• 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

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.

There an estimated 31,000 fighters in IS, on what planet does the US lack sufficient ordinance to combat this organization? It isn't an invulnerable blob it is a highly identifiable organization with set pieces of territory, organized military units, and practical objectives. This is a silly post.
 
There an estimated 31,000 fighters in IS, on what planet does the US lack sufficient ordinance to combat this organization? It isn't an invulnerable blob it is a highly identifiable organization with set pieces of territory, organized military units, and practical objectives. This is a silly post.

That is a static number. You have to understand that this number will vary as members recruit others to fill in the voids of those we have taken out Due to the precise munitions we use, many attacks will only destroy buildings, or at best, take out a few militants at a time. Which can be quickly recruited or bought by the movement at very cheap prices. This is what changed the course of the war in Iraq. When we realized that many of the extremists were not really extreamist, but paid mercenaries. When we started paying them more then the extremists, they formed a group of well paid mercenaries to fight against the Taliban. Many of the fighters will fight for the highest bidder. We would be better off paying off militants that join ISIS to not fight, which would be a lot cheaper then dropping a million $ ordinance on them. Poverty is what the Taliban and ISIS are taking advantage of.
 
That is a static number. You have to understand that this number will vary as members recruit others to fill in the voids of those we have taken out Due to the precise munitions we use, many attacks will only destroy buildings, or at best, take out a few militants at a time. Which can be quickly recruited or bought by the movement at very cheap prices. This is what changed the course of the war in Iraq. When we realized that many of the extremists were not really extreamist, but paid mercenaries. When we started paying them more then the extremists, they formed a group of well paid mercenaries to fight against the Taliban. Many of the fighters will fight for the highest bidder. We would be better off paying off militants that join ISIS to not fight, which would be a lot cheaper then dropping a million $ ordinance on them. Poverty is what the Taliban and ISIS are taking advantage of.

Err... of course it's a static number. Explaining that a militant organizations troop totals will fluctuate depending on casualties, recruitment, and desertion is one of the most obvious things I've ever seen posted. Moreover there is no reason to believe that there is a bottomless pool of fighters available to IS.
 
And now, you disgustingly explout dead American soldiers. That just goes to show how weak your argument is. :roll:

Well, if you don't want to explain to me why this isn't a celebration of victory perhaps you can tell me why pointing out the cost of folly is exploiting dead American soldiers?
 
Well, if you don't want to explain to me why this isn't a celebration of victory perhaps you can tell me why pointing out the cost of folly is exploiting dead American soldiers?

Changing the subject won't make your argument any less wrong. You've gone from, "the Viet Cong forced us to surrender", to, "it wasn't worth it". Stop trying to use partisan hackery as historical fact.
 
There an estimated 31,000 fighters in IS, on what planet does the US lack sufficient ordinance to combat this organization? It isn't an invulnerable blob it is a highly identifiable organization with set pieces of territory, organized military units, and practical objectives. This is a silly post.

On what planet does Saudi Arabia lack the military capability to combat this organization?

LONDON, Feb 5 (Reuters) - Saudi Arabia beat Britain to become the world's fourth largest defence spender in 2013, a report said on Wednesday, as Western cuts and Asian and Middle Eastern growth shift the global balance of military power.
 
And now, you disgustingly explout dead American soldiers. That just goes to show how weak your argument is. :roll:

This comment proves how weak your argument is.
 
This comment proves how weak your argument is.

My argument is dead on and supported with historical facts. Are you ready to explain to us at what point the commies started dominating American forces on the battlefield, yet?
 
On what planet does Saudi Arabia lack the military capability to combat this organization?

LONDON, Feb 5 (Reuters) - Saudi Arabia beat Britain to become the world's fourth largest defence spender in 2013, a report said on Wednesday, as Western cuts and Asian and Middle Eastern growth shift the global balance of military power.

Does Saudi Arabia possess the resolve, leadership and morale to destroy ISIS?
 
My argument is dead on and supported with historical facts. Are you ready to explain to us at what point the commies started dominating American forces on the battlefield, yet?

Well apdst, in the last 24 hours you've moved the subject all around as you've been squirming under the weight of Ahlevah. I believe originally you were denying that the US lost the Vietnam war and failed to meet the objective with south Vietnam!
 
Well apdst, in the last 24 hours you've moved the subject all around as you've been squirming under the weight of Ahlevah. I believe originally you were denying that the US lost the Vietnam war and failed to meet the objective with south Vietnam!

I've moved around? :lamo
 
We could.

But we don't. And Saudi Arabia, who has the ability won't because they actually see a benefit to the Islamic State.

How far is Saudi Arabia complicit in the Isis takeover of much of northern Iraq, and is it stoking an escalating Sunni-Shia conflict across the Islamic world? Some time before 9/11, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, once the powerful Saudi ambassador in Washington and head of Saudi intelligence until a few months ago, had a revealing and ominous conversation with the head of the British Secret Intelligence Service, MI6, Sir Richard Dearlove. Prince Bandar told him: "The time is not far off in the Middle East, Richard, when it will be literally 'God help the Shia'. More than a billion Sunnis have simply had enough of them."

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...ke-over-the-north-of-the-country-9602312.html
 
Last edited:
It's difficult to thoroughly degrade ISIS by air-power strictly using Litening Pods and drone feeds. FACs/JTACs are required to obtain better granular results.
 
Simpleχity;1063832489 said:
It's difficult to thoroughly degrade ISIS by air-power strictly using Litening Pods and drone feeds. FACs/JTACs are required to obtain better granular results.

It's also difficult with the funding they are receiving from wealthy donors in various Gulf States.
 
Do me a favor and tell me why this was worth it. What did we win?
You are asking the wrong question. It wasnt a question of 'winning' Vietnam, it was question of opposing the continued expansion of communism. The goal was not to seize South Vietnam (or for that matter to defeat North Vietnam) but rather to prevent it from falling under communist rule similar to the goal in Korea, Afghanistan, etc). The problem was not the war or the war effort but rather the way it was fought. Every US preisdent recognized the need to prevent communist expansion. They just did a lousy job of fighting it. Thats what happens when you let politics and politicians dictate the war effort. Thats why so many people died in Vietnam. Blame Kennedy and Johnson for following the french model that had already had proven disastrous.

There is no doubt that Communist Russia and China were fueling the attacks on the south by the north. Had the US specifically targeted North Vietnam and full on engaged, the war would have been over in months. What would have resulted is something that looks similar to South and North Korea today. Vietnam wasnt 'just' about Vietnam. It was a war of ideology. It was just another battlefield of the cold war.

Ask if fighting Communist expansion was worth it. Ask what the world would have looked like had the Soviet Union accomplished its stated goals. Ask what the world would have looked like if the Soviets had managed to gain a firm stronghold in Afghanistan. then ask WHY the Soviet Union was so invested in a south and westward expansion. Dont ask it based on what he HAVE today. What we HAVE today came about because people resisted the Soviet expansion. Ask what COULD have been had we not fought expansion.
 
I've moved around? :lamo

Squirmed like a stuck pig. It's a familiar sight here, it happens every time your opinion collides with reality.

ISIS isn't a conventional army. They dont have static command and control centres, they live among the population, and they mostly use civilian vehicles. This is not a target-rich environment. Even if strikes are made, collateral damage is higher, boosting recruitment. Boots on the ground are vital, not only to exclude them from areas, but in order to gain even basic intelligence on their location.
 
Last edited:
Squirmed like a stuck pig. It's a familiar sight here, it happens every time your opinion collides with reality.

ISIS isn't a conventional army. They dont have static command and control centres, they live among the population, and they mostly use civilian vehicles. This is not a target-rich environment. Even if strikes are made, collateral damage is higher, boosting recruitment. Boots on the ground are vital, not only to exclude them from areas, but in order to gain even basic intelligence on their location.

Actually, they are a conventional fighting force. You can't hide 30,000 troops among the population.
 
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.

Agreed. They need to be coordinated by US special forces on the ground....as they did initially in Afghanistan. The northern Alliance took care of the mop up duties.
 
Obama told ISIS he was going to bomb them for months prior to actually doing it so they had plenty of time to disperse their men and weapons. We are bombing empty buildings and they are laughing at us.

Much like we did in Vietnam while prima donnas at the Paris Peace talks argued about whether to have Caviar or Lobster Thermadore at lunch.
 
Remember way back when. Obama was asked for his ISIS strategy and he had none. He spent weeks after that mumbling and fumbling about not doing anything until he got the world on his side. ISIS had plenty of time to see what was coming and take appropriate action. Obama missed his window of opportunity big time. Before the question of his policy was even asked he should have started the bombing. At that point there would have been no question what his policy was and ISIS would have been caught off guard and would have been decimated.

This is the problem when we elect commander in chiefs who have never served a day in the military. They are not bright enough to work out that it's not a good idea to telegraph your punches to the enemy. We should not have been made aware of the air strikes until after the first strikes occurred.
 
Back
Top Bottom