So if a Republican becomes the next President do you think he would send troops in Syria/Iraq to deal with ISIS? I'm British but I for one would definitely hope to see this happen, Obama along with the rest of the West has been weak on this front and were now seeing the consequences, London could be next, then what? New York etc.
Airstrikes is not enough, it will never end this. What is the next President likely to do?? How I wish for the days of a Thatcher/Reagan partnership, they would not stand for this shit!

They would certainly be the most likely to. With Hillary, or any other Democrat for that matter, we'd get the same feckless and weak leadership shown by Obama.

Have any candidates to date say they would? I'm sure Trump would.

Good question. I'm not sure.

I know in the recent Democratic debate Hillary was asked a related question and she had a hard time even getting past the typical Lefty aversion to using the term "radical Islam."

A Republican would most likely put boots on the ground in Syria, and only a few Democrats would as well, but most of the Democrats that would have passed on or are no longer in office. Obama tried twice to put boots on the ground in Syria, but was blocked by his own party and a couple of weeks ago he sent about a platoon size of special forces into syria.
As for the current candidates for president, the Republicans have have a half a dozen that would send troops in, the two top Democrats or as most people put it the only candidates, would not send troops in, and the third has a higher chance of sending troops into Syria but he is a long shot. So to sum it up, a republican would most likely send troops in even if the Republican had to use executive 60 days, where Obama has not used that as to not alienate his own party.

Do you think Malcolm Turnball will send in troops? My few aussie friends don't think he will, but I'm interested in your opinion.


Cameron couldn't get the UK Tories to vote to send theirs in, I'm wondering if what happened in Paris will change their minds on that. I know that in the days right before Paris Cameron dropped plans for a parliamentary vote on extending British airstrikes to Daesh positions in Syria, but now is hoping to get a vote by Christmas.

What a republican do would make a safe zone in Syria and bring back the refuges. Protect by air power and troops

Something Obama should have done 5 yrs ago. But how could he was saying after thing was fine. So let's reelect the scum bag.

Worst president we ever had The second Bush was better.

Nicky, the Paris terror attack has set the cat among the pigeons, as you Brits would say, in the US presidential race. Some Republican candidates are already beginning to differentiate themselves from the Democrats by wanting to pause or reject settlement of Syrian refugees in America. It's an issue that's going to grow.

If, God forbid, a terror attack occurs in the US, pressure will mount to put US boots on the ground in Syria. I'm guessing that it will be a divisive issue in the campaign because Americans are war-weary. The hawkish Republican candidates will press the others to commit to troops.

Interestingly, Hollande is still moving forward on that:

French President Francois Hollande Welcomes Refugees Despite Paris Attack

French President Francois Hollande today promised that “France will remain a country of freedom,” defending his decision to honor a commitment to accept migrants and refugees despite Friday’s deadly terrorist attacks in Paris.

“Life should resume fully,” Hollande told a gathering of the country’s mayors, who gave him a standing ovation. “What would France be without its museums, without its terraces, its concerts, its sports competitions?

“France should remain as it is. Our duty is to carry on our lives.”

In the same spirit, he added, “30,000 refugees will be welcomed over the next two years. Our country has the duty to respect this commitment,” explaining that they will undergo vigorous security checks.

Hollande noted that “some people say the tragic events of the last few days have sown doubts in their minds,” but called it a “humanitarian duty” to help those people … but one that will go hand in hand with “our duty to protect our people.”

“We have to reinforce our borders while remaining true to our values,” he said.


http://abcnews.go.com/International/fren...ory?id=35274658

This is the same country of designer drugs and window shopping whores.

I think if a new American president sends troops, the UK would follow and in turn Australia. Its at a point were us, (UK) and Australia take America's lead.

Its understandable to me sadly that it is the right decision to reject Syrian refugees, as we have seen with the Paris attack this gives an easy entry for ISIS fighters posing as refugees, its a sad thing for the innocent Syrians that we need this approach but its better to sort things out over there rather than take on all these migrants.
Unfortunately I think that if the current approach to ISIS is maintained then its inevitable we will see attacks in America, though I think London would be next. Certainly America is a lot harder place to attack but as we have seen it doesn't have to be a terrorist from the middle-east, it can be a homegrown ISIS believer.

Its such a mess in Syria though it will be a hard mission, do you go over there to just take out ISIS and Al-Nusra? Or do you take all extreme rebel groups out and Assad? Obviously this becomes complicated because Russia are air striking as we speak in support of Assad.

So there's little or no support in the UK or Commonwealth for taking action without the US?

What if Putin sends ground troops but the US doesn't?

Again, I'm just looking for your opinion, obviously there's no right or wrong answer to my questions, I just want to know what the feeling of an average man in the UK or Australia is.

Many people I know in Britain would fully support troops going in, in fact I think the average man on the street would say yes most of the time. However, after the legacy of Blair, and the disastrous war in Iraq in 2003, any Prime Minister is terrified of making this decision, I mean Blair is one of the most hated people in Britain these days!
Britain would NEVER just go it alone in the middle-east without America. I mean there barely doing anything anyway as it is. As a Conservative, i'm let down by Cameron like Obama (and whole of the west) he's been weak on ISIS. Thatcher would not of stood for this!!!

^^ thanks for the reply.




I'm also very interested in the what plan people think should be enacted if ground troops do go in. Do we fight DAESH only, and ally with Assad? Or do we remove Assad? If Assad gets removed, who gets put in? the SRCC, the SDF? A puppet of the West's choosing?

Iraq is more straightforward, but Syria is a mess, there's no way the West would want to fight both ISIS and also Assad's forces, because there's a chance Russia and Iran would get involved. I think its best to work with Assad to be honest.
In Iraq we just have to make sure they have a split Shia/Sunni government, because the reason things got so fucked up over there after the occupation was the the pro Shia government marginalized the Sunni's and created a serious violent split in the country.

Scarfo, I absolutely agree with you, but I can tell you that the first part would be a lot easier than the second. As long as there is more than one school of Islam, there will be killing.

Since all the "good" people left Syria nuke Syria. No one will have ambition toward Syria after that. A little warning to the rest play nice or

Doesn't seem like France wants to invoke it this time around, but it seems to me that ISIS may eventually become obnoxious enough for some country to invoke the NATO Treaty, in which case the US would really have to join in, as they joined us in Afghanistan.

The one complicating factor in the Syria mess is the partnership and handshake between Bashir Al Assad, and Vladimir Putin.

Before Putin got involved, it may have been just a matter of ousting Assad.

If Assad was ousted when he could have been, we might never have seen the Paris attacks.

Now, remember back when Barack Obama went to the Capitol to get authorization to bomb Syria?

The authorization never came. Now before you say President Obama should have acted unilaterally and waged the 60 day war President's are allowed to wage, ask yourself....what kind of mess and chaos would be created in Syria after a 60 day bombing meant to just topple a government.

You can topple a government in 60 days.

You can't restore order there in 60 days.

I think we should have never tried to over throw a non religious dictator. There more reliable then a religious fanatic.

I could see why we wanted the shah of Iran to stay in power. I actually saw the shaw when he was in NY hospital. He looked like Billy's batts from goodfellas .

I was there for something and so was meadow lark lemon remember him from the harkem globe trotters.

England comes to us to help get out kadafy duck. We should have said no thanks.

The only reason Egyipt did not fall. Was because his army wanted to stay in power and we still give to the army.

Army regimes are the next best thing in the Middle East. They want what most want to make a lot of money you can actually deal with them.