US is considering air strikes in Syria

[SteadyMercury]

Air strikes can make a big difference when combined with local ground forces in battles over open areas, as demonstrated with the dam near Mosul. It can limit their ability to move equipment or supplies, and as we've seen in Afghanistan/Pakistan/Yemen it can cut the heads off their leaders given time and reasonable intelligence on the ground.

What it can't do easily is dislodge them from populated areas. That is up to the Kurds, the FSA, Iraqi Army, whoever. We can help from the air but they've got to be willing to spill a lot of blood, air power cannot be effective alone.

 

[Peach]

Air strikes can make a big difference when combined with local ground forces in battles over open areas, as demonstrated with the dam near Mosul. It can limit their ability to move equipment or supplies, and as we've seen in Afghanistan/Pakistan/Yemen it can cut the heads off their leaders given time and reasonable intelligence on the ground.

What it can't do easily is dislodge them from populated areas. That is up to the Kurds, the FSA, Iraqi Army, whoever. We can help from the air but they've got to be willing to spill a lot of blood, air power cannot be effective alone.

We know the Kurds will fight, and Nasra likely will also.

 

[JimH52]

Air strikes can make a big difference when combined with local ground forces in battles over open areas, as demonstrated with the dam near Mosul. It can limit their ability to move equipment or supplies, and as we've seen in Afghanistan/Pakistan/Yemen it can cut the heads off their leaders given time and reasonable intelligence on the ground.

What it can't do easily is dislodge them from populated areas. That is up to the Kurds, the FSA, Iraqi Army, whoever. We can help from the air but they've got to be willing to spill a lot of blood, air power cannot be effective alone.

Very true...but the air strikes can give the troops on the ground a very real advantage. We could be in a good position if we let the Kurds, FSA, or other ground forces root out ISIS after the air support. If we can gain of coalition of allies to help with the air attacks on ISIS, we can hurt them bad...IMHO.

 

[dilloduck]

Air strikes can make a big difference when combined with local ground forces in battles over open areas, as demonstrated with the dam near Mosul. It can limit their ability to move equipment or supplies, and as we've seen in Afghanistan/Pakistan/Yemen it can cut the heads off their leaders given time and reasonable intelligence on the ground.

What it can't do easily is dislodge them from populated areas. That is up to the Kurds, the FSA, Iraqi Army, whoever. We can help from the air but they've got to be willing to spill a lot of blood, air power cannot be effective alone.

We know the Kurds will fight, and Nasra likely will also.

Great--as long as it's not American troops----AGAIN

 

[Peach]

Air strikes can make a big difference when combined with local ground forces in battles over open areas, as demonstrated with the dam near Mosul. It can limit their ability to move equipment or supplies, and as we've seen in Afghanistan/Pakistan/Yemen it can cut the heads off their leaders given time and reasonable intelligence on the ground.

What it can't do easily is dislodge them from populated areas. That is up to the Kurds, the FSA, Iraqi Army, whoever. We can help from the air but they've got to be willing to spill a lot of blood, air power cannot be effective alone.

Very true...but the air strikes can give the troops on the ground a very real advantage. We could be in a good position if we let the Kurds, FSA, or other ground forces root out ISIS after the air support. If we can gain of coalition of allies to help with the air attacks on ISIS, we can hurt them bad...IMHO.

It may take US ground support. But this is helping nations avoid invasion, nothing like the Iraq disaster........thus far.

 

[JimH52]

Air strikes can make a big difference when combined with local ground forces in battles over open areas, as demonstrated with the dam near Mosul. It can limit their ability to move equipment or supplies, and as we've seen in Afghanistan/Pakistan/Yemen it can cut the heads off their leaders given time and reasonable intelligence on the ground.

What it can't do easily is dislodge them from populated areas. That is up to the Kurds, the FSA, Iraqi Army, whoever. We can help from the air but they've got to be willing to spill a lot of blood, air power cannot be effective alone.

We know the Kurds will fight, and Nasra likely will also.

The Kurds seem to be very competent fighters. If we are going to get involved with air strikes, then we also should arm the Kurds with heavy weapons. I don't care if the Iraq government feels otherwise. Their army was the one that cut and run. The Kurds are the ones gaining ground on ISIS.

 

[Peach]

Air strikes can make a big difference when combined with local ground forces in battles over open areas, as demonstrated with the dam near Mosul. It can limit their ability to move equipment or supplies, and as we've seen in Afghanistan/Pakistan/Yemen it can cut the heads off their leaders given time and reasonable intelligence on the ground.

What it can't do easily is dislodge them from populated areas. That is up to the Kurds, the FSA, Iraqi Army, whoever. We can help from the air but they've got to be willing to spill a lot of blood, air power cannot be effective alone.

