Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It's a good strategy that has certainly worked many times. I don't think there's any question that ground troops are going into Iraq. The question is when, how many, and their origin. It's been suggested that the greatest need in the Iraqi army is leadership. That can be provided without a massive number of troops.Actually the strategy is degrade and destroy. It is how we fight wars today, especially Iraq. Bush 41 and 43 both used the strategy until 43 veered off the page and decided to create an occupation force. Degrade comes before destroy. Destroying will take ground troops. At the present time the composition and abilities of those ground troops are unknown and various groups are being trained and equipped. The first part of the strategy, the degrade part is going slow because an abundance of caution to prevent losses and collateral damage are being taken. It's a good thing unless you prefer dead and beheaded airmen and civilian casualties. Whatever ground forces are used will be grateful for the degradation part of the strategy.Fuck you. I have firmly stated on MANY occasions on this forum what we should be/should have done.One thing you have to give the Libertarian element. They are not afraid to unequivocally state what they want Obama or the US to do or not do.
Alleged right wingers, on the other hand, would rather rip off their own jawbone than state what they would like Obama or the US to do about ISIS or the Middle East or Iran or any other foreign policy matter. They will do flips and twists to avoid doing so.
Any jackass can criticize what the other guy is doing. It takes balls to offer up a plan, and these pessimistic whiny bitches are sorely lacking.
Bombing Toyotas & vacant buildings was not part of my idea.
I gave my support to Obama from day one when he announced his decision. If he wants to keep that support he needs to make good on his plan. You know, decimate & destroy ISIS. FOURTEEN bombs a day is a god damn joke.
because you're posting AS IF vietraq began on January 20, 2009You're the poster who keeps mentioning me in your posts. Yeah, I'm in your head. Carry on.a rw hacktard whose posts usually consist of two sentences, at most, in my head lol. You HAVE taken the Heritage Action/Fox brown acid
whatever happened to the Repub battle cry "Stop spending!!!"?
there was too much corruption in their mil leadership ranks. They collected pay for ghost soldiers and made the real soldiers pay for uniforms/supplies that should have been given to them.It's a good strategy that has certainly worked many times. I don't think there's any question that ground troops are going into Iraq. The question is when, how many, and their origin. It's been suggested that the greatest need in the Iraqi army is leadership. That can be provided without a massive number of troops.Actually the strategy is degrade and destroy. It is how we fight wars today, especially Iraq. Bush 41 and 43 both used the strategy until 43 veered off the page and decided to create an occupation force. Degrade comes before destroy. Destroying will take ground troops. At the present time the composition and abilities of those ground troops are unknown and various groups are being trained and equipped. The first part of the strategy, the degrade part is going slow because an abundance of caution to prevent losses and collateral damage are being taken. It's a good thing unless you prefer dead and beheaded airmen and civilian casualties. Whatever ground forces are used will be grateful for the degradation part of the strategy.Fuck you. I have firmly stated on MANY occasions on this forum what we should be/should have done.One thing you have to give the Libertarian element. They are not afraid to unequivocally state what they want Obama or the US to do or not do.
Alleged right wingers, on the other hand, would rather rip off their own jawbone than state what they would like Obama or the US to do about ISIS or the Middle East or Iran or any other foreign policy matter. They will do flips and twists to avoid doing so.
Any jackass can criticize what the other guy is doing. It takes balls to offer up a plan, and these pessimistic whiny bitches are sorely lacking.
Bombing Toyotas & vacant buildings was not part of my idea.
I gave my support to Obama from day one when he announced his decision. If he wants to keep that support he needs to make good on his plan. You know, decimate & destroy ISIS. FOURTEEN bombs a day is a god damn joke.
They could do the former, as Turkey has a border that Islamists can cross over fairly easily into Iraq. Turkey thinks that letting ISIS run free over Iraq will rid itself of the Kurds. Unfortunately when ISIS turns on its backers in Turkey, Saudi, UAE, and Qatar, they will demand the US give them money, boots on the ground, and weapons. So we are forced into war whether we intervene in Iraq or not.Hey, did ISIS take Baghdad and take over the World yet? Ah, probably not. If the Nazis couldn't do it, i seriously doubt a few Terrorist nutters can.
Obama became Commander in Chief. He is now responsible on Jan 20, 2009. What is so difficult for you to understand?because you're posting AS IF vietraq began on January 20, 2009You're the poster who keeps mentioning me in your posts. Yeah, I'm in your head. Carry on.a rw hacktard whose posts usually consist of two sentences, at most, in my head lol. You HAVE taken the Heritage Action/Fox brown acid
whatever happened to the Repub battle cry "Stop spending!!!"?
It's a good strategy that has certainly worked many times. I don't think there's any question that ground troops are going into Iraq. The question is when, how many, and their origin. It's been suggested that the greatest need in the Iraqi army is leadership. That can be provided without a massive number of troops.Actually the strategy is degrade and destroy. It is how we fight wars today, especially Iraq. Bush 41 and 43 both used the strategy until 43 veered off the page and decided to create an occupation force. Degrade comes before destroy. Destroying will take ground troops. At the present time the composition and abilities of those ground troops are unknown and various groups are being trained and equipped. The first part of the strategy, the degrade part is going slow because an abundance of caution to prevent losses and collateral damage are being taken. It's a good thing unless you prefer dead and beheaded airmen and civilian casualties. Whatever ground forces are used will be grateful for the degradation part of the strategy.Fuck you. I have firmly stated on MANY occasions on this forum what we should be/should have done.One thing you have to give the Libertarian element. They are not afraid to unequivocally state what they want Obama or the US to do or not do.
Alleged right wingers, on the other hand, would rather rip off their own jawbone than state what they would like Obama or the US to do about ISIS or the Middle East or Iran or any other foreign policy matter. They will do flips and twists to avoid doing so.
Any jackass can criticize what the other guy is doing. It takes balls to offer up a plan, and these pessimistic whiny bitches are sorely lacking.
Bombing Toyotas & vacant buildings was not part of my idea.
I gave my support to Obama from day one when he announced his decision. If he wants to keep that support he needs to make good on his plan. You know, decimate & destroy ISIS. FOURTEEN bombs a day is a god damn joke.
Tell me about the Taliban Air Force, tanks and artillery from the US that they used to fight the Russians.
Without the U.S. pumping $Billions in Tax Dollars to the Islamists, they wouldn't have defeated the Soviets. And it was also the beginnings of Al Qaeda's creation.
Tell me about the Taliban Air Force, tanks and artillery from the US that they used to fight the Russians.
Without the U.S. pumping $Billions in Tax Dollars to the Islamists, they wouldn't have defeated the Soviets. And it was also the beginnings of Al Qaeda's creation.
The US did provide a lot of support to the mujahideen, but the only 'advanced weapon' they got from the US was the Stinger missille.
"The U.S.-built Stinger antiaircraft missile, supplied to the mujahideen in very large numbers beginning in 1986, struck a decisive blow to the Soviet war effort as it allowed the lightly armed Afghans to effectively defend against Soviet helicopter landings in strategic areas."
I understand ISIS recently shot down a Syrian helicopter with a Russian copy of the US Stinger missile. It has the capability of shooting down an aircraft up to 20,000 feet.
Highly unlikely Russia has funded & armed ISIS. It's far more likely the West and its allies in the region have.
I don't think Obama is quite that stupid. We are bombing ISIS, not supplying them with arms. I also read we have some Apache Helicopters flying combat in and around Baghdad. This is bad news for those aviators.
Here is where they got the Russian missiles.
"After weeks of fighting, Islamic State forces finally took the Syrian airbase at Tabqa in Ar-Raqqa Governorate, where it has been routing the Syrian army. Taqba is the latest base seized by the Islamic State, cementing its grip on Raqqa. It forced the army's 17th Division from itsbaseon July 25; two days later, the campaign overran a major artillery positionheld by Regiment 121, capturing an arsenal of weaponry and munitions; it then captured the Brigade 93 base on August 7.
