CBS poll: 57% want US ground troops to take on ISIS

[Brett85]

This is just extremely depressing. How is Rand supposed to have any chance to win the GOP primary when 57% of Americans, including 72% of Republicans, support sending troops back to the Middle East to fight ISIS? It just seems like the rise of ISIS happened at the exact wrong time.

http://hotair.com/archives/2015/02/19/cbs-poll-57-want-us-ground-troops-to-take-on-isis/


If the White House hoped to convince Americans about its strategy for handling ISIS, it has failed miserably at doing so. While Eric Holder says we’re not really at war-war, the State Department considers it an opportunity for a jobs program, and Obama insists that we need to concentrate on being better communicators, a growing majority of Americans consider ISIS a threat to national security — and want to send troops to fight them. The change from October of last year in this CBS poll is striking:

The topline numbers themselves speak to the failure of the Obama administration to make its sale on indirect intervention and soft power against ISIS. Almost two-thirds now see ISIS as a direct threat, probably thanks to the videos that make that a very clear proposition, and now a majority of 57% want American ground troops to go to Iraq and Syria. That in and of itself is a sea change from 2008, when Obama won a seven-point victory over John McCain on the promise to get troops out of Iraq and keep them out of other Middle East conflicts.

The change in the gap is even more striking. Last October, a month after Obama announced his strategy to deal with ISIS — coalition building, air strikes, no boots on the ground — the US was split on the prospects, with ground-troop deployment showing a one-point advantage, 47/46. That has changed 19 points in the gap away from Obama’s position, 57/37, in the five months since. It’s a big vote of no confidence in the administration on national security. Obama won office by getting ahead of a curve rather than leading it; now he’s facing a curve in the opposite direction, and he seems not just powerless to reverse it, but might be aggravating the problem with his public-speaking stumbles.

CBS asked former CIA deputy director Mike Morell whether Obama’s making a big mistake by trying to avoid saying the words “Islamist extremism” in relation to terrorism. “I get what the President is doing,” Morrell says, but he’s not going to convince the terrorists that he’s facing reality with that talk. They “believe they are religious warriors … It’s not rhetoric on their part. They really believe it.” It’s not keeping ISIS from “spreading their brand,” either, as Morrell says, although he doesn’t link it to Obama’s focus on communications.

At any rate, Congress has to take up the AUMF debate soon. With these numbers in mind, Republicans should (as I suggested last week) give Obama a “clean” AUMF that authorizes him to use all options against ISIS until we have defeated them — no timetables, no restrictions, just a full authorization, and let Obama either carry the responsibility for his own failing strategy or change it to something more effective.

[Warlord]

Trust your antiwar instincts. it's always a winning position in the end. Boobus wanted the iraq war too and look how that turned out

[Uriel999]

Tell you what, I'll go back to war and fight this...as long as EVERY SINGLE SUPPORTER has to go as well.

[Brett85]

Trust your antiwar instincts. it's always a winning position in the end. Boobus wanted the iraq war too and look how that turned out

But they aren't going to turn anti war again until our troops are sent back over there and start getting killed, and it's unlikely that Obama is going to do that.

[jmdrake]

Tell you what, I'll go back to war and fight this...as long as EVERY SINGLE SUPPORTER has to go as well.

You're starting to sound like Smedly Butler.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3_EXqJ8f-0

[jmdrake]

But they aren't going to turn anti war again until our troops are sent back over there and start getting killed, and it's unlikely that Obama is going to do that.

Check my signature for the answers. As long as you allow your fellow Americans to labor under the illusion that terrorism is organic and because "they hate us for our freedoms" eventually the terror / industrial complex will win in the propaganda war. Seriously, did you see the recent article that some of the ISIS videos were created in Hollywood? Back in 2013 we had Charles Krathammer on Fox News openly stating that the U.S. should team up with Al Qaeda to fight Assad. And all of this is over chemical weapons that Assad supposedly used but all of the evidence shows the U.S. backed insurgents used them? Obama tried to get a war against Assad and failed. So we got fed some terror porn and presto changeo! The American people are ready to go back to war! Never mind the fact that the rebels we are backing, supposedly against ISIS, sold a U.S. journalist to ISIS to be beheaded.

Okay....I rambled. Here's the bottom line. As long as we play the rules by their game we are guaranteed to lose! We can't outflank these people by going along with their lies. Yes we will piss some people off and turn some people away by telling the truth. But eventually they were going to leave our cause anyway. Those who wake up to the truth of false flag terrorism never turn around and fall for it again.

[eleganz]

And its tough to sway public opinion when ISIS shows themselves murdering people from various countries.

[Brett85]

And its tough to sway public opinion when ISIS shows themselves murdering people from various countries.

Yeah, and I don't see any evidence that will stop happening before the primaries start. I'm certainly glad now that Rand is at least trying to find a way to run for both Senate and President at the same time. If he had to choose one or the other I think he would be better off running for reelection to the Senate at this point.

[cindy25]

antiwar is always the winning position in the end, timing is everything. will war support in the GOP base have dropped enough by March 1st 2016? surely by Nov 2016 for the population as a whole it will have dropped a great deal, which is why a 3rd party run is viable.

the battle for Mosul could turn it, if USA deaths are high.

[cindy25]

Yeah, and I don't see any evidence that will stop happening before the primaries start. I'm certainly glad now that Rand is at least trying to find a way to run for both Senate and President at the same time. If he had to choose one or the other I think he would be better off running for reelection to the Senate at this point.

1) senate re-election is not a slam dunk. if he faces a well funded pro-war primary opponent, he could lose. even in the general KY is not s sure thing.
2) the GOP ticket, be it Rand or Jeb or someone else, is likely to win. Rand would have to oppose his president on almost every issue, making the senate seat almost useless.

[nikcers]

Yeah, and I don't see any evidence that will stop happening before the primaries start. I'm certainly glad now that Rand is at least trying to find a way to run for both Senate and President at the same time. If he had to choose one or the other I think he would be better off running for reelection to the Senate at this point.

Rand Paul has already one of the most comprehensive positions on ISIS out of all the possible contenders,Its no coincidence he took this position as well.. He states that he wanted to destroy ISIS militarily, he would gone to congress, and has a plan of action for the intervention and that is with the Kurds. So its not a matter of whether its better if he runs for X or Y.

[Okaloosa]

Rand Paul has already one of the most comprehensive positions on ISIS out of all the possible contenders,Its no coincidence he took this position as well.. He states that he wanted to destroy ISIS militarily, he would gone to congress, and has a plan of action for the intervention and that is with the Kurds. So its not a matter of whether its better if he runs for X or Y.

The media and establishment call Rand an isolationist when in fact he is moderate on the issue.

[Brett85]

surely by Nov 2016 for the population as a whole it will have dropped a great deal, which is why a 3rd party run is viable.

People need to drop the idea that Rand is going to run as a 3rd Party candidate. That's just ridiculous and has no chance of happening.

[Brett85]

Rand Paul has already one of the most comprehensive positions on ISIS out of all the possible contenders,Its no coincidence he took this position as well.. He states that he wanted to destroy ISIS militarily, he would gone to congress, and has a plan of action for the intervention and that is with the Kurds. So its not a matter of whether its better if he runs for X or Y.


The media and establishment call Rand an isolationist when in fact he is moderate on the issue.

^^^This. The media and Rand's fellow competitors in the GOP primary will label Rand a radical isolationist when in reality he's pretty moderate on foreign policy issues. Unfortunately there will also be less debates for Rand to get his point across that his foreign policy isn't "extreme" but is merely sane and rational.

[nikcers]

^^^This. The media and Rand's fellow competitors in the GOP primary will label Rand a radical isolationist when in reality he's pretty moderate on foreign policy issues. Unfortunately there will also be less debates for Rand to get his point across that his foreign policy isn't "extreme" but is merely sane and rational.

There will be lots of "debate" about it, he isn't getting the same treatment his dad did from the media its quite the opposite. He has plenty of time to paint his foreign policy in a rational manner. You should check out the most recent exchange between Perry and Rand Paul to get an idea of how the public and media will react to it.

[Brett85]

There will be lots of "debate" about it, he isn't getting the same treatment his dad did from the media its quite the opposite. He has plenty of time to paint his foreign policy in a rational manner. You should check out the most recent exchange between Perry and Rand Paul to get an idea of how the public and media will react to it.

I haven't seen a "recent" exchange between Rick Perry and Rand. Do you have a source for that?

[AuH20]

Now you have actual gloating. Sickos...

http://hotair.com/archives/2015/02/19/times-are-tough-for-the-anti-interventionist-libertarian/comment-page-1/#comment-9168934

[AuH20]

Trust your antiwar instincts. it's always a winning position in the end. Boobus wanted the iraq war too and look how that turned out

I don't mind a good war if it is legitimate. These manufactured flavors of the month don't possess the necessary criteria.

[Smitty]

People need to drop the idea that Rand is going to run as a 3rd Party candidate. That's just ridiculous and has no chance of happening.

You're undoubtedly correct.

So the question is,..who will?

[Brett85]

You're undoubtedly correct.

So the question is,..who will?

I don't think anyone will except Gary Johnson probably running on the Libertarian Party ticket again.

[Brett85]

Maybe Rand should just try to avoid talking about the foreign policy issues as much as possible. Just talk about criminal justice reform, the Federal Reserve, cutting spending, etc.

[AuH20]

Maybe Rand should just try to avoid talking about the foreign policy issues as much as possible. Just talk about criminal justice reform, the Federal Reserve, cutting spending, etc.

You think the moderators will let him? It's going to be ISIS morning, noon and night.

[Brett85]

You think the moderators will let him? It's going to be ISIS morning, noon and night.

I know he'll have to address the issue in the debates, but as far as his speeches are concerned it might be better to just not talk about the issue.

[Brett85]

Perhaps he'll get some cover from Cruz as well, since Cruz has also advocated the same position, that we should arm the Kurds and use them as our boots on the ground.

[Bastiat's The Law]

ISIS says jump, America says how high? Dumb suckers.

[Uriel999]

You're starting to sound like Smedly Butler.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3_EXqJ8f-0

"2 Marines 2 Medals! Dan Daily and Smedely Butler!" Ugghhh That will never leave me. I will never be half the man he was. It is interesting and bizarre, the Corps idolizes him yet his anti-war statements have had such a profound movement on the liberty movement. Most Marines are left baffled when I quote the most famous lines of his war racket speech. However, most Marines I've found are this confused mix of neocon and libertarian that just wants to come out. It's almost like most grunts are Lindsey Grahams except instead of not so secretly but still in the closet gay (well except those that are) are libertarians....It is a weird world in the infantry.

I'm serious though...I really would have no personal problems going back to the battlefield to fight ISIS. They are a real problem, I just don't want our government involved. It is a shame though that if I actually went over there I would expect ISIS to get more US support than me. I wonder...would going to war with ISIS privately make you an enemy of the United States? It is a sad state of affairs our nation is in. I feel fighting our federally created enemy ISIS is worth fighting...or perhaps I am just a warfighter seeking more war. I don't know.

I wish I could simply google "how to build a private army and go destroy ISIS" and go from there...

[alucard13mm]

The only way to stop ISIS (excluding conspiracy theories regarding the origin of ISIS), is to have muslim countries attack ISIS. I just don't see how having USA/West/Infidels attacking Muslims is gonna make us look good. ISIS will get further support and their claims that the west is attacking Islam will be even more validated.

[AngryCanadian]

Good maybe those 57% that want troops on the ground should be send personally along with McCain sons.

[orenbus]

I wonder...would going to war with ISIS privately make you an enemy of the United States? It is a sad state of affairs our nation is in.

I would have to find the video or specific documentation, but yes, going over there as a private U.S. citizen and joining one of the groups such as the YPG to fight against ISIS is against the law, law enforcement officials have told people. That hasn't stopped some former U.S. armed forces veterans from going over there and fighting against ISIS.


I wish I could simply google "how to build a private army and go destroy ISIS" and go from there...

http://www.rferl.org/content/islamic-state-ypg-foreign-fighters/26690432.html



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUkP_C_fkB8


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NO8eN46Ryt8


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_n-HzUTEoZc


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJG3UG4dcmE


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OI4_CFXlxzY

[Christian Liberty]

"2 Marines 2 Medals! Dan Daily and Smedely Butler!" Ugghhh That will never leave me. I will never be half the man he was. It is interesting and bizarre, the Corps idolizes him yet his anti-war statements have had such a profound movement on the liberty movement. Most Marines are left baffled when I quote the most famous lines of his war racket speech. However, most Marines I've found are this confused mix of neocon and libertarian that just wants to come out. It's almost like most grunts are Lindsey Grahams except instead of not so secretly but still in the closet gay (well except those that are) are libertarians....It is a weird world in the infantry.

I'm serious though...I really would have no personal problems going back to the battlefield to fight ISIS. They are a real problem, I just don't want our government involved. It is a shame though that if I actually went over there I would expect ISIS to get more US support than me. I wonder...would going to war with ISIS privately make you an enemy of the United States? It is a sad state of affairs our nation is in. I feel fighting our federally created enemy ISIS is worth fighting...or perhaps I am just a warfighter seeking more war. I don't know.

I wish I could simply google "how to build a private army and go destroy ISIS" and go from there...

As much as I hate ISIS and would like to see them out of the picture, the only way to kill ISIS without creating another ISIS is to have another Muslim nation (such as Jordan) do it. No westerners should be involved, private or otherwise. Unfortunately it will just give genuine radicals something to rally around.

[Uriel999]

Good maybe those 57% that want troops on the ground should be send personally along with McCain sons.

Let us give McCain a white horse that he can lead into battle...godspeed you senile fascist fuck.


I would have to find the video or specific documentation, but yes, going over there as a private U.S. citizen and joining one of the groups such as the YPG to fight against ISIS is against the law, law enforcement officials have told people. That hasn't stopped some former U.S. armed forces veterans from going over there and fighting against ISIS.



http://www.rferl.org/content/islamic-state-ypg-foreign-fighters/26690432.html



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUkP_C_fkB8


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NO8eN46Ryt8


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_n-HzUTEoZc


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJG3UG4dcmE


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OI4_CFXlxzY

Thanks, that is some good stuff there.


As much as I hate ISIS and would like to see them out of the picture, the only way to kill ISIS without creating another ISIS is to have another Muslim nation (such as Jordan) do it. No westerners should be involved, private or otherwise. Unfortunately it will just give genuine radicals something to rally around.

You and I have had quite a bit of banter back and forth...hell I have neg repped several of your comments but I definitely pos repped your comment here. You have a solid argument.

[enhanced_deficit]

http://www.whale.to/c/302103_387928034609022_1890558086_n.jpg




http://i.imgur.com/tFiT8Bo.png


(http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?427051-Will-Neocons-Al-Qaeda-alliance-end-well&)Syria: The Strange US/Israel/Al-Qaeda Ménage à Trois (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?427051-Will-Neocons-Al-Qaeda-alliance-end-well&)



http://www.jpost.com/HttpHandlers/ShowImage.ashx?id=226464&h=236&w=370


ISIS = RM 2.0 (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?459503-ISIS-Revolution-Muslim-2-0&)

[nikcers]

I haven't seen a "recent" exchange between Rick Perry and Rand. Do you have a source for that?

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/07/rick-perry-is-dead-wrong-108860.html#.VOgoqd3BwUw

Pretty recent- last time I've heard from Rick Perry. I don't look for stuff about him specifically but I read up about a lot of geopolitics. There was a lot of media about this at the time and the verdict was that Rand won that argument. If you look at the numbers he is doing way better than his dad did in the polls against other republicans too.

Right now the GOP base is even trying to make the opposite argument, that he would do well in the primaries but not in the general. The whole JEB campaign is "I will lose the primaries but win the election" because they know the numbers they have their own internal polling, here look at this one

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwah8df3nP0#t=221

[nobody's_hero]

I know he'll have to address the issue in the debates, but as far as his speeches are concerned it might be better to just not talk about the issue.

I've mentioned in the past that our liberty candidates should just act like they're pro-war and then just not go to war when they take office. History shows us that the majority of time, voters don't give a shit what you do once you get into office. As long as you play 'red team blue team' they always support their own. I mean, hell, look at all the 'anti-war' people that suddenly shut up or even adamantly supported Barack Obama when he expanded Bush's drone strikes. It's okay now that 'our' guy is doing it.

It should also be okay *not* to go to war if our guy isn't doing it. Reverse psychology for the win.