We know the Kurds will fight, and Nasra likely will also.

The Kurds seem to be very competent fighters. If we are going to get involved with air strikes, then we also should arm the Kurds with heavy weapons. I don't care if the Iraq government feels otherwise. Their army was the one that cut and run. The Kurds are the ones gaining ground on ISIS.

Syria is not at the point of "ask our permission"; the US declined, no other nation in the area jumping in to side with Syria.

 

[dilloduck]

Air strikes can make a big difference when combined with local ground forces in battles over open areas, as demonstrated with the dam near Mosul. It can limit their ability to move equipment or supplies, and as we've seen in Afghanistan/Pakistan/Yemen it can cut the heads off their leaders given time and reasonable intelligence on the ground.

What it can't do easily is dislodge them from populated areas. That is up to the Kurds, the FSA, Iraqi Army, whoever. We can help from the air but they've got to be willing to spill a lot of blood, air power cannot be effective alone.

We know the Kurds will fight, and Nasra likely will also.

The Kurds seem to be very competent fighters. If we are going to get involved with air strikes, then we also should arm the Kurds with heavy weapons. I don't care if the Iraq government feels otherwise. Their army was the one that cut and run. The Kurds are the ones gaining ground on ISIS.

Syria is not at the point of "ask our permission"; the US declined, no other nation in the area jumping in to side with Syria.

Of course they can insist that their sovereignty be respected. People may not honor it but I certainly hope the US wouldn't just let any country that felt like it bomb in our territory

 

[dilloduck]

Air strikes can make a big difference when combined with local ground forces in battles over open areas, as demonstrated with the dam near Mosul. It can limit their ability to move equipment or supplies, and as we've seen in Afghanistan/Pakistan/Yemen it can cut the heads off their leaders given time and reasonable intelligence on the ground.

What it can't do easily is dislodge them from populated areas. That is up to the Kurds, the FSA, Iraqi Army, whoever. We can help from the air but they've got to be willing to spill a lot of blood, air power cannot be effective alone.

Very true...but the air strikes can give the troops on the ground a very real advantage. We could be in a good position if we let the Kurds, FSA, or other ground forces root out ISIS after the air support. If we can gain of coalition of allies to help with the air attacks on ISIS, we can hurt them bad...IMHO.

It may take US ground support. But this is helping nations avoid invasion, nothing like the Iraq disaster........thus far.

Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia Syria Turkey ALL have the means to defend themselves,

 

[Peach]

Air strikes can make a big difference when combined with local ground forces in battles over open areas, as demonstrated with the dam near Mosul. It can limit their ability to move equipment or supplies, and as we've seen in Afghanistan/Pakistan/Yemen it can cut the heads off their leaders given time and reasonable intelligence on the ground.

What it can't do easily is dislodge them from populated areas. That is up to the Kurds, the FSA, Iraqi Army, whoever. We can help from the air but they've got to be willing to spill a lot of blood, air power cannot be effective alone.

Very true...but the air strikes can give the troops on the ground a very real advantage. We could be in a good position if we let the Kurds, FSA, or other ground forces root out ISIS after the air support. If we can gain of coalition of allies to help with the air attacks on ISIS, we can hurt them bad...IMHO.

It may take US ground support. But this is helping nations avoid invasion, nothing like the Iraq disaster........thus far.

Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia Syria Turkey ALL have the means to defend themselves,

Assistance must be VERY limited without complete intelliegence, and Congressional ok; no more Iraqs(.) And of course any person in the White House will be watched closely after the Iraq disaster.

 

[JimH52]

Air strikes can make a big difference when combined with local ground forces in battles over open areas, as demonstrated with the dam near Mosul. It can limit their ability to move equipment or supplies, and as we've seen in Afghanistan/Pakistan/Yemen it can cut the heads off their leaders given time and reasonable intelligence on the ground.

What it can't do easily is dislodge them from populated areas. That is up to the Kurds, the FSA, Iraqi Army, whoever. We can help from the air but they've got to be willing to spill a lot of blood, air power cannot be effective alone.

We know the Kurds will fight, and Nasra likely will also.

The Kurds seem to be very competent fighters. If we are going to get involved with air strikes, then we also should arm the Kurds with heavy weapons. I don't care if the Iraq government feels otherwise. Their army was the one that cut and run. The Kurds are the ones gaining ground on ISIS.

Syria is not at the point of "ask our permission"; the US declined, no other nation in the area jumping in to side with Syria.

Of course they can insist that their sovereignty be respected. People may not honor it but I certainly hope the US wouldn't just let any country that felt like it bomb in our territory

It should be clear to Assad that if we do make air strikes in Syria it would not be to weaken his position, but rather to turn the tide on ISIS advances. I don't think ISIS will be considerable weakened until it has to defend its turf in Syria.

 

[Peach]

Air strikes can make a big difference when combined with local ground forces in battles over open areas, as demonstrated with the dam near Mosul. It can limit their ability to move equipment or supplies, and as we've seen in Afghanistan/Pakistan/Yemen it can cut the heads off their leaders given time and reasonable intelligence on the ground.

What it can't do easily is dislodge them from populated areas. That is up to the Kurds, the FSA, Iraqi Army, whoever. We can help from the air but they've got to be willing to spill a lot of blood, air power cannot be effective alone.

We know the Kurds will fight, and Nasra likely will also.

The Kurds seem to be very competent fighters. If we are going to get involved with air strikes, then we also should arm the Kurds with heavy weapons. I don't care if the Iraq government feels otherwise. Their army was the one that cut and run. The Kurds are the ones gaining ground on ISIS.

Syria is not at the point of "ask our permission"; the US declined, no other nation in the area jumping in to side with Syria.

Of course they can insist that their sovereignty be respected. People may not honor it but I certainly hope the US wouldn't just let any country that felt like it bomb in our territory

It should be clear to Assad that if we do make air strikes in Syria it would not be to weaken his position, but rather to turn the tide on ISIS advances. I don't think ISIS will be considerable weakened until it has to defend its turf in Syria.

Blue eyes can head to Europe, he & his wife spend enough time there anyway.

 

[dilloduck]

Air strikes can make a big difference when combined with local ground forces in battles over open areas, as demonstrated with the dam near Mosul. It can limit their ability to move equipment or supplies, and as we've seen in Afghanistan/Pakistan/Yemen it can cut the heads off their leaders given time and reasonable intelligence on the ground.

What it can't do easily is dislodge them from populated areas. That is up to the Kurds, the FSA, Iraqi Army, whoever. We can help from the air but they've got to be willing to spill a lot of blood, air power cannot be effective alone.

We know the Kurds will fight, and Nasra likely will also.

The Kurds seem to be very competent fighters. If we are going to get involved with air strikes, then we also should arm the Kurds with heavy weapons. I don't care if the Iraq government feels otherwise. Their army was the one that cut and run. The Kurds are the ones gaining ground on ISIS.

Syria is not at the point of "ask our permission"; the US declined, no other nation in the area jumping in to side with Syria.

Of course they can insist that their sovereignty be respected. People may not honor it but I certainly hope the US wouldn't just let any country that felt like it bomb in our territory

It should be clear to Assad that if we do make air strikes in Syria it would not be to weaken his position, but rather to turn the tide on ISIS advances. I don't think ISIS will be considerable weakened until it has to defend its turf in Syria.

I suspects that's what Syria is making sure of. In all reality it was only a year ago that Obama was ready to blow Assad off the map.

 

[saveliberty]

ISIS seemed to fold pretty fast with a few air strikes and Kurdish troops. Let's slow this down until we have more cooperation.

 

[Katzndogz]

Syria claims that any airstrikes done in Syria without coordinating it first with will be considered an act of aggression.

Which would make us a legitimate target for Russian retaliation. Syria is a sovereign country and a Russian client state.

 

[JimH52]

Syria claims that any airstrikes done in Syria without coordinating it first with will be considered an act of aggression.

Which would make us a legitimate target for Russian retaliation. Syria is a sovereign country and a Russian client state.

Ah, the vegetable soup of foreign conflicts seems to be growing every day. Our presumed enemies may soon be our allies and our once allies may soon be our adversaries. As the World Turns...

 

[Stephanie]

How many countries has this man rained bombs on? who knew he was a warmonger

but no marches this time around because it's a Democrat doing it

how funny we don't hear a daily civilian casualty count like we did under Bush.

 

[JimH52]

How many countries has this man rained bombs on? who knew he was a warmonger

but no marches this time around because it's a Democrat doing it

how funny we don't hear a daily civilian casualty count like we did under Bush.

Ahhh, cause people are not dying like they did under Booooosh. Maybe...

 

[Katzndogz]

Bombing Syria would be the most monumental military mistake ever made. It would pretty much be our graveyard. We would be fighting ISIS, Assad and the Russians.

obama just gave a speech in which he announced to the world that we have no strategy. Better to have no strategy than have one based on bombing Syria.

 

[JimH52]

Bombing Syria would be the most monumental military mistake ever made. It would pretty much be our graveyard. We would be fighting ISIS, Assad and the Russians.

obama just gave a speech in which he announced to the world that we have no strategy. Better to have no strategy than have one based on bombing Syria.

How can you say "the most monumental military mistake" after the recovering alcoholic launched a war of choice in Iraq? We will be paying for that blunder for many years.