• 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]

sigh... this is going nowhere.

I'll defer to your obvious extensive military knowledge on these matters...

Hey, hey, no need to wave that white flag bitterly. You seem to believe that we didn't trumpet to the 4 winds that we were coming after Saddam and Baghdad from the start. Were you old enough to watch the war coverage by yourself in 2003?
 
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 on the are they supposedly control. Again, the point has gone far over your head.

You wish
pope.gif
.....you were the one that couldn't figure out what harden defenses means. Then you missed the part about Team BO saying it would take them 3 years to train at minimum for the Iraqis to take back Iraq. Yet think 25k Iraqis with Air Cover will take back a city of a million. With a few months of training.

Truly you are so out of your depth.....its like watching a re-run of Rowan and Martin's Laugh-in.
 
Hey, hey, no need to wave that white flag bitterly. You seem to believe that we didn't trumpet to the 4 winds that we were coming after Saddam and Baghdad from the start. Were you old enough to watch the war coverage by yourself in 2003?

there's no white flag.. i'm just not going to argue with someone with zero military experience pretending they know what they are talking about.

yes, i'm old enough to have watched the coverage...
I'm old to to have enlisted in the Marine Corps in 1969 .. and I'm old enough to have retired 25 years later.
i'm even old enough to have been involved in a couple dozen cases of Servicemembers being prosecuted under the UCMJ for OpSec/PerSec violations that were less egregious than the one we are talking about.
 
You wish
pope.gif
.....you were the one that couldn't figure out what harden defenses means.

Now you're just making things up. I asked you what you thought they were going to do. Then when you answered, I got you to admit that there is not a single relevant reason they wouldn't already be doing it. Which made your entire opposition to what Obama did absurd as you yourself admitted that ISIL would already be doing it if they had any kind of military background. That's what went over your head like a 747.
 
Now you're just making things up. I asked you what you thought they were going to do. Then when you answered, I got you to admit that there is not a single relevant reason they wouldn't already be doing it. Which made your entire opposition to what Obama did absurd as you yourself admitted that ISIL would already be doing it if they had any kind of military background. That's what went over your head like a 747.

I already showed the link about telegraphing to the Civilians.....so once again. Reading is fun and mental.
 
there's no white flag.. i'm just not going to argue with someone with zero military experience pretending they know what they are talking about.

yes, i'm old enough to have watched the coverage...
I'm old to to have enlisted in the Marine Corps in 1969 .. and I'm old enough to have retired 25 years later.
i'm even old enough to have been involved in a couple dozen cases of Servicemembers being prosecuted under the UCMJ for OpSec/PerSec violations that were less egregious than the one we are talking about.

We know, we know dude, we didn't trumpet to the 4 winds how many people we were coming up with and just where we'd be going. Except there is ample evidence that we were telling Saddam that we were coming and how many people we were coming with. We get it. Revisionist history at its finest.
 
I already showed the link about telegraphing to the Civilians.....so once again. Reading is fun and mental.

Hmm. The post above is incoherent. You made up stuff about what I actually did. Now that I've walked you through it, your narrative is falling apart. Tell us again about the traps that ISIL is setting up now that they're sure that they're going to face resistance. I mean, the Jordanians, Kurds, Shiite-militias, etc haven't made them put up these traps and move hostages?

What have they been waiting for? It's been nearly 7 years since Bush signed the Iraq withdrawal agreement and Obama complied with it. That withdrawal agreement alluded to the fact that the US would return if the Iraqis asked for it. Did ISIL not think that the US returning was a possibility? Well, forget the US. Did they not think any military in the region would resist them and plan accordingly?

:lol:

Your narrative, it's not standing up to scrutiny.
 
And the terrorists prayers of getting America more and more involved in the morass in the Middle East continues to be answered.

Dang...the masses/politician's are SO gullible.
 
We know, we know dude, we didn't trumpet to the 4 winds how many people we were coming up with and just where we'd be going. Except there is ample evidence that we were telling Saddam that we were coming and how many people we were coming with. We get it. Revisionist history at its finest.

as I said, I'll defer to your obvious expertise in military matters
 
Hmm. The post above is incoherent. You made up stuff about what I actually did. Now that I've walked you through it, your narrative is falling apart. Tell us again about the traps that ISIL is setting up now that they're sure that they're going to face resistance. I mean, the Jordanians, Kurds, Shiite-militias, etc haven't made them put up these traps and move hostages?

What have they been waiting for? It's been nearly 7 years since Bush signed the Iraq withdrawal agreement and Obama complied with it. That withdrawal agreement alluded to the fact that the US would return if the Iraqis asked for it. Did ISIL not think that the US returning was a possibility? Well, forget the US. Did they not think any military in the region would resist them and plan accordingly?

:lol:

Your narrative, it's not standing up to scrutiny.


When you figure out that part about 2 wrongs don't make it Right. While bringing up what we did under a Republican leadership. Just to say see.....the Repubs did it too. While trying to save face over the BS you did say. While not figuring out what this was all about. Then you can talk.

And again while looking for some specific statement to play off of while not understanding the whole concept as to what the strategy was all about in the first place. As well as not having any Military experience. Leaves you back to wondering what whizzed by you in the first place.
 
These statements could be part of a plan to deceive the jihadists. If so, and the plan is carried out well, we Americans won't know ahead of time if they are true, either. But moving heavy weapons near an enemy presents him with a fact he can't ignore. If a couple dozen armed helicopters and A-10's were sent to Al Asad, for example, and a couple dozen more to a base in the Kurdish region of Iraq, would the jihadists in Iraq be forced to move, or change their tactics in some ways? Could they, even with Barack Obama as president, afford to dismiss the fact so much force had been moved up to within striking range of them as just a bluff?

The 4th Infantry Division's 3d Armored Brigade Combat Team has been in Kuwait and Iraq before, mostly training Arab forces. It's not clear how much of the unit's heavy equipment, if any, is already in Kuwait, but I expect people living near Fort Carson will soon know what is being sent there. If most or all of that equipment is now in Colorado, moving it overseas takes too much time and effort just to be deception. If I were an ISIS bigshot, the shipment of a heavy U.S. armored force with 100 or so tanks to the area would be cause for serious concern.

The commander of the 3d ABCT, Col. Greg Sierra, spoke to the men and their families about a week ago. He made this pointed observation: "In the end, if we do get into fights, we win decisively."
 
When you figure out that part about 2 wrongs don't make it Right. While bringing up what we did under a Republican leadership. Just to say see.....the Repubs did it too. While trying to save face over the BS you did say. While not figuring out what this was all about. Then you can talk.

No, no, you seem to be under the impression that I find anything wrong with what the Bush administration did. I don't. It was inconsequential to the outcome of the war. Hell, one doesn't need to be a military savant like you or Thrilla in order to realise that. What I've addressed is your absurdly partisan reaction to the Obama Administration telling you that the military is going to do what you've been complaining that the Obama Administration won't do. It's weak form to spend 1 year on this forum complaining that we're not acting against ISIL, and then when the administration finally tells you that we're moving against ISIL you complain because you were told about it. Then you bring up nonsense about how this gives ISIL time to get ready. What the **** do you think they've been doing for the last 8 months? Did you think that the beheadings were done not thinking that some country would one day, oh I don't know, stand up to them? Did they think they'd go unchecked for years? Your narrative doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Get a new one.
 
These statements could be part of a plan to deceive the jihadists. If so, and the plan is carried out well, we Americans won't know ahead of time if they are true, either. But moving heavy weapons near an enemy presents him with a fact he can't ignore. If a couple dozen armed helicopters and A-10's were sent to Al Asad, for example, and a couple dozen more to a base in the Kurdish region of Iraq, would the jihadists in Iraq be forced to move, or change their tactics in some ways? Could they, even with Barack Obama as president, afford to dismiss the fact so much force had been moved up to within striking range of them as just a bluff?

The 4th Infantry Division's 3d Armored Brigade Combat Team has been in Kuwait and Iraq before, mostly training Arab forces. It's not clear how much of the unit's heavy equipment, if any, is already in Kuwait, but I expect people living near Fort Carson will soon know what is being sent there. If most or all of that equipment is now in Colorado, moving it overseas takes too much time and effort just to be deception. If I were an ISIS bigshot, the shipment of a heavy U.S. armored force with 100 or so tanks to the area would be cause for serious concern.

The commander of the 3d ABCT, Col. Greg Sierra, spoke to the men and their families about a week ago. He made this pointed observation: "In the end, if we do get into fights, we win decisively."[/QUOTE]

To the bolded, lol. Yep yep. In the end if we do get into fights (with the Islamic State) it's because of previous loses and failures. Nothing's been won in over half a century.
 
There's no defensive structure they can build that will hold up to what we've got. Were you still in diapers during desert storm?

Very true, we can kill one hundred civilians for every one ISIS member now that they are for warned.
 
No, no, you seem to be under the impression that I find anything wrong with what the Bush administration did. I don't. It was inconsequential to the outcome of the war. Hell, one doesn't need to be a military savant like you or Thrilla in order to realise that. What I've addressed is your absurdly partisan reaction to the Obama Administration telling you that the military is going to do what you've been complaining that the Obama Administration won't do. It's weak form to spend 1 year on this forum complaining that we're not acting against ISIL, and then when the administration finally tells you that we're moving against ISIL you complain because you were told about it. Then you bring up nonsense about how this gives ISIL time to get ready. What the **** do you think they've been doing for the last 8 months? Did you think that the beheadings were done not thinking that some country would one day, oh I don't know, stand up to them? Did they think they'd go unchecked for years? Your narrative doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Get a new one.



Try again since the beginning I have stated it will take more than Arab forces.....so it was never a false narrative. Oh and when I have Team BO talking out Both sides of its mouth as to what they are doing. Then show that's exactly what they have said and now want all to think we are taking some sort of action and this will come down in a few months, led by the Iraqis. That we trained them....I can see how you would think this is some sort of major action by us.

Oh and as to ISIS.....the Islamic State. This does give them time to get ready for this possible offensive. More time.....see in the meantime. They have opened up a front in Lebanon. Took more ground in Syria and Iraq. Just put on an offensive forcing the Kurds to reinforce their lines to Erbil. Which doesn't count them taking the town of Baghdadi, and what they are doing in Anbar Province, while continuously using suicide bombers in Baghdad. While at the same time tested the Saud's New Border Fence.

So you can see just how focused on waiting around for someone to show up to deal with them they are. Despite now knowing they have some more time to play with, over one offensive thought up by us to be executed by the Iraqis and possibly the Kurds, depending on if they have to defend their lines to Erbil again.
 
Try again since the beginning I have stated it will take more than Arab forces.....so it was never a false narrative.

All that diatribe just to fall deeper into more non sequiturs and straw man arguments nobody on my end has ever made. Now that you've realised that I didn't complain about the Bush administration trumpeting our plans, you move on to another silly argument. What I've addressed is your kinetic partisan reaction to Obama getting involved in ISIL just like you asked. Your complaint throughout this thing was that we made part of 'the plan' known. As if ISIL hasn't been preparing for an offensive for months from anyone. As if ISIL wouldn't spot 20K people moving through the desert. You want to continue pretending like this is such a massive blow to any Iraq strategy, my military savant friend, you go for it. It hasn't worked out too well so far, but go for it. I'm not going to get too worried about them knowing that the US is moving against them. :)
 
All that diatribe just to fall deeper into more non sequiturs and straw man arguments nobody on my end has ever made. Now that you've realised that I didn't complain about the Bush administration trumpeting our plans, you move on to another silly argument. What I've addressed is your kinetic partisan reaction to Obama getting involved in ISIL just like you asked. Your complaint throughout this thing was that we made part of 'the plan' known. As if ISIL hasn't been preparing for an offensive for months from anyone. As if ISIL wouldn't spot 20K people moving through the desert. You want to continue pretending like this is such a massive blow to any Iraq strategy, my military savant friend, you go for it. It hasn't worked out too well so far, but go for it. I'm not going to get too worried about them knowing that the US is moving against them. :)



Well you were the one.....that seemed to be thinking they wouldn't focus on hardening any defense they already have up. Moreover you did bring up how the Repubs did the same too. If I took it the wrong way.....my apologies.

Like I said all along.....2 wrongs don't make it Right.

Also I never believed we should give detailed information to any enemy.....as I never underestimate them and take them for granted.
 
Well you were the one.....that seemed to be thinking they wouldn't focus on hardening any defense

You keep pushing that lie, but I dare you to find a single post where I've discussed what ISIL wouldn't do. As a matter of fact, from the beginning I've been stating that if ISIL is as bad as you've claimed they are for the past year or so, they would have been doing these things anyways. MMC, your narrative is falling apart.
 
These statements could be part of a plan to deceive the jihadists. If so, and the plan is carried out well, we Americans won't know ahead of time if they are true, either. But moving heavy weapons near an enemy presents him with a fact he can't ignore. If a couple dozen armed helicopters and A-10's were sent to Al Asad, for example, and a couple dozen more to a base in the Kurdish region of Iraq, would the jihadists in Iraq be forced to move, or change their tactics in some ways? Could they, even with Barack Obama as president, afford to dismiss the fact so much force had been moved up to within striking range of them as just a bluff?

The 4th Infantry Division's 3d Armored Brigade Combat Team has been in Kuwait and Iraq before, mostly training Arab forces. It's not clear how much of the unit's heavy equipment, if any, is already in Kuwait, but I expect people living near Fort Carson will soon know what is being sent there. If most or all of that equipment is now in Colorado, moving it overseas takes too much time and effort just to be deception. If I were an ISIS bigshot, the shipment of a heavy U.S. armored force with 100 or so tanks to the area would be cause for serious concern.
Another person who just does not get it. America shipping huge amounts of military personnel and equipment is EXACTLY what ISIS wants...to draw America into another war it cannot win. Sure, it can win battles, but like Vietnam, it cannot win the war (short of nuking everything). Why does he think ISIS threatens Americans directly? To goad them...and it is working spectacularly.

The commander of the 3d ABCT, Col. Greg Sierra, spoke to the men and their families about a week ago. He made this pointed observation: "In the end, if we do get into fights, we win decisively."

Well duh (no offense).

That is like saying when a 6'5", 250 pound, martial arts expert finally gets hold of a quick 5'9", 140 pound guy for a fight; the former wins 'decisively'.


Now ask those families what they would rather have...their fathers/mothers coming home soon or die but win fights 'decisively'?

Dying for a hopeless cause that costs America money it does not have and brave lives while doing nothing but increasing recruitment for the 'other side' is a complete waste of time. America is getting sucked into a Muslim 'civil' war.

Bring all the troops home and let the Middle East clean up it's own mess.
 
You keep pushing that lie, but I dare you to find a single post where I've discussed what ISIL wouldn't do. As a matter of fact, from the beginning I've been stating that if ISIL is as bad as you've claimed they are for the past year or so, they would have been doing these things anyways. MMC, your narrative is falling apart.

Its not a lie if it seemed that way to me. But if you can't take the apology, then that's on you.

But really I don't mind you using BO peeps term ISIL to run away from AQIL and that Narrative he pushed about them being a former shadow of themselves and that they are on the run. Regardless of the perspective it gives.....and your affection for him. Just sayin.
 
Its not a lie if it seemed that way to me.

It can seem whatever you want it to seem like. You've been asked to substantiate your claim. If you can't and you continue to push the claim, you are in fact lying.

[h=1]lying1[/h]

[lahy-ing]
Spell Syllables



noun1.the telling of lies, or false statements; untruthfulness:From boyhood, he has never been good at lying.
Synonyms: falsehood, falsity, mendacity, prevarication.




Antonyms: truth, veracity.

C'man MMC, tell me in what post I discussed what ISIL wouldn't focus on. :)
 
It can seem whatever you want it to seem like. You've been asked to substantiate your claim. If you can't and you continue to push the claim, you are in fact lying.

No I didn't lie as you posted up the links and were mocking the tactic of hardening defenses and the taking of hostages. So it definitely seemed that way to me.

That's the point.....I don't lie.....and you wont ever ever paint me out like so. So you can save all your BS now rather than be made to look like a fool.
 
No I didn't lie as you posted up the links and were mocking the tactic of hardening defenses and the taking of hostages.

I posted up links on a discussion that had nothing to do with what ISIL would do. The links I posted had everything to do with the Bush administration announcing we'd be invading Iraq. Hell, just to show how much you're lying, what I mocked was ISIL doing what you admitted that they would do if they had any kind of military background:

MMC said:
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.

As I said, it can seem whatever way you want it to seem. It's still a lie to claim that I discussed what ISIL wouldn't do. What I have been laughing at from the beginning is your absurd outrage that ISIL will now do what you admit they would do if they have any kind of military in their ranks. Get serious and quit pushing lies when your narrative fails.
 
Back
Top Bottom