• 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:
And we still lost and are losing again. What's the point of a tactical victory if the outcome is still a strategic loss?
Click to expand...

Well, let me clarify this a bit. It's probably not accurate to say we're losing in Afghanistan and Iraq/Syria. I'd characterize the situation more as a virus like Herpes Zoster. It gives you Chickenpox, then goes dormant for decades until it resurfaces as Shingles. It doesn't kill you, mind you, but it knocks you flat on your ass. These insurgencies are definitely not defeated.
 
lifeisshort said:
Polls show war weary Americans want the bombing and that is why OB is doing it
Click to expand...

Americans believe whatever government propaganda is given to them through a steady diet of television entertainment. I don't know, however, that Obama decided to bomb ISIS because "Americans wanted me to".

Ask Americans why they want to ISIS and most will say because ISIS cut people's head off.

Ask them how they know and they'll say they saw it on tv.

Ask them how many people have been decapitated and they won't know.

Ask the to name 2 of the victims and they won't be able to.

Ask them who declared war on ISIS, most will say Obama. Few will know that war has not been declared or that only Congress can declare war.

Ask them to name the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State and in most cases you'll get a non response.

Ask them to name 5 national tv network celebrities and they'll nail it.

As to the polls saying Americans favor bombing ISiS I'd seriously question the validity of the polling methods.
 
Risky Thicket said:
i don't know what he did, Vance. I am of the opinion that Obama was convinced, for reasons I don't know, that bombing would work. You know as well as I that bombing isn't going bring ISIS to an end.

Who convinced Obama? People who have more to gain from perpetual war than the poor bastards who will fight it, and their families, and broke and war weary Americans.
Click to expand...
Why I am CERTAIN he was tricked by Fox News and Republicans and NOT by being...you know...a commander in chief and president...by using intel briefs, security analysis, etc.

You know what is comical? If someone like Navy Pride or another staunch conservative had suggested Obama was a mindless puppet you would be rushing in to declare him wise, independent, and reasoned.
 
Risky Thicket said:
Americans believe whatever government propaganda is given to them through a steady diet of television entertainment. I don't know, however, that Obama decided to bomb ISIS because "Americans wanted me to".

Ask Americans why they want to ISIS and most will say because ISIS cut people's head off.

Ask them how they know and they'll say they saw it on tv.

Ask them how many people have been decapitated and they won't know.

Ask the to name 2 of the victims and they won't be able to.

Ask them who declared war on ISIS, most will say Obama. Few will know that war has not been declared or that only Congress can declare war.

Ask them to name the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State and in most cases you'll get a non response.

Ask them to name 5 national tv network celebrities and they'll nail it.

As to the polls saying Americans favor bombing ISiS I'd seriously question the validity of the polling methods.
Click to expand...

All well and good but your assertion that OB is doing something war weary Americans are against is wrong. He was drug into this because his foreign policy numbers had plummeted and this bombing campaign of his is war for poll number instead of "war for oil".
 
VanceMack said:
You know what is comical? If someone like Navy Pride or another staunch conservative had suggested Obama was a mindless puppet you would be rushing in to declare him wise, independent, and reasoned.
Click to expand...

You base that statement about me on what?

You are going to have to learn that a growing number of people are sick of both ruling parties. Otherwise, bud, you going to be less and less able to understand the world around you.
 
Risky Thicket said:
You base that statement about me on what?

You are going to have to learn that a growing number of people are sick of both ruling parties. Otherwise, bud, you going to be less and less able to understand the world around you.
Click to expand...
If that is true, Id say finally and welcome to the party.
 
Cryptic said:
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.
Click to expand...

Do you think they would say otherwise? This war is just getting started. It is too early to make assumptions IMO.
 
Ahlevah said:
And we still lost and are losing again. What's the point of a tactical victory if the outcome is still a strategic loss?
Click to expand...

Scroll back and read the post I originally responded to.
 
apdst said:
Scroll back and read the post I originally responded to.
Click to expand...

The one where you said AQ and the Taliban didn't defeat our armies? Yeah, you're right. They didn't. On the other hand, we didn't defeat them, either. They're still there, blowing up **** and chopping off heads.
 
Ahlevah said:
The one where you said AQ and the Taliban didn't defeat our armies? Yeah, you're right. They didn't. On the other hand, we didn't defeat them, either. They're still there, blowing up **** and chopping off heads.
Click to expand...

Nope. Keep going.
 
Ahlevah said:
Well, I give up. I thought that was the original post you responded to.
Click to expand...

No, this is the post I was responding to.

Cardinal said:
Our military was crafted around the idea of fighting large, formal state forces, not guerrilla warfare . More important than that, our public acceptance of warfare is exhausted and has giant circles under its eyes at the prospect of yet another conflict that may be drawn out for another unknown number of years. Although to be fair, who can really tell them apart anymore?

We now have Americans who are fifteen years old (and it looks at this rate that number's going to just keep rising) who never knew a time when we weren't at war.
Click to expand...
 
apdst said:
No, this is the post I was responding to.
Click to expand...

To which you replied:

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...

I agree with the first sentence of your comments but not the second. The problem was we entered Iraq with large numbers of infantry and heavy armor to confront Saddam, thinking we were going to be welcomed as liberators. That plan fell apart when we discovered a significant number of Iraqis, especially in the Sunni Triangle, really didn't like us that much.

So then we were faced with an insurgency but still had a large occupying army playing "whack-a-mole." Since you're prior Army, you probably know that in order to defeat an insurgency, among other things, you need time and patience, things the American public is not noted for keeping in great quantity. We carried out our surge in 2007 and by 2008 declared it a success, even though we now know that a large number of these insurgents simply melted back into the population or crossed the border into Syria. Notwithstanding our self-congratulatory orations on defeating al-Qaeda in Iraq or Ansar-al-Islam or any other insurgent group, we face a greater threat today from this ideology than at any time in our history as evidenced by the rise of ISIS. ISIS drew much of its strength, including its leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, from these supposedly defeated groups.

So slap yourself out of your delusion that we defeated anybody and start smelling the roses.

11 facts that explain the escalating crisis in Iraq - Vox

al-Qaeda in Iraq Resugent
 
Last edited:
Ahlevah said:
To which you replied:



I agree with the first sentence of your comments but not the second. The problem was we entered Iraq with large numbers of infantry and heavy armor to confront Saddam, thinking we were going to be welcomed as liberators. That plan fell apart when we discovered a significant number of Iraqis, especially in the Sunni Triangle, really didn't like us that much.

So then we were faced with an insurgency but still had a large occupying army playing "whack-a-mole." Since you're prior Army, you probably know that in order to defeat an insurgency, among other things, you need time and patience, things the American public is not noted for keeping in great quantity. We carried out our surge in 2007 and by 2008 declared it a success, even though we now know that a large number of these insurgents simply crossed the border into Syria. Notwithstanding our self-congratulatory orations on defeating al-Qaeda in Iraq or Ansar-al-Islam or any other insurgent group, we face a greater threat today from this ideology than at any time in our history as evidenced by the rise of ISIS. ISIS drew much of its strength, including its leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, from these supposedly defeated groups.

So slap yourself out of your delusion that we defeated anybody and start smelling the roses.

11 facts that explain the escalating crisis in Iraq - Vox

al-Qaeda in Iraq Resugent
Click to expand...

The dilusion, is the notion that American forces can't defeat insurgents, in the field. You can scream the, "political objective", spin all you want, but it doesn't change reality.
 
apdst said:
The dilusion, is the notion that American forces can't defeat insurgents, in the field. You can scream the, "political objective", spin all you want, but it doesn't change reality.
Click to expand...

I suppose with enough time and resources we could, but up to this point we haven't. This is really something that's going to be decided by Syrians and Iraqis.
 
Ahlevah said:
I suppose with enough time and resources we could, but up to this point we haven't. This is really something that's going to be decided by Syrians and Iraqis.
Click to expand...

How are they going to decide?
 
apdst said:
How are they going to decide?
Click to expand...

The same way they did in Iraq with the Awakening Councils: by deciding they don't want to put up with these assholes and their brutality.
 
apdst said:
The dilusion, is the notion that American forces can't defeat insurgents, in the field. You can scream the, "political objective", spin all you want, but it doesn't change reality.
Click to expand...
You are both right. I think it is safe to say that those who welcomed the Americans as 'liberators' the first time would certainly welcome them again now.
 
Fearandloathing said:
You are justifying the killing of civilians by saying it isn't as bad as WW2?

So America launches another "experiment' like the fire bombing of Dresden but kill 20% less civilians it's peachy?
Click to expand...
There were more British planes than American planes involved and the good guys won. There should be no regrets about defeating a murderous regime.

The fact is that civilians will always be killed in a war and if you have any idea how that can be avoided you should patent it now.
 
apdst said:
We defeated the insurgents in Iraq. They damn didn't defeat our forces.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and the Viet Cong didn't defeat us, either. :roll: Have you seen the flag of Vietnam recently?

vietnam-flag.gif

I mean, I'm confused. What's the point in not being defeated if you still lose? :confused: In the present case we have ISIS, which, whether you want to admit it or not, grew out of the old al-Qaeda in Iraq, sitting within a few miles of Baghdad, breaking into prisons, holding parades in Fallujah and other places we "liberated," and assuming effective control of territory the size of Belgium. What did we win here?

ISIS parades on outskirts of Baghdad - The Long War Journal
 
Ahlevah said:
Yeah, and the Viet Cong didn't defeat us, either. :roll: Have you seen the flag of Vietnam recently?

View attachment 67173822

I mean, I'm confused. What's the point in not being defeated if you still lose? :confused: In the present case we have ISIS, which, whether you want to admit it or not, grew out of the old al-Qaeda in Iraq, sitting within a few miles of Baghdad, breaking into prisons, holding parades in Fallujah and other places we "liberated," and assuming effective control of territory the size of Belgium. What did we win here?

ISIS parades on outskirts of Baghdad - The Long War Journal
Click to expand...

We destroyed the VC in 1ó68.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom