I thought we were talking about stopping ISIS. You said boots on the ground were needed. I said boots on the ground aren't needed. You said, "Well, but I also personally don't like Assad, so we need boots on the ground." That's not ISIS anymore, and you have yet to explain why getting rid of the only person holding Syria partially together should be removed and replaced with a Libyan-style civil war where no one has the upper hand, and how that reduces, rather than increases the terror threat from Syria. You will create the very situation that needs boots on the ground.

Then you go on and make the colossally asinine statement, "There will never been stability three as long Assad is in power and Putin needs to liberty from his misguided belief that he can strong Russia back to be super power." Do you know how the English language works? Are you capable of writing in coherent sentences?

You can't say "will never been" - I'm assuming you mean "will never be", though as far as typos go it's a pretty retarded one. Then you say "stability three" - I'm assuming you mean "there" but clearly you can't be bothered to correct the typo. After that "and Putin needs to liberty" - liberty isn't a verb and I don't know what you're trying to REALLY say here because your ability to use the English language has so utterly broken down that you have failed to communicate your thought. It gets worse: "that he can strong Russia back to be super power". "Strong Russia" is an adjective and noun. Unless this was ironic, like "I am America, and you can too!" then you need a verb after "can", not an adjective and noun. At that point, hoping that you'd put an indefinite article before "superpower" (or use it as one word, which is convention) would be an irrational hope.

Can you try to rewrite that last sentence with at least a 4th grade level of writing skill? That might be helpful as a prerequisite to convincing me (or anyone else on this site) that your opinions are worth debating seriously.