Page 58 of 59 FirstFirst ... 84856575859 LastLast
Results 571 to 580 of 585

Thread: ISIS Boasts Air Strikes are not Effective

  1. #571
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,148

    Re: ISIS Boasts Air Strikes are not Effective

    Quote Originally Posted by iguanaman View Post
    And let Bin Laden go. Don't forget that.
    ....No. Not really. That was Rumsfelds' fault. Directly.

    We also had allies in Afghanistan, our "allies" in Iraq will be the Iranian guard and a Shiite army that won't fight in Sunnis areas.
    And the Kurds. And not a few of the Sunni, frankly.

    We will no doubt have heavy casualties and extreme civilian ones.
    The battle in Iraq currently features heavy extreme civilian casualties because we are allowing ISIL to capture vast swathes of territory. If you want to reduce civilian casualties, you have to drive them back.

    This is exactly what ISIS wants. It will bring flocks of recruits running toward Iraq to fight "Crusade", the sequel to.....

    [IMG]http://media.dcentertainment.com/sites/default/files/MAD-Magazine-Gulf-Wars-2-Poster.jpg[IMG]
    This is actually incorrect. Mind you, I wouldn't expect you to be familiar with ISIL strategic messaging. Their imagery is that this is the Battle of Dabiq, not Gulf War III.

  2. #572
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:59 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    23,387

    Re: ISIS Boasts Air Strikes are not Effective

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    No. I am making fun of your stupid contention that the causality of history has a stopping point beyond "the decision to engage in the act".

    You know, really, the Russians wouldn't be so paranoid about their Near Abroad (and thus, wouldn't have invaded Afghanistan) if the Mongols' hadn't swept through and demonstrated the strategic necessity of doing so lo those many centuries ago... so really this ISIL organization is probably Ghenghis Khan's fault.


    True enough.



    Let me cite a well known figure here: "Don't do stupid **** is not an organizing principle".
    I am talking about modern history of the M.E. and you bring up Genghis Khan? Could you be anymore off topic?

    Quoting Hillary? Could this mean you will be treating our next President with respect? Do you even know how anymore? You are just full of surprises.

  3. #573
    Sage


    Thoreau72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:20 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    20,313

    Re: ISIS Boasts Air Strikes are not Effective

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Obama lacks the leadership skills that require him to listen to others. His arrogance of full display and yet millions still support him. He certainly didn't listen to his military or civilian leaders, did he?
    He is waging war all over the globe, with no debate about it in Congress. He has not met a military action or war that he does not like.

    It seems to me he is doing everything he is told to do by the MIC. He and Holder do as they are instructed by Wall Street. What's to complain about? He violates the Constitution as he pleases, just as his predecessor did.

    What's to complain about?

  4. #574
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,293

    Re: ISIS Boasts Air Strikes are not Effective

    Quote Originally Posted by Henry David View Post
    He is waging war all over the globe, with no debate about it in Congress. He has not met a military action or war that he does not like.

    It seems to me he is doing everything he is told to do by the MIC. He and Holder do as they are instructed by Wall Street. What's to complain about? He violates the Constitution as he pleases, just as his predecessor did.

    What's to complain about?
    The results and results matter. You wage a war to win it, not to just keep the status quo. There isn't a golf course or fund raiser that he doesn't like and therein lies part of the problem. He lacks leadership skills and even after 6 years experience to handle the job

  5. #575
    Sage

    Ahlevah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Flyoverland
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,926

    Re: ISIS Boasts Air Strikes are not Effective

    Quote Originally Posted by Capster78 View Post
    I love it when anti-war crazies start standing on the bodies of those who fought in those wars and pretend to speak for them. This tactic is not new. To use body count as a protest to war is such an old and worn out, but surprisingly effective, means to a rhetorical argument. I believe the reason it is so effective is because its easier to not actually research the underlying causes of a conflict and determine the right or wrong of it. It's so much easier to spout nonsensical rhetoric so that one can be lazy and say... "See, its just that easy to understand"!
    So I'm an "anti-war crazy" because I question whether the sacrifice of so many Americans was worth the price? I "stand on the bodies of those who fought in those wars and pretend to speak for them"? I'm standing on one set of bodies--those in Vietnam--and questioning whether their sacrifice was worth it, but I don't claim to speak for them. Neither should anyone else, because I imagine more than a few of the people who died there were draftees who just wanted to get back home alive and cursed that war and Lyndon Johnson, too. I'm also standing on the bodies of all the Vietnamese civilians we killed and questioning whether their deaths were worth it as well.

    And what's to research? We lost--period. I've read all of the arguments about why we did what we did, going back to George Kennan's "containment" argument to Eisenhower's "domino theory." Where it concerns Vietnam, we didn't contain anything and the domino fell almost as if on cue, so the end result was a lot of people--Americans and Vietnamese--died for nothing. At least, that's what my gut tells me. What does your research say?
    Нава́льный 2018

  6. #576
    Sage


    Thoreau72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:20 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    20,313

    Re: ISIS Boasts Air Strikes are not Effective

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    The results and results matter. You wage a war to win it, not to just keep the status quo. There isn't a golf course or fund raiser that he doesn't like and therein lies part of the problem. He lacks leadership skills and even after 6 years experience to handle the job
    Waging a war to win it is very old-fashioned, circa 1945, back when US wars were declared in accordance with the requirements of the US Constitution.

    Since about the Vietnam era, wars are waged to benefit what Ike called the Military Industrial Complex.

    As U2 put it so well, gold is the reason for the wars we wage. Obama does very much lack leadership skills, but that is really beside the point. Barack does not rock the boat--he does as he is told, whether the mission is military or simply an assault on the principles of the document he is sworn to uphold.

