• 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

Obama prefers to call them names other than Al Qaeda because he already 'decimated' them.

You mean the names that everyone else also calls them because they're different organizations?
 
You mean the names that everyone else also calls them because they're different organizations?

You mean affiliated organizations.....which is a result of the Bush administration decimating the main organization to the point that they cannot finance large operations at a significant level.
 
Are they? How do they differ?

Taken from a similar discussion in another thread:

They are all separate organizations who ally and quarrel with each other; even though they all are Salafis who hate the West, they originated out of different contexts, have different goals, and use different methods. For example, no one denies that al-Nusra is an affiliate of al-Qaeda. But al-Qaeda (led by Zawahiri) is a global terror network based in Afghanistan and Pakistan whose main goal is to carry out terror attacks against the West, while al-Nusra is a rebel faction in Syria whose principle objective is to overthrow Assad. Therefore, giving the groups different names to reflect the reality of them being different is simply common sense. This is even more true when you realize that "Jabhat al-Nusra" is what they call themselves and what other Syrians call them.
 
Changing the subject won't make your argument any less wrong. You've gone from, "the Viet Cong forced us to surrender", to, "it wasn't worth it". Stop trying to use partisan hackery as historical fact.

I never said the Viet Cong forced us to surrender. I said we walked away, letting them win by default. You were the one who injected the words "victory" and "defeat" into the discussion, so I'm just asking you to explain how we were victorious, notwithstanding the 58,272 names on the Vietnam Memorial.
 
You are asking the wrong question. It wasnt a question of 'winning' Vietnam, it was question of opposing the continued expansion of communism. The goal was not to seize South Vietnam (or for that matter to defeat North Vietnam) but rather to prevent it from falling under communist rule similar to the goal in Korea, Afghanistan, etc).

Right. And we didn't exactly achieve our goal, did we? In fact, not only did we not achieve our goal, but a lot of people were killed, wounded, or scarred emotionally for life. And for what? That's my question.
 
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.

that is called an insurgency.

guerilla warfare usually involves uniformed combatants who use hit and run tactics.insurgencies are usually non uniformed combatants who hide among the civilian population as cover.

iraq and later wars are not our first encounter with insurgents,but rather the first time we seen it as the primary opposition.insurgencies need to be countered with counter insurgency or coin strategies.given syria is different from iraq afghanistan al quaeda and the taliban,modifying the coin strategy is necessary.
 
Right. And we didn't exactly achieve our goal, did we? In fact, not only did we not achieve our goal, but a lot of people were killed, wounded, or scarred emotionally for life. And for what? That's my question.
In case you missed it, the Soviet Union was blocked and eventually dismantled. Vietnam in and of itself was not the end game. Its amazing how myopic people are in their world vision.

As I said...the problem in Vietnam was not the war or the purpose for the war. The problem was with politicians running a political war. Blame Kennedy. Blame Johnson. Blame the politicians. The military could have destroyed North Vietnam and ended the war relatively easily. Political binders caused those dead wounded and scarred soldiers. A wise man would learn from history as they prepare to engage an enemy like ISIS.
 
In case you missed it, the Soviet Union was blocked and eventually dismantled. Vietnam in and of itself was not the end game. Its amazing how myopic people are in their world vision.

The USSR collapsed almost twenty years after the conclusion of the Vietnam War, and not because we failed to kick the communists out of South Vietnam.

As I said...the problem in Vietnam was not the war or the purpose for the war. The problem was with politicians running a political war. Blame Kennedy. Blame Johnson. Blame the politicians. The military could have destroyed North Vietnam and ended the war relatively easily. Political binders caused those dead wounded and scarred soldiers. A wise man would learn from history as they prepare to engage an enemy like ISIS.

I beg to differ. The war was a problem, because we had no compelling national interest there. Apparently Nixon came to that view as well, since he brokered the agreement that allowed us to leave South Vietnam with no troop presence. As far as ISIS goes, what's wrong with letting al-Nusra, the FSA, Assad, Hezbollah, Syrian Kurds, Iraqi Kurds, Iraqi Shiite militias, the Iraqi Army, or Iran fight them? Did you notice that al-Nusra and ISIS are talking again instead of fighting each other since we started bombing them both?

Al Nusra want to merge with ISIS - creating united army of fanatics* | Daily Mail Online
 
Err... of course it's a static number. Explaining that a militant organizations troop totals will fluctuate depending on casualties, recruitment, and desertion is one of the most obvious things I've ever seen posted. Moreover there is no reason to believe that there is a bottomless pool of fighters available to IS.

There certianly is not a bottomless pool of fighters, but there saying there are XXX many fighters is also a bad argument because that number, as I have mentioned, is a static number. Saying that means that killing 31,000 fighters will not win against ISIS. Those fighters will be replenished.. Over time, we may actually have to kill 100k plus fighters to win a battle against ISIS. And as we take longer and use less effective means (such as Air Strikes) it will only increase the number of fighters we have to kill. The best way to end this battle is thru a decisive ground offensive supported by air power. That is how you kill fewer people and win. And in the end, is also a much cheaper war.
 
The USSR collapsed almost twenty years after the conclusion of the Vietnam War, and not because we failed to kick the communists out of South Vietnam.



I beg to differ. The war was a problem, because we had no compelling national interest there. Apparently Nixon came to that view as well, since he brokered the agreement that allowed us to leave South Vietnam with no troop presence. As far as ISIS goes, what's wrong with letting al-Nusra, the FSA, Assad, Hezbollah, Syrian Kurds, Iraqi Kurds, Iraqi Shiite militias, the Iraqi Army, or Iran fight them? Did you notice that al-Nusra and ISIS are talking again instead of fighting each other since we started bombing them both?

Al Nusra want to merge with ISIS - creating united army of fanatics* | Daily Mail Online
The USSR collapsed because every US president had the foresight to fight soviet expansion> Vietnam was just one of those fronts. It was a front not well fought, one that could have and absolutely should have been fought better, but one that needed to be fought.

You want to continue your myopic world vision, be my guest. Thats why people like you play tic tac toe and world leaders play 3D chess.

You may have missed it, but ISIS was doing a pretty steady business of butchering women and children. You want to sit back and allow **** like that...be my guest. We made a mistake ignoring the massacre in Rwanda and look at the cost. I suppose its easy for people to say "its not our problem". Think about how that plays out when your house is on fire or someone you love is being assaulted and others stand around saying meh...**** it...not my problem. Since Obama engaged ISIS ISIS is now having to deal with drones and air strikes. They are engaged militarily. Its a good start.
 
There certianly is not a bottomless pool of fighters, but there saying there are XXX many fighters is also a bad argument because that number, as I have mentioned, is a static number. Saying that means that killing 31,000 fighters will not win against ISIS. Those fighters will be replenished.. Over time, we may actually have to kill 100k plus fighters to win a battle against ISIS. And as we take longer and use less effective means (such as Air Strikes) it will only increase the number of fighters we have to kill. The best way to end this battle is thru a decisive ground offensive supported by air power. That is how you kill fewer people and win. And in the end, is also a much cheaper war.

Likewise we don't have to kill every single one of them to "win", many will just chose to give it up and go home.
 
...Thats why people like you play tic tac toe and world leaders play 3D chess. ...

Why is it that those on the far right have this urge to insult others? Does it make you feel macho? Do you really think that you add anything to your argument or to the discussion by tossing in a few insults?

And just wondering, but what is the cost to the US by not going into Rwanda? Best I know it hasn't cost me a dime. Rwanda isn't economically important to the US. I don't drink their tea or coffee, and they produce little else.
 
Why is it that those on the far right have this urge to insult others? Does it make you feel macho? Do you really think that you add anything to your argument or to the discussion by tossing in a few insults?

And just wondering, but what is the cost to the US by not going into Rwanda? Best I know it hasn't cost me a dime. Rwanda isn't economically important to the US. I don't drink their tea or coffee, and they produce little else.
I'm sorry your feelingz was hurt.

'Cost'.

Good ****ing lord.....

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en....3.0....0...1ac.1.55.img..0.6.274.hJ7Oh-s2z1Q
 
I never said the Viet Cong forced us to surrender. I said we walked away, letting them win by default. You were the one who injected the words "victory" and "defeat" into the discussion, so I'm just asking you to explain how we were victorious, notwithstanding the 58,272 names on the Vietnam Memorial.

You still think the Viet Cong actually existed in 1972; that we left Vietnam in 1974. You're proving my point. Hel, you don't even know what the Viet Cong was.
 
The USSR collapsed because every US president had the foresight to fight soviet expansion> Vietnam was just one of those fronts. It was a front not well fought, one that could have and absolutely should have been fought better, but one that needed to be fought.

You want to continue your myopic world vision, be my guest. Thats why people like you play tic tac toe and world leaders play 3D chess.

You may have missed it, but ISIS was doing a pretty steady business of butchering women and children. You want to sit back and allow **** like that...be my guest. We made a mistake ignoring the massacre in Rwanda and look at the cost. I suppose its easy for people to say "its not our problem". Think about how that plays out when your house is on fire or someone you love is being assaulted and others stand around saying meh...**** it...not my problem. Since Obama engaged ISIS ISIS is now having to deal with drones and air strikes. They are engaged militarily. Its a good start.
While leftist Americans were/are critical of their governments during the Cold War, their fighting in Korea and Vietnam certainly impressed the Communists in Russia and China. When they realized that the American government would be prepared to fight Communism anywhere it certainly helped slow their international advancement. But of course the Communists in these countries always were a lot smarter than American leftists, and exploited them well. The jihadists are doing the same now.
 
The USSR collapsed because every US president had the foresight to fight soviet expansion> Vietnam was just one of those fronts. It was a front not well fought, one that could have and absolutely should have been fought better, but one that needed to be fought.

You want to continue your myopic world vision, be my guest. Thats why people like you play tic tac toe and world leaders play 3D chess.

Not well fought? Pardon me in my myopia, but where it concerned South Vietnam Tic-tac-toe probably would have been the better choice, because we sacrificed 58,286 pawns in a gambit to keep the place from going communist. If the locus of our resistance to communist expansion is measured in body count then our brilliant leadership inside the Beltway failed miserably. And it was "communist," not just "Soviet" expansion we were presumably resisting, so we shouldn't exclude the PRC. It hasn't collapsed yet either, even though it, like the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, has had somewhat of a change of heart where it concerns capitalism. (Recall that in respect to Vietnam, China, not the Soviet Union, was our main concern regarding any possible invasion of North Vietnam, lest we repeat our quagmire in Korea when we crossed the 38th Parallel and China entered the war. The Brain Trust didn't figure out North Vietnam and China were not on the best of terms until well after we threw in the towel.)

You may have missed it, but ISIS was doing a pretty steady business of butchering women and children. You want to sit back and allow **** like that...be my guest. We made a mistake ignoring the massacre in Rwanda and look at the cost. I suppose its easy for people to say "its not our problem". Think about how that plays out when your house is on fire or someone you love is being assaulted and others stand around saying meh...**** it...not my problem. Since Obama engaged ISIS ISIS is now having to deal with drones and air strikes. They are engaged militarily. Its a good start.

How can I miss it? Or Cambodia? Or Bosnia? Or Kosovo? Or Kurdistan? Or DR Congo? Or Sudan? Or Somalia? Or Rwanda? Or any of the several score genocides or humanitarian crises that have occurred around the globe over the past few decades? Where it concerns warfare as an extension of foreign policy, I take the Eisenhower/Ron Paul approach: choose your fights carefully, making sure that vital U.S. interests are at stake, but if you do decide to wield a stick make sure it's the biggest mother****er on the block and don't be afraid to crack heads. You see, the problem with so many of our so-called leaders is they've never been to war, but they think the Army is the solution to everything, at least until they miscalculate and then cut their losses as Johnson/Nixon did in Vietnam, Reagan did in Lebanon, Clinton did in Somalia, and Bush/Obama did in Iraq. (Johnson and Bush did the miscalculation in Vietnam and Iraq, respectively, while Nixon and Obama cut the losses.)

So my concern is that the Nuclear Warheads sitting in the beltway plotting strategy have already concluded that the only way to defeat ISIS will be to put Western (i.e., mostly American) boots on the ground and that they will, once again, forget to enter some critical thing into their models, at which point we'll find ourselves in another cluster****, with mothers and wives weeping over lost sons and husbands well past the day the policy wonks have moved on to the next crisis in some other unstable part of the world. Only in retrospect do the people left holding the bag realize that a little myopia on the part of their leaders might have been a useful thing.
 
You still think the Viet Cong actually existed in 1972....

I don't recall mentioning any specific year regarding their activity other than the 1968 Tet Offensive, but, no, I was not under the impression the military wing of the National Liberation Front had ceased to exist before we departed the country.

... that we left Vietnam in 1974.

Never said that, either.

(Y)ou don't even know what the Viet Cong was.

I'm curious how you divined this, since I never said anything concerning the nature of the Viet Cong. There seems to be a pattern in which you butcher my words. We'll have a problem carrying on a meaningful discussion if you can't get basic facts straight.
 
You see, the problem with so many of our so-called leaders is they've never been to war, but they think the Army is the solution to everything, at least until they miscalculate and then cut their losses as Johnson/Nixon did in Vietnam, Reagan did in Lebanon, Clinton did in Somalia, and Bush/Obama did in Iraq. (Johnson and Bush did the miscalculation in Vietnam and Iraq, respectively, while Nixon and Obama cut the losses.)

