• 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!

US military pilots complain hands tied in ‘frustrating’ fight against ISIS

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sadly, too many people REALLY think that way

Part of the Hippocratic Oath says: "First, do no harm"

The ability to sleep well after knowing you were trying to impart some small element of civilized behavior in the madness of war far outweighs incurring the blowback from taking out a group of civilians.

I have at least as much respect for the man who holds his fire & swallows his pride as the pilot who "takes out" a legitimate target & gets a prize.

The US needs to revamp its Mid East Policy so that America's G.I.s don't have to be in a position to make either decision.


Thanks

You're right, and just look at the way these freaks talk about civilians, dehumanizing them as "collateral damage"!!!!
 
Oh, I realize the pilot didn't say anything about civilians in proximity to the "target", why would he mention that. As already pointed out by another poster, this has been pilot complaints since Vietnam. And that's the way it's going to be so long as we're fighting wars in such close proximity to civilians.

You've made an assumption and claimed it as fact. Par for the course with you.
 
I say if you don't turn the war over to our generals and let them fight and win the war bring our troops home and admit defeat. I was almost sent to the Middle East back in the late 70's early 80's to stand on a street corner with a bulls eye painted on me, an unloaded weapon, and orders not to shoot until after being shot. Here we go again.
 
What is US Conservative going to do after Obama is out of office. He is obsessed with him to the point of lunacy. I can't wait to see.

An all new obsession with Hillary will replace it.
 
It's always comical and sad watching how conservative war-hawks always think they are the best Commanding armchair General that every graced the planet. Especially when their answers are always the same... KILL MORE! FASTER!!!!! NO PRECISE TARGET NECESSARY!!!!!!!!!!
 
I say if you don't turn the war over to our generals and let them fight and win the war bring our troops home and admit defeat. I was almost sent to the Middle East back in the late 70's early 80's to stand on a street corner with a bulls eye painted on me, an unloaded weapon, and orders not to shoot until after being shot. Here we go again.

"War is a thing too serious to entrust to generals." -- Georges Clemenceau.
 
Did you just say that?

Yeah, and I'm not the only one saying it. Here it is put a little more euphemistically:

American and allied warplanes are equipped with the most precise aerial arsenal ever fielded. But American officials say they are not striking significant, and obvious, Islamic State targets out of fear that the attacks will accidentally kill civilians. Killing such innocents could hand the militants a major propaganda coup and alienate the local Sunni tribesmen, whose support is critical to ousting the militants, and Sunni Arab countries that are part of the fragile American-led coalition.

But many Iraqi commanders and some American officers say that exercising such prudence with airstrikes is a major reason the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or Daesh, has been able to seize vast territory in recent months in Iraq and Syria. :)shock:Did they just say that?)

U.S. Caution in Strikes Gives ISIS an Edge, Many Iraqis Say
 
Yeah, and I'm not the only one saying it. Here it is put a little more euphemistically:

So some mid level Iraqi officers are critical of the air campaign. So what? What makes you think they have any kind of monopoly on truth?

The Iraqi army needs to shut up and deal with its' problem. It's their fight. Not ours.
 
So some mid level Iraqi officers are critical of the air campaign.

How did we go from "many Iraqi commanders" mentioned in the article to "some mid level Iraqi officers"? One who's so flip with truth shouldn't be invoking it.

What makes you think they have any kind of monopoly on truth?

They don't. There are also American officers and pilots saying the same thing. Did you bother reading the New York Times article?
 
It's always comical and sad watching how conservative war-hawks always think they are the best Commanding armchair General that every graced the planet. Especially when their answers are always the same... KILL MORE! FASTER!!!!! NO PRECISE TARGET NECESSARY!!!!!!!!!!


Perhaps Obama would receive less criticism if he wasn't losing?
 
So some mid level Iraqi officers are critical of the air campaign. So what? What makes you think they have any kind of monopoly on truth?

The Iraqi army needs to shut up and deal with its' problem. It's their fight. Not ours.

Everyone is critical, even the Iranians are complaining.

FACT-air wars don't win wars.

FACT-even though air power is very effective in conjunction with ground forces-Obama isn't using it that way.

FACT-if he's not going to fight, he should not be putting our troops in harms way.
 
A top U.S. diplomat strayed from a long-held wartime taboo Wednesday when he reported that 10,000 ISIS militants had been killed in Iraq and Syria, raising questions about how that number was compiled and whether it accurately reflected a U.S.-led coalition's success against the Islamic terror group....

On its face, the body count seemed an attempt to show that the coalition's work — nearly 4,000 airstrikes and counting — was having an impact.

Is U.S. Claim of 10,000 ISIS Dead Believable? - NBC News

Let's see. 10,000 dead militants divided by 4,000 airstrikes is exactly 2.5 dead militants per strike. What an impact! And this assumes the (previously) classified DoD estimate released in a loose-lip moment by Obama's Deputy Secretary of State is accurate. :doh I think our planners were right when they said this could take years. :(
 
How did we go from "many Iraqi commanders" mentioned in the article to "some mid level Iraqi officers"? One who's so flip with truth shouldn't be invoking it.



They don't. There are also American officers and pilots saying the same thing. Did you bother reading the New York Times article?

"Many" is just as vague as "some." You're going to need a better argument.

As I've stated before the men in the field often don't have the entire picture. What they say may make sense to the reality that they perceive but it doesn't mean they are correct when the entire situation is taken into account.
 
Everyone is critical, even the Iranians are complaining.

FACT-air wars don't win wars.

FACT-even though air power is very effective in conjunction with ground forces-Obama isn't using it that way.

FACT-if he's not going to fight, he should not be putting our troops in harms way.


You ever hear of a soldier who didn't complain? Of course the guy on the ground is going to want more airstrikes. The more people on the other side that the air forces kill the less people he has to worry about. That doesn't mean it's the proper strategy. It may be - it may not be.

I agree with each of your statements. I would point out that, while I don't know for sure, I expect ISIS has little in the way of meaningful AA capability so our pilots probably aren't in a whole lot of danger. Our ground forces on the other hand should not be involved. It's an Iraqi problem. Their military needs to step up and take care of it's own problems.
 
"Many" is just as vague as "some." You're going to need a better argument.

Well, you also disingenuously left out the rest of the statements, which were "Iraqi commanders" and "mid level Iraqi officers." One doesn't have to be a member of Mensa International to see a difference.

I tell you what. Why don't we keep it simple and just stick with what the authors of the article wrote and let people come to their own conclusions instead of making word substitutions that shift the "vague" meaning. Personally, I think "many" in the context in which it was used has a definite meaning, so I had no trouble understanding what they meant:

man·y
ˈmenē/Submit
determiner, pronoun, & adjective
1.
a large number of.
"many people agreed with her"
synonyms: numerous, a great/good deal of, a lot of, plenty of, countless, innumerable, scores of, crowds of, droves of, an army of, a horde of, a multitude of, a multiplicity of, multitudinous, multiple, untold; More
noun
1.
the majority of people.
"music for the many"
synonyms: people, common people, masses, multitude, populace, public, rank and file, proletariat, mob; More

https://www.google.com/webhp?source...FXN_enUS499US499&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=many

They weren't referring to E pluribus unum here.
 
You're right, and just look at the way these freaks talk about civilians, dehumanizing them as "collateral damage"!!!!


How many people do you think ever ask: "How did we get here, anyway?" or better yet, "How can we get out?"

A few of America's ethical Jewish writers can help us answer: "How did we get here, anyway?"

Those who really believe we attacked Iraq out of a heartfelt fondness for Kuwait probably have an extensive list of Bridges they think they bought.

In addition to the machinations of JINSA's Israeli owned & operated Wolfwitz, Feith, Perle, authors of "A Clean Break; A new Strategy for Securing the Realm"

“JEWISH WRITERS CLAIM POWERFUL ZIONISTS DROVE USA INTO MID-EAST WAR FOR SAKE OF ISRAEL”
http://www.usa-exile.org/news/0304/13/zionistwar.html
http://www.theweeklyinformant.com/arishavit.htm

"The Zionists who rule Israel and the Zionists in America have been trying to trick the U.S. into a Mideast war on the side of Israel.

" They almost succeeded when U.S. Marines were sent to Lebanon in 1982.
The blood of the 250 American Marines who died in Lebanon is dripping from the hands of the Israeli and American Zionists.

If more Americans are not made aware of the truth about Zionist Israel, you can be sure that, sooner or later, those atheists who claim to be God's Chosen People will trick the U.S. into a Mideast war against the Arabs who in the past have always been America's best friends.”

Dr. Henry Makow Phd., February 10, 2003? Writer, Inventor of Board game "Scruples"

"If the U.S. gets bogged down with heavy casualties on both sides,
Americans are going to blame big oil and Zionism for getting them into this mess.

Everybody knows that:

1. The only country that fears Iraq's WMD's is Israel;

2. American-Jewish neo-conservatives on the Defence Policy Board (Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz) planned this war in 1998 and made it Bush Administration policy;

3. The purpose of the war is to change the balance of power in the Middle East so Israel can settle the Palestinian issue on its own terms; and

4. Congress trembles in fear before the Israeli Lobby, "AIPAC." CONTINUED

. . . . . . . . . . . .

As far as the question: "How can we get out?", one strategy has been to heavily support those fighting the enemy which is in this case, ISIS.

Other suggestions?


Thanks
 
Well, you also disingenuously left out the rest of the statements, which were "Iraqi commanders" and "mid level Iraqi officers." One doesn't have to be a member of Mensa International to see a difference.

I tell you what. Why don't we keep it simple and just stick with what the authors of the article wrote and let people come to their own conclusions instead of making word substitutions that shift the "vague" meaning. Personally, I think "many" in the context in which it was used has a definite meaning, so I had no trouble understanding what they meant:



They weren't referring to E pluribus unum here.

Thanks for the definition but I know what the word means.
The second definition says "majority". That's a less common usage and there's no way from the context to determine which definition the author meant. I'd suggest if the author meant >50% he would have said so since that strongly bolsters his argument.

Many doesn't have a definite meaning. 2,000 has a definite meaning. 65% has a definite meaning. Many is vague and completely open to interpretation. Is 15% many? 20%? 60%? It's a word that's used when the author wants to slant the argument a particular way and doesn't want to be challenged on his assertion.

And the sole officer quoted in the article is a major. A major qualifies as a "mid level officer".
 
Last edited:
Many doesn't have a definite meaning. 2,000 has a definite meaning. 65% has a definite meaning.

You're still being disingenuous because you're focusing on one word while excluding the rest of the statement. Why are you so eager to substitute your own terminology instead of letting people make their own judgement? :confused: Yes, "many" is not definite in the sense of being "precise," but there is a "definite" difference between a word like "many" and "some" in the context in which it was used. It's a subtle difference in meaning of the word "definite," but its a difference nonetheless. Try again at explaining what the authors didn't mean.
 
Yeah, and I'm not the only one saying it. Here it is put a little more euphemistically:

Too ****ING BAD. IF We're going to kill civilians, to save civilians, then stop the god damn operation, now!!!!!!
 
You've made an assumption and claimed it as fact. Par for the course with you.

I think you should look at post 107, and climb down off your high horse sir! Killing Islamic State fighters at the expense of knowingly killing civilians is horrific, unjust, not (suppose to be anyway) the American way, and **** the pilots and the commanders crying about this. But hopefully the decision to spare civilians when we know them to be in proximity to the target will rule the day.
 
Let's see. 10,000 dead militants divided by 4,000 airstrikes is exactly 2.5 dead militants per strike. What an impact! And this assumes the (previously) classified DoD estimate released in a loose-lip moment by Obama's Deputy Secretary of State is accurate. :doh I think our planners were right when they said this could take years. :(

If we'd just accept the fact that we need to kill one civilian for every Islamic State fighter we could knock this out in half the time!
 
How many people do you think ever ask: "How did we get here, anyway?" or better yet, "How can we get out?"

A few of America's ethical Jewish writers can help us answer: "How did we get here, anyway?"

Those who really believe we attacked Iraq out of a heartfelt fondness for Kuwait probably have an extensive list of Bridges they think they bought.

In addition to the machinations of JINSA's Israeli owned & operated Wolfwitz, Feith, Perle, authors of "A Clean Break; A new Strategy for Securing the Realm"

“JEWISH WRITERS CLAIM POWERFUL ZIONISTS DROVE USA INTO MID-EAST WAR FOR SAKE OF ISRAEL”
http://www.usa-exile.org/news/0304/13/zionistwar.html
http://www.theweeklyinformant.com/arishavit.htm

"The Zionists who rule Israel and the Zionists in America have been trying to trick the U.S. into a Mideast war on the side of Israel.

" They almost succeeded when U.S. Marines were sent to Lebanon in 1982.
The blood of the 250 American Marines who died in Lebanon is dripping from the hands of the Israeli and American Zionists.

If more Americans are not made aware of the truth about Zionist Israel, you can be sure that, sooner or later, those atheists who claim to be God's Chosen People will trick the U.S. into a Mideast war against the Arabs who in the past have always been America's best friends.”

Dr. Henry Makow Phd., February 10, 2003? Writer, Inventor of Board game "Scruples"

"If the U.S. gets bogged down with heavy casualties on both sides,
Americans are going to blame big oil and Zionism for getting them into this mess.

Everybody knows that:

1. The only country that fears Iraq's WMD's is Israel;

2. American-Jewish neo-conservatives on the Defence Policy Board (Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz) planned this war in 1998 and made it Bush Administration policy;

3. The purpose of the war is to change the balance of power in the Middle East so Israel can settle the Palestinian issue on its own terms; and

4. Congress trembles in fear before the Israeli Lobby, "AIPAC." CONTINUED

. . . . . . . . . . . .

As far as the question: "How can we get out?", one strategy has been to heavily support those fighting the enemy which is in this case, ISIS.

Other suggestions?


Thanks

Oh I'm very aware of the Jewish element involved in USFP in the region, seems to transcend administrations too. Paul Wolfowitz, along with Cheney, Kristol, and several other neo-conservatives put together PNAC which is explicit in USFP in the Middle East to shape the 21st century. Do you remember the policy paper that Wesley Clark shared with us back in 2003?
 
You're still being disingenuous because you're focusing on one word while excluding the rest of the statement. Why are you so eager to substitute your own terminology instead of letting people make their own judgement? :confused: Yes, "many" is not definite in the sense of being "precise," but there is a "definite" difference between a word like "many" and "some" in the context in which it was used. It's a subtle difference in meaning of the word "definite," but its a difference nonetheless. Try again at explaining what the authors didn't mean.

The article is pretty much worthless as proof that we need to be bombing ISIS more even if it means more civilian deaths.

As evidence that we should bomb more the only quoted source is an Iraqi major. As I've pointed out before people on the ground do not have the entire picture and while from their standpoint decisions from above appear wrong when looked at in the context of the overall mission they, the folks on the ground, often are wrong.

There are no statements from senior Iraqi policy makers or even senior military people. Just vague statements which cannot be easy proved or disproved.

The article then goes on to point out that US experience has been that killing lots of civilians is counter productive. It angers the locals and is the cause for taking extra precautions now. That is a verifiable fact. It's one of the few that are actually in the article.

Looked at in that light - that is objectively picking apart the arguments it does not support your claim, rather it refutes it.
 
I think you should look at post 107, and climb down off your high horse sir! Killing Islamic State fighters at the expense of knowingly killing civilians is horrific, unjust, not (suppose to be anyway) the American way, and **** the pilots and the commanders crying about this. But hopefully the decision to spare civilians when we know them to be in proximity to the target will rule the day.

“The international alliance is not providing enough support compared with ISIS’ capabilities on the ground in Anbar,” said Maj. Muhammed al-Dulaimi, an Iraqi officer in Anbar Province, which contains Ramadi. “The U.S. airstrikes in Anbar didn’t enable our security forces to resist and confront the ISIS attacks,” he added. “We lost large territories in Anbar because of the inefficiency of the U.S.-led coalition airstrikes.”

You assume that the caution is born of an actual threat to civilians rather than a perceived threat to civilians. The only realized threat to civilians are the ISIS fighters raping and murdering them. These Iraqi Officers and US commanders aren't calling for the targeting of civilians as you want to claim, only that the dithering over the possibility of civilian casualties has allowed ISIS to grab huge swaths of Iraqi territory and murder huge numbers of Iraqis.
 
Q
“The international alliance is not providing enough support compared with ISIS’ capabilities on the ground in Anbar,” said Maj. Muhammed al-Dulaimi, an Iraqi officer in Anbar Province, which contains Ramadi. “The U.S. airstrikes in Anbar didn’t enable our security forces to resist and confront the ISIS attacks,” he added. “We lost large territories in Anbar because of the inefficiency of the U.S.-led coalition airstrikes.”

You assume that the caution is born of an actual threat to civilians rather than a perceived threat to civilians. The only realized threat to civilians are the ISIS fighters raping and murdering them. These Iraqi Officers and US commanders aren't calling for the targeting of civilians as you want to claim, only that the dithering over the possibility of civilian casualties has allowed ISIS to grab huge swaths of Iraqi territory and murder huge numbers of Iraqis.

Whoa buddy, hold on one ****ing minute there. I never said anybody was "calling for the targeting of civilians". The complaint seems to be that engaging targets is limited by the proximity of civilians to it, WHICH IS THE WAY IT OUGHT TO BE!! So I don't care if the Iraqi army doesn't like it, or if US pilots don't like it, I just hope that we continue to consider civilians when targeting Islamic fighters, and that these complainers don't get their way.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom