Total Posts:38|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Trumps comments on Mosul

Bennett91
Posts: 4,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2016 4:19:34 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
Trump criticizes the announcement to attack Mosul, saying the leaders of ISIS are leaving Mosul and how we should engage in more sneak attacks. Trump says he can't think of any reasons why a military would announce an attack.

Well it's pretty damn obvious even to me why we'd announce our attack. Here are a few reasons:

1) As the moderator said, to limit civilian deaths. The people have been through enough hell with ISIS, victory will mean nothing if we bomb and kill the civilians we're trying to liberate. And I highly doubt the Iraqi government would approve of a plan that would increase the number of civilian deaths.

2) As Trump said the leaders of ISIS are fleeing Mosul. Mosul is the largest city that ISIS controls, if their leadership is fleeing that means it's best commanders won't be there to fight, meaning the city will be easier to take. It hurts ISIS troop moral, odds are the lower ranks are fleeing too.

2a) And where is ISIS running to? To Syria, where they'll eventually have to fight Assad. It's a classic case of 'out of the frying pan into the fire'. Our enemies will fight each other. Throw in 'killing 2 birds with one stone' that makes for good cooking.

3) Retaking Mosul isn't going to be easy, and the 'battle' for Mosul has actually been going on for months undertaken by various groups at various times. This announcement is a plan for a coordinated assault by the US, Kurds, Iraq and Shia militias. While secrecy is a good tool in war, when trying to coordinate groups that dislike each other being open about your plan is necessary so no group feels they're being used as pawns by the other.

3a) This amount of coordination needs lots of time to gather supplies for all involved, so it would be fairly obvious to ISIS even without an announcement that a coordinated attack was forming given the behavior of allied forces.
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,750
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2016 4:28:54 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/10/2016 4:19:34 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
Trump criticizes the announcement to attack Mosul, saying the leaders of ISIS are leaving Mosul and how we should engage in more sneak attacks. Trump says he can't think of any reasons why a military would announce an attack.

Well it's pretty damn obvious even to me why we'd announce our attack. Here are a few reasons:

1) As the moderator said, to limit civilian deaths. The people have been through enough hell with ISIS, victory will mean nothing if we bomb and kill the civilians we're trying to liberate. And I highly doubt the Iraqi government would approve of a plan that would increase the number of civilian deaths.

2) As Trump said the leaders of ISIS are fleeing Mosul. Mosul is the largest city that ISIS controls, if their leadership is fleeing that means it's best commanders won't be there to fight, meaning the city will be easier to take. It hurts ISIS troop moral, odds are the lower ranks are fleeing too.

2a) And where is ISIS running to? To Syria, where they'll eventually have to fight Assad. It's a classic case of 'out of the frying pan into the fire'. Our enemies will fight each other. Throw in 'killing 2 birds with one stone' that makes for good cooking.

3) Retaking Mosul isn't going to be easy, and the 'battle' for Mosul has actually been going on for months undertaken by various groups at various times. This announcement is a plan for a coordinated assault by the US, Kurds, Iraq and Shia militias. While secrecy is a good tool in war, when trying to coordinate groups that dislike each other being open about your plan is necessary so no group feels they're being used as pawns by the other.

3a) This amount of coordination needs lots of time to gather supplies for all involved, so it would be fairly obvious to ISIS even without an announcement that a coordinated attack was forming given the behavior of allied forces.

(I am envisioning this kind of response from Trump supporters. I mock, but I bet there will be some responses like this)

Trump Supporter: I am ignoring everything you just said. It feels better to believe that our leaders are stupid and everything would easily be fixed if Trump was President. He even has a secret fool-proof plan to defeat ISIS. What you are spewing is liberal nonsense. It is a PC plan. We cannot afford to be PC in this war. We just cannot, okay?Trump talks loud so I like his plan and Hillary cannot be trusted because of the emails.
kevin24018
Posts: 1,913
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2016 5:51:56 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/10/2016 4:19:34 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
Trump criticizes the announcement to attack Mosul, saying the leaders of ISIS are leaving Mosul and how we should engage in more sneak attacks. Trump says he can't think of any reasons why a military would announce an attack.

Well it's pretty damn obvious even to me why we'd announce our attack. Here are a few reasons:

1) As the moderator said, to limit civilian deaths. The people have been through enough hell with ISIS, victory will mean nothing if we bomb and kill the civilians we're trying to liberate. And I highly doubt the Iraqi government would approve of a plan that would increase the number of civilian deaths.

sneak attacks isn't necessarily bombing, you posted that in first paragraph, Osama bin Laden wasn't killed by a bomb.

2) As Trump said the leaders of ISIS are fleeing Mosul. Mosul is the largest city that ISIS controls, if their leadership is fleeing that means it's best commanders won't be there to fight, meaning the city will be easier to take. It hurts ISIS troop moral, odds are the lower ranks are fleeing too.

um dunno you think they may have electronic ways of communicating? you think commanders fight? do ours? don't think so. yes the lower ranks would flee, and come back once it was clear to do so, this is effective? or would they blend in better with the civilians knowing it's coming?

2a) And where is ISIS running to? To Syria, where they'll eventually have to fight Assad. It's a classic case of 'out of the frying pan into the fire'. Our enemies will fight each other. Throw in 'killing 2 birds with one stone' that makes for good cooking.

sure so why hasn't this worked in all this time, if it has why did we stop?

3) Retaking Mosul isn't going to be easy, and the 'battle' for Mosul has actually been going on for months undertaken by various groups at various times. This announcement is a plan for a coordinated assault by the US, Kurds, Iraq and Shia militias. While secrecy is a good tool in war, when trying to coordinate groups that dislike each other being open about your plan is necessary so no group feels they're being used as pawns by the other.

doesn't mean you have to make it public does it?

3a) This amount of coordination needs lots of time to gather supplies for all involved, so it would be fairly obvious to ISIS even without an announcement that a coordinated attack was forming given the behavior of allied forces.

yes forming, but not obviously where the attack will be or in what form, when and how long.

put yourself in an isis fighter shoes, what would you do, it's not that difficult to figure out really, much easier to know what you would do when you know what's coming.
slo1
Posts: 4,354
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2016 6:12:08 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/10/2016 4:19:34 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
Trump criticizes the announcement to attack Mosul, saying the leaders of ISIS are leaving Mosul and how we should engage in more sneak attacks. Trump says he can't think of any reasons why a military would announce an attack.

Well it's pretty damn obvious even to me why we'd announce our attack. Here are a few reasons:

1) As the moderator said, to limit civilian deaths. The people have been through enough hell with ISIS, victory will mean nothing if we bomb and kill the civilians we're trying to liberate. And I highly doubt the Iraqi government would approve of a plan that would increase the number of civilian deaths.

2) As Trump said the leaders of ISIS are fleeing Mosul. Mosul is the largest city that ISIS controls, if their leadership is fleeing that means it's best commanders won't be there to fight, meaning the city will be easier to take. It hurts ISIS troop moral, odds are the lower ranks are fleeing too.

2a) And where is ISIS running to? To Syria, where they'll eventually have to fight Assad. It's a classic case of 'out of the frying pan into the fire'. Our enemies will fight each other. Throw in 'killing 2 birds with one stone' that makes for good cooking.

3) Retaking Mosul isn't going to be easy, and the 'battle' for Mosul has actually been going on for months undertaken by various groups at various times. This announcement is a plan for a coordinated assault by the US, Kurds, Iraq and Shia militias. While secrecy is a good tool in war, when trying to coordinate groups that dislike each other being open about your plan is necessary so no group feels they're being used as pawns by the other.

3a) This amount of coordination needs lots of time to gather supplies for all involved, so it would be fairly obvious to ISIS even without an announcement that a coordinated attack was forming given the behavior of allied forces.

Trump pretty much proves he is still in primary school when it comes to military matters. He is not able to see beyond killing ISIS, unfortunately, thus his plans are very sophomoric and probably similar to what is in the movies he has heard about.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2016 6:14:41 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/10/2016 5:51:56 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 10/10/2016 4:19:34 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
Trump criticizes the announcement to attack Mosul, saying the leaders of ISIS are leaving Mosul and how we should engage in more sneak attacks. Trump says he can't think of any reasons why a military would announce an attack.

Well it's pretty damn obvious even to me why we'd announce our attack. Here are a few reasons:

1) As the moderator said, to limit civilian deaths. The people have been through enough hell with ISIS, victory will mean nothing if we bomb and kill the civilians we're trying to liberate. And I highly doubt the Iraqi government would approve of a plan that would increase the number of civilian deaths.

sneak attacks isn't necessarily bombing, you posted that in first paragraph, Osama bin Laden wasn't killed by a bomb.

What would sneak attack be then? Bin Laden was a single man with a few guards in a single building. You can't compare that to the second largest city in Iraq with possibly 20,000 ISIS soldiers.

2) As Trump said the leaders of ISIS are fleeing Mosul. Mosul is the largest city that ISIS controls, if their leadership is fleeing that means it's best commanders won't be there to fight, meaning the city will be easier to take. It hurts ISIS troop moral, odds are the lower ranks are fleeing too.

um dunno you think they may have electronic ways of communicating? you think commanders fight? do ours? don't think so. yes the lower ranks would flee, and come back once it was clear to do so, this is effective? or would they blend in better with the civilians knowing it's coming?

We are dealing with their electronic forms of communication. [http://www.csmonitor.com...]. If you're going to be fighting as a defender in a siege it's difficult to accurately access conditions if you're outside the city. That seems pretty obvious. When it ever be clear for ISIS fighters to return once the city is taken? And as I stated in in 2a we would want ISIS to run away, if they blend in with civilians then they'll live long enough die against Assad in Syria.

Also, I'm tired of people thinking it's so easy for ISIS to hide among civilians, these people have been tortured by ISIS for a couple years now, they are hiding/running from ISIS. They will point out and identify any ISIS fighter they recognize to allied forces. And odds are ISIS plans to run faster than civilians can travel given that ISIS will probably take every vehicle they can find.

2a) And where is ISIS running to? To Syria, where they'll eventually have to fight Assad. It's a classic case of 'out of the frying pan into the fire'. Our enemies will fight each other. Throw in 'killing 2 birds with one stone' that makes for good cooking.

sure so why hasn't this worked in all this time, if it has why did we stop?

Because there's a lot of people fighting, and there's still more fighting to be done. And we haven't kicked ISIS out of Iraq yet.

3) Retaking Mosul isn't going to be easy, and the 'battle' for Mosul has actually been going on for months undertaken by various groups at various times. This announcement is a plan for a coordinated assault by the US, Kurds, Iraq and Shia militias. While secrecy is a good tool in war, when trying to coordinate groups that dislike each other being open about your plan is necessary so no group feels they're being used as pawns by the other.

doesn't mean you have to make it public does it?

It kind of does. How do you expect so many groups with such historical distrust to trust each other? Making it public tells everyone that they're finally working together, from civilian to common soldiers that may not trust or understand what's going on if they didn't know about the coordination efforts. Also if you expect such a thing to remain a seacrat when so many people would have to know about it then you're dreaming. Might as well get some diplomacy points by making what would already be figured out by ISIS public so the world know we are cooperating. It also shows ISIS how they've united former rivals against them, another sting to moral.

3a) This amount of coordination needs lots of time to gather supplies for all involved, so it would be fairly obvious to ISIS even without an announcement that a coordinated attack was forming given the behavior of allied forces.

yes forming, but not obviously where the attack will be or in what form, when and how long.

We haven't made the finer details public. But again, we want ISIS to retreat into Syria.

put yourself in an isis fighter shoes, what would you do, it's not that difficult to figure out really, much easier to know what you would do when you know what's coming.

I'm not going to pretend I know the mind of an ISIS fighter, but knowing you're going to lose would also be a reason to retreat.
kevin24018
Posts: 1,913
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2016 6:34:11 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/10/2016 6:14:41 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 10/10/2016 5:51:56 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 10/10/2016 4:19:34 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
Trump criticizes the announcement to attack Mosul, saying the leaders of ISIS are leaving Mosul and how we should engage in more sneak attacks. Trump says he can't think of any reasons why a military would announce an attack.

