• 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

No. Equipment, tactics, techniques, and procedures often are. Additionally, many of the laser-guided bombs are often less precise, depending on the point in development of the guidance package. So anything we could just "leave" with the kurds (recognizing that anything we leave is subject to capture by bad actors) would likely of necessity only be interfaceable with the munitions less likely to be effective against small, moving targets.



No. I happen to know a little bit of what I am talking about, which is why I know that your simplified answer does not actually meet the requirerments.

So, by the way, do two US Secretaries of Defense and a line-up of US Generals, which is why they are saying similar things.

Generals only care about winning battles and often we end up losing the war. If we are all alone we will lose again and the Generals will have more wars to play with. Obama does not want to play. We need a strategy to stabilize the region not just win battles.
 
Generals only care about winning battles and often we end up losing the war

:lamo

Okay. :) You have no idea what you are talking about. :lol:

Obama does not want to play. We need a strategy to stabilize the region not just win battles.

You are right that Obama does not want to play. The problem is, if you want to stabilize the region, you have to be a player in it. And a major one at that :).

:lol: it's like claiming that we are going to reduce gang violence in Chicago by pulling out all the police. Yeah. That'll work great.
 
Turkey is a NATO country. I'm sure they are not that weak. The holdup is that they have a Kurdish "problem" in Turkey so they want the Kurds to lose.

Yet didn't want to take Assad on directly.....and allowed the MB backed Sunni Syrian Rebel/Terrorists to run their operations in and out of Turkey.
 
Yet didn't want to take Assad on directly.....and allowed the MB backed Sunni Syrian Rebel/Terrorists to run their operations in and out of Turkey.

War is expensive, they thought it would be cheaper to wait it out and let us foot the bill. They need to step up or get out of NATO.
 
War is expensive, they thought it would be cheaper to wait it out and let us foot the bill. They need to step up or get out of NATO.

Right! The Islamic State is sandwiched between the worlds fourth largest army and NATO's second largest army, and they both are doing very little. So, we should do less.
 
Turkey is a NATO country. I'm sure they are not that weak. The holdup is that they have a Kurdish "problem" in Turkey so they want the Kurds to lose.

Exactly. I was stationed in Turkey during 1991 and they were bombing the Iraq Kurds every night.

During the last couple of years of the Reagan administration, we were supplying arms to both Iraq and Iran who were at war with each other. The American public was tending to side with Iraq, as we were still pissed about Iran holding US citizens as hostages. Then just a few years later we end up invading Iraq. Then we invaded Iraq a second time.

Now we have Iran supporting and supplying the Iraq government with arms and we are tending to side with the Kurds, but only because they are fighting ISIS, and we view the Kurds the lessor of evils. I'm not sure that ANY of these people are exactly the good guys. That's the reason why I see no reason for the US to rush in to save anyone or to chose sided. this really isn't our war, it's probably not in our best interest to get involved any further than keeping ISIS contained.

As long as ISIS is contained, it's of little consequence to the US if these people kill each other off. I've got a friend who keeps insisting that we should just "nuke 'em all", but I wonder why he thinks we should waste a nuke in that part of the world, seems to me that they are doing a mighty find job of killing each other without our help.
 
...
Yeah. So far that plan is working out just awesome.

I would have to agree with that. Then enemies of our enemies are killing our enemies, and the friends of our enemies are killing each other. No point in the US getting involved, it seems to me that they are resolving their issues the only way they know how, and doing a mighty find job of it.

Exactly which group of potential terrorist are you wanting to save?
 
I would have to agree with that. Then enemies of our enemies are killing our enemies, and the friends of our enemies are killing each other. No point in the US getting involved, it seems to me that they are resolving their issues the only way they know how, and doing a mighty find job of it.

Exactly which group of potential terrorist are you wanting to save?

Yeah. If there is one thing that is awesome, it's millions of refugees, two nations soaked in blood, attempted genocide, and ungoverned space serving as a launch-pad for terrorist groups for years. Yeah. That's fantastic.
 
...we are tending to side with the Kurds, but only because they are fighting ISIS, and we view the Kurds the lessor of evils...

I've posted some Congressional Research Service resources on the Kurdistan Regional Government (Iraq) and also a link to that body's website and long-term vision in the Mideast forum (http://www.debatepolitics.com/middl...kurdish-autonomous-region.html#post1063853069).

The KRG most definitely is a rare positive story in a highly unstable region.
 
Yeah. If there is one thing that is awesome, it's millions of refugees, two nations soaked in blood, attempted genocide, and ungoverned space serving as a launch-pad for terrorist groups for years. Yeah. That's fantastic.

Right and all we have to do is send our boys right in the middle of them with targets on their backs and they will all forget their differences and all start shooting at US. Then when we get tired of our young men coming home with their legs blown off,(20,000 wounded in Iraq alone) we leave and they pick right up where they left off. That's your plan alright. The fighting is so enticing that we just can't resist joining in the "fun". And the great thing is the rest of us can sit at home and watch it on TV.....Right after NCIS of course.

There is another way.....We can make them clean their own latrines.
 
Last edited:
I've posted some Congressional Research Service resources on the Kurdistan Regional Government (Iraq) and also a link to that body's website and long-term vision in the Mideast forum (http://www.debatepolitics.com/middl...kurdish-autonomous-region.html#post1063853069).

The KRG most definitely is a rare positive story in a highly unstable region.

I agree but Turkey thinks they are devils and won't lift a finger to help them. This sectarian nonsense is unacceptable in a NATO nation.
 
Right and all we have to do is send our boys right in the middle of them with targets on their backs and they will all forget their differences and all start shooting at US. Then when we get tired of our young men coming home with their legs blown off,(20,000 wounded in Iraq alone) we leave and they pick right up where they left off. That's your plan alright

Oh, hey, look!

strawman-full.jpg


A strawman!


:roll:
 
Oh, hey, look!

strawman-full.jpg


A strawman!


:roll:

I glad you came to your senses and no longer support US combat troops on the ground in Iraq or Syria. You're showing a rare case of good judgment.
 
Right and all we have to do is send our boys right in the middle of them with targets on their backs and they will all forget their differences and all start shooting at US. Then when we get tired of our young men coming home with their legs blown off,(20,000 wounded in Iraq alone) we leave and they pick right up where they left off. That's your plan alright. The fighting is so enticing that we just can't resist joining in the "fun". And the great thing is the rest of us can sit at home and watch it on TV.....Right after NCIS of course.There is another way.....We can make them clean their own latrines.
Liberals can be very selective when it comes to acts of humanitarianism.
 
Liberals can be very selective when it comes to acts of humanitarianism.

Is that what war is to you? Is it humanitarian to subject a region to eternal war? How many civilians have died there since we got involved do you think? Actually they were the lucky ones. As long as we do all the meddling there will never be a resolution. Is that the goal?
 
I glad you came to your senses and no longer support US combat troops on the ground in Iraq or Syria. You're showing a rare case of good judgment.

On the contrary - I'm still in favor of limited ground engagement, where we can do quite a lot of good for little payment. Which makes your post above no less a strawman.
 
Is that what war is to you? Is it humanitarian to subject a region to eternal war? How many civilians have died there since we got involved do you think? Actually they were the lucky ones.

yeah. Because the ones who have died after we decided not to involve ourselves have been crucified.
 
yeah. Because the ones who have died after we decided not to involve ourselves have been crucified.

Where as before they were only blown to pieces. Much more humane. Now dare we not blow up civilians so they won't be crucified.
 
Is that what war is to you? Is it humanitarian to subject a region to eternal war? How many civilians have died there since we got involved do you think? Actually they were the lucky ones. As long as we do all the meddling there will never be a resolution. Is that the goal?
"Eternal war? Where did I suggest that? In fact when Obama pulled the troops from Iraq there were just 55 deaths for the entire year and that included auto accidents, etc. Now, three years later, it is hell.

There is no need to guess at questions, or answers. You can just read the post and respond to the words therein. I'll do the same.
 
"Eternal war? Where did I suggest that? In fact when Obama pulled the troops from Iraq there were just 55 deaths for the entire year and that included auto accidents, etc. Now, three years later, it is hell.

There is no need to guess at questions, or answers. You can just read the post and respond to the words therein. I'll do the same.

You are deluded if you think there was any peace for the Iraqi people either when we were there OR after we left.

Officially, Iraq is now a democracy… a far cry from the cruel dictatorship of Saddam Hussein, as echoed in the speeches of George W. Bush and Tony Blair, with its repression and brutality, torture, perpetual fear and terror. Or is it?

A tyranny is a cruel and oppressive government or rule, with unrestrained exercise of power and undue severity or harshness. Iraqi democracy has all the characteristics of a tyranny. Since 2006 thousands have been arrested, imprisoned and tortured by the regime. Protesters have been shot at and killed, any insurgency is met with shelling that kills insurgents as well as civilians, while political opponents have been persecuted. In the past 2 years, since the US army has left Iraq, the situation has deteriorated to where now there are nightly shellings and mortar attacks by the Iraqi army, in addition to the terrorist acts which never ceased.

In Ramadi and Fallujah, residents have accused government forces of illegally detaining citizens, torturing and raping them, while doctors and NGO workers accuse the government of war crimes. The Iraqi army is reportedly preventing medical supplies from entering the cities.
The Iraqis, the “liberated” nation Bush had envisaged moving towards democracy and living in freedom, are captives of their own leaders, they are captives of their fragmented society and they are captives of the legacy left by American and British forces. Moreover, they are trapped in this captivity and are not allowed to escape it. They are not allowed by those in power and they are not allowed by those with the power of weapons -in Iraq, in the wider Middle East and in the West. Ultimately, it is the interests that are being fought on Iraqi soil that hold the population captive.

The interests are political, financial, regional and wider foreign and they are the interests of local terrorist gangs, insurgents and political elites. Ironically, this has come as a result of an invasion that was purportedly done in the interest of the Iraqi population and it is they who have paid the highest price, with their freedom and their lives.
https://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/beyond/blurring-war-and-peace/
 
On the contrary - I'm still in favor of limited ground engagement, where we can do quite a lot of good for little payment. Which makes your post above no less a strawman.

Limited by what? How many casualties we can stomach? Our involvement will bring more recruits to ISIS and more misery for the people. Muslims have to fight this war or it means nothing. You know like invading Iraq meant nothing except more civilians being killed.
 
Limited by what? How many casualties we can stomach? Our involvement will bring more recruits to ISIS and more misery for the people. Muslims have to fight this war or it means nothing. You know like invading Iraq meant nothing except more civilians being killed.

Which is why air strikes alone won't solve anything. If ISIS loses all their ground, then they lose who they are and just become another nameless terrorist organization with no access to resources or heavy equipment.
 
You are deluded if you think there was any peace for the Iraqi people either when we were there OR after we left.

https://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/beyond/blurring-war-and-peace/

Casualites from attacks did die down at the end of the Iraq War from terrorism attacks. Now yes the government turned out to be opressive, specifically towards the Sunnis, but to argue that there wasn't "any" peace, is a gross overstatement, considering the levels of violence prior to the surge.
 
Which is why air strikes alone won't solve anything. If ISIS loses all their ground, then they lose who they are and just become another nameless terrorist organization with no access to resources or heavy equipment.

I'm confused. Resources and heavy equipment are very vulnerable to attacks from the air. It's when they hole up with civilians in the cities that require ground troops. ISIS would just love to lure us into that.... Why do you want to help them?
 
I'm confused. Resources and heavy equipment are very vulnerable to attacks from the air. It's when they hole up with civilians in the cities that require ground troops. ISIS would just love to lure us into that.... Why do you want to help them?

Understand right now how our air power is being used. To be able to strike at target, we have to first have someone identify it on the ground, then that report goes to wherever Central Command is for this operation, then the planes have to be launched and travel hours at a time to finally get to the target. There's no guarantee that when you get there, the target still will be. Hell let's say it's a tank they've identified. By the time the plane gets there, it may of been captured by friendly forces, and in that case, you've just ended killing you allies.

If Air Power alone could win a war, I think the million tons of bombs that we dropped on Germany would of made them capitulate before a single allied troop stepped foot in Germany. In fact, there's only ever been one country to surrender to Air Power alone. And I highly doubt we're willing to duplicate those results... doubtful it cause the crazies to surrender anyways.
 
Back
Top Bottom