Do You Agree with the House Passing the Bill to Arm the Syrians to Combat the Islamic State?

Bombing is a quick fix and like most quick fixes, they rapidly fail. That said I think we as a nation have to decide whether we want to go back in and finish the job. If we do then do it right. Come up with reasonable rules of engagement. Recognize there will be civilian casualties, once you deploy the troops, then don't sit at home and start pulling the rug out from under them by announcing tactics , timetables and other critical information. Recognize no one on the other side is in uniform so when they say so many civilians were killed, prove it. I was too old for the current festivities, but not for Viet Nam and I do know that the combatants were of all ages, sex and description. We tried to avoid collateral damage but if they are shooting at you then they are probably hostile. In short as was said many years ago, by a man much smarter than I:
A great general, Lucius Macedonicus, made a statement—at least it was attributed to him. He called it, or someone later called it, “Come with Me to Macedonia.” It is a great statement and one that has impressed me greatly, with its many hidden truths. He said:
Commanders should be counselled chiefly by persons of known talent, by those who have made the art of war their particular study, and whose knowledge is derived from experience, by those who are present at the scene of action, who see the enemy, who see the advantages that occasions offer, and who, like people embarked in the same ship, are sharers of the danger.
If, therefore, anyone thinks himself qualified to give advice respecting the war which I am about to conduct, let him not refuse his assistance to the state, but let him come with me into Macedonia.
He shall be furnished with a ship, a tent; even his travelling charges will be defrayed, but if he thinks this too much trouble, and prefers the repose of a city life to the toils of war, let him not on land assume the office of a pilot. The city in itself furnishes abundance of topics for conversation; let it confine its passion for talking to its own precincts and rest assured that we shall pay no attention to any counsel but such as shall be framed within our camp. [General Lucius Aemilius Paulus, surnamed Macedonicus, Roman general and patrician, c. 229-160 B.C.]

We have a tendency to arm the people who use our weapons against us down the road.

It's going to be another Goat F---, it's the same thing that happens over and over and yet we never learn. No matter how this turns out we're going to be screwed. ISIS loses, Iran/Syria gain power. ISIS wins, then we have a bigger conflict. The so called moderates have been accused of selling prisoners to ISIS. Best thing is to protect the Kurds, and try to avoid getting pulled into a deeper mess by supporting one side or the other.

Not in the slightest. I informed my Senator that I was against bombing Assad last year, and she voted for that. Now she is voting for this.

Upsetting to see that those in Congress keep flip flopping without facts (Jimmy Carter anyone?)

Yes I do agree with the passing of this bill, we are quick to forget 2006-2007 in Baqubah, Iraq. This is not the first time that ISIS or ISI back then declared a caliphate in an AO. No offense to those that were not on the ground then in Diyala province but this group is the fiercest fighters that I have ever seen and they were not on this large of a scale as now. We slowed the problem but it has blown up in our faces, they were either killed or captured and released to regroup and strengthen even more all the while falling off the radar. If the US does get involved with a large commitment of ground forces you are talking about crossing into Syria, and possibly Turkey using Iraq as a starting point to try and send them to Allah. With starting in Iraq what is not to say that they do not fall back to another country which poses more issues of crossing more international boundaries. This is not going to be an easy campaign let alone a popular campaign for the US populace especially after 13 years of war. This fight is going to be a proxy war, and mainly persuade other nations in that region to try and handle the problem. This is not going to be a 1-2 year event it will take years and on the other hand what is not to say that we create more of a problem with people joining ISIS because we intervened and created another power vacuum in that AO? For the simplest terms this is the modern day bloods vs. crypts battle but on a larger scale to where thousands can possibly be killed do to one attack and not just a few gang bangers on some street. We are in between a rock and a hard spot, yes we have done this countless times and had it come back to bite us in the ass. But what are other realistic options that are even feasible for us? Now realize this is just one grunts point of view and I could be way off base here but I fear I am not.

We armed Aphganistan against Russia where did those weapons end up.

We are so quick to "furnish" weapons to rebels, but not our own citizens....apparently WE as Americans have been threatened and no action from the house on Pennsylvania Ave....

Ever since the Ottoman Empire faded away into the history books the Sunni-Shiite sectarian civil war has been at work eroding the boundaries of corrupt and authoritarian governments in the region. The endemic brutal and oppressive nature of both secular opposition and moderate Islamist has created the breeding ground for the more nihilist ideology of ISIS and the like. I feel these two sides would resort to hand-to-hand engagement if needed so arming is not a solution just a means to make some money for a couple of defense contractors. However ISIS does induce instability in the region and thus the reliability of the oil flow as ISIS is now funding its jihad en-part from oil revenue. To further complicate this as soon as we have boots on the ground or get involved via air strikes we become the enemies of ISIS's enemies. I say a consistent campaign that targets the leadership of these groups is the way to go.