Poll: Millennials want ground troops to fight ISIS, but won't go themselves

This just shows how easily the American public can be manipulated into thinking another war in the middele-east is necessary especially when they have no skin in the game. I'm actually starting to think they should bring back the draft. Let the stinking Arabs, Turks, and Persians fight their own wars. The problem is the dipshits that run Washington DC keep toppling autocratic governments in the Islamic world under the guise of spreading "freedom and democracy" and Islamofascists take over once the dust settles. American politicians just don't learn the lessons of history and neither does the American public.

 

I think the phrasing of the question is a little weird. "Do you support the use of troops against the Islamic state?" vs. "Do you think the U.S. should send troops to fight the Islamic state?" The trend might be the same, but changing a few words might yield a different result.

 

sending trops without actually naming where the troops are coming from could mean anything, like sending a coalition of different countries, in that way people would think differently about it vs. saying the U.S. which would bring up total different meaning for most people.

Its like if your haing out with guy but you never say the word date vs. when you actually say the word date it puts you into two different mind frames.

 

I think you might want to read it again...they clearly state "US troops."
"But the very next question added more context. "If the United States needed additional troops to combat the Islamic State," the pollsters asked, "how likely would you be to serve?"

 

The first quest is do you support the use of troops against the Islamic state the second question introduce the u.s. Into the mix

 

But I didn't click on the link to the artical just the question I saw on here

 

Bring back the draft...
-2 years of college/learning a skilled trade and combat training.
-2 years of combat (if there is a war and troops are needed) if not, 2 additional years of study, training and volunteering abroad = 4 years total.

The military industrial complex would still exist but would drastically shrink because congressman and rich elites would be terrified their Tylers and Beckys would be killed.

 

True. I just think that if they if they worded it in a way that more explicitly talked about sending American troops to fight, there might be somewhat less support.

 

So you missed it too huh?
"But the very next question added more context. "If the United States needed additional troops to combat the Islamic State," the pollsters asked, "how likely would you be to serve?"

 

Exactly and there shouldn't be a mechanism for upper classes to get out of like "college deferments" or National Guard service like during the Vietnam War. Either Tyler and Becky report for duty or they go to jail just like Jamal and Keisha would.

 

Oh yeah, that's what I was trying to get across. Supports drops when context is added. And yeah, it looks like they'll support it as long as they're the ones not doing it. But that could also means countries directly impacted by ISiS in the Middle East like Iraqi troops.

 

But didn't the Tylers and Beckys get passes back during Vietnam? The elite will always have a way out of every situation.

 

That's was the point I made. There should be no "college deferments" for the Tylers and Beckys like during the Vietnam War. They should have to ship out or face jail time just like the poor kids.

 

Israel has something similar. Everyone has to serve and I would argue that there is a better chance of having to fight a war as an Israeli soldier than an American soldier. I just don't think the elite in this country would ever allow a law to be passed that would require their children to serve against their will. I'm not even sure of the effectiveness of an Army that consists of unwilling participants.

 

That's was one of the problems of the Vietnam War is many of the people who were drafted were unwilling participants. That said I think that issue is a bit overblown. Wars have historically had conscripts. I think the politicians in Washington bullshit the American public into thinking that "limited wars" work a they bullshit the American public about what it will actually take to win a war in the middle-eastern. If the US would send group troops Muslims from all over the globe will flock to Syria for their chance to fight in a jihad just like with Iraq and just like Afghanistan in the 1980s. For the western powers to prevail in such a conflict they would have to get very brutal and bloody. This conflict would last for at least a century. I think the least bad option is to side with Russians and back President Assad's army and kill all the rebels in Syria. Yes he's a dictator and not a nice guy but he's better than the alternative. In Iraq let the Kurdish people have their own state and tell Turkey to shut up color.

 

Are you serious? Do you actually think the US government would ever back Assad against the rebels? A man who has used chemical weapons on his own people? A man that has created mass graves inside his own country? The U.S. government would no sooner back Assad than Pol Pot.

Wars in the middle east are winnable. Desert Storm was successful but the objective was clear and the majority of the oppressed country supported our intervention. That is not the case, usually, in the middle east where there are tribal and internal religious conflict. There is always an opposing side in these conflicts when the U.S. takes a side. I'm not a flower child like most of the men on here so I'm not afraid of war outright. I just like to know there is a clear path to victory and i'm not seeing that in Syria.

 

No of course the USA won't back Assad nor did I say that the government would do such a thing. Quite the opposite. I expect they'll continue to back the so called "moderate rebels." The US government doesn't care about war crimes or chemical weapons being used on civilians. Don't believe the hype. When it suits the interests of the US government. Remember the USA gave chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein to use against Iran and provided him with support as long as he was doing what Washington wanted. In the 1970s and 80s the American government funded and trained right wing government death squads in central and South America to put down leftist revolutions. Also Desert Storm was a conventional conflict with conventional armies. The Syrian conflict is a civil war, insurgency, ethno-religious conflict all rolled into one. Sure it's winnable but I don't think the American public has balls do what it takes to win and the American political leadership doesn't have what it takes to get the public on board. My position is this, if the USA wants to destroy ISIS then something like the Colin Powell doctrine has to be applied. Go in big with overwhelming force and crush the enemy.