Is Bombing Instead Of Boots On The Ground Cowardly Lol?

[Mojo2]

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?

A steady campaign of bombing would also reduce enemy morale.

 

[blackhawk]

Is it cowardice no if you have air dominance you use it but it's not a winning strategy either it's rare that you defeat an enemy with air power alone.

 

[mudwhistle]

Would a few bombs stop any despot in history from continuing their evil ways?

No.

Obama, in their opinion, is acting cowardly by dropping bombs, and not killing them. He's doing exactly what they expected. Trying to be nice while they're being ruthless. They consider themselves to be superior because at least they know the difference between war and politics.

 

[Billy000]

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?

That's fucking ridiculous. War is not a game. It is not a test of manhood. Minimizing casualties is a top priority. It's not like our soldiers aren't the best trained in the world anyway.

 

[mudwhistle]

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?

That's fucking ridiculous. War is not a game. It is not a test of manhood. Minimizing casualties is a top priority. It's not like our soldiers aren't the best trained in the world anyway.

The object of war is to maximize casualties and break the enemy's stuff.

 

[mudwhistle]

Best way I know of discouraging these cock roaches from attacking us is be such a bad mother fucker that they won't dare mess with you.

 

[Geaux4it]

Iraq says no US combat troops in their country as does Assad, now deal with it..

Yea, we should deal with it with many, many brigades of fighting men.

-Geaux

 

[Geaux4it]

If the bombing will do the job then no, saving our great soldiers lives is not being a coward. If obama knows just bombing won't do the job, without troops. Then yes that's being a coward.

Obama doesn't know much, but what he does know, is bombing is a paper tiger

-Geaux

 

[jon_berzerk]

what i find quite surprising that during this

air war the prezbo has going on

not one child or mother has been accidentally taken out

 

[jon_berzerk]

If the bombing will do the job then no, saving our great soldiers lives is not being a coward. If obama knows just bombing won't do the job, without troops. Then yes that's being a coward.

Obama doesn't know much, but what he does know, is bombing is a paper tiger

-Geaux

ironically during this air campaign

ISIL has actually gained more territory

not less

 

[JimH52]

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

That IS the consensus of all those experienced generals and others advising Barry.

Then why don't you and all the other whining repubs become mercenaries and go to Iraq and Syria and fight ISIS? They would love to have a few more heads to put on a pole outside Monsul...

 

[JimH52]

The air campaign alone will not get it done. But it may weaken ISIS enough that the Kurds can push them out of Iraq and maybe the moderates in Syria can begin to defeat them in their safe nest of horror.

 

[Billy000]

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?

That's fucking ridiculous. War is not a game. It is not a test of manhood. Minimizing casualties is a top priority. It's not like our soldiers aren't the best trained in the world anyway.

The object of war is to maximize casualties and break the enemy's stuff.

Obviously I was talking about our casualties. Christ do I really have to specify something so obvious?

 

[TemplarKormac]

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

That IS the consensus of all those experienced generals and others advising Barry.

Then why don't you and all the other whining repubs become mercenaries and go to Iraq and Syria and fight ISIS? They would love to have a few more heads to put on a pole outside Monsul...

That's Mosul. Perhaps it is you liberals who don't know the hells of war. You seem to think you know so much about how we should fight it. I mean the terrorists are elated that we can't fully commit to killing them because we let politics get in our way. Hey, tell you what, become a diplomat and go over there and negotiate for their surrender. They'll behead you just as they did our two journalists, and a British man.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

9856769

. 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.

Do you know what US President ordered the largest US Marines air to ground assault since the Vietnam War?

I'll give you a clue. It was into Helmand and Kandahar Provinces in 2009.

That followed what Admiral Mullen defined as 'endless drift' which aptly describes the military policy in Afghanistan that functioned for five years under a Republican President who allowed the enemy to increase in lethality to the point of damn near defeating the US and ISAF forces in Afghanistan.

I am certain you will run from that truth.

Just ask Deltex1 if Bush used the full might and power of the US military to 'cull' the enemy in Iraq.

Bush negotiated with the enemy on General Petraeus' advice in order to be able to withdraw US troops from the quagmire he got them into.

Don't let facts get in the way of your political hatreds.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Iraq says no US combat troops in their country as does Assad, now deal with it..

Yea, we should deal with it with many, many brigades of fighting men.

-Geaux

Will you be taking your keyboard with you?

 

[TemplarKormac]

T

. 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.

Do you know what US President ordered the largest US Marines air to ground assault since the Vietnam War?

I'll give you a clue. It was into Helmand and Kandahar Provinces in 2009.

That followed what Admiral Mullen defined as 'endless drift' which aptly describes the military policy in Afghanistan that functioned for five years under a Republican President who allowed the enemy to increase in lethality to the point of damn near defeating the US and ISAF forces in Afghanistan.

I am certain you will run from the truth.

Just as Deltex1 if Bush used the full might and power of the US military to 'cull' the enemy in Iraq.

Bush negotiated with the enemy on General Petraeus' advice in order to be able to withdraw US troops from the quagmire he got them into.

Whoops, Obama was president in 2009. So much for your 'truth.' Siddown.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

That IS the consensus of all those experienced generals and others advising Barry.

Then why don't you and all the other whining repubs become mercenaries and go to Iraq and Syria and fight ISIS? They would love to have a few more heads to put on a pole outside Monsul...

That's Mosul. Perhaps it is you liberals who don't know the hells of war. You seem to think you know so much about how we should fight it. I mean the terrorists are elated that we can't fully commit to killing them because we let politics get in our way. Hey, tell you what, become a diplomat and go over there and negotiate for their surrender. They'll behead you just as they did our two journalists, and a British man.

What politics? The politics of the American people not wanting to get into another ME quagmire?

 

[Geaux4it]

Iraq says no US combat troops in their country as does Assad, now deal with it..

Yea, we should deal with it with many, many brigades of fighting men.

-Geaux

Will you be taking your keyboard with you?

IDK, how about you?

-Geaux

 

[TemplarKormac]

Moreover, Maliki wanted to keep troops in Iraq past the 2011 deadline. Obama was offered many chances to work out a stable SOFA. But instead he rejected Maliki's terms and said he didn't want to keep 10,000 residual troops there. It is because of Obama that we are there. He was the one with the red button in his hand, he chose not to press it.

Isis In Iraq Because Of Obama US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum