• 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:
I'm the guy who remembers we were supposed to enter Iraq, remove Saddam from power, get welcomed as heroes, and then leave. It didn't quite work out that way. I'm the guy who remembers the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians--men, women, and children--who died after we left a power vacuum and destabilized the country. And I'm the guy who finds it problematic to play the morality card when it's stained with events like Haditha, Mahmudiyah, and Abu Ghraib. I mean, I realize some good was done there by our military in Iraq. In fact, I'm sure it was significant. Unfortunately, it's always the bad apples that leave a sour taste in my mouth. I'm the guy who remembers them.

The War Profiteers - Iraq: BBC Documentary on Mahmudiya Massacre - August 7th, 2006
Click to expand...
Mistakes were made. Let women and children and die. You are a hero.
 
VanceMack said:
Mistakes were made. Let women and children and die. You are a hero.
Click to expand...

"Mistakes"? That's what you call them? Alrighty then.

Anyway, I'm not suggesting we stand back and do nothing about ISIS. But we need to think very carefully about how we approach this. I am absolutely against sending in infantry/armor on a large scale like we did in Iraq. Someone suggested that we should have used B-52s to bomb ISIS targets arrayed near Kobani. Maybe that would have been a good idea, assuming we had the assets there to properly target them.
 
Last edited:
Ahlevah said:
"Mistakes"? That's what you call them? Alrighty then.

Anyway, I'm not suggesting we stand back and do nothing about ISIS. But we need to think very carefully about how we approach this. I am absolutely against sending in infantry/armor on a large scale like we did in Iraq. Someone suggested that we should have used B-52s to bomb ISIS targets arrayed near Kobani. Maybe that would have been a good idea, assuming we had the assets there to properly target them.
Click to expand...
I dont own other peoples criminal acts. Mistakes were made following combat operations. Thats not a reason to throw your hands up in the air, shrug, and watch women and children butchered. Hopefully if someone you care about is being assaulted, someone else will be around to provide assistance.
 
You mean bombing a truck or an empty shack a day isn't effective? Hard to believe.

Folks ... I think we need to confront an unfortunate truth.

If our President would make wet-tissue-paper statements about the threat of ISIL and keeping his forces in the garage when ISIS marched into Kobani, ya think it's past time to question whether our Commander-in-Chief has any interest whatsoever in stopping them?
 
bubbabgone said:
You mean bombing a truck or an empty shack a day isn't effective? Hard to believe.

Folks ... I think we need to confront an unfortunate truth.

If our President would make wet-tissue-paper statements about the threat of ISIL and keeping his forces in the garage when ISIS marched into Kobani, ya think it's past time to question whether our Commander-in-Chief has any interest whatsoever in stopping them?
Click to expand...

Saudi Arabia is right there! And they have the worlds fourth largest military. Why does Obama, or any American president need to shoulder a regional problem that the US helped create? So far, US intervention/interference has had a negative effect on the ME. time to get out.
 
Ahlevah said:
I don't recall mentioning any specific year regarding their activity other than the 1968 Tet Offensive, but, no, I was not under the impression the military wing of the National Liberation Front had ceased to exist before we departed the country.



Never said that, either.



I'm curious how you divined this, since I never said anything concerning the nature of the Viet Cong. There seems to be a pattern in which you butcher my words. We'll have a problem carrying on a meaningful discussion if you can't get basic facts straight.
Click to expand...

You said the Viet Cong raised their flag over Saigon. That tells me you don't know.
 
Montecresto said:
Saudi Arabia is right there! And they have the worlds fourth largest military. Why does Obama, or any American president need to shoulder a regional problem that the US helped create? So far, US intervention/interference has had a negative effect on the ME. time to get out.
Click to expand...

The same reason the Turks are doing, nothing as we speak, while ISIS is about over-run a town in Syria and probably exterminate 20,000 people.
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
The same reason the Turks are doing, as we speak, while ISIS is about ovet-run a town in Syria and probably exterminate 20,000 people.
Click to expand...

What do you mean about the Turk's?
 
apdst said:
You said the Viet Cong raised their flag over Saigon. That tells me you don't know.
Click to expand...

In Post 262, I quoted you where you wrote:

apdst said:
We left...after we forced The North :shock: (emphasis mine) to sign an armistace.
Click to expand...

To which I responded:

Ahlevah said:
And then they raised their flag over Saigon and rechristened it Ho Chi Minh City. But they didn't defeat us!
Click to expand...

Stop making s*** up, would you? It's unbecoming.
 
Iron Yank said:
Kobani is the town & it has more than 160,000 refugees. According to Ralph Peters the Isis Army could have been effectively bombed
when they were out in the open before they entered the town with B52's or a similiar platform but Obama has our guys flying around with precision guided bombs good for pin prick strikes.
Click to expand...

Peters is correct, though it's worth pointing out that A) B52's can drop PGMs and B) That is a way to increase collateral damage, which can rapidly degrade political support for a bombing campaign.

But yeah. It looks like kinda like we are about to abandon the Kurds because we aren't willing to put resources towards helping them. Again.

You cant help but notice that the intensity & type of bombing fall miserably short of what is needed. Does Obama want to win here? I think its obvious he doesnt. He just wants to look like he's doing something so he is not blamed for the massacre that is going to take place if they take Kobani.
Click to expand...

I think you are absolutely correct on that, except I would add that it's very likely that he probably also just wishes this would all just go away.
 
Montecresto said:
Yes, I understand the pending Islamic State operation in Kobani, but what are you saying about the Turks?
Click to expand...

The Turks aren't doing a damn thing to help.
 
You know, with all of these conservatives clamoring to aid the Kurds of Northern Syria, am I the only one who sees an irony here? We spent the better part of the last century fighting against communism. The Kurdish fighters fighting against ISIS in Northern Syria, including those in the vicinity of Kobani, are comprised principally of guerrillas from People's Protection Units, which are the military wing of the Democratic Union Party, which, in turn, is an affiliate of the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) in Turkey. The PKK is the communist-inspired political party which fought a separatist guerrilla war and terror campaign against Turkey for almost three decades. Now we have all of these conservatives, who spent most of my life screaming about the threat of communism, clamoring to aid them because they've turned over a new leaf and are our friends now. :lol: Just goes to reinforce the old proverb: "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."
 
Last edited:
Iron Yank said:
You cant help but notice that the intensity & type of bombing fall miserably short of what is needed. Does Obama want to win here? I think its obvious he doesnt. He just wants to look like he's doing something so he is not blamed for the massacre that is going to take place if they take Kobani.
Click to expand...

"Falling miserably short" pretty much describes everything Obama has ever attempted. Everything he touches turns to ****.
 
apdst said:
Our armed forces were crafted to adjust to any threat. Plus, we just spent 10 years fighting and defeating irregular forces.
Click to expand...

What was that? Uhmmm, we did? They seem to be larger and more ominous than ever...everywhere now.
 
apdst said:
The Turks aren't doing a damn thing to help.
Click to expand...

Well neither are the Saudis and you seem ok with that. As I stated elsewhere, on one side of the Islamic State is the worlds fourth largest military, and on the other side of the Islamic State is the second largest military in NATO! These two could crush the Islamic State yet they basically don't do ****, and I'm tired of US blood and treasure being dropped into that ME hole.
 
We (America) should bomb ISIS full force, and use American ground troops, or we should stay out of it completely. This piece meal idea of dropping a few bombs here and there just to appease people politically is stupid.
If America is going to fight a war, THEN FIGHT IT FULL FORCE AND TO WIN!
Or don't fight it at all.

Half fought wars always cost more blood and sweat in the long run.
 
Anna Noblesse said:
We (America) should bomb ISIS full force, and use American ground troops, or we should stay out of it completely. This piece meal idea of dropping a few bombs here and there just to appease people politically is stupid.
If America is going to fight a war, THEN FIGHT IT FULL FORCE AND TO WIN!
Or don't fight it at all.

Half fought wars always cost more blood and sweat in the long run.
Click to expand...

Well, it looks like you hit the ground running, Anna. Welcome to DP, and let me give you your first "Like."
 
Montecresto said:
Well neither are the Saudis and you seem ok with that. As I stated elsewhere, on one side of the Islamic State is the worlds fourth largest military, and on the other side of the Islamic State is the second largest military in NATO! These two could crush the Islamic State yet they basically don't do ****, and I'm tired of US blood and treasure being dropped into that ME hole.
Click to expand...
This is the first time I've heard anyone claim that US foreign policy is predicated on what the Saudis might do.
 
Grant said:
This is the first time I've heard anyone claim that US foreign policy is predicated on what the Saudis might do.
Click to expand...

Wtf. That's not even close to what I said. Drink another cup of coffee.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom