Is Bombing Instead Of Boots On The Ground Cowardly Lol?

[NotfooledbyW]

9857375.

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.

Do you agree that it is proper military strategy to use the air power advantage to the maximum benefit to degrade and paralyze the enemy to the maximum benefit available prior to inserting ground troops and exposing our allies human assets to casualties.

Simple stage one and stage two.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

Maliki did not want the troops there. And it's good he didn't. We are out and we should stay out.

 

[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?

IDK, how about you?

-Geaux

I'm not the one who wants another needless war in the ME whose problems are no concern of ours. Let the Israelis fight ISIS, you know,

our 'ally' Israel...

 

[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

I'm not the one who wants another needless war in the ME whose problems are no concern of ours. Let the Israelis fight ISIS, you know,

our 'ally' Israel...

No, Obama needs to go back and fix his fuck up. Lets mop up the place

-Geaux

 

[Youch]

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?

Only politicians far removed from battle would dare minimize the fact that they are humans on the ground, volunteering to put themselves in harm's way. Well, politicians and their PR Firm, the mainstream media.

Soldiers don't refer to themselves as boots on the ground. The term is as detached and pathetic from the reality as was Obama's disrespectful salute to his guards the other day.

 

[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?

IDK, how about you?

-Geaux

I'm not the one who wants another needless war in the ME whose problems are no concern of ours. Let the Israelis fight ISIS, you know,

our 'ally' Israel...

No, Obama needs to go back and fix his fuck up. Lets mop up the place

-Geaux

Obama didn't fuck up anything. This attempt to blame ISIS on Obama is just another Benghazi-style shit-fest by the deranged anti-Obama crowd.

 

[Geaux4it]

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

I'm not the one who wants another needless war in the ME whose problems are no concern of ours. Let the Israelis fight ISIS, you know,

our 'ally' Israel...

No, Obama needs to go back and fix his fuck up. Lets mop up the place

-Geaux

Obama didn't fuck up anything. This attempt to blame ISIS on Obama is just another Benghazi-style shit-fest by the deranged anti-Obama crowd.

Well of course. Good luck with that

-Geaux

 

[TemplarKormac]

9857375.

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.

Do you agree that it is proper military strategy to use the air power advantage to the maximum benefit to degrade and paralyze the enemy to the maximum benefit available prior to inserting ground troops and exposing our allies human assets to casualties.

Simple stage one and stage two.

You can't immobilize an enemy with pure air power. The Nazis found that out in 1940 after, leveling London in the Battle of Britain the British, they were defeated due to poor intelligence and lack of experience did their airforce in. Four years later the British still invaded Normandy with the Canadians and the United States in 1944. As long as you leave the enemy contingent alive, they will re-mobilize elsewhere. You have to strike with air and land power simultaneously.

 

[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.

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

That's not all that obvious. Casualties covers alot of ground.

 

[Wildman]

If you want to label someone a coward look no further than the muslims overseas.

>>>>>>>>>>>
oooh ! and don't forget the coward liar in the whitehouse !

 

[NotfooledbyW]

9858139

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.

Obama ordered the assault. Your hateful political talking point is in shambles.

 

[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?

That's not all that obvious. Casualties covers alot of ground.

How is it not blatantly intuitive that I meant our own? Common sense should trump my vagueness.

 

[blackhawk]

9857375.

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.

Do you agree that it is proper military strategy to use the air power advantage to the maximum benefit to degrade and paralyze the enemy to the maximum benefit available prior to inserting ground troops and exposing our allies human assets to casualties.

Simple stage one and stage two.

Yes I do the question here is about the quality of the ground troops that will be used after bombing. Outside of the Kurds and a few others in Iraq there military failed badly and even after they are trained the quality of the free Syrian army will be a big question mark.

 

[Stephanie]

It's a chicken shit way of fighting a war

that's why all the libs/anti-war people are now humping his leg instead of marching in the streets

 

[Katzndogz]

Bombing is the very least effort that could be expended and still appear to be doing something. It's splitting the difference. We actually shouldn't even be throwing money at very expensive bombs since it will not resolve any issues. As long as obama is presidunce he should confine himself to giving speeches no one listens to.

 

[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.

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

That's not all that obvious. Casualties covers alot of ground.

How is it not blatantly intuitive that I meant our own? Common sense should trump my vagueness.

So you expect everyone to read your mind?

Try these terms:

American casualties
Collateral Damage
Enemy casualties
Civilian casualties

Mkay?

 

[mudwhistle]

It's a chicken shit way of fighting a war

that's why all the libs/anti-war people are now humping his leg instead of marching in the streets

I believe in the most chicken shit manner of fighting. Kick their ass and leave them no opportunity to respond. I don't believe in a "fair-fight" when it comes to war.

 

[Mr Natural]

It's a chicken shit way of fighting a war

that's why all the libs/anti-war people are now humping his leg instead of marching in the streets

Yeah, what good is a war if conservatards can't get all patriotic and weepy over flag draped coffins?

 

[Billy000]

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?

That's not all that obvious. Casualties covers alot of ground.

How is it not blatantly intuitive that I meant our own? Common sense should trump my vagueness.

So you expect everyone to read your mind?

Try these terms:

American casualties
Collateral Damage
Enemy casualties
Civilian casualties

Mkay?

How are you not getting this? This isn't about mind reading. It's basic intuitive reasoning. You should easily assume what I meant. Assuming I was referring to enemy casualties is non sense if it's common sense in war to destroy enemy casualties.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Is Bombing Instead Of Boots On The Ground Cowardly Lol?

There is the statement of a silly person who knows nothing about war making. Kill the enemy without risking oneself anymore than necessary.