ISIS Boasts Air Strikes are not Effective

Anna Noblesse said:

We (America) should bomb ISIS full force, and use American ground troops, or we should stay out of it completely. This piece meal idea of dropping a few bombs here and there just to appease people politically is stupid.
If America is going to fight a war, THEN FIGHT IT FULL FORCE AND TO WIN!
Or don't fight it at all.

Half fought wars always cost more blood and sweat in the long run.

Click to expand...

So does bad foreign policy, like we've seen in the Middle East for decades now.

Anna Noblesse said:

We (America) should bomb ISIS full force, and use American ground troops, or we should stay out of it completely. This piece meal idea of dropping a few bombs here and there just to appease people politically is stupid.
If America is going to fight a war, THEN FIGHT IT FULL FORCE AND TO WIN!
Or don't fight it at all.

Half fought wars always cost more blood and sweat in the long run.

Click to expand...

Nice sounding rhetoric and you only left out the "bring it on" part but sending in American targets in a holy war against Islam is just what ISIS wants. You need to use your head more if you want to get these guys. We tried it your way for a decade and look what we got....more terrorists.

iguanaman said:

Nice sounding rhetoric and you only left out the "bring it on" part but sending in American targets in a holy war against Islam is just what ISIS wants. You need to use your head more if you want to get these guys. We tried it your way for a decade and look what we got....more terrorists.

Click to expand...

I highly doubt ISIS wants to see American ground troops. I believe they are scared to death of American troops. If done correctly it would be the end of ISIS.

Correctly means a massive invasion that completely destroys ISIS. If we aren't willing to go all out, with an overwhelming ground force, then we shouldn't be involved in the war at all.

P.S. And we didn't try it my way. America correctly fought the war against IRAQ by using overwhelming force but we didn't correctly fight the peace.
When WW2 ended the American troops didn't all pack up and go home. A large force stayed behind in Japan and Germany until the bad guys eventually became good guys.
In Iraq we won and then left. That's not how it's done. If a large American force had stayed behind in Iraq then ISIS would not be there now.

iguanaman said:

Nice sounding rhetoric and you only left out the "bring it on" part but sending in American targets in a holy war against Islam is just what ISIS wants. You need to use your head more if you want to get these guys. We tried it your way for a decade and look what we got....more terrorists.

Click to expand...

In fact terrorism had shrunk until Obama pulled the troops from Iraq. As George Bush said, it will take years before the Islamists are defeated, and after ignoring his advice Barrack Obama (and Panetta) now feel the same way.

Had they carried on where Bush left off, and followed the advice of the CIA and the military, the Middle East would look quite different today. Obama only fights to win domestically.

Montecresto said:

So does bad foreign policy, like we've seen in the Middle East for decades now.

Click to expand...

True.
Problem is when it concerns the Middle East, it seems hard to figure out what is good foreign policy. It's so massively complicated over there. So many different religious groups and different countries all wanting different things.
My dad (a retired army Major in the infantry) said it was easier back in the cold war days with the Soviet Union. He said there was us and there was them. Everyone in the Middle East was either an us or a them. Two sides, all in uniform, no complications.

Grant said:

In fact terrorism had shrunk until Obama pulled the troops from Iraq. As George Bush said, it will take years before the Islamists are defeated, and after ignoring his advice Barrack Obama (and Panetta) now feel the same way.

Had they carried on where Bush left off, and followed the advice of the CIA and the military, the Middle East would look quite different today. Obama only fights to win domestically.

Click to expand...

They didn't "shrink" they just bided their time until the power vacuum in Syria and the genocidal Govt. we left in Bagdad made the conditions right for their revival.
Playing "whack a mole" while your presence is creating more terrorists by the day is not a plan for victory. Obama is trying something else. There is nothing like a Muslim army fighting a Muslim army to take the wind out of the extremists sails.

Anna Noblesse said:

True.
Problem is when it concerns the Middle East, it seems hard to figure out what is good foreign policy. It's so massively complicated over there. So many different religious groups and different countries all wanting different things.
My dad (a retired army Major in the infantry) said it was easier back in the cold war days with the Soviet Union. He said there was us and there was them. Everyone in the Middle East was either an us or a them. Two sides, all in uniform, no complications.

Click to expand...

Yes, the no uniforms thing is the difficult part. Now 'civilians' are on a head hunting campaign throughout the democracies (though in the US it's called 'workplace violence') and from a terrorists pov it's a great way to fight a war. It makes sense that they cannot defeat the democracies militarily so what better way? The thing is that the west has to start thinking from the terrorists point of view rather than the old fashioned ideas of war. A real problem also is that the democracies lack a leader.

Putin would have made a good ally at this time.

iguanaman said:

They didn't "shrink" they just bided their time until the power vacuum in Syria and the genocidal Govt. we left in Bagdad made the conditions right for their revival.
Playing "whack a mole" while your presence is creating more terrorists by the day is not a plan for victory. Obama is trying something else. There is nothing like a Muslim army fighting a Muslim army to take the wind out of the extremists sails.

Click to expand...

There were 55 deaths in Iraq the year, the entire year, Obama withdrew the troops from Iraq. How does that compare with today?

You feel that ISIS killing other Muslims will solve the problem? Is that Obama's recently discovered strategy?

Anna Noblesse said:

I highly doubt ISIS wants to see American ground troops. I believe they are scared to death of American troops. If done correctly it would be the end of ISIS.

Correctly means a massive invasion that completely destroys ISIS. If we aren't willing to go all out, with an overwhelming ground force, then we shouldn't be involved in the war at all.

Click to expand...

That shows what you know. ISIS was born fighting Americans. They know we die like everybody else and our presence will bring thousands of new recruits to them. You think those beheadings are because they are scared of us? They want us to come back so they can kill and capture us for all the world to see. As far as an overwhelming force goes don't kid yourself that is impossible. ISIS will set hundreds of IED's and "hole up" among civilians and dare us to come and get them. Casualties' will be high and so will civilian deaths. We must resist the notion that we are the only force in the world, a combined Muslim army would be invincible with our help.

iguanaman said:

That shows what you know. ISIS was born fighting Americans. They know we die like everybody else and our presence will bring thousands of new recruits to them. You think those beheadings are because they are scared of us? They want us to come back so they can kill and capture us for all the world to see. As far as an overwhelming force goes don't kid yourself that is impossible. ISIS will "hole up" among civilians and dare us to come and get them. Casualties' will be high and so will civilian deaths.

Click to expand...

Obama had a chance to kill them while they were wide open in the desert and he didn't. That lack of will, and foresight, raises the question of whose side this guy is really on. Incompetence can play a role but Obama is taking it to a whole new level.

Grant said:

There were 55 deaths in Iraq the year, the entire year, Obama withdrew the troops from Iraq. How does that compare with today?

You feel that ISIS killing other Muslims will solve the problem? Is that Obama's recently discovered strategy?

Click to expand...

LOL I said they would bide their time and they did. We need to solve the problem of Iraq not act as a buffer keeping the sides apart until we leave. I do feel that sending Americans will only cause more to join ISIS so an army of Muslims would be far superior. Don't you think we should find out who are enemies are before we commit more troops to die or do you think we can afford to wage a war on all the Muslims in the ME? That is what may happen if we send in an army again.

Grant said:

Obama had a chance to kill them while they were wide open in the desert and he didn't. That lack of will, and foresight, raises the question of whose side this guy is really on. Incompetence can play a role but Obama is taking it to a whole new level.

Click to expand...

You sound like as good a General as your namesake. When exactly was ISIS "wide open"?

=iguanaman;1063842006]LOL I said they would bide their time and they did.

Click to expand...

Obama could have made them bide their time a few more generations rather than withdraw the troops prematurely.

We need to solve the problem of Iraq not act as a buffer keeping the sides apart until we leave. I do feel that sending Americans will only cause more to join ISIS so an army of Muslims would be far superior. Don't you think we should find out who are enemies are before we commit more troops to die or do you think we can afford to wage a war on all the Muslims in the ME? That is what may happen if we send in an army again.

Click to expand...

There is no evidence that more terrorists were being recruited while the troops were in the Middle East. None! Now that Obama cut and run of course there is going to be more recruits. They now feel this is a war they can win.

iguanaman said:

You sound like as good a General as your namesake. When exactly was ISIS "wide open"?

Click to expand...

Within the past couple of weeks. You can look it up.

iguanaman said:

That show what you know. ISIS was born fighting Americans. They know we die like everybody else and our presence will bring thousands of new recruits to them. You think those beheadings are because they are scared of us? They want us to come back so they can kill and capture us for all the world to see. As far as an overwhelming force goes don't kid yourself that is impossible. ISIS will "hole up" among civilians and dare us to come and get them. Casualties' will be high and so will civilian deaths.

Click to expand...

Yes it does show what I know. ISIS is doing the beheadings in the mistaken belief that they can scare America from intervening. They screwed up because the beheadings forced a reluctant Obama to order air strikes. If they would have instead let the Americans go and said ..."Hey our war is not with America" ...then Obama would have left them alone. ISIS doesn't understand American culture or politics.

As far as our presence bringing them new recruits, fine, American bombs don't discriminate between new and old terrorist, they just blow them up equally.

The Germans and Japanese held up among civilians too. It didn't help them.

ISIS has free reign until America elects a republican president. Then their days are over. Now it's true that the republican president might mess up the peace afterwards but ISIS will be too dead to gloat.

No enemy likes to meet the American military at full force. Have you ever read the accounts of the Vietnam war by Vietnamese soldiers? They admit they while they managed to make America eventually quit, they got their butts kicked in every battle and they admit they only won because America allowed its politicians to run the war rather than its generals.

Anna Noblesse said:

I highly doubt ISIS wants to see American ground troops. I believe they are scared to death of American troops. If done correctly it would be the end of ISIS.

Correctly means a massive invasion that completely destroys ISIS. If we aren't willing to go all out, with an overwhelming ground force, then we shouldn't be involved in the war at all.

Click to expand...

If a substantial force had remained there, this never would have happened. The U.S. lost many times more men in Korea than in Iraq, and there was also very strong public sentiment for bringing our troops home then. In fact that promise was a major theme in Eisenhower's successful 1952 presidential campaign. And yet for decades after the armistice in that war, the U.S. maintained a force of about 35,000 men in South Korea, along with quite a lot of armor and air power. And it kept North Korea honest, particularly when South Korea was much weaker and poorer than it is today. That force has been reduced somewhat, but it is still pretty strong.

Our military has to be based somewhere, and I don't see why it should have been any more unthinkable to have some of it based forward in Iraq than it has been to have some of it based forward in other places that had been war zones, like Germany, or South Korea, or Okinawa. The extreme instability we are seeing now in Iraq has let cities like Fallujah that U.S. servicemen died to secure fall back into the hands of Muslim jihadists. It has let Mosul, one of Iraq's largest cities, fall into their hands. They now call the shots in much of the heartland of Iraq, almost up to Baghdad in some places. These people never would have dared move across from Syria with a powerful U.S. force right in their way.

Every U.S. President from Harry Truman on has understood the basic principle that deploying U.S. forces in strategic places helps keep the world stable, and that by doing that it has encouraged economic development and democratic governments. This one either doesn't get that, or doesn't give a damn. He's more interested in apologizing to the world for this country than in protecting it from foreign threats. He is the first President in our history to disdain most things about the very country whose interests he is supposed to be defending.

Anna Noblesse said:

Yes it does show what I know. ISIS is doing the beheadings in the mistaken belief that they can scare America from intervening. They screwed up because the beheadings forced a reluctant Obama to order air strikes. If they would have instead let the Americans go and said ..."Hey our war is not with America" ...then Obama would have left them alone. ISIS doesn't understand American culture or politics.

As far as our presence bringing them new recruits, fine, American bombs don't discriminate between new and old terrorist, they just blow them up equally.

The Germans and Japanese held up among civilians too. It didn't help them.

ISIS has free reign until America elects a republican president. Then their days are over. Now it's true that the republican president might mess up the peace afterwards but ISIS will be too dead to gloat.

No enemy likes to meet the American military at full force. Have you ever read the accounts of the Vietnam war by Vietnamese soldiers? They admit they while they managed to make America eventually quit, they got their butts kicked in every battle and they admit they only won because America allowed its politicians to run the war rather than its generals.

Click to expand...

It took a Republican President to create ISIS and destabilize the entire M.E. while spending 3 Trillion and losing 4000 American lives. There are thousands more terrorists than when GW Bush took office. Why do you think that is? I thought he killed them all.

The Vietnamese won because they were fighting to free their country from western colonialism. What were Americans fighting there for? Most did not know.

iguanaman said:

There are thousands more terrorists than when GW Bush took office. Why do you think that is? I thought he killed them all.

Click to expand...

Ummm as I remember it, it was president Obama who "got" Bin Laden, decimated Al Qaeda and brought world peace.

Grant said:

Obama had a chance to kill them while they were wide open in the desert and he didn't. That lack of will, and foresight, raises the question of whose side this guy is really on. Incompetence can play a role but Obama is taking it to a whole new level.

Click to expand...

Didn't every world leader have that opportunity? This seems like an Iraq problem, why didn't Iraq kill them? Why is an issue in another country on the other side of the world, our issue?

Obama isn't president of the world, he's president of the USA.

Anna Noblesse said:

Yes it does show what I know. ISIS is doing the beheadings in the mistaken belief that they can scare America from intervening. They screwed up because the beheadings forced a reluctant Obama to order air strikes. If they would have instead let the Americans go and said ..."Hey our war is not with America" ...then Obama would have left them alone. ISIS doesn't understand American culture or politics.

As far as our presence bringing them new recruits, fine, American bombs don't discriminate between new and old terrorist, they just blow them up equally.

The Germans and Japanese held up among civilians too. It didn't help them.

ISIS has free reign until America elects a republican president. Then their days are over. Now it's true that the republican president might mess up the peace afterwards but ISIS will be too dead to gloat.

No enemy likes to meet the American military at full force. Have you ever read the accounts of the Vietnam war by Vietnamese soldiers? They admit they while they managed to make America eventually quit, they got their butts kicked in every battle and they admit they only won because America allowed its politicians to run the war rather than its generals.

Click to expand...

The next republican president will destroy the Islamic State just like Bush destroyed Al Qaeda.

Anna Noblesse said:

No enemy likes to meet the American military at full force. Have you ever read the accounts of the Vietnam war by Vietnamese soldiers? They admit they while they managed to make America eventually quit, they got their butts kicked in every battle and they admit they only won because America allowed its politicians to run the war rather than its generals.

Click to expand...

The Communist Russians said the same thing but because the American media was largely run by the left, then as now, quite a different story was given to the American people. I still see articles written during the Cold War which are taken as Gospel by people today, mist recently about Chile and Central America. I spend half my time down there and the truth is quite different. The Communists excelled at propaganda, but little else.

imagep said:

Didn't every world leader have that opportunity? This seems like an Iraq problem, why didn't Iraq kill them? Why is an issue in another country on the other side of the world, our issue?
Obama isn't president of the world, he's president of the USA.

Click to expand...

It was an American led Coalition who first led the Iraq war, who introduced democracy and who stabilized the country. You don't just have a war and then when you get bored, or for some domestic political reasons, pull the troops home. When Obama said the war is over and the troops are coming home it was striking to see how many Americans believed him. Do you and Obama think there is just one side to a war and that he gets to take the ball home whenever he wants?

Well that's what he did and now thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of people will be butchered. Some of it will be happening as you read this. IF you really think that these people are not going to attack more Americans you are as dumb as the dirt you walk on.

iguanaman said:

It took a Republican President to create ISIS and destabilize the entire M.E. while spending 3 Trillion and losing 4000 American lives. There are thousands more terrorists than when GW Bush took office. Why do you think that is? I thought he killed them all.

Click to expand...

Joe Biden told you this, right?

The Vietnamese won because they were fighting to free their country from western colonialism. What were Americans fighting there for? Most did not know.

Click to expand...

It's just remarkable how people guess at history with the optimistic hope that this time they may be correct. Monkeys at a typewriter.

Montecresto said:

The next republican president will destroy the Islamic State just like Bush destroyed Al Qaeda.

Click to expand...

Actually it was Obama who 'decimated' Al Qaeda. Bush never claimed any such thing. In fact he said, as Panetta recently said, that it would be a long war.

You should be a little more careful in what you say because stupid people may repeat it, not knowing that you weren't being serious.