On 10/15/2014 8:11 PM, jr_...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote:
These strikes should blunt the militants' will to capture the town.
For any reasonable fighter, one should quit the fight if one is
heavily outgunned. The militants are obviously sitting ducks against
the US warplanes. It's only a matter of days when they will quit and
leave town.
>
/The stated aim of the U.S. strategy is to “degrade and ultimately”
destroy ISIS - that isn't happening and will never happen without
someone putting boots on the ground. That's the problem - nobody wants
to step up to the plate except the Kurds and a few Iraqi Shiites.
The current strategy is not sustainable at $40 billion a year for the
next 10 years.
In the final analysis, someone is going to have to pay -the American
voter will not be responsible for protecting the free world forever. The
U.S. has thousands of troops stationed all over the world to protect
Europe, the Middle East and the Far East.
The question is, when will other nations start paying their fair share
of the defense expense and let our boys come home for good?/
"Yet, U.S. led air strikes – and the hoped for assistance from moderate
Syrian rebels being trained by American advisers -- may not be nearly
enough to thwart the heavily armed ISIS forces, according to some experts."
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/isis-delivers-shock-awe-arms-103000525.html
>
http://news.yahoo.com/us-keeps-intensified-strikes-near-syrian-city-152319827--politics.html
