War on ISIS - A coalition of the unwilling

Now that is hilarious. Apparently you can't keep track of conservative/republican criticism flip flopping depending on which way Obama goes.

Of course he needed to tell the American people. If it wasn't for the cowardly abdication of the republican congress wrt the entire issue, he would have had authorization thru legislation that would have clearly declared to the "enemy" that what the general strategy was.

all ISIL had to do was watch FOX. No doubt they were laughing their asses off.

As to no leadership ability, once again partisans on the right repeat these completely unsubstantiated accusations.
Much like when they whinge about him being the worst president ever, without actually providing substantiation or a shred of comparative data. Seems the right has mastered sloganeering and bumper stickers requiring no thought, no substantiation just vehement negative nonsense that plays to their base.

When was the last time the critics on the right put forth any constructive criticism? When was the last time they offered up a viable alternative solution to the issues facing the nation, instead of passing bills they all knew had no chance of passing, like the 52 times they voted to repeal the ACA and the four Ryan budgets that not only were not viable (e.g. medicare/aid into vouchers) but also increased the national debt to over $20 trillion by 2020. those budgets were some of the most hypocritical nonsense proposed in the midst of the republican/tea party going ape poopy over the "Obama deficit" and how it was going to destroy "America as we know it".

Amazing crap from people who hate more than they think.

 

Perfectionist fallacy noted.

I guess all those Iraqi children killed in the Iraqi invasion and the Afghani children killed in that war by American forces were okay. How long did the those coalitions remain intact, even if Iraq 2.0 was more of a bought and paid for coalition.

Isn't if fortunate that the right has such short memories.

 

I speak for myself only. You are the one that appears to think they know the minds of others.

So you knowing how foolish you look is not something you are proud of?

if it wasn't for bumper sticker sloganeering and luntzian sound bites, many conservatives wouldn't know what to think.

 

You don't have a good relationship with the truth huh?

 

I am afraid we are intent on throwing fertilizer on radical islam, by our actions being a recruitment tool for ISIS and the ones what will follow ISIS.

Time to step off the deadly vicious circle of this insane merry go round of death.

Perhaps if we just stopped our entitlement mentality of meddling in the business of other nations, we might better serve the American people?

 

As the leader, Obama would need to actually propose such legislation to gain such an authorization. Last time with his "Red Line" drawn in Syria regarding chemical weapons, Obama changed his mind and asked Congress not to vote to give him authorization.

 

No, he doesn't need to tell us and the rest of the world the strategy. He just needs to sell us on the need to act.

Anyone with any amount of common sense knows you don't tell an enemy what you will not do prior to the execution of a military operation. I guess you don't understand why?

 

I can only speak for myself and you know my biases but from what I know only from reading the same sources you do it looks like the last air strikes led by the US were escorted by UAE and Saudi Arabia fighters. It also looks like the US insisted on Arab fighter aircraft going along with them which of course is part of that photo op display we saw after with the pictures of Arab fighter pilots including the female Colonel from the UAE.

Its one thing to escort the US on a bombing run its far different then taking them on, on the ground.

No one wants to do that.

I believe as one poster said Belgium will take part and Britain is waiting for Parliament to approce the dispatching of 6 Tornados. Since Holland is already committed as well as Britain this automatically means Canada will now send aircraft.

Since WW2 we are loath not to support the Dutch who we consider as close an ally as it gets along with Britain and the US.

I would not be surprised if Canada commits a squadron of about 4 to 6 F18's. We are stretched thin but that is probably coming.

I would not also be surprised if Poland sends some air-craft.

Now an air war makes for great photo ops. Going in on the ground is another story.

Anyone who thinks you can wipe out ISIL or any other terrorists with simply an air war is mistaken.

The US made the mistake of thinking they could carpet bomb the Viet Cong and Taliban. Can't be done.

Israel under its only civilian leader Barak made the mistake of trying to deal with Hezbollah using an air war.

It does not work. At best it scatters them like throwing a chemical bomb into a den of roaches. The ones that do flee
soon reproduce in other places.

Air wars make for good press but are not effective by themselves. Only way to defeat and rid yourself of terrorists is to do so temporarily and that always depends on small, quick moving elite units pin pointing their leaders. You cut off the head of the queen bees so to speak.

In any event the US Air Force depends on no one but itself. Obama can play this tune of cooperating with others and not doing this on his own which is his favourite mantra but anyone in the US Air Force will tell you, on joint operations they take the lead and if they in fact fly with others they do the bombing and the others fly escort. If the French fly, they like to do their own bombings. So do the British. Each one has a distinct style. In fact its only because of NORAD there is already an ability of US and Canadian pilots to fly together and even then they do distinctly different things.

An F16 is far different to an F18 Eagle the Canadians have. Tornados are far different as well. The French typhoon which is being tested in this air mission is a unique craft as well. There's too much money in the planes to think you just all get together, hold hands, and fly in a big happy family.

My gut feeling is once the US does a series of attacks, Obama will wait to see it impact at home to try toughen his reputation to salvage the upcoming congressional elections, then once that is over, he will quieten down again.

I personally do not think Obama wanted this air mission and is a far from inspiring leader. He's no military leader who inspires confidence in his Joint Chiefs of Staff. He openly detests them. It must be eating away at his innards watching them at the press conferences. Its a defeat to his telling everyone he would not use force anymore in the Middle East.

As for the Saudis I think its hilarious they are going along with the US on photo ops blowing up ISIL while still backing Al Nusra the Al Quaeda wing in Syria. Anything for a photo op.

 

There's no military bombing technique called "carpet bombing". The term carpet bombing is a media creation.

 

I really wasn't questioning the sincerity of the actual Arab members of this so called "coalition" and was instead disputing his claims as to why they hold whatever level of sincerity they have. Here is his original claim-

Both that it is the "Muslim Arab world" when at most, its Iraq and 4 Arab monarchs, and his assertion that it is Obama who "got" them to do so.

 

Good? Nope, its a great relationship.

Get back to me on anything that I have said that isn't true.

- - - Updated - - -

if you think he has disclosed the strategy rendering it ineffective, then perhaps you should look for any amount of common sense.
He tried to sell the republican congress to act, he asked them to act but they cowardly decided to go home.

Reminds me of exactly the same kind of speech that Jr. gave the nation. By your logic he also gave away the strategy.


[video=youtube;5BwxI_l84dc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BwxI_l84dc[/video]

 

created by media in the Spanish civil war no doubt. 'Cause sure as hell the term has been used by USAF on more than one occasion. I recall the brouhaha over Operation Menu towards the end of the Vietnam war, and of course the bombing of Hanoi.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpet_bombing

 

No American military official uses the term "Carpet bomb". That's because it does not exist as any element of military strategy or tactics. I'm always amazed by how much the non military types know about military tactics and strategy.

It's called "strategic" and "tactical" bombing.

 

If he wants the Congress to act, as the leader he submits legislation giving him the authority to act. He instead submitted legislation giving him authority to provide weapons. He is bombing Syria and Iraq without congressional authorization, because he didn't ask for it. That whole "pen and a phone" that Obama has to get things done.

That was AFTER action had begun. Obama has been saying no boots on the ground for weeks before the air campaign began. And Bush didn't say no boots on the ground he said "decisive force" and nothing less than "victory".

 

The Saudis aren't backing AQ or Al Nusrah... They put them in prison and freeze their assets.

Meanwhile, Its imperative that this war on ISIL NOT be perceived as a US war... Its has to be an international effort.

 

That's the King who has them imprisoned. Many Saudis are backing AQ and Al Nusrah. I doubt if opposition to them is even universal in the Saudi family

 

Al Nusra is directly funded by Saudi Arabia.

www.namesnetwork,org/u3/read.php?id=MjI3OTc4

www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/saiudi-funding-of-isis

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/12/18/340635/saudi-arabia-funding-alqaeda-in-iraq/

http://3agelnetwork.com/en/article/10713.html


Saudi Arabia has financed ISIS, Al Quaeda, Al Nusra, and hundreds of other terrorist cells.

http://www.phantomreport.com/saudi-arabia-main-sponsor-of-al-nusra-terrorists-in-syria

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/12/18/340665/ksa-funding-alqaeda-agents-in-iraq/

http://en.shiapost.com/2014/05/14/saudi-commander-of-al-nusra-front-killed-in-aleppo/


To deny Saudi Arabia has financed and in effect created Al Nusra along with the CIA to get rid of Assad is pointless. Its a fact.

Saudi Arabia directly financed Al Quaeda in Iraq fighting Shiite Iraqis and Iranians.

Saudi Arabia plays it both ways and always has. It will finance Sunni terrorists fighting Shiite extremists r regimes against their interests and then turn on them if they turn on Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia and the US have financed plenty of Sunni terror cells for their own interests and when they turn rogu on them they then have to get rid of them.

Its that complex and yet that simple. The terror cells constantly mutate in shape, size, membership and alliances.

The US has under Obama's regime let itself at one point get into bed with the Muslim Brotherhood the arch enemy of Saudi Arabia which strained their relations but had to swing back to Saudi Arabia over Assad. Obama has flipped and flopped like a seal out of water.

He did not and can not understand that in the Middle East you keep your distance from ANY Sunni or Shiite extremists. Either are just as destructive, just as inhumane and irrational.

Its a little late now to see oh gee ISIS has gone rogue. The fact is every ally the US has backed in the Middle East except Israel turned on it, and Israel is the only ally the idiot Obama openly distanced himself from. He's an idiot. He's also an idiot for backing Morsi and Erdogan and the Muslim Brotherhood. He actually thought they would welcome him as a Muslim Brotherhood supporting US President.

Someone needed to tell Obama that this was not about him and his Joker from Batman grin. He could smile all he wanted bow to the Saudi King, kiss his ring, suck up to Erdogan and Morsi but all he did was make a mockery of himself and the US who every non American knows will not sanction a step and fetch it routine like the one he has displayed on world stage. His subservience to Muslim extremists, his subservience to regimes that detest everything the US stands for simply made people laugh and its been tragic because pathetic little sociopaths like Putin have taken advantage of his
weakness and constant need to apologize for the US and strip it of its role as world leader.

Obama in many ways has done more damage to US foreign policy and its interests than a terrorist attack. His damage to foreign policy and the US reputation will be felt for years to come.

Whether it can be undone remains to be seen although Reagan had no problem undoing what Carter did.

 

...

ISIS website....there is a reason why we fund these (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)s,a reason why Israel gives them medical care...because they are our criminals...
ISIS website...U.S. Government
https://public.isishq.com/public/SitePages/Home.aspx

 

And the USA has been making backdoor deals with Saudi officials for ages which makes the US officials complicit in crimes against humanity committed by those jihadists/takfiris/wahabists freaks not only in the Middle East but all over the world. There is a lot of dirt on Obama/Kerry/Clinton/McCain etc...etc...

A Look Inside The Secret Deal With Saudi Arabia That Unleashed The Syrian Bombing

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-...et-deal-saudi-arabia-unleashed-syrian-bombing

 

You're correct; it isn't a technique, it's an act of desperation following the dismal failure of every other attempt at achieving military success on the ground. Rolling Thunder was a classic example of 'all hat and no cattle'.

 

lol!!!

that's pretty funny.

cool find.

 

Or the irony of

The Institute for the Secularisation of Islamic Society (ISIS) is an organization of writers that promotes the ideas of secularism, democracy and human rights within Islamic society
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_the_Secularisation_of_Islamic_Society

 

It still is a figment of the media's imagination.

 

[video=youtube;j8TLu514EgU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8TLu514EgU[/video]

 

What nonsense. Dealing with Saudi Arabia, doesn't make us complicit for any actions carried out by the Saudis or ISIS