There are not enough bombs and missiles in US inventory to kill everyone in ISIS. And no matter how many bombs and missiles are dropped, there will always be a contigent of similar thinking minds around to influence others. In the absence of any type of constant and vigilant force stifling such a thing, it will always exist. Which is why missiles and bombs will never get rid of it. The answer will only come from a government powerful enough to destroy it within its boarders. Few of those exists. Even China has problems with internal extreamism, but they do manage to quell it. That is why the only way this will ever stop, is if China, Russia, the US or one of the other giant powers completely occupy it, build it up and secure it, give its people freedom and wealth, that this will go away.
There an estimated 31,000 fighters in IS, on what planet does the US lack sufficient ordinance to combat this organization? It isn't an invulnerable blob it is a highly identifiable organization with set pieces of territory, organized military units, and practical objectives. This is a silly post.
That is a static number. You have to understand that this number will vary as members recruit others to fill in the voids of those we have taken out Due to the precise munitions we use, many attacks will only destroy buildings, or at best, take out a few militants at a time. Which can be quickly recruited or bought by the movement at very cheap prices. This is what changed the course of the war in Iraq. When we realized that many of the extremists were not really extreamist, but paid mercenaries. When we started paying them more then the extremists, they formed a group of well paid mercenaries to fight against the Taliban. Many of the fighters will fight for the highest bidder. We would be better off paying off militants that join ISIS to not fight, which would be a lot cheaper then dropping a million $ ordinance on them. Poverty is what the Taliban and ISIS are taking advantage of.
And now, you disgustingly explout dead American soldiers. That just goes to show how weak your argument is. :roll:
Well, if you don't want to explain to me why this isn't a celebration of victory perhaps you can tell me why pointing out the cost of folly is exploiting dead American soldiers?
There an estimated 31,000 fighters in IS, on what planet does the US lack sufficient ordinance to combat this organization? It isn't an invulnerable blob it is a highly identifiable organization with set pieces of territory, organized military units, and practical objectives. This is a silly post.
And now, you disgustingly explout dead American soldiers. That just goes to show how weak your argument is. :roll:
This comment proves how weak your argument is.
On what planet does Saudi Arabia lack the military capability to combat this organization?
LONDON, Feb 5 (Reuters) - Saudi Arabia beat Britain to become the world's fourth largest defence spender in 2013, a report said on Wednesday, as Western cuts and Asian and Middle Eastern growth shift the global balance of military power.
My argument is dead on and supported with historical facts. Are you ready to explain to us at what point the commies started dominating American forces on the battlefield, yet?
Does Saudi Arabia possess the resolve, leadership and morale to destroy ISIS?
Does the US?
Well apdst, in the last 24 hours you've moved the subject all around as you've been squirming under the weight of Ahlevah. I believe originally you were denying that the US lost the Vietnam war and failed to meet the objective with south Vietnam!
We could.
Simpleχity;1063832489 said:It's difficult to thoroughly degrade ISIS by air-power strictly using Litening Pods and drone feeds. FACs/JTACs are required to obtain better granular results.
You are asking the wrong question. It wasnt a question of 'winning' Vietnam, it was question of opposing the continued expansion of communism. The goal was not to seize South Vietnam (or for that matter to defeat North Vietnam) but rather to prevent it from falling under communist rule similar to the goal in Korea, Afghanistan, etc). The problem was not the war or the war effort but rather the way it was fought. Every US preisdent recognized the need to prevent communist expansion. They just did a lousy job of fighting it. Thats what happens when you let politics and politicians dictate the war effort. Thats why so many people died in Vietnam. Blame Kennedy and Johnson for following the french model that had already had proven disastrous.Do me a favor and tell me why this was worth it. What did we win?
I've moved around? :lamo
Squirmed like a stuck pig. It's a familiar sight here, it happens every time your opinion collides with reality.
ISIS isn't a conventional army. They dont have static command and control centres, they live among the population, and they mostly use civilian vehicles. This is not a target-rich environment. Even if strikes are made, collateral damage is higher, boosting recruitment. Boots on the ground are vital, not only to exclude them from areas, but in order to gain even basic intelligence on their location.
Here is an ISIS fighter boasting that the air strikes are not militarily effective.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/29/world/meast/isis-fighter-and-defector-interviews/index.
Sadly, he is probably right. ISIS is an army of militiamen operating is relatively small groups whose main armoured vehicles are pick up trucks turned into Mad Max style "technicals". Most supplies- and they dont need alot, are requisitioned from the locals (voluntarily, forcibly or coerced) and transported in individual civilian trucks. Likewise, there are not alot of easily demarcated front lines in the fighting.
As the similarily orgainized Serbs demonstrated in Kosovo, these types of forces mix in with civilians and can be very difficult to identify and stop. Then factor in that ISIS includes members who are veterans of both Iraq and Afghan conflicts who probably have a long list produced list of "dos and donts" produced by Darwinism when it comes to avoiding precision airstrikes.
In short, my guess is that effective air strikes need US spotters on the ground.
Obama told ISIS he was going to bomb them for months prior to actually doing it so they had plenty of time to disperse their men and weapons. We are bombing empty buildings and they are laughing at us.
Remember way back when. Obama was asked for his ISIS strategy and he had none. He spent weeks after that mumbling and fumbling about not doing anything until he got the world on his side. ISIS had plenty of time to see what was coming and take appropriate action. Obama missed his window of opportunity big time. Before the question of his policy was even asked he should have started the bombing. At that point there would have been no question what his policy was and ISIS would have been caught off guard and would have been decimated.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?