Well it's pretty damn obvious even to me why we'd announce our attack. Here are a few reasons:

1) As the moderator said, to limit civilian deaths. The people have been through enough hell with ISIS, victory will mean nothing if we bomb and kill the civilians we're trying to liberate. And I highly doubt the Iraqi government would approve of a plan that would increase the number of civilian deaths.

sneak attacks isn't necessarily bombing, you posted that in first paragraph, Osama bin Laden wasn't killed by a bomb.

What would sneak attack be then? Bin Laden was a single man with a few guards in a single building. You can't compare that to the second largest city in Iraq with possibly 20,000 ISIS soldiers.

you talked about their commanders, maybe a better term is surgical strikes.

2) As Trump said the leaders of ISIS are fleeing Mosul. Mosul is the largest city that ISIS controls, if their leadership is fleeing that means it's best commanders won't be there to fight, meaning the city will be easier to take. It hurts ISIS troop moral, odds are the lower ranks are fleeing too.

um dunno you think they may have electronic ways of communicating? you think commanders fight? do ours? don't think so. yes the lower ranks would flee, and come back once it was clear to do so, this is effective? or would they blend in better with the civilians knowing it's coming?

We are dealing with their electronic forms of communication. [http://www.csmonitor.com...]. If you're going to be fighting as a defender in a siege it's difficult to accurately access conditions if you're outside the city. That seems pretty obvious. When it ever be clear for ISIS fighters to return once the city is taken? And as I stated in in 2a we would want ISIS to run away, if they blend in with civilians then they'll live long enough die against Assad in Syria.

Also, I'm tired of people thinking it's so easy for ISIS to hide among civilians, these people have been tortured by ISIS for a couple years now, they are hiding/running from ISIS. They will point out and identify any ISIS fighter they recognize to allied forces. And odds are ISIS plans to run faster than civilians can travel given that ISIS will probably take every vehicle they can find.

could be, but would make sense to stay with the civilians knowing we don't wish to kill them, human shield kind of thing is what I was thinking.

2a) And where is ISIS running to? To Syria, where they'll eventually have to fight Assad. It's a classic case of 'out of the frying pan into the fire'. Our enemies will fight each other. Throw in 'killing 2 birds with one stone' that makes for good cooking.

sure so why hasn't this worked in all this time, if it has why did we stop?

Because there's a lot of people fighting, and there's still more fighting to be done. And we haven't kicked ISIS out of Iraq yet.

new converts too i suppose

3) Retaking Mosul isn't going to be easy, and the 'battle' for Mosul has actually been going on for months undertaken by various groups at various times. This announcement is a plan for a coordinated assault by the US, Kurds, Iraq and Shia militias. While secrecy is a good tool in war, when trying to coordinate groups that dislike each other being open about your plan is necessary so no group feels they're being used as pawns by the other.

doesn't mean you have to make it public does it?

It kind of does. How do you expect so many groups with such historical distrust to trust each other? Making it public tells everyone that they're finally working together, from civilian to common soldiers that may not trust or understand what's going on if they didn't know about the coordination efforts. Also if you expect such a thing to remain a seacrat when so many people would have to know about it then you're dreaming. Might as well get some diplomacy points by making what would already be figured out by ISIS public so the world know we are cooperating. It also shows ISIS how they've united former rivals against them, another sting to moral.

3a) This amount of coordination needs lots of time to gather supplies for all involved, so it would be fairly obvious to ISIS even without an announcement that a coordinated attack was forming given the behavior of allied forces.

yes forming, but not obviously where the attack will be or in what form, when and how long.

We haven't made the finer details public. But again, we want ISIS to retreat into Syria.

put yourself in an isis fighter shoes, what would you do, it's not that difficult to figure out really, much easier to know what you would do when you know what's coming.

I'm not going to pretend I know the mind of an ISIS fighter, but knowing you're going to lose would also be a reason to retreat.

yeah you'd think, only it's a religious thing rather than just territorial, I can see the benefit of forcing them to retreat where you want them to go, like you said Syria, but that would require a lines of defense to only leave them that option and simply pushing that line would force them to go where you want but that would require ground troops, dunno it's a mess to be sure. Without really committing I guess we can't really expect much progress. We all want progress with minimal loss of life.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2016 7:09:06 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/10/2016 6:34:11 PM, kevin24018 wrote:

What would sneak attack be then? Bin Laden was a single man with a few guards in a single building. You can't compare that to the second largest city in Iraq with possibly 20,000 ISIS soldiers.

you talked about their commanders, maybe a better term is surgical strikes.

Surgical strikes like the Bin Laden raid into hostile territory is a bad move, again it's a huge city with maybe 20,000 fighters. Also it would require us to know where the commanders are hiding, which would be very difficult. But yes, we are trying to bomb the locations where they are hiding. It's not like the military is just twiddling their thumbs in the mean time.

Also, I'm tired of people thinking it's so easy for ISIS to hide among civilians, these people have been tortured by ISIS for a couple years now, they are hiding/running from ISIS. They will point out and identify any ISIS fighter they recognize to allied forces. And odds are ISIS plans to run faster than civilians can travel given that ISIS will probably take every vehicle they can find.

could be, but would make sense to stay with the civilians knowing we don't wish to kill them, human shield kind of thing is what I was thinking.

Eh yes and no. Civilians are certainly going to die in the upcoming offensive. And the problem is these civilians aren't going to stay in locations that are strategically importing to keeping the city. They're gonna be running.

2a) And where is ISIS running to? To Syria, where they'll eventually have to fight Assad. It's a classic case of 'out of the frying pan into the fire'. Our enemies will fight each other. Throw in 'killing 2 birds with one stone' that makes for good cooking.

sure so why hasn't this worked in all this time, if it has why did we stop?

Because there's a lot of people fighting, and there's still more fighting to be done. And we haven't kicked ISIS out of Iraq yet.

new converts too i suppose

And foreign fighters from all over the Muslim world.

3) Retaking Mosul isn't going to be easy, and the 'battle' for Mosul has actually been going on for months undertaken by various groups at various times. This announcement is a plan for a coordinated assault by the US, Kurds, Iraq and Shia militias. While secrecy is a good tool in war, when trying to coordinate groups that dislike each other being open about your plan is necessary so no group feels they're being used as pawns by the other.

doesn't mean you have to make it public does it?

I'm not going to pretend I know the mind of an ISIS fighter, but knowing you're going to lose would also be a reason to retreat.

yeah you'd think, only it's a religious thing rather than just territorial, I can see the benefit of forcing them to retreat where you want them to go, like you said Syria, but that would require a lines of defense to only leave them that option and simply pushing that line would force them to go where you want but that would require ground troops, dunno it's a mess to be sure. Without really committing I guess we can't really expect much progress. We all want progress with minimal loss of life.

Yes those lines of defense have been made to direct them towards Syria, the ground troops are there - they're just not American. ISIS want's to appear as purely religious and die hard fanatics. But they are still human, they will either run or die. And soon the plan will go into full swing. Now we wait to how it unfolds.
kevin24018
Posts: 1,913
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2016 7:25:55 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/10/2016 7:09:06 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 10/10/2016 6:34:11 PM, kevin24018 wrote:

What would sneak attack be then? Bin Laden was a single man with a few guards in a single building. You can't compare that to the second largest city in Iraq with possibly 20,000 ISIS soldiers.

you talked about their commanders, maybe a better term is surgical strikes.

Surgical strikes like the Bin Laden raid into hostile territory is a bad move, again it's a huge city with maybe 20,000 fighters. Also it would require us to know where the commanders are hiding, which would be very difficult. But yes, we are trying to bomb the locations where they are hiding. It's not like the military is just twiddling their thumbs in the mean time.

Also, I'm tired of people thinking it's so easy for ISIS to hide among civilians, these people have been tortured by ISIS for a couple years now, they are hiding/running from ISIS. They will point out and identify any ISIS fighter they recognize to allied forces. And odds are ISIS plans to run faster than civilians can travel given that ISIS will probably take every vehicle they can find.

could be, but would make sense to stay with the civilians knowing we don't wish to kill them, human shield kind of thing is what I was thinking.

Eh yes and no. Civilians are certainly going to die in the upcoming offensive. And the problem is these civilians aren't going to stay in locations that are strategically importing to keeping the city. They're gonna be running.

2a) And where is ISIS running to? To Syria, where they'll eventually have to fight Assad. It's a classic case of 'out of the frying pan into the fire'. Our enemies will fight each other. Throw in 'killing 2 birds with one stone' that makes for good cooking.

sure so why hasn't this worked in all this time, if it has why did we stop?

Because there's a lot of people fighting, and there's still more fighting to be done. And we haven't kicked ISIS out of Iraq yet.

new converts too i suppose

And foreign fighters from all over the Muslim world.

3) Retaking Mosul isn't going to be easy, and the 'battle' for Mosul has actually been going on for months undertaken by various groups at various times. This announcement is a plan for a coordinated assault by the US, Kurds, Iraq and Shia militias. While secrecy is a good tool in war, when trying to coordinate groups that dislike each other being open about your plan is necessary so no group feels they're being used as pawns by the other.

doesn't mean you have to make it public does it?

I'm not going to pretend I know the mind of an ISIS fighter, but knowing you're going to lose would also be a reason to retreat.

yeah you'd think, only it's a religious thing rather than just territorial, I can see the benefit of forcing them to retreat where you want them to go, like you said Syria, but that would require a lines of defense to only leave them that option and simply pushing that line would force them to go where you want but that would require ground troops, dunno it's a mess to be sure. Without really committing I guess we can't really expect much progress. We all want progress with minimal loss of life.

Yes those lines of defense have been made to direct them towards Syria, the ground troops are there - they're just not American. ISIS want's to appear as purely religious and die hard fanatics. But they are still human, they will either run or die. And soon the plan will go into full swing. Now we wait to how it unfolds.

gotcha, still working this out in my head, so would they announce they are going to bomb the whole city? is that something that has been done before? Or are they going to bomb their best guess at where most of the command or fighters are? I'm trying to understand how far they would run out of the city or maybe just move to a different part of it?
kevin24018
Posts: 1,913
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2016 7:54:47 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/10/2016 7:39:57 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
Trumps comments are as silly as commenters. This isn't risk or w.o.w.

yet here we all are lol just like arm chair quarter backs, we are arm chair generals! that's why those games and apps are so popular, everybody wants to rule the world (I hate that song but....)
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2016 8:11:40 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/10/2016 7:54:47 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 10/10/2016 7:39:57 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
Trumps comments are as silly as commenters. This isn't risk or w.o.w.

yet here we all are lol just like arm chair quarter backs, we are arm chair generals! that's why those games and apps are so popular, everybody wants to rule the world (I hate that song but....)

Tears for Fears?

I give Obama credit for following through with the timeline withdrawal negotiated by the Bush admin. Why the fvck we then went back... then Libya and syria. Oy vei

For those now wanting to fight Isis, seems like most were against the surge and the rest. I just don't get it. I really don't. Someone actually argued that us increasing troop presence in Iraq is a good thing in one thread while saying we shouldn't be interfering in internal politics in another. Oy vei
kevin24018
Posts: 1,913
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2016 8:31:39 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/10/2016 8:11:40 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/10/2016 7:54:47 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 10/10/2016 7:39:57 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
Trumps comments are as silly as commenters. This isn't risk or w.o.w.

yet here we all are lol just like arm chair quarter backs, we are arm chair generals! that's why those games and apps are so popular, everybody wants to rule the world (I hate that song but....)

Tears for Fears?

I give Obama credit for following through with the timeline withdrawal negotiated by the Bush admin. Why the fvck we then went back... then Libya and syria. Oy vei

For those now wanting to fight Isis, seems like most were against the surge and the rest. I just don't get it. I really don't. Someone actually argued that us increasing troop presence in Iraq is a good thing in one thread while saying we shouldn't be interfering in internal politics in another. Oy vei

yeah I don't really get it either, announcing an attack is like turning on the lights, all the roaches run and hide until you turn them off again, I just question how effective it is. Unless they are going to lay waste to the whole city it doesn't make much sense. Wouldn't they just bomb lets say a building or block they believe a command group would be? If that's true wouldn't the people living there know they are there and be else where anticipating an attack? So even announced not every civilian can or will leave, but you know the enemy will. So maybe unannounced is the way to go. Quite simply let it be known if you know where isis fighters are, we do to and they maybe bombed at any time, for your safety stay away from them. Civilian causalities will happen unfortunately, but if you accept that then wouldn't it make sense to kill as many of the enemy as possible as quickly as possible?
Bennett91
Posts: 4,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2016 9:22:36 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/10/2016 7:39:57 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
Trumps comments are as silly as commenters. This isn't risk or w.o.w.

Do you have a problem with my analysis?
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2016 9:25:41 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/10/2016 9:22:36 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 10/10/2016 7:39:57 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
Trumps comments are as silly as commenters. This isn't risk or w.o.w.

Do you have a problem with my analysis?

Didn't read it.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2016 9:29:41 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/10/2016 8:31:39 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 10/10/2016 8:11:40 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/10/2016 7:54:47 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 10/10/2016 7:39:57 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
Trumps comments are as silly as commenters. This isn't risk or w.o.w.

yet here we all are lol just like arm chair quarter backs, we are arm chair generals! that's why those games and apps are so popular, everybody wants to rule the world (I hate that song but....)

Tears for Fears?

I give Obama credit for following through with the timeline withdrawal negotiated by the Bush admin. Why the fvck we then went back... then Libya and syria. Oy vei

For those now wanting to fight Isis, seems like most were against the surge and the rest. I just don't get it. I really don't. Someone actually argued that us increasing troop presence in Iraq is a good thing in one thread while saying we shouldn't be interfering in internal politics in another. Oy vei

yeah I don't really get it either, announcing an attack is like turning on the lights, all the roaches run and hide until you turn them off again, I just question how effective it is. Unless they are going to lay waste to the whole city it doesn't make much sense. Wouldn't they just bomb lets say a building or block they believe a command group would be? If that's true wouldn't the people living there know they are there and be else where anticipating an attack? So even announced not every civilian can or will leave, but you know the enemy will. So maybe unannounced is the way to go. Quite simply let it be known if you know where isis fighters are, we do to and they maybe bombed at any time, for your safety stay away from them. Civilian causalities will happen unfortunately, but if you accept that then wouldn't it make sense to kill as many of the enemy as possible as quickly as possible?

You should have read the OP.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2016 9:32:34 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/10/2016 9:25:41 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/10/2016 9:22:36 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 10/10/2016 7:39:57 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
Trumps comments are as silly as commenters. This isn't risk or w.o.w.

Do you have a problem with my analysis?

Didn't read it.

Rude.
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2016 9:48:02 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/10/2016 9:32:34 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 10/10/2016 9:25:41 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/10/2016 9:22:36 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 10/10/2016 7:39:57 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
Trumps comments are as silly as commenters. This isn't risk or w.o.w.

Do you have a problem with my analysis?

Didn't read it.

Rude.

Whatever. See why though: fat fingered the screen. Was supposed type commentators.

Now I've read it and yes I do disagree with the entire premise. It's not our fight.

Your criticism of trump is fair enough. There is no way to root them out without ground troops, which I would not commit. I also would not lend air support. We ended s.o.f. In 2011 by Iraqi request. It's their fight, not ours. Sell them some jets and let them provide their own air cover.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2016 9:59:41 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/10/2016 9:48:02 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/10/2016 9:32:34 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 10/10/2016 9:25:41 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/10/2016 9:22:36 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 10/10/2016 7:39:57 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
Trumps comments are as silly as commenters. This isn't risk or w.o.w.

Do you have a problem with my analysis?

Didn't read it.

Rude.

Whatever. See why though: fat fingered the screen. Was supposed type commentators.

Now I've read it and yes I do disagree with the entire premise. It's not our fight.

Your criticism of trump is fair enough. There is no way to root them out without ground troops, which I would not commit. I also would not lend air support. We ended s.o.f. In 2011 by Iraqi request. It's their fight, not ours. Sell them some jets and let them provide their own air cover.

You disagree with the premise that we should help Iraq retake Mosul? How can you say it's not our fight when so much was lost to establish Iraq? We can't let the country fall to ISIS. They are now requesting our assistance [http://www.cbsnews.com...]. If we leave the fight to the Iraqis they'd lose, they in many cases of early battle threw down their weapons and retreated - in a way arming ISIS with US bought hardware. Most ground troops will be non-American.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2016 10:19:52 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/10/2016 7:25:55 PM, kevin24018 wrote:

gotcha, still working this out in my head, so would they announce they are going to bomb the whole city?

They're not bombing the whole city, more like strategic defense spots that ISIS has/will set up. Using drones and maybe jets the US is going to bomb defenses and disrupt ISIS battle lines, then the Kurds, Iraqi military, and some Shia militias will attack leaving an opening for them to retreat towards Syria.

is that something that has been done before?

Warning the enemy we plan to bomb them? Yes, we warned Japan we were gonna nuke them and dropped leaflets telling the people of Japan if you live in one of these 10 or so cities you might get devastated.

Or are they going to bomb their best guess at where most of the command or fighters are?

The fighting with be brutal, bombing the city directly wont be as effective because they'll hide underground or in fortified buildings. IT will probably be a slow house to house fight. Again, there's no victory in liberating Mosul if all the buildings are gone and everyone is dead. The expectation is the leaders that survive will flee instead of fight back.

I'm trying to understand how far they would run out of the city or maybe just move to a different part of it?

They would probably run to the nearest controlled town or straight to Syria where they are better defended away from Iraq and the US. The battle will be fierce, it could take weeks to fully expel ISIS depending on the numbers who stay and fight. Some may die fighting to give others a chance to retreat. But we'll see soon hopefully.
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2016 11:03:19 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/10/2016 9:59:41 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 10/10/2016 9:48:02 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/10/2016 9:32:34 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 10/10/2016 9:25:41 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/10/2016 9:22:36 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 10/10/2016 7:39:57 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
Trumps comments are as silly as commenters. This isn't risk or w.o.w.

Do you have a problem with my analysis?

Didn't read it.

Rude.

Whatever. See why though: fat fingered the screen. Was supposed type commentators.

Now I've read it and yes I do disagree with the entire premise. It's not our fight.

Your criticism of trump is fair enough. There is no way to root them out without ground troops, which I would not commit. I also would not lend air support. We ended s.o.f. In 2011 by Iraqi request. It's their fight, not ours. Sell them some jets and let them provide their own air cover.

You disagree with the premise that we should help Iraq retake Mosul? How can you say it's not our fight when so much was lost to establish Iraq? We can't let the country fall to ISIS. They are now requesting our assistance [http://www.cbsnews.com...]. If we leave the fight to the Iraqis they'd lose, they in many cases of early battle threw down their weapons and retreated - in a way arming ISIS with US bought hardware. Most ground troops will be non-American.
.
YeS, I disagree with helping them. They are not an ally. And if they lose, they lose. We should not repeat the same mistake again. I'm glad I was 7 years removed from the withdrawal. I did my time over there and they've had every chance to secure their country.

Just like poker, sometimes you have to know when to fold.
kevin24018
Posts: 1,913
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2016 11:04:10 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/10/2016 10:19:52 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 10/10/2016 7:25:55 PM, kevin24018 wrote:

gotcha, still working this out in my head, so would they announce they are going to bomb the whole city?

They're not bombing the whole city, more like strategic defense spots that ISIS has/will set up. Using drones and maybe jets the US is going to bomb defenses and disrupt ISIS battle lines, then the Kurds, Iraqi military, and some Shia militias will attack leaving an opening for them to retreat towards Syria.

ok that makes sense, but if that's true I don't see the need to announce it for the reasons I already mentioned.

is that something that has been done before?

Warning the enemy we plan to bomb them? Yes, we warned Japan we were gonna nuke them and dropped leaflets telling the people of Japan if you live in one of these 10 or so cities you might get devastated.

Or are they going to bomb their best guess at where most of the command or fighters are?

The fighting with be brutal, bombing the city directly wont be as effective because they'll hide underground or in fortified buildings. IT will probably be a slow house to house fight. Again, there's no victory in liberating Mosul if all the buildings are gone and everyone is dead. The expectation is the leaders that survive will flee instead of fight back.

ok so again targeted bombing so why announce? it doesn't sound like many if any civilians will be at the targets.

I'm trying to understand how far they would run out of the city or maybe just move to a different part of it?

They would probably run to the nearest controlled town or straight to Syria where they are better defended away from Iraq and the US. The battle will be fierce, it could take weeks to fully expel ISIS depending on the numbers who stay and fight. Some may die fighting to give others a chance to retreat. But we'll see soon hopefully.

I would think they would have underground bunkers, especially if given advanced notice and time to fortify....

so I guess if they say they are taking back the city and for everyone to leave? that would make sense to me, I guess it's all about how you communicate it, I could see some unannounced targeted strikes against vehicles and gun emplacements etc, then announce the taking of the city, that would seem like a good idea for sure, so I think a combo of unannounced and announced strikes is probably the best depending on availability of targets etc.
so to me both are correct.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2016 11:04:51 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/10/2016 11:03:19 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/10/2016 9:59:41 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 10/10/2016 9:48:02 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/10/2016 9:32:34 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 10/10/2016 9:25:41 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/10/2016 9:22:36 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 10/10/2016 7:39:57 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
Trumps comments are as silly as commenters. This isn't risk or w.o.w.

Do you have a problem with my analysis?

Didn't read it.

Rude.

Whatever. See why though: fat fingered the screen. Was supposed type commentators.

Now I've read it and yes I do disagree with the entire premise. It's not our fight.

Your criticism of trump is fair enough. There is no way to root them out without ground troops, which I would not commit. I also would not lend air support. We ended s.o.f. In 2011 by Iraqi request. It's their fight, not ours. Sell them some jets and let them provide their own air cover.

You disagree with the premise that we should help Iraq retake Mosul? How can you say it's not our fight when so much was lost to establish Iraq? We can't let the country fall to ISIS. They are now requesting our assistance [http://www.cbsnews.com...]. If we leave the fight to the Iraqis they'd lose, they in many cases of early battle threw down their weapons and retreated - in a way arming ISIS with US bought hardware. Most ground troops will be non-American.
.
YeS, I disagree with helping them. They are not an ally. And if they lose, they lose. We should not repeat the same mistake again. I'm glad I was 7 years removed from the withdrawal. I did my time over there and they've had every chance to secure their country.

Just like poker, sometimes you have to know when to fold.

How is letting ISIS take over Iraq in any way shape or form good for the US and the world?
Bennett91
Posts: 4,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2016 11:19:09 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/10/2016 11:04:10 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 10/10/2016 10:19:52 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 10/10/2016 7:25:55 PM, kevin24018 wrote:

gotcha, still working this out in my head, so would they announce they are going to bomb the whole city?

They're not bombing the whole city, more like strategic defense spots that ISIS has/will set up. Using drones and maybe jets the US is going to bomb defenses and disrupt ISIS battle lines, then the Kurds, Iraqi military, and some Shia militias will attack leaving an opening for them to retreat towards Syria.

ok that makes sense, but if that's true I don't see the need to announce it for the reasons I already mentioned.

It's going to be a sh!t storm. They want to give civilians a chance to run before it really gets started.

is that something that has been done before?

Warning the enemy we plan to bomb them? Yes, we warned Japan we were gonna nuke them and dropped leaflets telling the people of Japan if you live in one of these 10 or so cities you might get devastated.

Or are they going to bomb their best guess at where most of the command or fighters are?

The fighting with be brutal, bombing the city directly wont be as effective because they'll hide underground or in fortified buildings. IT will probably be a slow house to house fight. Again, there's no victory in liberating Mosul if all the buildings are gone and everyone is dead. The expectation is the leaders that survive will flee instead of fight back.

ok so again targeted bombing so why announce? it doesn't sound like many if any civilians will be at the targets.

I imagine there will be light bombing within the city too but targeting bombing isn't pin point and there will be civilians who didn't leave probably sprinkled throughout the city hiding. And again, there's going to be lots of house to house fighting. It's a general warning to get out now while you still can. It's not like the allied forces are broadcasting "we're bombing sector G-6 at 10 am" it's more like "The sh!t storm begins, take cover or flee now." I wouldn't be surprised if ISIS was trying keeping civilians within city limits.

I'm trying to understand how far they would run out of the city or maybe just move to a different part of it?

They would probably run to the nearest controlled town or straight to Syria where they are better defended away from Iraq and the US. The battle will be fierce, it could take weeks to fully expel ISIS depending on the numbers who stay and fight. Some may die fighting to give others a chance to retreat. But we'll see soon hopefully.

I would think they would have underground bunkers, especially if given advanced notice and time to fortify....

They started fortifying the city the moment they took it, it's ISIS's largest city. This battle has been a long time coming and we needed an informed coalition and to meet other strategic goals to be ready to take it back. Now the pieces are in place and we'd like some iraqis to survive the storm and hopefully rebuild.

so I guess if they say they are taking back the city and for everyone to leave? that would make sense to me, I guess it's all about how you communicate it, I could see some unannounced targeted strikes against vehicles and gun emplacements etc, then announce the taking of the city, that would seem like a good idea for sure, so I think a combo of unannounced and announced strikes is probably the best depending on availability of targets etc.
so to me both are correct.

Like I said they aren't broadcasting where they are going to bomb to the public. Just that it's coming soon. And again, over the past year since Mosul was announced we've been taking smaller cities en route.
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2016 11:20:13 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/10/2016 11:04:51 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 10/10/2016 11:03:19 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/10/2016 9:59:41 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 10/10/2016 9:48:02 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/10/2016 9:32:34 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 10/10/2016 9:25:41 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/10/2016 9:22:36 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 10/10/2016 7:39:57 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
Trumps comments are as silly as commenters. This isn't risk or w.o.w.

Do you have a problem with my analysis?

Didn't read it.

Rude.

Whatever. See why though: fat fingered the screen. Was supposed type commentators.

Now I've read it and yes I do disagree with the entire premise. It's not our fight.

Your criticism of trump is fair enough. There is no way to root them out without ground troops, which I would not commit. I also would not lend air support. We ended s.o.f. In 2011 by Iraqi request. It's their fight, not ours. Sell them some jets and let them provide their own air cover.

You disagree with the premise that we should help Iraq retake Mosul? How can you say it's not our fight when so much was lost to establish Iraq? We can't let the country fall to ISIS. They are now requesting our assistance [http://www.cbsnews.com...]. If we leave the fight to the Iraqis they'd lose, they in many cases of early battle threw down their weapons and retreated - in a way arming ISIS with US bought hardware. Most ground troops will be non-American.
.
YeS, I disagree with helping them. They are not an ally. And if they lose, they lose. We should not repeat the same mistake again. I'm glad I was 7 years removed from the withdrawal. I did my time over there and they've had every chance to secure their country.

Just like poker, sometimes you have to know when to fold.

How is letting ISIS take over Iraq in any way shape or form good for the US and the world?

How is it a threat to our security? Terrorism?humanitarianism?

Same arguments Bush used?
Bennett91
Posts: 4,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2016 11:24:48 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/10/2016 11:20:13 PM, Stymie13 wrote:

How is it a threat to our security? Terrorism?humanitarianism?

Same arguments Bush used?

How is allowing an organization hellbent on world domination to thrive a security issue? Especially from a group that seeks to commits acts of terrorism that have succeeded in Europe? ISIS has declared war on us. C'mon now, get serious.

You sound more like Americans before WW2 who wondered why we should care about that Hitler fellow taking over Europe.
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2016 11:38:29 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/10/2016 11:24:48 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 10/10/2016 11:20:13 PM, Stymie13 wrote:

How is it a threat to our security? Terrorism?humanitarianism?

Same arguments Bush used?

How is allowing an organization hellbent on world domination to thrive a security issue? Especially from a group that seeks to commits acts of terrorism that have succeeded in Europe? ISIS has declared war on us. C'mon now, get serious.

You sound more like Americans before WW2 who wondered why we should care about that Hitler fellow taking over Europe.

And you sound naive. I've fought the fools. there are tons of atrocities and sh!tty situations around the world. This is a political, not a military argument. And Iraq is a sovereign country that pretty much kicked us out. I respect that. Their country, their fight.

Now if congress were to declare war constitutionally, I'd be more inclined to support. But until then, if a caliphate is created, so be it.

Additionally, arming the Kurds is a bad idea. At some point people need to remember there is one, and only one, way to fight a war. It is ugly, it is brutal...and it is decisive. We do not have the stomach for it. The last 15 years has proven that undisputedly.

We approximate 30 plus countries Isis is active in. Do we start fighting in all them?

Your insinuation on historical knowledge is insulting. You have not demonstrated 1, not 1, military threat to the US. You have demonstrated your hatred for Trump and the reaction you are having is to discredit him, when he is wrong as well.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2016 11:53:13 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/10/2016 11:38:29 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/10/2016 11:24:48 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 10/10/2016 11:20:13 PM, Stymie13 wrote:

How is it a threat to our security? Terrorism?humanitarianism?

Same arguments Bush used?

How is allowing an organization hellbent on world domination to thrive a security issue? Especially from a group that seeks to commits acts of terrorism that have succeeded in Europe? ISIS has declared war on us. C'mon now, get serious.

You sound more like Americans before WW2 who wondered why we should care about that Hitler fellow taking over Europe.

And you sound naive. I've fought the fools. there are tons of atrocities and sh!tty situations around the world. This is a political, not a military argument. And Iraq is a sovereign country that pretty much kicked us out. I respect that. Their country, their fight.

You call me ignorant yet you clearly missed the part where IRAQ IS ASKING US TO RETURN TO RETAKE MOSUL.

Now if congress were to declare war constitutionally, I'd be more inclined to support. But until then, if a caliphate is created, so be it.

Additionally, arming the Kurds is a bad idea. At some point people need to remember there is one, and only one, way to fight a war. It is ugly, it is brutal...and it is decisive. We do not have the stomach for it. The last 15 years has proven that undisputedly.

We are arming the kurds to do the ground fighting because we're tired of sending Americans, that's the point. And you'd rather see ISIS slaughter people rather than give them a chance to fight back? Ridiculous.

We approximate 30 plus countries Isis is active in. Do we start fighting in all them?

ISIS HQ is in the levant. That is the most important place to retake, the rest will fall back to in-fighting once the head of the snake has been cut.

Your insinuation on historical knowledge is insulting. You have not demonstrated 1, not 1, military threat to the US. You have demonstrated your hatred for Trump and the reaction you are having is to discredit him, when he is wrong as well.

Once they establish a stable caliphate they will be a threat. You're pretty dumb if you can't see that.
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2016 12:16:42 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
Idealistic and naive. Never called you ignorant.

I'm aware Iraq is asking. Their country, their fight.
The slaughter argument? That's why we stayed (overstayed actually) happens all over. Just happened in Yemen yesterday... where Isis also is.
Levantine: syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Israel. So where's the hq? (Answer there is no central h.q.)
The best however is the dumb comment. I wasn't a general. I didn't make strategy. I was more like a special teamed in football. So as one who has never played, you understand the game better than those who have.

Comical.

I'm still waiting for the 1 military threat they pose? Again your argument sounds very much like Bush's... you know the one the USA supported so strongly. Lol

I may actually start applying humor to this as the rationale for force is getting funnier and funnier.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2016 3:16:41 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/11/2016 12:16:42 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
Idealistic and naive. Never called you ignorant.

I'm aware Iraq is asking. Their country, their fight.

Ah so all of a sudden you respect them for asking us to leave but now they want us back it's just 'their fight' now.

The slaughter argument? That's why we stayed (overstayed actually) happens all over. Just happened in Yemen yesterday... where Isis also is.

Saudi Arabia doesn't need help to attack ISIS in Yemen.

Levantine: syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Israel. So where's the hq? (Answer there is no central h.q.)

If you know anything about ISIS you'd know that theologically speaking if they lose the levant it will show the islamic world that their prophesy that they tout and rely on for recruitment will fade away.

The best however is the dumb comment. I wasn't a general. I didn't make strategy. I was more like a special teamed in football. So as one who has never played, you understand the game better than those who have.

Comical.

No fool, I've haven't said anything different from whats actually going on. You're the one going against the strategy of the generals to help Mosul.

I'm still waiting for the 1 military threat they pose? Again your argument sounds very much like Bush's... you know the one the USA supported so strongly. Lol

Again, if they stabilize they'll be a training ground for more ISIS soldiers who will invade their neighbors and send terrorists abroad. That's obvious. And no, Iraq was never claimed to be a terrorist hot bed under Saddam, it was Afganistan under the Talibn and Al-queda that my arguments are similar for staying in. But what threat did Al-queda pose? I guess 9/11 doesn't count as an example of what terrorists are capable of.

I may actually start applying humor to this as the rationale for force is getting funnier and funnier.

Yea it's totally hilarious to watch our allies flounder and the efforts of a decade worth of blood and treasure fall into the hands of the 21st century islamic terrorists who plan on conquering the world. Yea totally a hilarious and smart idea to ignore our allies and let ISIS fester. It's Trump level strategy.
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2016 4:12:20 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/11/2016 3:16:41 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 10/11/2016 12:16:42 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
Idealistic and naive. Never called you ignorant.

I'm aware Iraq is asking. Their country, their fight.

Ah so all of a sudden you respect them for asking us to leave but now they want us back it's just 'their fight' now.

The slaughter argument? That's why we stayed (overstayed actually) happens all over. Just happened in Yemen yesterday... where Isis also is.

Saudi Arabia doesn't need help to attack ISIS in Yemen.

Levantine: syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Israel. So where's the hq? (Answer there is no central h.q.)

If you know anything about ISIS you'd know that theologically speaking if they lose the levant it will show the islamic world that their prophesy that they tout and rely on for recruitment will fade away.

The best however is the dumb comment. I wasn't a general. I didn't make strategy. I was more like a special teamed in football. So as one who has never played, you understand the game better than those who have.

Comical.

No fool, I've haven't said anything different from whats actually going on. You're the one going against the strategy of the generals to help Mosul.

I'm still waiting for the 1 military threat they pose? Again your argument sounds very much like Bush's... you know the one the USA supported so strongly. Lol

Again, if they stabilize they'll be a training ground for more ISIS soldiers who will invade their neighbors and send terrorists abroad. That's obvious. And no, Iraq was never claimed to be a terrorist hot bed under Saddam, it was Afganistan under the Talibn and Al-queda that my arguments are similar for staying in. But what threat did Al-queda pose? I guess 9/11 doesn't count as an example of what terrorists are capable of.

I may actually start applying humor to this as the rationale for force is getting funnier and funnier.

Yea it's totally hilarious to watch our allies flounder and the efforts of a decade worth of blood and treasure fall into the hands of the 21st century islamic terrorists who plan on conquering the world. Yea totally a hilarious and smart idea to ignore our allies and let ISIS fester. It's Trump level strategy.

You can think it, iraq is no ally no matter what you want to believe. Generals, all of us that have served, follow the orders and policy as set forth by Washington whether we agree with them or not.

Iraq terrorist claims:

http://www.cfr.org...
https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov...
http://www.mcclatchydc.com...

I can pull up probably 50 more articles where we claimed Iraq was a haven for terrorists but its late. Make sure you read paragraph 5 & 6 on link 3.

Your arguments are so similar to how we framed Iraq outside of the stupid wmd primary argument.

That's the thing about being partisan and putting stock into what people say now vs then. Understandable.

You should be a strategist because jdams are very precise and only take out the intended target. Lol

Name calling on the net is cool, I get it. You should put the keyboard down and 'debate' the exact same way in real life. It will be greeted warmly and with a welcome audience.