Been a while since I ranted, and I'm ready to blow.

First up, the Islamic State of Iraq an Syria has taken the Middle East by storm, and it is quite obvious that they don't plan on stopping anytime soon. When they first hit Syria, President Obama was between a rock and a hard place, as ISIS was on the side of the rebels, who are currently fighting Syrian Dictator Bashar Al-Assad. So, he had two choices, Go up against the rebels and back the dictator who uses chemical weapons on his own people. Then there was option B, go against Al-Assad and back a mixture of moderate rebels and extremist terrorists. He chose neither, probably the best choice.

A few months later, ISIS is inside Iraq, threatening that they will not stop until they plant their flag on the White House. What does the Government do? They tell ISIS to stop. Yeah, they tell them to stop it. What did they think that was going to do? Well it did nothing and ISIS continued advancing rapidly. Finally we began bombing them, to small avail. In response ISIS beheaded multiple Americans. Now, finally troops are going in, but, to my distaste, only a small amount are being sent.

We should have never left Iraq in the first place, IT WAS NOT SECURE. What we need to do now is send more troops, WE CAN NOT LET THIS PROBLEM GET WORSE THAN IT IS. Sending small amounts of troops is sending them to their deaths. PRESIDENT OBAMA, PROTECT OUR GLORIOUS NATION AND GET THE JOB DONE.

I have more to say, but I am out of time. More to come in the coming days.

We can't drop a nuke, so that's a bit of a dilemma. Maybe if we send 1,000 tanks on their butts, we can intimidate them into submission? Nah...

The major problem is the fact that the Iraqi army we trained to protect their country dropped their weapons and fled. (Proving their ineptitude to protect themselves), This gave ISIS acsess to our hi-tech guns, tanks, and other military equipment. They also have been able to get access to care packages that we dropped for the Iraqi military. Bombing has proved ineffective, as well as small amounts of troops, so the only answer is another war in Iraq. Will it be costly? Yes. Does it need to be done? Yes, we must protect the citizens of the United States of America and all over the world. Only this time, after we drive ISIS out, we need to stay there, and we need to keep a large amount of troops there until the turmoil is gone for good, which may never be.

So the problem with keeping the troops there is 1) We will need to send them supplies, 2) They can't stay there forever, so troops will have to rotate in and out, and 3) placing troops there might be seen by others as an act of aggression or that the U.S. is invading other countries, possibly leading to a war. So there is a problem with keeping troops there.

Hmm, i agree with all these! I dont wanna give my opinion!

Keeping troops a kind of agression , it's also lost of too much tax , which is given by normal people , helping a Iraq to protect themself a good idea but keeping those troops there for forever nothing but daydreaming , Iraq need to know to defend themselfs every country and people do that

Trying to train Iraq to defend itself has led us to where we are currently, a crisis in which we cannot ignore. Iraq has proven itself inept to defend itself, and I am not insinuating we stay there forever (even though it may be likely), but as the power of the world, we need to do what we can to keep the peace, and if other countries see it as aggression, they apparently do not understand the risk of not keeping troops in the area. ISIS has proved that there IS a large risk.

If you want ISIS to be wiped out instantly you need to sacrifice those innocent ppl and drop a nuke.

Send infiltrators and then slowly choke them out, and until they fully get pushed out... Kill them. Bomb them, or even sacrifice innocents, so everyone can survive. This is like a psychology question.

Here's where even more issues arise.

1. Dropping a nuke is not a good idea. First of all, you would need to get the UN to agree on it, which would be impossible considering a nuke would damage or destroy UN countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Isreal. If we do it without UN's permission, then we plunge the world into World War III.

2. Inflitrators is a reasonable idea and should be used, but we also need infantry on the ground to support them, as firing missiles and dropping bombs does not kill them fast enough to match the rate of which people are signing up. ISIS comes into millions of dollars a day, which means they won't be short on money when it comes to defending from us. The U.S.A is a superpower, and it's time we start acting like one. We need to stop cutting the military, and get boots on the ground. Innocents will die as in every war, but necessarily, as bad as this sounds, it's either we kill them or ISIS kills them. So there's no winning for them, we will try to save civillians and soften the blow, but innocents dying is in every war, and it always will be.

You know what? This reminds me of S.H.I.E.L.D. especially talk of espionage like the above mentioned. Why don't we convert enemy spies for our own motives? We could even deploy false ISIS agents to confuse them and take information too.

Jihadists are nearly impossible to convert. They believe that the western powers (United States, England, etc.) are trying to destroy their way of life. They have a deep hatred for America and it is very unlikely we would be able to convert any of them. Also it's far too risky, terrorists are extremely patient, the terrorists that attacked in 9/11 were able to get visas to America, and attend flight school. So it wouldn't be difficult for ISIS to infiltrate us if we try to convert them.

What gives America the right to police the whole world? Every step we take in the mid-east puts us in deeper muck than we were before. Let Israel and the Arab League deal with Syria and ISIS. They have a much higher stake in it than we do.

Well, you see, we cannot do that. ISIS has already stated that they want to plant their flag on the White House. We were made the power of the world after ousting the Soviet Union in the arms race, and the world needs major powers to keep control. Also, as I have previously stated, ISIS has control of America's high tech weapons and will likely be able to defeat Saudi Arabia, the small remainder of Iraq, and (with help of Palestine) Isreal. Then, to make matters worse (Which in part is because America is trying to avoid conflict) Iran if very close to a nuclear bomb, and if ISIS threatens Iran, the middle east will be plunged into a nuclear war. America has tried to stay out of problems in the past, this has led to attacks such as Pearl Harbor and 9/11. ISIS hates America far more than Al-Queda, and is the biggest threat to America since the Soviet Union. So, in turn, you are wrong, and America has as much stake in this than Isreal, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates.

America has never stayed out of anything. We really didn't try staying out of WWII... we put Pearl Harbor in a place that made Japan nervous, provoking them. The attack on the twin towers was similarly provoked. Not to mention the terrorists who flew those planes into the towers had help by the U.S. I don't buy the explanation of how they came down. There was a bomb down in the basement. The fuel in airplanes does not burn as hot as they say it became.

We cannot believe what the mainstream media tells us, because they're all subsidized by the government.