• 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!

U.S. Announces Plan for Massive Counter-ISIS Attack [W:228]

MMC said:
Well it can still be Sovereign Nations working together. Doesn't take the UN's permission for anything or even informed unless needed to.

Would you give Authority over the UN?
Click to expand...

I don't know what you mean by authority. The UN I'm regularly reminded by the right, when it's convenient, and serves to advance a meme, is that the UN hasn't any authority, the member states do, and as a collective, vote! So yeah, I'd rather there be oversight. You don't trust Obama or democrats to run the "war on terror" and I trust neither party.
 
Montecresto said:
Morning MMC
Don't know that I saw that specifically. Are you referring to their use of commercial planes to conduct air attacks, I think I read somewhere? I'm not diminishing Islamic State capabilities, just don't want to see embellishment like we did in early 2003 with faulty presentation and embellishment at the UN.
Click to expand...
there was the beheadings of Egypt's Coptic Christians, there were airstrikes by Egypt,and Sisi declared war on ISIL.

I've documented most of it here, if you ever want to follow Libya Libyan civil war? - Page 21
 
MMC said:
a) Tell that to ABC they did the interview. They did say Officials(plural) From a US Special Operations Command. Which included a report from a full squad that went into Raqqah Syria.
b) So one can see how they would not name them if still operational.
c) But now.....why would BO's own Team Lie?
d) And how does those links help you now? :lol:
Click to expand...
`
`
a) And you think the MSM doesn't lie either??? Anyways, the article smells of pro-war propaganda.

b) Isn't that the point of the posted article? Besides, if the ISIS is such a formidable fighting group (better than the US trained Iraqi Army) how is it that this ragtag outfit, suffered so many casualties when they attacked the Iraq outpost, to quote; A field commander told reporters that the Americans were able to inflict heavy casualties on ISIS while suffering no casualties of their own - Source The Kurds are the disciplined force there. Maybe the Special Forces mistook one for the other.

c) I'm not a democrat nor a fan of Obama. However, the reasons I don't like him are diametrically different than the rights reasons they dislike him. I see both parties as different sides of the same coin....a coin controlled by the corporations. The Republicrats also share the same mantra: "Party before country." BO lies like a rug....just like his predecessor.

d) If you can'ttell what the significance of those links here then nothing I can say will change that.
 
Paxaeon said:
`
`
a) And you think the MSM doesn't lie either??? Anyways, the article smells of pro-war propaganda.

b) Isn't that the point of the posted article? Besides, if the ISIS is such a formidable fighting group (better than the US trained Iraqi Army) how is it that this ragtag outfit, suffered so many casualties when they attacked the Iraq outpost, to quote; A field commander told reporters that the Americans were able to inflict heavy casualties on ISIS while suffering no casualties of their own - Source The Kurds are the disciplined force there. Maybe the Special Forces mistook one for the other.

c) I'm not a democrat nor a fan of Obama. However, the reasons I don't like him are diametrically different than the rights reasons they dislike him. I see both parties as different sides of the same coin....a coin controlled by the corporations. The Republicrats also share the same mantra: "Party before country." BO lies like a rug....just like his predecessor.

d) If you can'ttell what the significance of those links here then nothing I can say will change that.
Click to expand...



Well with all that it is up, its backs the assertion. So you have ABC, Reuters, Generals, Spec OPs, and even analysts that are not named. Which would include other sources than just ABC. Then there is your side of it.

You also have the pros and cons of letting the enemy know what one is doing.

You should be happy that those in Mosul are getting word and hopefully a lot of civilians will start getting out now. If they can. That is one good point.
 
polgara said:
Good morning, Erik. :2wave:

You beat me to the punch! Why in God's name are we announcing our plans to the enemy? I can't believe it's the military making the announcements, unless this just a big psychological punt for some reason! The element of surprise is helpful in war, I've been told. Sheesh! This is being treated like a big PR announcement, like Apple does when they've promoting a new product, with lots of fanfare and hand clapping - while innocent people are being tortured and killed!

We don't see the enemy extending the same "courtesy" to us. They keep their plans secret, implement them, and we are caught with our pants down while they move onward, conquering new territory! :bs: This is surreal! :thumbdown:

"Making no mistakes is what establishes the certainty of victory." Sun Tzu from The Art of War
Click to expand...

Good morning, Polgara. :2wave:

Yeah, I can't see any military mind thinking that leaking such information to the enemy is something that can possibly enhance operational or mission success. It flies in the face of any and all common sense, so, the decision must be politically driven, is my conclusion, and who's the one in DC, in the WH that's always putting politics above all else, even reality? Only one I can think of, and that'd be Obama.

Still looking for some reasoning from the Obama supporters where the flaw in this chain of conclusions is. Don't know if they are up to it. :)
 
Montecresto said:
I don't know what you mean by authority. The UN I'm regularly reminded by the right, when it's convenient, and serves to advance a meme, is that the UN hasn't any authority, the member states do, and as a collective, vote! So yeah, I'd rather there be oversight. You don't trust Obama or democrats to run the "war on terror" and I trust neither party.
Click to expand...

I want the White House and Congress to uphold the Constitution. Only Congress has the power to declare war. Of course those chicken****s won't dare do it. In the end there will be no real national commitment and veterans will get screwed again. After WWII it has happened every time.

As per the Constitution Obama does not have the power to execute a massive counter attack. I know small government conservatives and Libertarians agree.
 
Risky Thicket said:
I want the White House and Congress to uphold the Constitution. Only Congress has the power to declare war. Of course those chicken****s won't dare do it. In the end there will be no real national commitment and veterans will get screwed again. After WWII it has happened every time.

As per the Constitution Obama does not have the power to execute a massive counter attack. I know small government conservatives and Libertarians agree.
Click to expand...

Nations vote, and resolutions are passed. The appointed figures like the SG and staff, committees etc., have no power or authority. They do not and will not declare war, much as Panetta tried to impress congress otherwise. Russia appears to be saying that terrorism is a global problem, it affects more than just the west, and as such, there should be a more centralised response, with nations contributing intelligence and cooperating on policy execution. On the surface at least, what's wrong with that? And perhaps you have no problem with that.
 
MMC said:
Well with all that it is up, its backs the assertion. So you have ABC, Reuters, Generals, Spec OPs, and even analysts that are not named. Which would include other sources than just ABC. Then there is your side of it. You also have the pros and cons of letting the enemy know what one is doing. You should be happy that those in Mosul are getting word and hopefully a lot of civilians will start getting out now. If they can. That is one good point.
Click to expand...
`
I'll agree, if you're going to do a military operation, you don't announce it in the media. Some say, this announcement is a diversionary tactic. Now maybe, the ISIS is commanded by a bunch of fools that will rise to the bait. Heck, even the all powerful Sauron was fooled by Aragorn to focusing his gaze at the western mens' feint while Frodo made his way into Mount Doom....but that's make believe, like the supposed diversionary announcement.

On the other hand, Winston Churchill once said "In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies." It's hard enough to tell the truth from politicians, the military and the media during peace time much less during military conflicts...which we should not be involved with in the first place.
 
Montecresto said:
Nations vote, and resolutions are passed. The appointed figures like the SG and staff, committees etc., have no power or authority. They do not and will not declare war, much as Panetta tried to impress congress otherwise. Russia appears to be saying that terrorism is a global problem, it affects more than just the west, and as such, there should be a more centralised response, with nations contributing intelligence and cooperating on policy execution. On the surface at least, what's wrong with that? And perhaps you have no problem with that.
Click to expand...

The US can vote all it likes and will, but per the 10th Amendment only Congress has the power to declare war, not the UN. The point is once again the WH and Congress working in concert to usurp the power of the People are guaranteed by the Constitution.

We all know why it is done. The slime merchants that are Congress are career leeches. Their paramount concern is their re-election. Nothing is more important to dickheads. No president is going to be in office longer than 2 terms. Congress skirts their obligation and thus avoids direct responsibility and insures their own plausible deniability. Congress skates and the President gets to call the shots. Hero or zero, the president can only serve 2 terms. Congress being the ****s they are will either take all the credit or deny any connection depending on the outcome of the military action.

Lastly, Congress continues to get free private airplane transportation, foreign travel with family, campaign funding, employment for family and former staffers, employment after Congress and walking around money from the military industrial complex.

The industrial military complex gets mo money, mo money. And lots of it from Congress.

A small segment of the public - members of the US military and their families - get the broken hearts, the broken homes, the broken bones and a feckin yellow ribbon bumper sticker.

The major segment of the American public gets to pay massive bills, trillions upon trillions.

The world has to live with the consequences of whatever unConstitutional decisions are made by a handful of Washington insiders comprising the shadow government - who have NO mandate from the People Of the United States.
 
Hatuey said:
CNN.com - U.S. launches cruise missiles at Saddam - Mar. 20, 2003





Powell Advised Bush to Add Iraq Troops (washingtonpost.com)



USATODAY.com - Army chief: Force to occupy Iraq massive



Defense.gov News Article: Rumsfeld: No U.S. Troop Increase Foreseen for Iraq





Iraq: U.S. Touts Multinational Force, But Analysts Say Troop Numbers Tell Real Story



We get it, these things didn't happen. :)
Click to expand...

not one of those was in reference to a specific planned operation.

general campaign information is fine by me, and most everyone else... it happens all the time.... specific operational details is a whole 'nuther matter
 
Paxaeon said:
`
I'll agree, if you're going to do a military operation, you don't announce it in the media. Some say, this announcement is a diversionary tactic. Now maybe, the ISIS is commanded by a bunch of fools that will rise to the bait. Heck, even the all powerful Sauron was fooled by Aragorn to focusing his gaze at the western mens' feint while Frodo made his way into Mount Doom....but that's make believe, like the supposed diversionary announcement.

On the other hand, Winston Churchill once said "In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies." It's hard enough to tell the truth from politicians, the military and the media during peace time much less during military conflicts...which we should not be involved with in the first place.
Click to expand...


Good post.

And as Eisenhower once stated, "once hostilities begin, all plans go out the window"! Which is another very good reason to avoid war, or creating power vacuums that give rise to freaks like the Islamic State organised criminals to big end with!
 
EnigmaO01 said:
No one is doing that now either.
Click to expand...

if what you say were true, no one .. no one.. would have a problem with it.... including myself.

now, if this is a diversionary tactic, I almost can see the sense in publicizing it... but such a diversionary tactics would be utterly unnecessary in regards to ISIS
 
Risky Thicket said:
The US can vote all it likes and will, but per the 10th Amendment only Congress has the power to declare war, not the UN. The point is once again the WH and Congress working in concert to usurp the power of the People are guaranteed by the Constitution.

We all know why it is done. The slime merchants that are Congress are career leeches. Their paramount concern is their re-election. Nothing is more important to dickheads. No president is going to be in office longer than 2 terms. Congress skirts their obligation and thus avoids direct responsibility and insures their own plausible deniability. Congress skates and the President gets to call the shots. Hero or zero, the president can only serve 2 terms. Congress being the ****s they are will either take all the credit or deny any connection depending on the outcome of the military action.

Lastly, Congress continues to get free private airplane transportation, foreign travel with family, campaign funding, employment for family and former staffers, employment after Congress and walking around money from the military industrial complex.

The industrial military complex gets mo money, mo money. And lots of it from Congress.

A small segment of the public - members of the US military and their families - get the broken hearts, the broken homes, the broken bones and a feckin yellow ribbon bumper sticker.

The major segment of the American public gets to pay massive bills, trillions upon trillions.

The world has to live with the consequences of whatever unConstitutional decisions are made by a handful of Washington insiders comprising the shadow government - who have NO mandate from the People Of the United States.
Click to expand...

It would appear that we agree, right. I think my post that you quoted says the same thing, if in fewer words, that you're saying.
 
Risky Thicket said:
Are you suggesting brevity? ;)
Click to expand...

Lol, no sir. Just wanted to be sure we were agreeing on the roll of the UN and our congresses constitutional obligations. Btw, have you ever seen the video clip of Panetta getting grilled by Sessions about what you're talking about?
 
Risky Thicket said:
I want the White House and Congress to uphold the Constitution. Only Congress has the power to declare war. Of course those chicken****s won't dare do it. In the end there will be no real national commitment and veterans will get screwed again. After WWII it has happened every time.

As per the Constitution Obama does not have the power to execute a massive counter attack. I know small government conservatives and Libertarians agree.
Click to expand...
the Authorized Use of Military Force, and the War Powers Act are Congress as chicken**** 100% agree
 
MMC said:
So you don't know much about military tactics, nothing about logistics. Do you think that harden defenses, moving in more anti Air, setting more mines. Inside a city that has bridges and that has an underground that you laugh at the fact that defenses could be improved on from what one had set up from their beginning. Have more withdrawal points that they can fight from when looking to cut and run. A bit much for you to try and conceptualize huh? To difficult to comprehend, eh.

Wait do you know anything about trying to stay alive when a known offensive is coming in a combat area? Anything at all?

Yeah I get a good chuckle out of those that think they know some **** about the Military.....when they actually don't. Is that what your civilian handbook tells ya. :lamo
Click to expand...

The point went so far over your head you've reverted to your normal red herring strategy. The point was that ISIL has been fighting an entire contingent of groups for the better part of the last year. If they're only preparing to defend themselves against a military campaign now, they're either not as dangerous as you have them out to be or they're a bunch of dumb muslim hillbillies running around the desert. That was the point. You can't have it both ways and tell us that ISIL is a threat to the world and then suddenly turn around and tell us that they haven't been preparing for what was inevitable. Get serious.
 
Thrilla said:
not one of those was in reference to a specific planned operation.

general campaign information is fine by me, and most everyone else... it happens all the time.... specific operational details is a whole 'nuther matter
Click to expand...

Telling Saddam Hussein we're targeting him, and saying we have 120K troops moving in on Baghdad is not a reference to a specific planned operation. However telling ISIL we have 20K troops moving in on Mosul sometime in the next 2 months is a reference to a specific planned operation. As if Saddam really needed a ****ing to clue to tell him that Baghdad would be the first place the US would go to and an attack was eminent. Your acrobatics dude. They're absurd.
 
Hatuey said:
The point went so far over your head you've reverted to your normal red herring strategy. The point was that ISIL has been fighting an entire contingent of groups for the better part of the last year. If they're only preparing to defend themselves against a military campaign now, they're either not as dangerous as you have them out to be or they're a bunch of dumb muslim hillbillies running around the desert. That was the point. You can't have it both ways and tell us that ISIL is a threat to the world and then suddenly turn around and tell us that they haven't been preparing for what was inevitable. Get serious.
Click to expand...

No hardly could you ever get any point that could be so far over my head. Not even on your best day and with a hundred of you to make up a collective hive. NO one wasn't saying they weren't preparing. They do have those that were in the military and would follow such basic general ideas. Why one wouldn't even consider it to be a given. Is what should be noted. Especially when numbers of the forces that will be used. Are detailed out to the enemy in a room full of reporters.

Or did that just whiz by you was you trying to look up?
 
Montecresto said:
Lol, no sir. Just wanted to be sure we were agreeing on the roll of the UN and our congresses constitutional obligations. Btw, have you ever seen the video clip of Panetta getting grilled by Sessions about what you're talking about?
Click to expand...

No I haven't but I'd love to see it. Can you post it?
 
Risky Thicket said:
No I haven't but I'd love to see it. Can you post it?
Click to expand...

Defense Secretary Panetta tells Senator Sessions that military gets ...
▶ 8:49
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovuWJQrwpIw
Mar 9, 2012 - Uploaded by Key2LibertyJim
Panetta: Obama Has Authority to Override Congress to Declare War - Duration: 9: 44. by ...


Yeah, go watch this!!
 
Hatuey said:
Telling Saddam Hussein we're targeting him, and saying we have 120K troops moving in on Baghdad is not a reference to a specific planned operation. However telling ISIL we have 20K troops moving in on Mosul sometime in the next 2 months is a reference to a specific planned operation. As if Saddam really needed a ****ing to clue to tell him that Baghdad would be the first place the US would go to and an attack was eminent. Your acrobatics dude. They're absurd.
Click to expand...

sigh... this is going nowhere.

I'll defer to your obvious extensive military knowledge on these matters...
 
MMC;106[U said:
[/U]4339928]No hardly could you ever get any point that could be so far over my head. Not even on your best day and with a hundred of you to make up a collective hive. NO one wasn't saying they weren't preparing.
Click to expand...

Oh, you haven't been telling us that they weren't preparing for the inevitable showdown with a world class military? Interesting. Then what's the point of complaining that they now have time to prepare for something they would have been preparing for anyways? Did they not plan on being attacked by any military force in the region? Did that chubby Jordan warrior king not wake them up to the possibility of an attack by a professional military force? We told them we're moving troops 3 months ahead of time, which gives them 3 months for what exactly? Making carefully laid out of plans to defend one city as opposed to the other dozen or so targets in the area that they supposedly control? Again, the point has gone far over your head.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom