house Bill H. Joint Res. 27
Should The U.S. Authorize A Military Campaign Against ISIL?
Argument in favor
Authorizing a plan that limits the number of boots on the ground is ideal. This resolution allows the U.S. to weaken ISIL forces, while minimizing the risk to U.S. military forces.
···
02/19/2015
ONLY TO DESTROY ISIL, not to mess around, as we have done in every conflict after WWII.
04/05/2016
As a veteran I wish we could use air power alone, but ever since the dawn of air power you can't take and hold territory with planes you must have ground forces to take and hold ground. But saying this we must have a commander in chief willing to back our armed forces completely and use overwhelming force to destroy our enemies so we take as few casualties as possible.
···
07/20/2016
They need to be wiped off the face of the Earth! They already have their operatives in this country and their supporters! To add insult to injury, they are being funded by some of our so-called Muslim "allies". You know, those Muslim nations that have scarcely lifted a finger to help the so-called Muslim "refugees"! (It's a planned HIJRAH - an invasion!) The problem is, their activities are not limited to just the Middle East! But utterly destroying Daesh (ISIL/ISIS/IS) in the Middle East would be a good start!
Argument opposed
This resolution is too restrictive. In order to defeat ISIL, the President needs more power and must develop a more robust and comprehensive strategy to take these terrorists down.
···
03/31/2015
We can't keep intervening militarily in every situation in every part of the world. I realize how heartless that sounds, but there are other ways we can help oppressed peoples without putting troops directly in the line of fire.
05/30/2015
The situation with ISIL is not simple. Engaging in direct military confrontation with this group plays into its apocalyptic beliefs and will only grow more radicals internationally.
···
06/10/2015
Fighting a war, that might last a decade, across the Atlantic Ocean and in our enemies' home territory will not stabilize the region, or even destroy ISIS. It will only be a black hole for taxpayer money, and a grave for thousands more of Americans. Such a war will not only fail to destroy our enemies, but it will overstretch our resources and leave the US open to further attack.
ONLY TO DESTROY ISIL, not to mess around, as we have done in every conflict after WWII.
We can't keep intervening militarily in every situation in every part of the world. I realize how heartless that sounds, but there are other ways we can help oppressed peoples without putting troops directly in the line of fire.
The situation with ISIL is not simple. Engaging in direct military confrontation with this group plays into its apocalyptic beliefs and will only grow more radicals internationally.
Fighting a war, that might last a decade, across the Atlantic Ocean and in our enemies' home territory will not stabilize the region, or even destroy ISIS. It will only be a black hole for taxpayer money, and a grave for thousands more of Americans. Such a war will not only fail to destroy our enemies, but it will overstretch our resources and leave the US open to further attack.
As a veteran I wish we could use air power alone, but ever since the dawn of air power you can't take and hold territory with planes you must have ground forces to take and hold ground. But saying this we must have a commander in chief willing to back our armed forces completely and use overwhelming force to destroy our enemies so we take as few casualties as possible.
They need to be wiped off the face of the Earth! They already have their operatives in this country and their supporters! To add insult to injury, they are being funded by some of our so-called Muslim "allies". You know, those Muslim nations that have scarcely lifted a finger to help the so-called Muslim "refugees"! (It's a planned HIJRAH - an invasion!) The problem is, their activities are not limited to just the Middle East! But utterly destroying Daesh (ISIL/ISIS/IS) in the Middle East would be a good start!
Only though if we are going to use all our resources and fight to win. No limitations, no special hindering rules of engagement.
I think its pathetic that the largest military force in the world can not defeat lSIS its been years at war with these people and I see no solution in sight lets exterminate this troublemakers once and for all they want to hurt the civilians worlwide they want to fight the American people well lets give them what they ask for lets kick there butt and call it a days work then lets bring our soldiers back home and talk about how they kicked ISIS butt over Starbucks. If we are determined to battle them then lets battle and win. But I want this war over with already. Im tired of this fight against these desert terrorist of course they are mad because they live in a the middle of no where but us giving weapons to untrained forces is bullshit. Its like sending middle schoolers to fight highschool kids. If we are Team USA lets be win in Team USA fashion and bring the gold medal home lets dominate and make the ISIS bullshit come to an end once and for all.
If we, and the rest of the free world, are going to beat these terrorists then it'll require a large scale, all out campaign. This limited warfare idea is flawed and has never worked. It didn't work in Vietnam, it doesn't work now, and it won't work in the future.
As ISIL is a terrible organization, we need to fix our own nation first after failed wars. there are nations willing to fight, and let them fight before the police of the world arrests again.
ISIS is the #1 threat to America and the free world today. Sadly, the little bombing we do now does nothing to stop the rapidly growing organized Islamic State from becoming stronger. Day by day there numbers increase and there attacks get more daring. Before another free world Capitol or city is attacked, especially in America, the U.S. must put boots on the ground for as long as it takes to pick out the disease of ISIS and crush the budding weed before it blooms, so that it may never bloom again.
Countries more affected have money and armies. Make them at least fund our military actions in their area.
All it takes is coordinated military effort to crush this scum before they create more terror and discord in our great nation.
The last thing we need is to give the President unlimited troops to send into harms way.
It's time for the countries of the Middle East to handle their own problems! But special forces and air strikes from global coalition. Possible the UN sending security forces.
Even though I hate the thought of any American troops in harms way, this I believe is inevitable. My son is in the Army and has done two tours in Iraq and two in Afghanistan, as well as my son-in-law in the Air Force with many deployments, I hate the thought of either of them going back into harms way but they know the risk and as my son has said, some one has to do it. Freedom has never been and never will be free.
We need to do something- This is Hitler all over again. But Obamas limited assault is not acceptable. That would be another VietNam. We need to go in and let our troops do what they were trained to do, and then require the liberated country to pay us for the job!
Instead of trying to militarily defeat an organisation with ideological roots all around the world, we should spend more resources on trying to find ways to combat the vicious ideology. Military action in the middle east has proven insufficient and destructive in the past and similar results will most likely occur if the United States allows for military action against ISIS. Furthermore, declaring war on an illegitimate terrorist group acknowledges their legitimacy which is fundamentally contrary to what we are trying to achieve.