• US is bombing the shit out of ISIS, says Obama
    22 replies, posted
[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-35097279[/url] [quote]The US is hitting so-called Islamic State (IS) harder than ever, President Barack Obama has said. More air strikes were launched against the group in November than in any other month, he said in a Pentagon speech. In recent weeks, the US-led coalition has killed a number of its leaders and attacked the oil facilities it uses to finance its operations, he added. Mr Obama has been seeking to reassure the public following an attack in California that killed 14 people. The two suspects were a radicalised Muslim couple who struck weeks after the killing of 130 people by Islamist gunmen in Paris. Around 9,000 air strikes have been launched against the group since the start of the campaign in the summer of 2014. Noting that IS had lost 40% of the territory it once controlled in Iraq, Mr Obama said that the terror group had not had a single successful ground operation in either Syria or Iraq since the summer.[/quote] [quote]"The point is, Isil leaders cannot hide and our next message to them is simple: 'You are next.'"[/quote]
Obama always trying to look like a tough guy lol.
This is a shit article. It has actually no new 'news' to tell and just repeats things that have been said over the past few weeks already, particularly the statistics. It makes itself[I] sound[/I] relevant and current by mentioning the Paris and California attacks despite the [I]only[/I] 'new' thing it mentions is Obama apparently saying "we're hitting them harder than ever" - which isn't even a quote by him, only what we assume is a paraphrase and everything else in his most recent speech must have been so repetitive from other speeches on the subject that the article just summarizes it into one sentence, "more air strikes are to come" - which is, again, exactly what was said last month and the month before. I expect better from the BBC.
[QUOTE=0x0000000C;49315975]Obama always trying to look like a tough guy lol.[/QUOTE] Dunno about that, I mean I remember the article about him looking visibly shaken and speaking out against sending in troops because he's upset at what happens to the troops, not exactly much of a tough guy act.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;49315994]This is a shit article. It has actually no new 'news' to tell and just repeats things that have been said over the past few weeks already, particularly the statistics. It makes itself[I] sound[/I] relevant and current by mentioning the Paris and California attacks despite the [I]only[/I] 'new' thing it mentions is Obama apparently saying "we're hitting them harder than ever" - which isn't even a quote by him, only what we assume is a paraphrase and everything else in his most recent speech must have been so repetitive from other speeches on the subject that the article just summarizes it into one sentence, "more air strikes are to come" - which is, again, exactly what was said last month and the month before. I expect better from the BBC.[/QUOTE] It's the same thing we've been hearing the past year. The US is destroying ISIS and making lives better!* [I]*Slowly funneling ISIL troops towards Syria creating a mass shitstorm in the middle east[/I] Just slap the president's name on the headline and people will start thinking that there is less of a crisis.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;49315994]This is a shit article. It has actually no new 'news' to tell and just repeats things that have been said over the past few weeks already, particularly the statistics. It makes itself[I] sound[/I] relevant and current by mentioning the Paris and California attacks despite the [I]only[/I] 'new' thing it mentions is Obama apparently saying "we're hitting them harder than ever" - which isn't even a quote by him, only what we assume is a paraphrase and everything else in his most recent speech must have been so repetitive from other speeches on the subject that the article just summarizes it into one sentence, "more air strikes are to come" - which is, again, exactly what was said last month and the month before. I expect better from the BBC.[/QUOTE] You have to remember that these are military operations that are happening as we type and see him speak of this. Even the Commander-in-Chief may need to keep his mouth shut and cannot go too far in details as to what we're dropping ordnance on. Yes, we see some bomb footage of us hitting their oil trucks and their economy but for propaganda/classification of these operations, they don't want to release specific figures as to how much they destroyed or how successful the air campaign is which is probably why he's nutshelling so much.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;49315994]This is a shit article. It has actually no new 'news' to tell and just repeats things that have been said over the past few weeks already, particularly the statistics. It makes itself[I] sound[/I] relevant and current by mentioning the Paris and California attacks despite the [I]only[/I] 'new' thing it mentions is Obama apparently saying "we're hitting them harder than ever" - which isn't even a quote by him, only what we assume is a paraphrase and everything else in his most recent speech must have been so repetitive from other speeches on the subject that the article just summarizes it into one sentence, "more air strikes are to come" - which is, again, exactly what was said last month and the month before. I expect better from the BBC.[/QUOTE] what do you want him to do otherwise though, the republicans didn't want to send troops, then they wanted to send troops, now that obama has said he doesn't need troops, they say he's gutless for not sending troops. politics can flip flop about what he's doing all they want, but he's put together a coalition of just about every western army plus our allies in the region, plus syria's neighbors, and they have to all coordinate around each other, plus the russian, iranian, and syrian forces. its probably a nightmare for the people coordinating everything, so him saying anything more than "we have a plan" probably doesn't give it justice to what is going on behind the scenes, but you just have to trust that NATO + friends isn't screwing around here
[QUOTE=CabooseRvB;49316589]You have to remember that these are military operations that are happening as we type and see him speak of this. Even the Commander-in-Chief may need to keep his mouth shut and cannot go too far in details as to what we're dropping ordnance on. Yes, we see some bomb footage of us hitting their oil trucks and their economy but for propaganda/classification of these operations, they don't want to release specific figures as to how much they destroyed or how successful the air campaign is.[/QUOTE] "The President made a speech this past Sunday, he is quoted to have said, 'People of America....we did a thing.'" That's a terrible policy of showcasing to the people that this bomb campaign is worth it's time and money to commit to. Especially after they boasted of dropping over 300 bombs in Ramadi, just to say they were still "unsure" of how difficult it may be to retake the city afterward. No, they don't have to outline to the public the exact campaign to win the city, but they can say something like "we're confident the city will be liberated soon" instead of some bullshit that the did. The President doesn't need to go into deep details of the lives of every pilot that dropped a bomb or a biography of every enemy killed in each strike. Or maybe he does, because I hear "we've dropped over 10,000 bombs since 2014" and then I hear "Paris terror attack", "Ramadi captured", "Islamic State kills mentally ill" - putting them together, at face value, makes it sound as if we're doing nothing but pointless air campaigns against cacti in the desert. But even if literally all that can be taken from what the President has to say on the matter is a paraphrase, then the BBC shouldn't have bothered with writing the article to begin with. [editline]14th December 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Sableye;49316631]what do you want him to do otherwise though, the republicans didn't want to send troops, then they wanted to send troops, now that obama has said he doesn't need troops, they say he's gutless for not sending troops. politics can flip flop about what he's doing all they want, but he's put together a coalition of just about every western army plus our allies in the region, plus syria's neighbors, and they have to all coordinate around each other, plus the russian, iranian, and syrian forces. its probably a nightmare for the people coordinating everything, so him saying anything more than "we have a plan" probably doesn't give it justice to what is going on behind the scenes, but you just have to trust that NATO + friends isn't screwing around here[/QUOTE] I think you're mistaking my gripe about the BBC writing a non-news article for a gripe about Obama's effectiveness in the campaign.
So, IS been targeted by like 9000 bombings in just about 1.5 years? How do they even exist?
[QUOTE=Bat-shit;49316980]So, IS been targeted by like 9000 bombings in just about 1.5 years? How do they even exist?[/QUOTE] Bombs aren't magic. Might as well ask why Finland was still a country after having [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Helsinki_in_World_War_II#The_great_raids_of_February_1944"]over 16,000 bombs[/URL] dropped on it during WW2.
We should invest more research into "love bombs" that make everyone want to fuck everything in sight. That way we can demoralize them by making them feel awkward.
[QUOTE=The golden;49318104]Isn't the US one of the biggest contributers to ISIS (by directly arming and supplying its allies) and also one of the many countries buying ISIS oil?[/QUOTE] No.
Well with America disposing of previous Middle East despots like Saddam, Gaddafi and arming "rebels" with billions worth of weapons to fight these battles, Obama and Bush has created ISIS in a way. Now Obama wants to create another power vacuum in the middle east by getting rid of Assad despite him being pretty helpful by fighting ISIS. America creates its own enemies.
[QUOTE=The golden;49318104]Isn't the US one of the biggest contributers to ISIS (by directly arming and supplying its allies) and also one of the many countries buying ISIS oil?[/QUOTE] No, because we aren't buying their oil nor are the moderate rebels dumping their arms on Isis Seriously people act as if they have tankers of oil, they are smuggling it by the barrel or by the occasional tanker truck, the amount of oil they contribute to the market is trivial, and they're more than likely selling it at an extremely low price to even make it worth it, turkey, Jordan and other regional neighbors probably have shady oil resellers that are buying it to turn a quick profit [editline]15th December 2015[/editline] Most of their cash is from oil and the siezed resources and probably foreign fighters, if that's any indication of how bad they are. They siezed lots of physical cash from the places they took over
[url]http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/12/05/us-air-force-will-need-more-bombs-for-isis.html[/url] So an average of 2 units of ammo dropped in one sortie, 20 sorties a day. I wouldn't call that "bombing the sh*t out of ISIS". And that video someone was talking about isn't USAF bombing ISIS, it's showing Russian aircraft bombing ISIS.
I'm just gonna pause for a moment and appreciate this quote: [quote]"The point is, Isil leaders cannot hide and our next message to them is simple: 'You are next.'"[/quote] It's like straight out of a movie, and I love it.
[QUOTE=HAWKS71;49320778][url]http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/12/05/us-air-force-will-need-more-bombs-for-isis.html[/url] So an average of 2 units of ammo dropped in one sortie, 20 sorties a day. I wouldn't call that "bombing the sh*t out of ISIS". And that video someone was talking about isn't USAF bombing ISIS, it's showing Russian aircraft bombing ISIS.[/QUOTE] [video=youtube;mPOs9sjjjP8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPOs9sjjjP8[/video] This video puts it into perspective with the 2003 Iraq, Serbia of 99 and WW2
[QUOTE=Psychokitten;49317277]Bombs aren't magic. Might as well ask why Finland was still a country after having [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Helsinki_in_World_War_II#The_great_raids_of_February_1944"]over 16,000 bombs[/URL] dropped on it during WW2.[/QUOTE] Easily.. I think majority of their bombs even missed their targets, or you know.. did nothing significant. They weren't USAF today. [editline]15th December 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=The golden;49318104]Isn't the US one of the biggest contributers to ISIS (by directly arming and supplying its allies) and also one of the many countries buying ISIS oil?[/QUOTE] It's been noted that ISIS are running with U.S. equipment and guns, and probably all kinds of gear acquired from here and there. But I doubt U.S. government officials are directly supporting ISIS or doing any business with them. Highly doubt that. Where'd you even hear it?
[QUOTE=beanhead;49321198][video=youtube;mPOs9sjjjP8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPOs9sjjjP8[/video] This video puts it into perspective with the 2003 Iraq, Serbia of 99 and WW2[/QUOTE] Not really, not at all, they use ww2 as an analogy, but in ww2 you had 70 sorties just to take out a single factory, in 2003 we were dismantling an entire anti air defense grid as well as a sophisticated communications system, and in Serbia we were bombing ahead of the troops, what we are doing now is more akin to what we have been doing in Afghanistan and Pakistan with drones, we hit them almost nonstop without warning and we hit every target we can find but we don't need hundreds of sorties to do that, they're having to come up with targets as fast as the intelligence can arrive [editline]16th December 2015[/editline] Comparing our effort to other conflicts simply based on frequency of bombing runs is idiotic and overly simplistic
[QUOTE=Bat-shit;49322614]Easily.. I think majority of their bombs even missed their targets, or you know.. did nothing significant. They weren't USAF today.[/quote] As I said, bombs aren't magic. Even today, there are ways of pulling similar deceptions to what you guys did. Decoy fighting positions and facilities, feeding false intelligence, stuff like that. Not to mention the fact that ISIS are apparently masochists who get hard every time we bomb them. This is part of why people have been calling for boots on the ground. You can bomb supply routes, demolish structures, destroy fighting vehicles and kill masses of personnel all you want, but the only way to prevent the survivors from hunkering down in the rubble and continue fighting is to send Infantry to engage and kill them in close combat. Granted, the CIC's plan has provisions for that in the form of the Iraqi Army and supporting militias, but frankly, few people here have any faith in them, and for good reason.
[QUOTE=Psychokitten;49328015]Granted, the CIC's plan has provisions for that in the form of the Iraqi Army and supporting militias, but frankly, few people here have any faith in them, and for good reason.[/QUOTE]Don't forget special forces and other assets like that, I wouldn't fully trust the Iraqis to accurately call down an airstrike but I would trust the guy who has years of experience, training, and discipline in arguably the most powerful military in the world. There's a lot of groups like that there, how many is impossible to say but so far the US, UK, Australia, and a few others have all been mentioned in the media. There's likely more by now, especially Russian forces too. All this means the balance of power is severely shifted to allied local forces, so we're very much in a supporting role rather than a leading role this time. I think that's the best way to handle this in the short and long term, we can't just dump troops in the region and expect anything but a massive clusterfuck again.
[QUOTE=0x0000000C;49315975]Obama always trying to look like a tough guy lol.[/QUOTE] Bombing a hospital not tough enuff? [editline]17th December 2015[/editline] This whole assertion that Obama is some kind of pussy is a joke and anyone making the 'observation' is delusional and almost harmful. Where is all of this turning the cheek and cowering stuff they claim Obama is doing? What an odd world we live in where we are considered weak if we aren't occupying a country in the ME.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.