I forgot to mention Truman's miscalculation in Korea, where he and his cabinet overplayed their hand and China entered the picture, fighting us to a stalemate for several years until Eisenhower made it clear to the Chinese that they should return to the bargaining table, or else....
 
The bombing isn't in full swing and the targets aren't exactly standing in formation to be bombed. I am sure the strikes are hurting them or at least demoralizing them. A continued air campaign will degrade ISIS ability to take another city and will stall their efforts.

They appear to be getting ready to take another one on the Syria / Turkey border right now...
 
Not well fought? Pardon me in my myopia, but where it concerned South Vietnam Tic-tac-toe probably would have been the better choice, because we sacrificed 58,286 pawns in a gambit to keep the place from going communist. If the locus of our resistance to communist expansion is measured in body count then our brilliant leadership inside the Beltway failed miserably. And it was "communist," not just "Soviet" expansion we were presumably resisting, so we shouldn't exclude the PRC. It hasn't collapsed yet either, even though it, like the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, has had somewhat of a change of heart where it concerns capitalism. (Recall that in respect to Vietnam, China, not the Soviet Union, was our main concern regarding any possible invasion of North Vietnam, lest we repeat our quagmire in Korea when we crossed the 38th Parallel and China entered the war. The Brain Trust didn't figure out North Vietnam and China were not on the best of terms until well after we threw in the towel.)



How can I miss it? Or Cambodia? Or Bosnia? Or Kosovo? Or Kurdistan? Or DR Congo? Or Sudan? Or Somalia? Or Rwanda? Or any of the several score genocides or humanitarian crises that have occurred around the globe over the past few decades? Where it concerns warfare as an extension of foreign policy, I take the Eisenhower/Ron Paul approach: choose your fights carefully, making sure that vital U.S. interests are at stake, but if you do decide to wield a stick make sure it's the biggest mother****er on the block and don't be afraid to crack heads. You see, the problem with so many of our so-called leaders is they've never been to war, but they think the Army is the solution to everything, at least until they miscalculate and then cut their losses as Johnson/Nixon did in Vietnam, Reagan did in Lebanon, Clinton did in Somalia, and Bush/Obama did in Iraq. (Johnson and Bush did the miscalculation in Vietnam and Iraq, respectively, while Nixon and Obama cut the losses.)

So my concern is that the Nuclear Warheads sitting in the beltway plotting strategy have already concluded that the only way to defeat ISIS will be to put Western (i.e., mostly American) boots on the ground and that they will, once again, forget to enter some critical thing into their models, at which point we'll find ourselves in another cluster****, with mothers and wives weeping over lost sons and husbands well past the day the policy wonks have moved on to the next crisis in some other unstable part of the world. Only in retrospect do the people left holding the bag realize that a little myopia on the part of their leaders might have been a useful thing.
I get it. You are that guy that pulls down the shades and turns off the lights when you hear someone screaming as they are being raped and then murdered on your doorstep. I understand you completely.
 
They appear to be getting ready to take another one on the Syria / Turkey border right now...
Kobani is the town & it has more than 160,000 refugees. According to Ralph Peters the Isis Army could have been effectively bombed
when they were out in the open before they entered the town with B52's or a similiar platform but Obama has our guys flying around with precision guided bombs good for pin prick strikes. Now that they are in the city, still fighting the Kurds the bombing is impossible without civilian casulties. There could be a slaughter of thousands if they take the city.

You cant help but notice that the intensity & type of bombing fall miserably short of what is needed. Does Obama want to win here? I think its obvious he doesnt. He just wants to look like he's doing something so he is not blamed for the massacre that is going to take place if they take Kobani.
 
I get it. You are that guy that pulls down the shades and turns off the lights when you hear someone screaming as they are being raped and then murdered on your doorstep. I understand you completely.

I'm the guy who remembers we were supposed to enter Iraq, remove Saddam from power, get welcomed as heroes, and then leave. It didn't quite work out that way. I'm the guy who remembers the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians--men, women, and children--who died after we left a power vacuum and destabilized the country. And I'm the guy who finds it problematic to play the morality card when it's stained with events like Haditha, Mahmudiyah, and Abu Ghraib. I mean, I realize some good was done there by our military. In fact, I'm sure it was significant. Unfortunately, it's always the bad apples that leave a sour taste in my mouth. I'm the guy who remembers them.

The War Profiteers - Iraq: BBC Documentary on Mahmudiya Massacre - August 7th, 2006
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom