Is Bombing Instead Of Boots On The Ground Cowardly Lol?

[NotfooledbyW]

9853325.

Using airstrikes against hard targets, especially at night, minimizes casualties to the enemy. It gives them reason to hide and as we have seen, these extremists prefer hiding amongst the civilian population. They do not lose their ideology, just a place to congregate as a group. However, social media and technology in general allow them to communicate as a group.

Without ground forces, there is no way of eliminating them and the threat they pose to civilians once they have infiltrated the civilian population.

So exactly what is the plan? We are eliminating their places of congregation forcing them among the population, and we have no plan to extract them from that population for almost a year.

So again, what is the plan? What is our plan for the next 12 months?

A hiding terrorist is a less effective terrorist.

Bombing can:

..degrade their ability to move heavy weapons around.

.. Destroy their fuel storage and dispersal capabilities.

.. Prevent them from taking and holding critical infrastructure such as the Mosul Dam.

..prevent them from expanding into new areas via major ground assault with heavy weapons.

..let them bastards know that Allah is no match for US made Tomahawk Cruise Missile.

.. Kill as many of those barbarian MF's as we can without a scratch on our side.


Good plan for now. .. Do you have anything better?

 

[hipeter924]

Not cowardly. Obviously just bombing or drone strikes won't achieve victory, but at the very least it will take out some of the stolen military hardware, and give the Kurds, anti-ISIS Iraqis and others a fighting chance. What is cowardly is ISIS killing civilians. ISIS differentiates itself from other terrorist groups through its desire to commit mass genocide against any group that doesn't follow its version of Sunni Islam or accept ISIS.

 

[mudwhistle]

 

[mudwhistle]

 

[mudwhistle]

Destroy their infrastructure and vehicles from the air. They'd love a ground fight. So deny them that as demoralization tactic while keeping them up every night disrupting their sleep rhythms. When they're reduced to Bedouin-like existence sleeping in tents roll in with tanks and run em over.

But-but- Barry HAS to tell them we are coming first, to give them their fair chance to escape those buildings and other places. Fair warning and all.

This reminds me of when I was in Somalia.

Clinton wanted to be humain. They were using a Spector Gunship to blow up Aideed's weapons which they were hiding in homes all over Mogadishu. First they put a spotlight on the target, then they put a few 40mm grenades into it, then 10 mins later they caved in the roof with 105 Howitzer rounds. This took all friggen night. Turns out it was just a show. All of the weapons were buried under piles of dirt outside. The next day hundreds of Somali women wrapped em up with cloth and carried them out right under the UNs noses.

Such is the Democrats' pc way of conducting a war.

 

[Siete]

9853325.

Using airstrikes against hard targets, especially at night, minimizes casualties to the enemy. It gives them reason to hide and as we have seen, these extremists prefer hiding amongst the civilian population. They do not lose their ideology, just a place to congregate as a group. However, social media and technology in general allow them to communicate as a group.

Without ground forces, there is no way of eliminating them and the threat they pose to civilians once they have infiltrated the civilian population.

So exactly what is the plan? We are eliminating their places of congregation forcing them among the population, and we have no plan to extract them from that population for almost a year.

So again, what is the plan? What is our plan for the next 12 months?

A hiding terrorist is a less effective terrorist.

Bombing can:

..degrade their ability to move heavy weapons around.

.. Destroy their fuel storage and dispersal capabilities.

.. Prevent them from taking and holding critical infrastructure such as the Mosul Dam.

..prevent them from expanding into new areas via major ground assault with heavy weapons.

..let them bastards know that Allah is no match for US made Tomahawk Cruise Missile.

.. Kill as many of those barbarian MF's as we can without a scratch on our side.


Good plan for now. .. Do you have anything better?

I can't believe anyone with half a brain expects the US to totally eliminate ISIS or any other terrorist group, boots or no boots Exactly how much proof do you idiots need to show you it can't be done ? Bombing works to an extent satisfactory with controlling a terrorist group on a temporary basis.

 

[edthecynic]

When did Oblama tell them we were coming?

That's what her MessiahRushie told her.

 

[edthecynic]

Not a matter of "cowardly." Airstrikes alone just aren't going to work.

Dripping Poop and the rest of the Rabid Right just want daily body counts of dead Americans like Bush gave them and they are pissed that they won't get them from just air strikes.

 

[rdean]

I think that Iran's President asked a good question here: Iran s Rouhani Blasts ISIS and Ridiculous U.S.-Led Coalition - NBC News . He asked, "Are Americans afraid of getting casualties on the ground in Iraq? Are they afraid of their soldiers being killed in the fight they claim is against terrorism?"

If bombing will make ISIS blend in with civilians, is not putting boots on the ground COWARDICE?

Cowardice is when you send other people's children off to war to fight for oil you never got.
Cowardice is tricking America into a war for profit by saying you built a coalition of countries with not a single middle eastern country included.

Leadership on the other hand is putting together a coalition of middle eastern countries to fight evil in their own backyards.

Good. Glad we could clear that up.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

9853082.

If bombing will make ISIS blend in with civilians, is not putting boots on the ground COWARDICE?

That statement has not been well thought out on more than several counts.

The US is countering a bigger threat to Rouhani's religion and people than it is a threat to America. There is an immediate need for Shiites to directly, on the ground, and in hand to hand combat to defend themselves from this depraved Sunni menace.

The US has the ability to intervene on Rouhani's behalf, however until the threat reaches our neck of the woods it would be wise of Rouhani to not look a gift horse in the mouth.


That being said:

IS terrorists were already blended in with civilians. We are hitting them as they move from populated area to populated area. I see nothing wrong with that strategy.

Terrorists will hide behind civilians if a massive air to ground assault by US Marines were sent in to liberate a city.

Rouhani makes no sense. Any Ground forces to drive IS terrorists from populated areas and then hold them back, must be a regional responsibility from both Sunni and Shiite nations.

But no matter what the make up of any future ground operation, prior to launching it, the best military strategy is to degrade the enemy with a superior tactical advantage.

IS terrorists have no air defense and no control of all that space above their heads. They will be degraded by the coalition aligned against them

Whe we have the advantage of control of the air space it would militarily reckless and incompetent to go in on the ground without softening the enemy up as much as possible before landing ground forces to seize and hold territory.

Utterly stupid was Rouhanis question.

It may have been a natter for domestic consumption - saving face for relying on the US and Sunni nations for helping to save Iran's collective Shia ass.

 

[regent]

Bravery is the way the British regulars attacked Americans, by standing up straight and marching into the enemy guns. Now some want our military not only to attack the enemy but look brave, make us home folk proud of you. What the hell is wrong with us? Soon we will be back to issuing KIA scores sort of like a baseball game.

 

[SteadyMercury]

Cowardice is when you send other people's children off to war to fight for oil you never got.

It sure would be a administrative and logistical nightmare for us to only have people send their own children.

 

[SteadyMercury]

Now some want our military not only to attack the enemy but look brave, make us home folk proud of you. What the hell is wrong with us?

This is exactly what we should want, and it has been the same throughout history. A nation/civilization/culture would naturally want their warrior class, when heading off to battle to perform with honor and bravery and we'd in turn be proud of them.

Seems pretty natural to me.

 

[Mojo2]

I think that Iran's President asked a good question here: Iran s Rouhani Blasts ISIS and Ridiculous U.S.-Led Coalition - NBC News . He asked, "Are Americans afraid of getting casualties on the ground in Iraq? Are they afraid of their soldiers being killed in the fight they claim is against terrorism?"

If bombing will make ISIS blend in with civilians, is not putting boots on the ground COWARDICE?

Do you really think Indy is being cowardly here?



Or just smart?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Not a matter of "cowardly." Airstrikes alone just aren't going to work.

That's what happens when we only commit to fighting half a war.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Not a matter of "cowardly." Airstrikes alone just aren't going to work.

lets go door to door again and separate ISIS from civilians ... that really WORKED sooooooooooo well in the past ..

Right, but let's just not address the threat at all, this is what you want isn't it? When Democrats wage war these days, the do so lazily. They let politics get in the way of duty. When Republicans wage war, the use everything at their disposal to cull the enemy.

Sure, pacifism works really well in the face of an emboldened enemy. They won't care if you want to talk it out, they want to kill you.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Anything that doesn't have hand to hand combat = cowardy!

Drones - cowardly
Airplanes bombing you = cowardly
Guns cowardly

On down the list.

 

[Mojo2]

Not a matter of "cowardly." Airstrikes alone just aren't going to work.

lets go door to door again and separate ISIS from civilians ... that really WORKED sooooooooooo well in the past ..

It's almost as unimaginable as trying to detect which random Muslim in America can be trusted.

The only PROMISING tactic I've heard of to address that is to limit the numbers of Muslims in America because we know if they have too few Muslims they have been shown in other studies not to begin the steps toward widespread confrontations.

Articles The Five Stages of Islam

May 29, 2011
The Five Stages of Islam
By Richard Butrick

Forget the Five Pillars of Islam. It is the Five Stages of Islam that threaten the fundamental freedoms of Western Democracy. Freedoms which include freedom of thought, expression, and association and the crucial derived right of freedom of the press. We should never forget that "Islam" means submission -- the opposite of self-determination and Enlightenment values.

Six years ago Dr. Peter Hammond published a remarkable book which included a statistical study of the correlation between Muslim to non-Muslim population ratios and the transition from conciliatory Islam to fascist Islam. The stages are the same in 2011 but the demographics have changed to show an alarming progression. Many European nations and the U.S. are on the cusp of moving to a higher bracket. The demographics change but the story is the same. First comes the taqiyya and the kitman; then comes the Sword of Islam. Imam Rauf, the Ground Zero Mosque promoter, is the current master of taqiyya. He has gulled everyone fromBloomberg to Maureen Dowd of the NYT -- who fanaticizes over male Muslims. Expect doppelgangers of Khomeini for stage 5 and Islamic PEACE at last.

Stage 1. Establish a Beachhead

Population density à 2% (US, Australia, Canada).

Muslims are conciliatory, deferential but request harmless special treatment (foot bath facilities, removal/elimination of that which is offensive to delicate Muslim sensibilities - like walking dogs near Mosques).

Stage 2. Establish Outposts

Population density 2% - 5% (UK, Germany, Denmark).

At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs. A recent example is that of Sheikh Abdullah el-Faisal who is back in Jamaica after being kicked out of the UK. Sound harmless? Read on:

The dispatch, dated February 2010, warns that that Jamaica could be fertile ground for jihadists because of its underground drug economy, marginalized youth, insufficient security and gang networks in U.S. and British prisons.

Stage 3. Establish Sectional Control of Major Cities.

Population density 5% - 10% (France, Sweden, Netherlands).

First comes the demand for halal food in supermarkets, and the blocking of streets for prayers; then comes the demand for self rule (within their ghettos) under Sharia. When Muslims approach 10% of the population the demands turn to lawlessness. In Paris, we are already seeing car-burnings. Any criticism of Islam results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam. In France which may be over the 10% range, the minority Muslim populations live in ghettos, within which they are 100% Muslim, and within which they live by Sharia Law. The national police do not even enter these ghettos. There are no national courts, nor schools, nor non-Muslim religious facilities. In such situations, Muslims do not integrate into the community at large. The children attend madrassas. They learn only the Koran. To even associate with an infidel is a crime punishable with death.

Stage 4. Establish Regional Control.

Population density 20% - 50% (Europe 2020?).

After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues.

Stage 5. Total Control, Brutal Suppression, and Dhimmitude.

Population density > 50%.

Unfettered persecution of non-believers of all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon, and jizya, the tax placed on infidels. As Muslim population levels increase and all infidels cower in submission there will peace at last. Dar al-Islam is achieved and everyone lives under Sharia and the Koran is the only word.

Our current Western world leaders are suckered by taqiyya and kitman and steering us into stage 3. Allen West seems to get it but I can't see that any of the crop of current GOP contenders really get it. Fear of bigotry at stage 2 is the Islamists' greatest weapon. Crucified on the cross of bigotry -- is that the future of the Western democracies? Bigotry is only bigotry if it is out of touch with reality and it is the suckers who believe the stage 1-2 peace pitch of Islam who are the ones who are out of touch with reality -- not to mention our mesmerized President. The first GOP candidate who announces to Imam Rauf and his supporters, "Fine. A Mosque at ground zero. But how about a cathedral in Mecca first? It is part of our Christian outreach program of bridge building." will be the first to get it and a big boost in the polls.


If we can limit their numbers in America we can, hopefully, limit the amount of negative impact they will cause US.

 

[TemplarKormac]

9853325.

Using airstrikes against hard targets, especially at night, minimizes casualties to the enemy. It gives them reason to hide and as we have seen, these extremists prefer hiding amongst the civilian population. They do not lose their ideology, just a place to congregate as a group. However, social media and technology in general allow them to communicate as a group.

Without ground forces, there is no way of eliminating them and the threat they pose to civilians once they have infiltrated the civilian population.

So exactly what is the plan? We are eliminating their places of congregation forcing them among the population, and we have no plan to extract them from that population for almost a year.

So again, what is the plan? What is our plan for the next 12 months?

A hiding terrorist is a less effective terrorist.

Bombing can:

..degrade their ability to move heavy weapons around.

.. Destroy their fuel storage and dispersal capabilities.

.. Prevent them from taking and holding critical infrastructure such as the Mosul Dam.

..prevent them from expanding into new areas via major ground assault with heavy weapons.

..let them bastards know that Allah is no match for US made Tomahawk Cruise Missile.

.. Kill as many of those barbarian MF's as we can without a scratch on our side.


Good plan for now. .. Do you have anything better?

Apparently you don't understand basic strategy. For any of those things to be effective in the long run, you need committal of personnel. It's like spraying a bunch of cockroaches and thinking they won't come back. You can nuke the place with bug bombs, but they will return.

Obama is only fighting half a war.

 

[Erand7899]

Currently, Obama is doing what he should have been doing for months. We need to destroy ISIS as an army, and force them into small scale combat that our Middle Eastern allies can handle. They should not be capable of moving any heavy weapons, or groups of soldiers without a strong possibility of being attacked from the air. Provide support for the Kurds, and any other allies that are engaged with ISIS.

Once ISIS is reduced, we need to turn our attention to the Syrian forces, and reduce them in kind, so that moderate forces have a chance of taking over that government.

US troops on the ground need to be limited to forward air controllers, advisors, intelligence personnel, and trainers.