Sniper takes out ISIS executioner from a mile away

Sources for the numbers

 

I can't give an accurate total count because they are still positioning forces, but Google searches show at least 4 divisions of Iraqi Army troops and an equal number of paramilitaries will be participating in the attack on Mosul (if you want me to post links, there's going to be a bunch).

Is 60 to 80 thousand troops, not counting support personnel, not massive?

 

Hmm, okay that's pretty massive. My mistake.

- - - Updated - - -

Let's hope they are trained well enough not to F this up.

 

Hence why I said my opinion. Do you have a point?

 

All the rumors I've heard point to the paramilitaries actually being better fighters than the regular army guys.

 

Well this will be the 2nd time we placed our trust in them

 

The regular army or the paramilitaries?

 

Not trying to be a dick, trying to help you understand.

One definition of intimate is "personal". When I aim my M4 at a terrorist, it's personal. These guys kill innocent people. Intimacy is very real in war.

- - - Updated - - -

Either can't be left alone. Which articles are you reading about the paramilitaries vs. the military campaign for mosul? I'm not second guessing you, I'm just not finding anything too specific yet

 

Not to mention, I think we'd both agree that there is a difference between aiming at a guy who is just a silhouette due to range with the iron sights or red dot on an M-4 and taking a shot at the guy is on a different level from a sniper or a drone operator who can see the expression of their target's face in very clear detail before they fire.

Edit: of course, close quarters combat is just as intimate as anything a sniper does.

 

The US has not actually won a war since 1945. Victory is not an option under current international law, current American leadership and current rules of engagement. Obama's approach to the the kind of endless warfare that the American political class insists on is far better than yet another massive deployment of troops into the ME. Hence Obama's high approval numbers.

 

If they succeed Obama will be remembered as a very effective powerful leader. I find it odd that the RP is not paying attention to this coming battle.

 

Not necessarily in Mosul, but in the entire Iraqi campaign against ISIS, the Shia militias and "People's Protection Units" (IRGC trained SCIRI guys with the numbers filed off) have supposedly been shown to be better fighters than the regulars.

- - - Updated - - -

Panama?

Grenada?

Gulf War One?

Kosovo?

Bosnia?

Haiti?

 

The U.S. has not been in a war since 1945.

 

They tried prosecuting the SAS in the past. No one ever stood trial.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/events/three_ira_members_shot_dead_in_gibraltar

The SAS are an anti terrorist unit, so they kill terrorists.

 

There's no clear understanding of it. I've been asking for sources on the numbers and am not receiving any for military vs. paramilitary operations for this battle

I've been looking for 20 minutes now

 

Panama - lost the canal
Grenada - The Castro regime still rules Cuba
Gulf War I - Saddam still ruled Iraq - no benefit to the US
Kosovo - Islamic state installed in Europe - no benefit to the US
Bosnia - Installed Islamic state installed in Europe - no benefit to the US
Haiti - was there an enemy? No benefit to the US - or Haiti.

 

That is one way to look at it. We have lost hundreds of thousands of American lives during over 70 years of warfare without a war or a victory.

 

The goal in Panama wasn't conquest of the Canal.

The goal in Grenada wasn't removing Castro from power.

The goal in the Gulf War wasn't the removal of Saddam.

The goal in Kosovo wasn't to prevent a Muslim state.

The goal in Bosnia wasn't to prevent a Muslim state.

The goal in Haiti was to remove the coup forces.

So the only way you can claim that we haven't won those wars is to lie about what the war goals were.

 

This is the only way to look at it. The constitution is very clear. Folks need to wake up. Remember the domino theory? Remember nation building? We need to stop being the world policeman and mind our own business.

 

I noticed a few mentions of this impending 'battle for Mosul' a few months ago. Given the lack of reliable information in situations like this I have been waiting for the end result. I do know that a win would enhance Obama's legacy. Might even have some impact on the election.

The odds probably favor the IS.

 

The goal of endless American warfare for over 70 years has not been to achieve a decisive final victory over an enemy to advance the interests of the US.

Which is probably why we no longer win wars.

 

You can't win a occupation, you either go home or stay forever.

 

Every article I'm reading says this is the most mismanaged siege and that Obama is lucky to be leaving office.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/sep/11/mosul-campaign-crucial-in-isis-fight-with-obama-se/

 

Again, you are redefining war goals. We achieved total victory in Panama. We achieved total victory in Grenada.

Every example I gave, we achieved total victory. But you have a narrative that you must cling to in order to maintain your worldview, so you invent bull(*)(*)(*)(*) war goals that didn't exist at the time.

I'm sorry that reality has a liberal bias, but you should probably just get over it.

- - - Updated - - -

Where do you see anything in there about the siege being mismanaged?

 

Just what I'm inferring through these dozens of articles I'm reading. I'm also reading that this battle is going to cause millions to flea to Iraqi Kurdistan and that the poverty and homelessness will be out of control.

Also because of the ISIS bombing of the Iraqi base a few weeks ago, it's assumed some of the Iraqis (pro-US forces) are working with ISIS. Nothing I'm reading is concrete about the ground attack. Only air.