• 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:
That still means it takes ten Canadians to equal one American, if you count Eskimos and walruses. ;)
Click to expand...

Funny enough. To the point though. If Canadians want boots on the ground in Iraq or Syria, I think they should put them on the ground.
 
If you are Commander-In-Chief, you have to have the action plan for all the possible scenarios. You should be able to do what is necessary to defeat the enemy. If you want to airstrikes were working, it is necessary not just to send planes and drop bombs, you need to have clear goals and know exactly what you want to achieve. Well, what Obama makes is not effective. As if he does it just for the record and not for the result
 
Simon Feltser said:
If you are Commander-In-Chief, you have to have the action plan for all the possible scenarios. You should be able to do what is necessary to defeat the enemy. If you want to airstrikes were working, it is necessary not just to send planes and drop bombs, you need to have clear goals and know exactly what you want to achieve. Well, what Obama makes is not effective. As if he does it just for the record and not for the result
Click to expand...

What you are suggesting is that the president should be all-knowing. No one knows everything, and they have to rely on their advisors and subordinate leadership. Unless you are a high level government official who is coordinating with the military action, you have no knowledge as to whether or not his course of action is the best - you are just guessing blindly in the dark.

For all we know, what we are doing about ISIS is all that we can do. I'm also fairly confident that we don't know everything that is being done and that the strategy has not been fully presented to the public.

A few days ago someone was critisizing the president for announcing in advance that we would start bombing ISIS, as making that announcement eliminated the element of surprise. Now some are complaining that he announced "no American boots on the ground" - but if he had announced that we would put American combat troops into the war, the same people who have complained that he said we wouldn't, would be complaining that by saying we would we had given away our strategy to ISIS.

The POTUS is always doomed in the eyes of the American public, who will always tend to assume that he isn't doing enough, when in reality he is doing all that can be done, but we just don't have privi to that info.
 
Grant said:
You don't know that he is doing nothing? http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/08/world/middleeast/isis-syria-coalition-strikes.html?_r=0
Click to expand...

I'm not in Syria or Iraq, and I am certainly not listening in on White House conversations or the Pentagon. All I know is what I hear from the press, and for the most part, they aren't in Syria or Iraq or listening in on government conversations either. The press is reporting what governments is releasing, little more.

And I'm not sure at all that the media is accurate. Earlier this week there was this interview with someone in Bagdad who claimed that ISIS was three miles away. Then Turkey issues a statement two days later claiming that ISIS was 60 miles from Bagdad. Who the heck really knows.

We don't even have a clue as to how many ISIS fighters there are, estimates are all over the place. I'm suspecting that there are a lot fewer than the CIA's estimate range of 20,000 to 31,000. The reason I suspect that it is fewer, is because it is taking very few ISIS fighters to take over territory. When four ISIS fighters in a pickup truck can take over a village, it's not all that hard to extrapolate the total number of ISIS fighters based upon the amount of land they have captured and the population in that area.

And I wonder why we don't know how many tanks and armored vehicles they have. It's hard to hide those things in the open desert, and we should know how many they seized from Iraq and Syrian troops. You also can't really purchase a lot of tanks on the black market, so it's fairly unlikely that they have many more than what Iraq and Syria have reported they lost to ISIS. So (just guessing), maybe 50? That's not exactly formidible, it may be to a small village, but not to any real army. And of those 50, how many have we already destroyed? And how many of them did ISIS unintentionally destroy (not knowing how to properly operate them). How many have been destroyed by the Kurds? It's entirely possible that ISIS now only as a handful or less of tanks and APCs. If you had lots tanks, why ride around in a pickup truck or a toyota corrola?

Anyhow, I can think of no reason in the world that the POTUS wouldn't want a major military victory over ISIS between now and the election (or at least the election after that), thus I can't think of any reasons that we aren't already destroying every ISIS target we can find.
 
Last edited:
imagep said:
I'm not in Syria or Iraq, and I am certainly not listening in on White House conversations or the Pentagon. All I know is what I hear from the press, and for the most part, they aren't in Syria or Iraq or listening in on government conversations either. The press is reporting what governments is releasing, little more.

And I'm not sure at all that the media is accurate. Earlier this week there was this interview with someone in Bagdad who claimed that ISIS was three miles away. Then Turkey issues a statement two days later claiming that ISIS was 60 miles from Bagdad. Who the heck really knows.

We don't even have a clue as to how many ISIS fighters there are, estimates are all over the place. I'm suspecting that there are a lot fewer than the CIA's estimate range of 20,000 to 31,000. The reason I suspect that it is fewer, is because it is taking very few ISIS fighters to take over territory. When four ISIS fighters in a pickup truck can take over a village, it's not all that hard to extrapolate the total number of ISIS fighters based upon the amount of land they have captured and the population in that area.

And I wonder why we don't know how many tanks and armored vehicles they have. It's hard to hide those things in the open desert, and we should know how many they seized from Iraq and Syrian troops. You also can't really purchase a lot of tanks on the black market, so it's fairly unlikely that they have many more than what Iraq and Syria have reported they lost to ISIS. So (just guessing), maybe 50? That's not exactly formidible, it may be to a small village, but not to any real army. And of those 50, how many have we already destroyed? And how many of them did ISIS unintentionally destroy (not knowing how to properly operate them). How many have been destroyed by the Kurds? It's entirely possible that ISIS now only as a handful or less of tanks and APCs. If you had lots tanks, why ride around in a pickup truck or a toyota corrola?

Anyhow, I can think of no reason in the world that the POTUS wouldn't want a major military victory over ISIS between now and the election (or at least the election after that), thus I can't think of any reasons that we aren't already destroying every ISIS target we can find.
Click to expand...

Obama doesn't see ISIS as an enemy, that's why you won't see a major victory.

You're, right, tanks are easy to spot in the desert, but you have to actually LOOK for them.

Four guys in a truck? You have a link for that claim?
 
apdst said:
Obama doesn't see ISIS as an enemy....
Click to expand...

Did you watch his speech?

ISIL poses a threat to the people of Iraq and Syria, and the broader Middle East – including American citizens, personnel and facilities. If left unchecked, these terrorists could pose a growing threat beyond that region – including to the United States. While we have not yet detected specific plotting against our homeland, ISIL leaders have threatened America and our allies. Our intelligence community believes that thousands of foreigners – including Europeans and some Americans – have joined them in Syria and Iraq. Trained and battle-hardened, these fighters could try to return to their home countries and carry out deadly attacks.

Read the Full Text of Obama's ISIS Speech - The Wire
Click to expand...
 
Simon Feltser said:
If you are Commander-In-Chief, you have to have the action plan for all the possible scenarios. You should be able to do what is necessary to defeat the enemy. If you want to airstrikes were working, it is necessary not just to send planes and drop bombs, you need to have clear goals and know exactly what you want to achieve. Well, what Obama makes is not effective. As if he does it just for the record and not for the result
Click to expand...

Its all about polling and votes. He could not care less.
 
Ahlevah said:
Did you watch his speech? ISIL poses a threat to the people of Iraq and Syria, and the broader Middle East – including American citizens, personnel and facilities. If left unchecked, these terrorists could pose a growing threat beyond that region – including to the United States. While we have not yet detected specific plotting against our homeland, ISIL leaders have threatened America and our allies. Our intelligence community believes that thousands of foreigners – including Europeans and some Americans – have joined them in Syria and Iraq. Trained and battle-hardened, these fighters could try to return to their home countries and carry out deadly attacks.
Click to expand...
Obama has left them 'unchecked'.
 
apdst said:
Historically, guerilla tactics don't work against superior conventional forces. It didn't work in Vietnam, which is why The Viet Cong was disbanded/absorbed into the NVA and it's why the Soviets were destroying the mujas, until The United States provided them with the weapons, equipment and tactical training that allowed them to counter the Soviet's advantages.
Click to expand...

Paving the way for the rise of the Taliban we ended up fighting on the battlefield ourselves a few years latter. Probably gave Russia a chuckle.
 
imagep said:
What you are suggesting is that the president should be all-knowing. No one knows everything, and they have to rely on their advisors and subordinate leadership. Unless you are a high level government official who is coordinating with the military action, you have no knowledge as to whether or not his course of action is the best - you are just guessing blindly in the dark.
Click to expand...

Actually in this case we pretty much know what those "advisors and subordinate leadership" - especially on the defense side of the house - are saying. They are saying that it is impossible to win this fight without boots on the ground.

The POTUS is always doomed in the eyes of the American public, who will always tend to assume that he isn't doing enough, when in reality he is doing all that can be done, but we just don't have privi to that info.
Click to expand...

Two former Secretaries of Defense under Obama have both now come public to say that in fact he isn't doing all that can be done, but has deliberately chosen to do as little as possible, with disastrous results.
 
imagep said:
Ever wonder if maybe the strength and size of ISIS has been exagerated? Like maybe 6 targets was all there was to be had. From some of the reports that I have read, it's just taking one Mad Max style pickup truck of ISIS fighters to take over an entire village, and a few dozen ISIS fighters to take over entire military installations maned with hundreds of Iraqi soldiers.

Maybe it's like a pathetic football team (think worst pro-football team in the NFL), beating the crap out of an even more pathetic football team (worst high school team), and thus looking strong and powerful.
Click to expand...

I don't think the JV team script is right. They have efficiently and effectively taken over military bases with trained military personnel on them. Both in Iraq and Iran. They are fighting the Kurds in that city. The Kurds in the NE Iraq have been extremely effective, and I assume that the ones in NE Syria would have some similar talents.

Our biggest issue is we are not arming them. All of our supplies are required to go through Baghdad. So they can inspect and Iran will know what came through. Everyone is so afraid of arming the Kurds because they know they want sovereignty. If we armed the kurds with anti-tank weapons, maybe they would be able to stop the tanks coming down the streets.
 
Grant said:
You don't know that he is doing nothing? http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/08/world/middleeast/isis-syria-coalition-strikes.html?_r=0
Click to expand...

That article said that Turkey was doing nothing. They have tanks and troops 1 mile from the fighting but Turkey wants the Kurds to lose. Turkey needs to fight ISIS or get kicked out of NATO. This is the indifference that Obama wants to change. If countries in the region don't want to fight there will never be peace. We can't be the only ones that care.
 
Last edited:
Montecresto said:
Paving the way for the rise of the Taliban we ended up fighting on the battlefield ourselves a few years latter. Probably gave Russia a chuckle.
Click to expand...

The United States didn't pave the way for the Taliban.
 
cpwill said:
Actually in this case we pretty much know what those "advisors and subordinate leadership" - especially on the defense side of the house - are saying. They are saying that it is impossible to win this fight without boots on the ground....
Click to expand...

Sure, but none of them are saying that it has to be American boots on the ground. And all we know is what they are saying publicly, what's said behind closed doors may be something totally different.
 
imagep said:
Sure, the people being attacked by ISIS (sometimes) fight, but many more just run off.

The Iraqi army had much more than small arms, but they ran off and left their weapons, tanks, etc to ISIS.

Why haven't we heard a single report (recently) that the Iraq army was engaging ISIS. Seems to me that they could get together at least one division, or even just a batalion or two of soldiers who are willing to fight.
Click to expand...


That's because the Iraqis have been defeated on the ground with our Air Strikes covering what they did.....up until Sunday. Then we upped the Game a bit and decided to call in the Army and Apache helicopters. Which truthfully should have been done from the beginning in Iraq.

As to Syria and the open desert.....we did use fighters jets. But we should have been dropping Napalm along any fronts by ISIS.
 
Montecresto said:
Funny enough. To the point though. If Canadians want boots on the ground in Iraq or Syria, I think they should put them on the ground.
Click to expand...

Heya Monte. They may just do that.....since the Aussies have sent in Special Forces on the ground to assist the Iraqis. Oh and to participate. Do a lil hunting for some snakes. KnowwhatImean? ;)
 
iguanaman said:
That article said that Turkey was doing nothing. They have tanks and troops 1 mile from the fighting but Turkey wants the Kurds to lose. Turkey needs to fight ISIS or get kicked out of NATO. This is the indifference that Obama wants to change. If countries in the region don't want to fight there will never be peace. We can't be the only ones that care.
Click to expand...


Its not that they don't want to fight.....they are weak and incompetent. Can't be relied upon in getting the job done.

The only way there will be Peace.....is when one side of that Sectarian divide wins and the other is subjugated.
 
imagep said:
Sure, but none of them are saying that it has to be American boots on the ground.
Click to expand...

:raises eyebrow: Um. Yes they are. Specifically most are stating that we need US Special Forces on the ground to direct more regular air-strikes and work on offensive operations with the Kurds and other similar forces in a campaign much like the work that 5th Group did with the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan.

And all we know is what they are saying publicly, what's said behind closed doors may be something totally different.
Click to expand...

:shrug: sure. If you want to create a non-disprovable conspiracy-theory model, well, you can't be disproven. But everything that is available to us suggests that you are incorrect.
 
MMC said:
Its not that they don't want to fight.....they are weak and incompetent. Can't be relied upon in getting the job done.

The only way there will be Peace.....is when one side of that Sectarian divide wins and the other is subjugated.
Click to expand...

Turkey is a NATO country. I'm sure they are not that weak. The holdup is that they have a Kurdish "problem" in Turkey so they want the Kurds to lose.
 
cpwill said:
:raises eyebrow: Um. Yes they are. Specifically most are stating that we need US Special Forces on the ground to direct more regular air-strikes and work on offensive operations with the Kurds and other similar forces in a campaign much like the work that 5th Group did with the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan.



:shrug: sure. If you want to create a non-disprovable conspiracy-theory model, well, you can't be disproven. But everything that is available to us suggests that you are incorrect.
Click to expand...

I bet the Kurds can mark targets with lasers just fine. The region has gotten used to letting us do all the work at our expense. Obama is trying to change that.
 
iguanaman said:
I bet the Kurds can mark targets with lasers just fine
Click to expand...

The Kurds do not have our JTAC training nor equipment nor the ability to interface that our own troops would - nor could we provide some of that to them, as some of it is classified.

The region has gotten used to letting us do all the work at our expense. Obama is trying to change that.
Click to expand...

Yeah. So far that plan is working out just awesome. :roll:
 
cpwill said:
The Kurds do not have our JTAC training nor equipment nor the ability to interface that our own troops would - nor could we provide some of that to them, as some of it is classified.



Yeah. So far that plan is working out just awesome. :roll:
Click to expand...

So pointing a laser is "classified"? Give me a break. You are just worried that Obama will pull this off and make you look like a fool. It won't be the first time.
 
iguanaman said:
So pointing a laser is "classified"?
Click to expand...

No. Equipment, tactics, techniques, and procedures often are - especially with regards to munitions capability, employment, and communications. Especially communications that are encrypted, such as the kind that you would have when you wished to communicate with (oh, say) planes carrying bombs. Additionally, many of the laser-guided bombs are often less precise, depending on the point in development of the guidance package. So anything we could just "leave" with the kurds (recognizing that anything we leave is subject to capture by bad actors) would likely of necessity only be interfaceable with the munitions less likely to be effective against small, moving targets.

Give me a break. You are just worried that Obama will pull this off and make you look like a fool.
Click to expand...

No. I happen to know a little bit of what I am talking about, which is why I know that your simplified answer does not actually meet the requirerments.

So, by the way, do two US Secretaries of Defense and a line-up of US Generals, which is why they are saying similar things.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom