• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

ISIS Boasts Air Strikes are not Effective

Ahlevah said:
That's right. The communists stayed out of the South for two years after we left. Mission accomplished.
Click to expand...

The Germans violated the Treaty of Versailles...did The Allies lose WW1?
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
yet the united states did not attempt to claim ultimate victory and seize hannoi.
Click to expand...

France and England didn't seize Berlin in 1918. Germany didn't seize Paris in 1871. The mujas didn't seize Moscow in 1989. The Russians aren't in Berlin, anymore? Shall I keep going?
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
No but a large portion of the German population were convinced that the army did not lose but was betrayed by the politicans at home.
Click to expand...

Germany lost the war, but the German Army wasn't defeated.

Look, I know partisanship demands that you call Vietnam a defeat of American armed forces, but that's just partisan spin, not reality.
 
Cryptic said:
Here is an ISIS fighter boasting that the air strikes are not militarily effective.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/29/world/meast/isis-fighter-and-defector-interviews/index.

Sadly, he is probably right. ISIS is an army of militiamen operating is relatively small groups whose main armoured vehicles are pick up trucks turned into Mad Max style "technicals". Most supplies- and they dont need alot, are requisitioned from the locals (voluntarily, forcibly or coerced) and transported in individual civilian trucks. Likewise, there are not alot of easily demarcated front lines in the fighting.

As the similarily orgainized Serbs demonstrated in Kosovo, these types of forces mix in with civilians and can be very difficult to identify and stop. Then factor in that ISIS includes members who are veterans of both Iraq and Afghan conflicts who probably have a long list produced list of "dos and donts" produced by Darwinism when it comes to avoiding precision airstrikes.

In short, my guess is that effective air strikes need US spotters on the ground.
Click to expand...

I remember the last guy in that area who claimed his side was winning. His name was Baghdad Bob. LOL.

 
apdst said:
We were winning the war. We won the Tet Offensive. The ARVN won the Easter Offensive in 1972. From January 1968 to April 1972, the North lost 400,000 troops. A coujtry the size of North Vietnam can't sustain those losses.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but in the end the country decided that tens of thousands of dead GIs and Marines with no end in sight was too high a cost. It wanted the war over and the POWs home. So Nixon negotiated an end to it.
 
Ahlevah said:
Yeah, but in the end the country decided that tens of thousands of dead GIs and Marines with no end in sight was too high a cost. It wanted the war over and the POWs home. So Nixon negotiated an end to it.
Click to expand...

The North Vietnamese didn't sign the treaty, because they were winning. They knew the only way to avoid destruction, was to get The United States out of the picture.

Either way, none of that amounts to the defeat of American forces in the field.
 
apdst said:
The Germans violated the Treaty of Versailles...did The Allies lose WW1?
Click to expand...

The Entente Powers lost about 12 million men while the Central Powers only lost about 8 million, give or take a few hundred thousand. So I guess we can say with confidence that the Entente (Allied) Powers were the big winners, right? Or am I missing something? :confused:
 
Ahlevah said:
The Entente Powers lost about 12 million men while the Central Powers only lost about 8 million, give or take a few hundred thousand. So I guess we can say with confidence that the Entente (Allied) Powers were the big winners, right? Or am I missing something? :confused:
Click to expand...

I don't know where you got those numbers from, nor what your point is.
 
His point appears to be that you are defending the indefensible again. Consistency is only good when you win.
 
apdst said:
I don't know where you got those numbers from, nor what your point is.
Click to expand...

I just got them off of Wiki, but does it really matter? Let's say the Entente Powers "only" lost 10 million men and the Central Powers 6 million. My point is the so-called victory of the Entente Powers was a Pyrrhic one.
 
apdst said:
He got his numbers wrong, so...
Click to expand...

Wrong? No, they're not wrong. They're estimates, because no one really knows exactly how many tens of millions of combatants were killed. I only mentioned them to make a point, which you either disingenuously chose to ignore or which your military-bearing mind simply couldn't process. Once again, sometimes the cost to "win" a war is so high that it is not worth the price. In an attempt to get this thread back on track, I'm wondering what price Americans are willing to pay to stop ISIS. My guess is the intelligentsia who are in positions of influence in this country (especially those on the political right) will favor intervention at any price, because with our all-volunteer military they don't have to worry about sending their kids into harms way. The people who live in superzips as a class simply don't join the military. They attend Ivy League colleges, then start businesses so they can make lots of money or go into government where they hold positions of influence over policy. They do, however, "support our troops" and even hold a benefit now and then for the poor saps who come home missing limbs or pieces of their brains. But they'd be horrified if their own sons decided to join the Marines. A military stint in most cases is for poor and middle class people who are looking to get signing bonuses and the GI Bill. Does that sound a bit cynical? Good. It's supposed to.
 
Last edited:
Cryptic said:
Here is an ISIS fighter boasting that the air strikes are not militarily effective.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/29/world/meast/isis-fighter-and-defector-interviews/index.

Sadly, he is probably right. ISIS is an army of militiamen operating is relatively small groups whose main armoured vehicles are pick up trucks turned into Mad Max style "technicals". Most supplies- and they dont need alot, are requisitioned from the locals (voluntarily, forcibly or coerced) and transported in individual civilian trucks. Likewise, there are not alot of easily demarcated front lines in the fighting.

As the similarily orgainized Serbs demonstrated in Kosovo, these types of forces mix in with civilians and can be very difficult to identify and stop. Then factor in that ISIS includes members who are veterans of both Iraq and Afghan conflicts who probably have a long list produced list of "dos and donts" produced by Darwinism when it comes to avoiding precision airstrikes.

In short, my guess is that effective air strikes need US spotters on the ground.
Click to expand...
I am really not sure what we expect to accomplish by destroying several hundred $'s worth of military equipment and an easily replaceable terrorist with a bomb or missile that costs millions will accomplish. The current approach to ISIS I believe is a sign among a long list of signs that we have not had an intelligent military leader since WW2.
 
Capster78 said:
I am really not sure what we expect to accomplish by destroying several hundred $'s worth of military equipment and an easily replaceable terrorist with a bomb or missile that costs millions will accomplish. The current approach to ISIS I believe is a sign among a long list of signs that we have not had an intelligent military leader since WW2.
Click to expand...

Not all of their fighters are easily repalcable.

ISIS is really a coalition:
A. Hard core life long and total jihaders
B. Sunni militia groups tired with Iraqs Shia govt.

The "B"s, though willing to chase retreating Shia units, and willing to commit small scale war crimes, probably did not sign on to fighting US precision airstrikes and may have second thoughts about committing the large scale atrocities that the "A"s have made group policy.

Thus, hopefully, US strikes may cause the "B"s to leave.
 
Cryptic said:
Not all of their fighters are easily repalcable.

ISIS is really a coalition:
A. Hard core life long and total jihaders
B. Sunni militia groups tired with Iraqs Shia govt.

The "B"s, though willing to chase retreating Shia units, and willing to commit small scale war crimes, probably did not sign on to fighting US precision airstrikes and may have second thoughts about committing the large scale atrocities that the "A"s have made group policy.

Thus, hopefully, US strikes may cause the "B"s to leave.
Click to expand...

There are not enough bombs and missiles in US inventory to kill everyone in ISIS. And no matter how many bombs and missiles are dropped, there will always be a contigent of similar thinking minds around to influence others. In the absence of any type of constant and vigilant force stifling such a thing, it will always exist. Which is why missiles and bombs will never get rid of it. The answer will only come from a government powerful enough to destroy it within its boarders. Few of those exists. Even China has problems with internal extreamism, but they do manage to quell it. That is why the only way this will ever stop, is if China, Russia, the US or one of the other giant powers completely occupy it, build it up and secure it, give its people freedom and wealth, that this will go away.
 
Ahlevah said:
Wrong? No, they're not wrong. They're estimates, because no one really knows exactly how many tens of millions of combatants were killed. I only mentioned them to make a point, which you either disingenuously chose to ignore or which your military-bearing mind simply couldn't process. Once again, sometimes the cost to "win" a war is so high that it is not worth the price. In an attempt to get this thread back on track, I'm wondering what price Americans are willing to pay to stop ISIS. My guess is the intelligentsia who are in positions of influence in this country (especially those on the political right) will favor intervention at any price, because with our all-volunteer military they don't have to worry about sending their kids into harms way. The people who live in superzips as a class simply don't join the military. They attend Ivy League colleges, then start businesses so they can make lots of money or go into government where they hold positions of influence over policy. They do, however, "support our troops" and even hold a benefit now and then for the poor saps who come home missing limbs or pieces of their brains. But they'd be horrified if their own sons decided to join the Marines. A military stint in most cases is for poor and middle class people who are looking to get signing bonuses and the GI Bill. Does that sound a bit cynical? Good. It's supposed to.
Click to expand...

I don't think American's are intelligent enough to know enough about geopolitics and the Middle East to know if it is or is not worth the price to begin with. And my answer to your question, is that it is worth the price. And if we don't pay it now, as we have seen time and time again, we will pay for it later.
 
Capster78 said:
I don't think American's are intelligent enough to know enough about geopolitics and the Middle East to know if it is or is not worth the price to begin with. And my answer to your question, is that it is worth the price. And if we don't pay it now, as we have seen time and time again, we will pay for it later.
Click to expand...

History proves that the public has its limits. We saw that with Vietnam and again during the Iranian Hostage Crisis, which helped to tank Jimmy Carter's presidency. And most of them do know how to count, so if the bodies start piling up I'd expect their attention to focus more on that than the long-term threat. Finally, an argument can be made that we're paying the price now for our interventionist policies.
 
Ahlevah said:
Wrong? No, they're not wrong. They're estimates, because no one really knows exactly how many tens of millions of combatants were killed. I only mentioned them to make a point, which you either disingenuously chose to ignore or which your military-bearing mind simply couldn't process. Once again, sometimes the cost to "win" a war is so high that it is not worth the price. In an attempt to get this thread back on track, I'm wondering what price Americans are willing to pay to stop ISIS. My guess is the intelligentsia who are in positions of influence in this country (especially those on the political right) will favor intervention at any price, because with our all-volunteer military they don't have to worry about sending their kids into harms way. The people who live in superzips as a class simply don't join the military. They attend Ivy League colleges, then start businesses so they can make lots of money or go into government where they hold positions of influence over policy. They do, however, "support our troops" and even hold a benefit now and then for the poor saps who come home missing limbs or pieces of their brains. But they'd be horrified if their own sons decided to join the Marines. A military stint in most cases is for poor and middle class people who are looking to get signing bonuses and the GI Bill. Does that sound a bit cynical? Good. It's supposed to.
Click to expand...

Yes, you're nunbers are wrong. There weren't 12 million allied KIA's.
 
Ahlevah said:
History proves that the public has its limits.
Click to expand...

Especially Liberals. Hell, I've run across Liberals who think Joe McCarthy chaired the HUAC.
 
apdst said:
Yes, you're nunbers are wrong. There weren't 12 million allied KIA's.
Click to expand...

In my haste I looked at the wrong column, so I stand corrected. According to Wikipedia, the Entente Powers lost 4,866,317 to 6,349,352 military deaths from all causes. The Central Powers suffered 3,386,200 to 4,390,544. I imagine these numbers will vary somewhat depending on the source. These facts don't change my conclusion: the so-called victory by the Entente side was a Pyrrhic one.

World War I casualties - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Cryptic said:
Here is an ISIS fighter boasting that the air strikes are not militarily effective.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/29/world/meast/isis-fighter-and-defector-interviews/index.

Sadly, he is probably right. ISIS is an army of militiamen operating is relatively small groups whose main armoured vehicles are pick up trucks turned into Mad Max style "technicals". Most supplies- and they dont need alot, are requisitioned from the locals (voluntarily, forcibly or coerced) and transported in individual civilian trucks. Likewise, there are not alot of easily demarcated front lines in the fighting.

As the similarily orgainized Serbs demonstrated in Kosovo, these types of forces mix in with civilians and can be very difficult to identify and stop. Then factor in that ISIS includes members who are veterans of both Iraq and Afghan conflicts who probably have a long list produced list of "dos and donts" produced by Darwinism when it comes to avoiding precision airstrikes.

In short, my guess is that effective air strikes need US spotters on the ground.
Click to expand...

Sounds familiar...

BaghdadBobImage34_answer_4_xlarge.jpeg
 
apdst said:
Especially Liberals. Hell, I've run across Liberals who think Joe McCarthy chaired the HUAC.
Click to expand...

I'm curious to know how many neocons who banged the drums for us to invade Iraq (and said the war would be "free" because we'd use Iraqi oil revenues to pay for it) sent their sons or daughters to fight there. My guess is not many.
 
Ahlevah said:
I'm curious to know how many neocons who banged the drums for us to invade Iraq (and said the war would be "free" because we'd use Iraqi oil revenues to pay for it) sent their sons or daughters to fight there. My guess is not many.
Click to expand...

Your argument keeps getting weaker...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom