaning respondents being upset about the air campaign / use of drone warfare / etc. It may be none of the above with respondents upset about Obama handling Russia, or Iran, or Libya, or Egypt, or North Korea or a dozen other disasters going on these days.

We might be making more of this than the polling suggests, even though on the surface it looks like 53% are ready to go back to conventional war against ISIS (which by default means occupying Iraq and Syria... or this is all for not, being time #3... all for not.)

Am I the only one that sees this?

Actual poll...
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2015/images/12/06/rel12d.-.obama.isis.pdf
 
Riveroaks said:
A really good well planned Marine airborne/air mobile assault in multi regimental corps force should not have anything like that.

There will be dead and wounded sure. But Marines like to get wounded and get metals and that.

Marines pray for war.
Click to expand...

Indeed-I find many people dont understand this. And they will win.

But for now they are stopped by a weak and ineffective Commander in Chief.
 
David_N said:
Horrible idea. Look what ground troops have done in the ME so far.. Oh, made it worse.
Click to expand...

I don't think so... there is more opportunity in ME than there has been, opportunity to change... Kind of like saying Look at what the union did to the south after the civil war! Oh, they made it worse!
 
before we send ANY troops, there is PLENTY of ISIS infrastructure this administration has ignored. The campaign against ISIS has been anemic at best.



we dropped 60 bombs per day on serbia, who was no threat to us. we drop 40 or so a day on ISIS.
 
Riveroaks said:
Sorry Medusa. It was just funny is all.

We have other worse words, involving the turban, the camels, and the sand.

Sorry.
Click to expand...

muzzie is not a new word :mrgreen:
 
US Conservative said:
You conquered that strawman.
Who said it was overwhelming?

And the number is only rising. Isolationism isn't a viable strategy.
Click to expand...

The rest of that post was most important, and you have zero context to draw that not wanting to engage ground troops against ISIS is a call for isolationism. Now that is a strawman on your part, pure and simple. Ironic that you would throw that card down on my argument, that you summarily ignored.
 
I think it's odd how we have been screwing around with the governments over there for sixty years, bombed the ever loving crap out of them, killed who knows how many innocents, installed puppet dictators who - color me shocked - ended up turning against us, and then have the gall to wonder why they hate us. Do you think the average American would stand for the same? Not a chance.
How about we leave other people the hell alone? There's a novel idea. I think that might actually do something to make us safer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…