Do you support US airstrikes against ISIS?

[Boston Bread]

Yes, of course. It's one of the best possible only justified uses of American military power.

[Comrade Funk]

Yes

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Yes (D). I support preventing mass killings and the enslavement of women, and ISIS is by its own declaration an enemy of the United States. The idea that they are unlikely to pose a threat to us if left unchecked is not credible.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yes (sane/not a war-crimes enabler)

[NewYorkExpress]

Yes, provided we have an actual coalition backing us up, and not the "coalition oi the willing" we had in 2003.

[VPH]

I support airstrikes, but not boots on the ground.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

The reason our government is able to get away with all the wars they have fought is because the people only realize what's going on years after the war has begun.  We need to pressure politicians now so that the war doesn't start in the first place.

[Deus Naturae]

We've been there for years and we'll be there for years to come. We haven't accomplished much thus far other than losing a great deal in terms of lives and taxpayer money, and I doubt that the future holds significantly different results.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

We've been there for years and we'll be there for years to come. We haven't accomplished much thus far other than losing a great deal in terms of lives and taxpayer money, and I doubt that the future holds significantly different results.

But see, this time is different because the President is a Democrat!!!

[Representative MJM]

Yes.
The Islamic State isn't a legitimate state with which we can engage in a discourse to solve our problems. They are a terrorist organization that has committed innumerable human rights abuses and war crimes. They need to be brought to justice. If airstrikes are not enough, I would certainly support a total war. I only wish we did not invade Iraq in 2003, because it has (justifiably) created an anti-war sentiment on both sides of the aisle.

[IceSpear]

We've been there for years and we'll be there for years to come. We haven't accomplished much thus far other than losing a great deal in terms of lives and taxpayer money, and I doubt that the future holds significantly different results.

But see, this time is different because the President is a Democrat!!!

It has nothing to do with that. Pretty much everyone agrees at this point the Iraq War was a mistake. But we don't have a time machine, we have to work with reality. Allowing ISIS to fill the vacuum would be disastrous not only for the region but for American security.

[VPH]

Yes.
The Islamic State isn't a legitimate state with which we can engage in a discourse to solve our problems. They are a terrorist organization that has committed innumerable human rights abuses and war crimes. They need to be brought to justice. If airstrikes are not enough, I would certainly support a total war. I only wish we did not invade Iraq in 2003, because it has (justifiably) created an anti-war sentiment on both sides of the aisle.

True declaration of war, I believe, (correct me if I'm wrong) implies recognizing of ISIS as a state, which only serves to entrench them. From an international law perspective, declaring war on them would be shady. Then again, I guess we have been going to war without declarations for a damn long time anyway...