  7. #577
    Professor
    Capster78's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    08-24-15 @ 02:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    2,253

    Re: ISIS Boasts Air Strikes are not Effective

    Quote Originally Posted by Ahlevah View Post
    So I'm an "anti-war crazy" because I question whether the sacrifice of so many Americans was worth the price? I "stand on the bodies of those who fought in those wars and pretend to speak for them"? I'm standing on one set of bodies--those in Vietnam--and questioning whether their sacrifice was worth it, but I don't claim to speak for them. Neither should anyone else, because I imagine more than a few of the people who died there were draftees who just wanted to get back home alive and cursed that war and Lyndon Johnson, too. I'm also standing on the bodies of all the Vietnamese civilians we killed and questioning whether their deaths were worth it as well.
    Then don't base your arguments against it on body count. Make an actual argument giving reasons why it was a bad idea instead of repeating the same rhetorical arguments many others have made. Why not just cut and paste someone elses anti-war argument and post it? Your argument brings no new perspective to any conflicts we have been in at all. An argument that can be made about all the wars we have been involved in, is no argument at all. Simply because none of them are even remotely similar to each other. The only similarity is that people have died in all of them. And to make an argument based on that is just ignorant and not very interesting.

    And what's to research? We lost--period. I've read all of the arguments about why we did what we did, going back to George Kennan's "containment" argument to Eisenhower's "domino theory." Where it concerns Vietnam, we didn't contain anything and the domino fell almost as if on cue, so the end result was a lot of people--Americans and Vietnamese--died for nothing. At least, that's what my gut tells me. What does your research say?
    My research sais that ever since the liberals and feminists took over the country, we have lost every war. Not because we did not have the capability to win, or were fighting a worthy cause, but because the rhetorical, nonsensical, feel goodery bullcrap they spewed caused us loose every war since WW2. If the Germans knew it would be this easy to win, they would have tried it.
    - There was never a good war, or a bad peace.
    - Idealistically, everything should work as you planed it to. Realistically, it depends on how idealistic you are as to the measure of success.
    - Better to be a pessimist before, and an optimist afterwords.

  8. #578
    Sage

    Ahlevah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Flyoverland
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,926

    Re: ISIS Boasts Air Strikes are not Effective

    Quote Originally Posted by Capster78 View Post
    Then don't base your arguments against it on body count. Make an actual argument giving reasons why it was a bad idea instead of repeating the same rhetorical arguments many others have made.
    You mean make an actual argument backed by research such as "since liberals and feminists took over the country we can't win a war"? Forgive me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Richard Nixon running the country when the U.S. negotiated an end to its participation in the Vietnam War?

    Anyway, weighing the cost of a war to determine whether it was "worth it" is a legitimate exercise. Part of that cost, even if you don't like it because others have said it before I did, is the cost in lives. My preference would have been to use air power to bomb North Vietnam back into the Stone Age. There would have been no buffer zones or restrictions; if an anti-aircraft battery or airfield were near an inhabited area it would have been blown to bits--no ifs, ands, or buts about it. Since we didn't do that, we lost a lot of people needlessly, especially when placed in context of our original aim (limit communist expansion in Southeast Asia) compared with the result (our failure to limit communist expansion in Southeast Asia).

    So the policy wonks who see U.S. ground troops as the solution to every problem, including increasingly sectarian civil wars in Syria and Iraq, are back again. They're nuts. I'm all for hitting ISIS, but keep it confined to the air and training others with a vested interest in the outcome to do the fighting.
    Нава́льный 2018

  9. #579
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Los Angeles area
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 01:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,868

    Re: ISIS Boasts Air Strikes are not Effective

    Quote Originally Posted by Ahlevah View Post
    You mean make an actual argument backed by research such as "since liberals and feminists took over the country we can't win a war"? Forgive me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Richard Nixon running the country when the U.S. negotiated an end to its participation in the Vietnam War?

    Anyway, weighing the cost of a war to determine whether it was "worth it" is a legitimate exercise. Part of that cost, even if you don't like it because others have said it before I did, is the cost in lives. My preference would have been to use air power to bomb North Vietnam back into the Stone Age. There would have been no buffer zones or restrictions; if an anti-aircraft battery or airfield were near an inhabited area it would have been blown to bits--no ifs, ands, or buts about it. Since we didn't do that, we lost a lot of people needlessly, especially when placed in context of our original aim (limit communist expansion in Southeast Asia) compared with the result (our failure to limit communist expansion in Southeast Asia).

    So the policy wonks who see U.S. ground troops as the solution to every problem, including increasingly sectarian civil wars in Syria and Iraq, are back again. They're nuts. I'm all for hitting ISIS, but keep it confined to the air and training others with a vested interest in the outcome to do the fighting.
    I doubt that approach will work. The only way to defeat these people, unfortunately, is probably with a powerful U.S. force on the ground, backed by aircraft. Because I doubt we will see that, I doubt these people will be defeated. And if they survive, I think it's likely they will kill tens or even hundreds of thousands of American civilians in attacks in this country.

  10. #580
    Sage

    Ahlevah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Flyoverland
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,926

    Re: ISIS Boasts Air Strikes are not Effective

    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    I doubt that approach will work. The only way to defeat these people, unfortunately, is probably with a powerful U.S. force on the ground, backed by aircraft. Because I doubt we will see that, I doubt these people will be defeated. And if they survive, I think it's likely they will kill tens or even hundreds of thousands of American civilians in attacks in this country.
    I don't see ISIS surviving in the long run. They're just too brutal and they've made too many enemies. Besides, they lack air power, are landlocked, and don't have ready access to supplies. They basically depend on smuggling and capturing weapons. Once the weapons and munitions they've looted are spent who's going to supply them effectively?
    Нава́льный 2018

Page 58 of 59 FirstFirst ... 84856575859 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •