• 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

Zyphlin said:
In terms of defining how successful the strikes were, what ISIS is claiming publicly would be WAY down at the bottom of my list.
Click to expand...

Not mine.

Given the totality of the circumstances (veteran fighters long experienced with US air strike capabilities, advance notice of the impending strikes, ease of blending in with civilians) and given the fact that other motivated and similarily positioned opponents (Serbs in Kosovo) were able to mitigate alot of the air strikes, I would come to the realization that ISIS may well be telling the truth.
 
Cardinal said:
To be fair, I do recall an article somewhere about how troops found that if they wore mustaches and/or beards, it increased the respect they received from the locals dramatically. Also, can't help but put this in here: the idea of earning the trust of the locals instead forcing on them a sense of our overwhelming superiority is a pretty liberal idea.
Click to expand...

Well, in many of those cultures a beard is a sign of manhood-and manhood is quite important. As for "liberal" ideas, the military is quite innovative, and always has been.
 
L0neW0lf said:
Yes those were the days when we could kill millions of innocent people, those damn liberals have to ruin everything.
Click to expand...

Those "days" aren't gone. Its just been a while, and largely thanks to the Pax Americana.

The left killed at least 100 million in the last century alone. Makes religion seem like kids play, frankly.
 
Cardinal said:
I'm aware that we armed the Mujahideen, but we would have had to arm them with all the bells and whistles before they could have taken on the Soviet Union in full face-to-face combat (tanks, fighter jets, guided missiles, etc.).
Click to expand...

Armor and air were the Soviets's advantage, until we gave the mujas the weapons and know how to counter them.
 
apdst said:
Armor and air were the Soviets's advantage, until we gave the mujas the weapons and know how to counter them.
Click to expand...

It gave their guerrilla warfare tactics a chance, but with what we gave them it wouldn't have allowed them to do much more.
 
Cryptic said:
Not mine.
Click to expand...

Oh? In what scenario do you see ISIS coming out and publicly claiming anything other than the strikes not being effective?

Given the totality of the circumstances (veteran fighters long experienced with US air strike capabilities, advance notice of the impending strikes, ease of blending in with civilians) and given the fact that other motivated and similarily positioned opponents (Serbs in Kosovo) were able to mitigate alot of the air strikes, I would come to the realization that ISIS may well be telling the truth.
Click to expand...

But those things you're describing isn't "Whether or not ISIS is coming out publicly and claiming it". Those are OTHER factors that are leading you to make your decision.

Those factors are potentially reasonable ones to make a determination on whether or not you think the strikes are being effective.

That's entirely different then just taking ISIS for it's word as a singular reason, or one of the main reasons, to come to such a conclussion.
 
US Conservative said:
Our COIN (counter insurgency) tactics are superb and amongst the best in the world, but not if we dont have the resolve to use them, and not if we dont have at least general order in the country.

Regardless of how this turns out, we will need to keep a limited military presence there for decades.
Click to expand...

If by "don't have the resolve," you mean "aren't willing to murder enough people in the process," then I agree.
 
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...

Except that they weren't defeated.
 
Deuce said:
If by "don't have the resolve," you mean "aren't willing to murder enough people in the process," then I agree.
Click to expand...

I mean not willing to fight the war Obama has committed to fighting-if he does not have the resolve he should never have gone in, hes been anti-war since his earliest days.

This is all for politics-he wants a war to win the senate. It wont work.
 
US Conservative said:
I mean not willing to fight the war Obama has committed to fighting-if he does not have the resolve he should never have gone in, hes been anti-war since his earliest days.

This is all for politics-he wants a war to win the senate. It wont work.
Click to expand...

So we shouldn't enter this fight?
 
US Conservative said:
I think we should-but ONLY with the resolve to fight the war. That means an extended presence, likely for decades. But thats after killing the enemy.
Click to expand...
Bush said the fight would go on a very long while, Obama finally agreed with him 13 years later, but there is not much confidence in Obama being willing to see this thing through. He's probably already looking at a withdrawal timeline.

Will Harry Reid repeat what he said about the troops seven years ago? Senator Reid On Iraq: "This War Is Lost" - CBS News
 
Grant said:
Bush said the fight would go on a very long while, Obama finally agreed with him 13 years later, but there is not much confidence in Obama being willing to see this thing through. He's probably already looking at a withdrawal timeline.

Will Harry Reid repeat what he said about the troops seven years ago? Senator Reid On Iraq: "This War Is Lost" - CBS News
Click to expand...

What gets me is that Obama could care less about Iraq. He's only there now because of polls, and he will likely revert after the election.
 
Cardinal said:
It gave their guerrilla warfare tactics a chance, but with what we gave them it wouldn't have allowed them to do much more.
Click to expand...

They changed tactics after we started helping them.
 
US Conservative said:
What gets me is that Obama could care less about Iraq. He's only there now because of polls, and he will likely revert after the election.
Click to expand...
You may be right but I assume we both hope not. Many keep looking for something in Obama that just isn't there, and in fact 'there is no there there'. That's why those who care about these things will always be concerned. He has no direction at all.
 
Yet giving them guns at an early age is still frowned upon.

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...
 
lifeisshort said:
Obama told ISIS he was going to bomb them for months prior to actually doing it so they had plenty of time to disperse their men and weapons. We are bombing empty buildings and they are laughing at us.
Click to expand...

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

Of COURSE ISIS is going to say the bombings are "ineffective," and of course the rabid right-wing partisans are going to believe them.
 
If not for the midterms he'd still be playing golf. Obama's only does things for political reasons. Nothing else. Its why he's caught in so many lies and is held in such low even by congressmen from his own party.


US Conservative said:
What gets me is that Obama could care less about Iraq. He's only there now because of polls, and he will likely revert after the election.
Click to expand...
 
TobyOne said:
Yet giving them guns at an early age is still frowned upon.
Click to expand...

I'm sure there's a thread somewhere on this forum where that post would fit in. Just keep trying.
 
apdst said:
They changed tactics after we started helping them.
Click to expand...

Okay, I'm not really sure we're debating anything here. Which is fine. We don't all have to rabidly disagree about everything all the time.
 
Grant said:
You may be right but I assume we both hope not. Many keep looking for something in Obama that just isn't there, and in fact 'there is no there there'. That's why those who care about these things will always be concerned. He has no direction at all.
Click to expand...

Its been amateur hour in the whitehouse for the last 6 years.
 
TobyOne said:
If not for the midterms he'd still be playing golf. Obama's only does things for political reasons. Nothing else. Its why he's caught in so many lies and is held in such low even by congressmen from his own party.
Click to expand...

Thats it. And him trying to throw others under the bus is pathetic. Let him try, it just makes him look more removed from reality.
 
Damn, I was expecting a paean to American military prowess.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom