Obama's Politically Driven Airstrikes A Failure

[blackhawk]

Has ISIS been driven out of any of the cities in either Syria or Iraq they took control of or lost any of the terrority they controlled since we started bombing? As far as I can tell they have not and seem to be gaining more this is not ISIS cheerleading but an opinion based on reports of a key border town being on the verge of falling to them and some reports say have moved within a few miles of Baghdad. Given this I'm not sure how the current bombing campaign could be considered effective.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Unless you count "Meals Ready to Eat" as heavy weapons we haven't been giving the Kurds diddly squat. First we didn't want to upset Maliki so arms had to go through him before they could go to the Kurds and now we don't want to upset Turkey so we're supplying the Kurds with small arms and MRE's.

Again, it'd be helpful if you read something OTHER than whatever Hate Sites you normally visit, Cleetus.

U.S. arms the Kurds in Iraq mdash to fight U.S.-armed ISIS - The Week

Exactly those guys, Joe! The guys that we helped to defeat the Soviets in Afghanistan who then turned around and stabbed us in the back on 9/11. Those are the guys that Pauli thinks are going to leave us alone if we pull out of the Middle East!

But that was the point. frankly, these guys were a bigger evil than the Soviets were. We had an okay relationship with the Soviets until Ronnie Raygun came in with his "Evil Empire" bullshit. Wasn't our problem if they invaded Afghanistan and taught girls how to read. But as you say, we helped them "Defeat" the Soviets and then they turned around and "stabbed us in the back".

Well, no, as Chris Rock said when Manticore mauled Roy Horn, they went Tiger on us.

They did exactly what we should have expected religious fanatics to do.

 

[Jroc]

IS had adapted and adjusted to air strikes, as predicted and expected. Target acquisition has been the problem at Kobane. IS has been very good at dispersing and hiding it's assets in the hills and gullies surrounding Kobane. That is why air strikes have been limited to mostly small targets such as single tanks, pick up trucks with mounted heavy machine guns and only small groups of infantry. That has changed, as was hoped, in the last few days. IS has had to replenish and reinforce their forces and at the same time concentrate them in small and tight areas as they converged and entered the city. This has created a target rich environment with Kobane Kurd defenders being able to transmit accurate location data. This is classic military strategy, draw the enemy into the open and surprise him with overwhelming bombardment. It may not save the city, but that is not the American roll or mission. The mission is to degrade IS. That is happening.

The Mission is also to prevent the slaughter of these people

When did that become our mission. The lead group defending Kobane are communist Peoples Worker Party drug dealers and smugglers who have been listed by both Turkey and the USA as terrorist. The civilian population has been vacated across the Turkish border. There are an estimated 1,500 volunteers who remain in the city to support the Kurd fighters. How did it become our mission to defend and protect communist drug dealers?

Yeah? where do you get that information? The Turkish government?

 

[Oldstyle]

IS had adapted and adjusted to air strikes, as predicted and expected. Target acquisition has been the problem at Kobane. IS has been very good at dispersing and hiding it's assets in the hills and gullies surrounding Kobane. That is why air strikes have been limited to mostly small targets such as single tanks, pick up trucks with mounted heavy machine guns and only small groups of infantry. That has changed, as was hoped, in the last few days. IS has had to replenish and reinforce their forces and at the same time concentrate them in small and tight areas as they converged and entered the city. This has created a target rich environment with Kobane Kurd defenders being able to transmit accurate location data. This is classic military strategy, draw the enemy into the open and surprise him with overwhelming bombardment. It may not save the city, but that is not the American roll or mission. The mission is to degrade IS. That is happening.

Come on, Camp...get serious! "Classic military strategy" is to allow an enemy force to move across open ground with tanks, artillery and troop transports, where they could be easily destroyed by air strikes...into an urban setting with places to hide and a civilian population that would be put at risk from air strikes?

That isn't classic military strategy at all! That's a lack of military strategy. Those ISIS troops should have NEVER BEEN ALLOWED TO GET NEAR KOBANE! I'd like to know why ISIS troops are still being allowed to move across miles of open desert to attack other cities? How is that happening?

You are misinterpreting my post. I never said anything about tanks and armored vehicles moving across open ground and being ignored. I said they were dispersed and hidden. And you seem unaware that the city has been depopulated. Anyhow, the strategy you claim is not a strategy worked and IS took a pounding and forced to retreat from most of city. That does not mean they won't be back, but they will get another pounding when they do.

bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29555999

Your "point" is absurd, Camp! ISIS moved large numbers of tanks, artillery and troops across miles of open desert to attack Kobane after Barack Obama had stated that he was going to use American air power to "degrade and destroy" them. How did that happen? Why were those ISIS forces even allowed to reach Kobane? Why weren't they destroyed in transit when they were exposed?

 

[Camp]

IS had adapted and adjusted to air strikes, as predicted and expected. Target acquisition has been the problem at Kobane. IS has been very good at dispersing and hiding it's assets in the hills and gullies surrounding Kobane. That is why air strikes have been limited to mostly small targets such as single tanks, pick up trucks with mounted heavy machine guns and only small groups of infantry. That has changed, as was hoped, in the last few days. IS has had to replenish and reinforce their forces and at the same time concentrate them in small and tight areas as they converged and entered the city. This has created a target rich environment with Kobane Kurd defenders being able to transmit accurate location data. This is classic military strategy, draw the enemy into the open and surprise him with overwhelming bombardment. It may not save the city, but that is not the American roll or mission. The mission is to degrade IS. That is happening.

Come on, Camp...get serious! "Classic military strategy" is to allow an enemy force to move across open ground with tanks, artillery and troop transports, where they could be easily destroyed by air strikes...into an urban setting with places to hide and a civilian population that would be put at risk from air strikes?

That isn't classic military strategy at all! That's a lack of military strategy. Those ISIS troops should have NEVER BEEN ALLOWED TO GET NEAR KOBANE! I'd like to know why ISIS troops are still being allowed to move across miles of open desert to attack other cities? How is that happening?

You are misinterpreting my post. I never said anything about tanks and armored vehicles moving across open ground and being ignored. I said they were dispersed and hidden. And you seem unaware that the city has been depopulated. Anyhow, the strategy you claim is not a strategy worked and IS took a pounding and forced to retreat from most of city. That does not mean they won't be back, but they will get another pounding when they do.

bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29555999

Your "point" is absurd, Camp! ISIS moved large numbers of tanks, artillery and troops across miles of open desert to attack Kobane after Barack Obama had stated that he was going to use American air power to "degrade and destroy" them. How did that happen? Why were those ISIS forces even allowed to reach Kobane? Why weren't they destroyed in transit when they were exposed?

You are just guessing and making assumptions. You have no evidence that IS moved assets to Kobane in large formations or even that they have large numbers of tanks and artillery at Kobane. It is just as easy to assume the assets they do have were moved there piecemeal in small units over various routes. You are making guess's and claiming them as facts.

 

[Camp]

IS had adapted and adjusted to air strikes, as predicted and expected. Target acquisition has been the problem at Kobane. IS has been very good at dispersing and hiding it's assets in the hills and gullies surrounding Kobane. That is why air strikes have been limited to mostly small targets such as single tanks, pick up trucks with mounted heavy machine guns and only small groups of infantry. That has changed, as was hoped, in the last few days. IS has had to replenish and reinforce their forces and at the same time concentrate them in small and tight areas as they converged and entered the city. This has created a target rich environment with Kobane Kurd defenders being able to transmit accurate location data. This is classic military strategy, draw the enemy into the open and surprise him with overwhelming bombardment. It may not save the city, but that is not the American roll or mission. The mission is to degrade IS. That is happening.

The Mission is also to prevent the slaughter of these people

When did that become our mission. The lead group defending Kobane are communist Peoples Worker Party drug dealers and smugglers who have been listed by both Turkey and the USA as terrorist. The civilian population has been vacated across the Turkish border. There are an estimated 1,500 volunteers who remain in the city to support the Kurd fighters. How did it become our mission to defend and protect communist drug dealers?

Yeah? where do you get that information? The Turkish government?

It.s not my fault you are clueless about the PKK.

cnn.com/2014/10/07/opinion/turkey-isis-pkk/

bbc.com/news/world-europe-20971100

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Siding with Isis over America. You scumbags have reached a new low

Siding with stupidity over the obvious. You have reached the bottom.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

ISIS is reportedly inside Baghdad fighting in the suburbs not far from the Green Zone

 

[Camp]

ISIS is reportedly inside Baghdad fighting in the suburbs not far from the Green Zone

Reported by who?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

ISIS is reportedly inside Baghdad fighting in the suburbs not far from the Green Zone

Reported by who?

CNN

 

[Camp]

Has ISIS been driven out of any of the cities in either Syria or Iraq they took control of or lost any of the terrority they controlled since we started bombing? As far as I can tell they have not and seem to be gaining more this is not ISIS cheerleading but an opinion based on reports of a key border town being on the verge of falling to them and some reports say have moved within a few miles of Baghdad. Given this I'm not sure how the current bombing campaign could be considered effective.

rudaw.net/english/middleeast/iraq/02102014

english.alarabiya.net/en/perspective/2014/09/05/The-beginning-of-the-end-for-ISIS.html

 

[Oldstyle]

IS had adapted and adjusted to air strikes, as predicted and expected. Target acquisition has been the problem at Kobane. IS has been very good at dispersing and hiding it's assets in the hills and gullies surrounding Kobane. That is why air strikes have been limited to mostly small targets such as single tanks, pick up trucks with mounted heavy machine guns and only small groups of infantry. That has changed, as was hoped, in the last few days. IS has had to replenish and reinforce their forces and at the same time concentrate them in small and tight areas as they converged and entered the city. This has created a target rich environment with Kobane Kurd defenders being able to transmit accurate location data. This is classic military strategy, draw the enemy into the open and surprise him with overwhelming bombardment. It may not save the city, but that is not the American roll or mission. The mission is to degrade IS. That is happening.

Come on, Camp...get serious! "Classic military strategy" is to allow an enemy force to move across open ground with tanks, artillery and troop transports, where they could be easily destroyed by air strikes...into an urban setting with places to hide and a civilian population that would be put at risk from air strikes?

That isn't classic military strategy at all! That's a lack of military strategy. Those ISIS troops should have NEVER BEEN ALLOWED TO GET NEAR KOBANE! I'd like to know why ISIS troops are still being allowed to move across miles of open desert to attack other cities? How is that happening?

You are misinterpreting my post. I never said anything about tanks and armored vehicles moving across open ground and being ignored. I said they were dispersed and hidden. And you seem unaware that the city has been depopulated. Anyhow, the strategy you claim is not a strategy worked and IS took a pounding and forced to retreat from most of city. That does not mean they won't be back, but they will get another pounding when they do.

bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29555999

Your "point" is absurd, Camp! ISIS moved large numbers of tanks, artillery and troops across miles of open desert to attack Kobane after Barack Obama had stated that he was going to use American air power to "degrade and destroy" them. How did that happen? Why were those ISIS forces even allowed to reach Kobane? Why weren't they destroyed in transit when they were exposed?

You are just guessing and making assumptions. You have no evidence that IS moved assets to Kobane in large formations or even that they have large numbers of tanks and artillery at Kobane. It is just as easy to assume the assets they do have were moved there piecemeal in small units over various routes. You are making guess's and claiming them as facts.

I don't care if they moved the tanks across the desert one at a time, Camp...my question remains the same...where were the airstrikes that Obama promised to degrade and destroy ISIS? How are they able to move ANYTHING across open desert to attack new cities and towns let alone tanks, artillery and troop transports?

My "guess" is that Barack Obama's words are not backed up by his deeds.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

ISIS within 8 miles of Baghdad airport and armed with MANPADs - CBS News

A quick search offers this

 

[Discombobulated]

"No Boots on the ground" what a joke. Without special forces targeting the enemy we are pinprick bombing blinds as ISIS advances. Obama acts as if he's actually doing something substantive, as he wastes time and money bombing pick up trucks and empty buildings ISIS advances....

American public support for "boots on the ground" would quickly evaporate after the first few weeks of combat in Syria.

 

[Camp]

ISIS within 8 miles of Baghdad airport and armed with MANPADs - CBS News

A quick search offers this

That isn't ISIS fighting near the Green Zone. Certainly there are attacks being made in Bagdhad suburbs and ISIS is able to conduct hit and run attacks, but that is not the same as what is being implied on rw blog sites who seem to be stuck on using the efforts of our military efforts as failures that are than used to bash the President. Even your link, if you read it, confirms the ISIS troops are restricted to these hit and run tactics. These kinds of attacks occurred when we had 150,000 troops on the ground in Iraq. Why would you expect any President to be able to prevent those kinds of attacks?

 

[blackhawk]

Has ISIS been driven out of any of the cities in either Syria or Iraq they took control of or lost any of the terrority they controlled since we started bombing? As far as I can tell they have not and seem to be gaining more this is not ISIS cheerleading but an opinion based on reports of a key border town being on the verge of falling to them and some reports say have moved within a few miles of Baghdad. Given this I'm not sure how the current bombing campaign could be considered effective.

rudaw.net/english/middleeast/iraq/02102014

english.alarabiya.net/en/perspective/2014/09/05/The-beginning-of-the-end-for-ISIS.html

Thanks for the links though I was already aware of the dam still these are minor gains when you consider the amount of land ISIS took and still controls.

 

[Camp]

IS had adapted and adjusted to air strikes, as predicted and expected. Target acquisition has been the problem at Kobane. IS has been very good at dispersing and hiding it's assets in the hills and gullies surrounding Kobane. That is why air strikes have been limited to mostly small targets such as single tanks, pick up trucks with mounted heavy machine guns and only small groups of infantry. That has changed, as was hoped, in the last few days. IS has had to replenish and reinforce their forces and at the same time concentrate them in small and tight areas as they converged and entered the city. This has created a target rich environment with Kobane Kurd defenders being able to transmit accurate location data. This is classic military strategy, draw the enemy into the open and surprise him with overwhelming bombardment. It may not save the city, but that is not the American roll or mission. The mission is to degrade IS. That is happening.

Come on, Camp...get serious! "Classic military strategy" is to allow an enemy force to move across open ground with tanks, artillery and troop transports, where they could be easily destroyed by air strikes...into an urban setting with places to hide and a civilian population that would be put at risk from air strikes?

That isn't classic military strategy at all! That's a lack of military strategy. Those ISIS troops should have NEVER BEEN ALLOWED TO GET NEAR KOBANE! I'd like to know why ISIS troops are still being allowed to move across miles of open desert to attack other cities? How is that happening?

You are misinterpreting my post. I never said anything about tanks and armored vehicles moving across open ground and being ignored. I said they were dispersed and hidden. And you seem unaware that the city has been depopulated. Anyhow, the strategy you claim is not a strategy worked and IS took a pounding and forced to retreat from most of city. That does not mean they won't be back, but they will get another pounding when they do.

bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29555999

Your "point" is absurd, Camp! ISIS moved large numbers of tanks, artillery and troops across miles of open desert to attack Kobane after Barack Obama had stated that he was going to use American air power to "degrade and destroy" them. How did that happen? Why were those ISIS forces even allowed to reach Kobane? Why weren't they destroyed in transit when they were exposed?

You are just guessing and making assumptions. You have no evidence that IS moved assets to Kobane in large formations or even that they have large numbers of tanks and artillery at Kobane. It is just as easy to assume the assets they do have were moved there piecemeal in small units over various routes. You are making guess's and claiming them as facts.

I don't care if they moved the tanks across the desert one at a time, Camp...my question remains the same...where were the airstrikes that Obama promised to degrade and destroy ISIS? How are they able to move ANYTHING across open desert to attack new cities and towns let alone tanks, artillery and troop transports?

My "guess" is that Barack Obama's words are not backed up by his deeds.

My guess is that you can't bomb every bus or tractor trailer without inflicting heavy civilian casualties while making guesses at what cargo might be getting transported. You seem to believe the ISIS forces move in WWII style formations across this "open desert" as you call it. You also seem to think we are capable of viewing huge areas and finding targets and launching air strikes within minutes of spotting a target. It doesn't work that way. That only works when you have aircraft searching for targets of opportunity, meaning readily identified targets that pose no threat to collateral damage.

 

[BlindBoo]

Yeah Reagan's drive by bombings were most wasteful also...

Reagan didn't have to show bomb like Obama and Clinton because the world respected his word and his deed. They are laughing at Obama.

Except when they didn't, like 1983 in Beirut when 241 American servicemen were killed in their barracks.

 

[JoeB131]

Yeah Reagan's drive by bombings were most wasteful also...

Reagan didn't have to show bomb like Obama and Clinton because the world respected his word and his deed. They are laughing at Obama.

Except when they didn't, like 1983 in Beirut when 241 American servicemen were killed in their barracks.

Or in 1985, when they held a few Americans hostage, and got us to trade weapons for them.

 

[Obamanation]

Shit or get off the pot O!!! I can't ever remember is he shia or sunni??