The seizure of the airfield has attracted more than the usual amount of attention because it was an operational Syrian air force base, and the Islamic State guys were supposedly able to seize SA-16 MANPADS (man-portable surface-to-air defense systems), Mig-21 combat aircraft, and K-13 air-to-air missiles (a Russian knock off of the widely used American Sidewinder missile)."
That's what i figured. Russia would not fund & arm ISIS. But there is evidence the West and several Sunni nations in the region have. But regardless, Obama is bombing them around the clock. He was just on TV boasting about it. So i'm not sure what 'ramp it up' means.
I was talking about the part in your post that I bolded. I doubt that the Iraqi army will hold itself together. Superior military numbers and equipment aren't often as important as the will to fight. Most of those defending Baghdad are doing it for money and would flee a strong assault by ISIS.They could do the former, as Turkey has a border that Islamists can cross over fairly easily into Iraq. Turkey thinks that letting ISIS run free over Iraq will rid itself of the Kurds. Unfortunately when ISIS turns on its backers in Turkey, Saudi, UAE, and Qatar, they will demand the US give them money, boots on the ground, and weapons. So we are forced into war whether we intervene in Iraq or not.Hey, did ISIS take Baghdad and take over the World yet? Ah, probably not. If the Nazis couldn't do it, i seriously doubt a few Terrorist nutters can.
ISIS won't be taking over the world. If the Nazis and Soviets couldn't do it, i'm pretty sure a few thousand religious kooks can't either. And we'll see about Baghdad. Personally, I don't believe they have the numbers or weapons capabilities to pull it off. The Iraq Military has been given $Billions in Tax Dollars. It's now one of the most advanced and well-equipped Militaries on earth. ISIS should be no match for them. It should be a route.
They were called "Stingers" and they changed the war.It should be a massacre. ISIS doesn't have advanced weapon capabilities. They don't have an Airforce. The Iraq Military should have no problem wiping ISIS out. It's their show now. We need to withdraw from Iraq and the entire Middle East. Our time of constant meddling over there needs to pass.
The Taliban in Afghanistan didn't have advanced weaponry when the USSR occupied them either. What's your point?
Actually, the U.S. provided the Islamists with massive amounts of cash and advanced weapons.
Tell me about the Taliban Air Force, tanks and artillery from the US that they used to fight the Russians.
Without the U.S. pumping $Billions in Tax Dollars to the Islamists, they wouldn't have defeated the Soviets. And it was also the beginnings of Al Qaeda's creation.
Without the U.S. pumping $Billions in Tax Dollars to the Islamists, they wouldn't have defeated the Soviets. And it was also the beginnings of Al Qaeda's creation.
The US did provide a lot of support to the mujahideen, but the only 'advanced weapon' they got from the US was the Stinger missille.
"The U.S.-built Stinger antiaircraft missile, supplied to the mujahideen in very large numbers beginning in 1986, struck a decisive blow to the Soviet war effort as it allowed the lightly armed Afghans to effectively defend against Soviet helicopter landings in strategic areas."
I understand ISIS recently shot down a Syrian helicopter with a Russian copy of the US Stinger missile. It has the capability of shooting down an aircraft up to 20,000 feet.
Highly unlikely Russia has funded & armed ISIS. It's far more likely the West and its allies in the region have.
I don't think Obama is quite that stupid. We are bombing ISIS, not supplying them with arms. I also read we have some Apache Helicopters flying combat in and around Baghdad. This is bad news for those aviators.
Here is where they got the Russian missiles.
"After weeks of fighting, Islamic State forces finally took the Syrian airbase at Tabqa in Ar-Raqqa Governorate, where it has been routing the Syrian army. Taqba is the latest base seized by the Islamic State, cementing its grip on Raqqa. It forced the army's 17th Division from itsbaseon July 25; two days later, the campaign overran a major artillery positionheld by Regiment 121, capturing an arsenal of weaponry and munitions; it then captured the Brigade 93 base on August 7.
The seizure of the airfield has attracted more than the usual amount of attention because it was an operational Syrian air force base, and the Islamic State guys were supposedly able to seize SA-16 MANPADS (man-portable surface-to-air defense systems), Mig-21 combat aircraft, and K-13 air-to-air missiles (a Russian knock off of the widely used American Sidewinder missile)."
That's what i figured. Russia would not fund & arm ISIS. But there is evidence the West and several Sunni nations in the region have. But regardless, Obama is bombing them around the clock. He was just on TV boasting about it. So i'm not sure what 'ramp it up' means.
And tell me why you would believe anything that Obama says?
I was talking about the part in your post that I bolded. I doubt that the Iraqi army will hold itself together. Superior military numbers and equipment aren't often as important as the will to fight. Most of those defending Baghdad are doing it for money and would flee a strong assault by ISIS.They could do the former, as Turkey has a border that Islamists can cross over fairly easily into Iraq. Turkey thinks that letting ISIS run free over Iraq will rid itself of the Kurds. Unfortunately when ISIS turns on its backers in Turkey, Saudi, UAE, and Qatar, they will demand the US give them money, boots on the ground, and weapons. So we are forced into war whether we intervene in Iraq or not.Hey, did ISIS take Baghdad and take over the World yet? Ah, probably not. If the Nazis couldn't do it, i seriously doubt a few Terrorist nutters can.
ISIS won't be taking over the world. If the Nazis and Soviets couldn't do it, i'm pretty sure a few thousand religious kooks can't either. And we'll see about Baghdad. Personally, I don't believe they have the numbers or weapons capabilities to pull it off. The Iraq Military has been given $Billions in Tax Dollars. It's now one of the most advanced and well-equipped Militaries on earth. ISIS should be no match for them. It should be a route.
They were called "Stingers" and they changed the war.It should be a massacre. ISIS doesn't have advanced weapon capabilities. They don't have an Airforce. The Iraq Military should have no problem wiping ISIS out. It's their show now. We need to withdraw from Iraq and the entire Middle East. Our time of constant meddling over there needs to pass.
The Taliban in Afghanistan didn't have advanced weaponry when the USSR occupied them either. What's your point?
Actually, the U.S. provided the Islamists with massive amounts of cash and advanced weapons.
Tell me about the Taliban Air Force, tanks and artillery from the US that they used to fight the Russians.
They surely did, and now ISIS has Russian shoulder mounted Ground to Air missiles called MANPADS that can shoot down American Apaches that are flying missions out of Baghdad.
They were called "Stingers" and they changed the war.The Taliban in Afghanistan didn't have advanced weaponry when the USSR occupied them either. What's your point?
Actually, the U.S. provided the Islamists with massive amounts of cash and advanced weapons.
Tell me about the Taliban Air Force, tanks and artillery from the US that they used to fight the Russians.
They surely did, and now ISIS has Russian shoulder mounted Ground to Air missiles called MANPADS that can shoot down American Apaches that are flying missions out of Baghdad.
Yet that's not happening. How many U.S. aircraft have they shot down? They may have gotten a few Russian weapons off some dead Syrian Government soldiers, but it won't make much of a difference. Let me know when they start shooting down American aircraft. Till then, i'll say they don't have that capability.
I suspect when the midterms are over we won't even be doing that as sad as this is to say it looks like ISIS may well become a dominate power in the region for a long time.ISIS within 8 miles of Baghdad airport and armed with MANPADs - CBS News
For those that don't know manpads are anti air weapons.
Is Obama gonna start bombing more than the occasional Toyota truck?
air campaigns alone do not wars win PLUS the last Admin broke our treasury's back AND your people's love affair w/ fossil fuels has put us in this position w/ your initial, ill-advised, invasion that even Bush Sr. wrote a book advising against opening that genie bottle. Cheney's .
I want repubs like that hacktard- Ibentoken to voluntarily go on record to have their taxes raised to pay for all these, in their minds so-called "necessary wars"
The military has always been corrupt in Iraq. Under Saddam, the military fought or ended up in Abu Ghraib or worse.there was too much corruption in their mil leadership ranks. They collected pay for ghost soldiers and made the real soldiers pay for uniforms/supplies that should have been given to them.It's a good strategy that has certainly worked many times. I don't think there's any question that ground troops are going into Iraq. The question is when, how many, and their origin. It's been suggested that the greatest need in the Iraqi army is leadership. That can be provided without a massive number of troops.Actually the strategy is degrade and destroy. It is how we fight wars today, especially Iraq. Bush 41 and 43 both used the strategy until 43 veered off the page and decided to create an occupation force. Degrade comes before destroy. Destroying will take ground troops. At the present time the composition and abilities of those ground troops are unknown and various groups are being trained and equipped. The first part of the strategy, the degrade part is going slow because an abundance of caution to prevent losses and collateral damage are being taken. It's a good thing unless you prefer dead and beheaded airmen and civilian casualties. Whatever ground forces are used will be grateful for the degradation part of the strategy.Fuck you. I have firmly stated on MANY occasions on this forum what we should be/should have done.One thing you have to give the Libertarian element. They are not afraid to unequivocally state what they want Obama or the US to do or not do.
Alleged right wingers, on the other hand, would rather rip off their own jawbone than state what they would like Obama or the US to do about ISIS or the Middle East or Iran or any other foreign policy matter. They will do flips and twists to avoid doing so.
Any jackass can criticize what the other guy is doing. It takes balls to offer up a plan, and these pessimistic whiny bitches are sorely lacking.
Bombing Toyotas & vacant buildings was not part of my idea.
I gave my support to Obama from day one when he announced his decision. If he wants to keep that support he needs to make good on his plan. You know, decimate & destroy ISIS. FOURTEEN bombs a day is a god damn joke.
America is dead in the water, surrounded by sharks, while the captain makes speeches to Gweneth Paltrow who really wanted to blow him on the poop deck.
The military has always been corrupt in Iraq. Under Saddam, the military fought or ended up in Abu Ghraib or worse.there was too much corruption in their mil leadership ranks. They collected pay for ghost soldiers and made the real soldiers pay for uniforms/supplies that should have been given to them.It's a good strategy that has certainly worked many times. I don't think there's any question that ground troops are going into Iraq. The question is when, how many, and their origin. It's been suggested that the greatest need in the Iraqi army is leadership. That can be provided without a massive number of troops.Actually the strategy is degrade and destroy. It is how we fight wars today, especially Iraq. Bush 41 and 43 both used the strategy until 43 veered off the page and decided to create an occupation force. Degrade comes before destroy. Destroying will take ground troops. At the present time the composition and abilities of those ground troops are unknown and various groups are being trained and equipped. The first part of the strategy, the degrade part is going slow because an abundance of caution to prevent losses and collateral damage are being taken. It's a good thing unless you prefer dead and beheaded airmen and civilian casualties. Whatever ground forces are used will be grateful for the degradation part of the strategy.Fuck you. I have firmly stated on MANY occasions on this forum what we should be/should have done.One thing you have to give the Libertarian element. They are not afraid to unequivocally state what they want Obama or the US to do or not do.
Alleged right wingers, on the other hand, would rather rip off their own jawbone than state what they would like Obama or the US to do about ISIS or the Middle East or Iran or any other foreign policy matter. They will do flips and twists to avoid doing so.
Any jackass can criticize what the other guy is doing. It takes balls to offer up a plan, and these pessimistic whiny bitches are sorely lacking.
Bombing Toyotas & vacant buildings was not part of my idea.
I gave my support to Obama from day one when he announced his decision. If he wants to keep that support he needs to make good on his plan. You know, decimate & destroy ISIS. FOURTEEN bombs a day is a god damn joke.
When we rebuilt the Iraqi military we made the erroneous assumption that they would fight for the nation if threaten. Nationalism, pride and patriotism demand it. The problem was that none of those attributes were present in the military. Being a solder in Iraq meant having a steady job, certainly not risking your life for the country.
Iraq has always been held together by force. Sunnis,Shiites, Kurds often refuse to work together. Baghdad and Basra are modern secular cities and have little in common with most of Iraq which consist of very small towns and villages filled with goat and sheep herders, peasant farmers, and Bedouins. Iraq is more of a region than a nation.
