Obliterating Islamic State (ISIS) - Page 18




 
--
Obliterating Islamic State (ISIS)
 
November 27th, 2015  
MontyB
 
 
Obliterating Islamic State (ISIS)
Quote:
Originally Posted by JOC
You insist on bantering on about WW2 after claiming otherwise?

You don't have it right. The Obama administration refuses to play with anything but kit gloves, plain and simple. The game is not the same for the US and Russians. We do minimal bombing only to ISIS using mainly carrier based fighters, whereas Russia bombs all foes of Assad ISIS including the American backed rebels using their heavy backfire bombers stationed in Russian territory.

You spend a lot of time on the forum for being on holiday?
I am not sure how you can get through life wearing blinkers.

Here are the choices as I see it:
1) Russians win and Assad wipes out rebel communities including ISIS.
2) USA wins and rebels wipe out Assads communities then turn on each other mean while ISIS carry on killing aka Libya.

No matter who wins Syrians will be killed by the bus load, so essentially one option leaves a bad guy in power but destroys a dangerous bunch of lunatics and in the end you have depleted despot but a stable country or the other side wins and you end up with a fractured unstable country which is great for arms sales but not for Syrians.

I think much of the world is now realising that the Russian option is the only one that can have an acceptable outcome hence the formation of the French/Russian coalition that will probably attract more European countries over the next few weeks.

As for the rest if you would read things fully you would know that I am not on holiday at all I am working and traveling for work, once the work side of things is done I will holiday, comprehension is a wonderful thing.
November 27th, 2015  
JOC
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
I am not sure how you can get through life wearing blinkers.

Here are the choices as I see it:
1) Russians win and Assad wipes out rebel communities including ISIS.
2) USA wins and rebels wipe out Assads communities then turn on each other mean while ISIS carry on killing aka Libya.

No matter who wins Syrians will be killed by the bus load, so essentially one option leaves a bad guy in power but destroys a dangerous bunch of lunatics and in the end you have depleted despot but a stable country or the other side wins and you end up with a fractured unstable country which is great for arms sales but not for Syrians.

I think much of the world is now realising that the Russian option is the only one that can have an acceptable outcome hence the formation of the French/Russian coalition that will probably attract more European countries over the next few weeks.

As for the rest if you would read things fully you would know that I am not on holiday at all I am working and traveling for work, once the work side of things is done I will holiday, comprehension is a wonderful thing.
The Russian option is more effective (as my previous posts had stated, had you bother to read them) because they are using heavy backfire bombers akin to our B-52's. To repeat in brief: these can drop the kind of payload and saturation bomb an area in a way that our carrier based fighter-bombers can't. They also cause a lot of collateral damage.

The French are not really in league with the Russians and are also using carrier based planes. They have a temporary marriage of convenience, however France also supports the Syrian freedom fighters as does the USA.
The problem with this Russian bombing campaign is that they that champion the bombing of the freedom fighting rebel group as well as ISIS.

Oh that's right you champion Iran and Hezbollah and not freedom fighters, but those who champion oppression and terrorism. It may pay to do your homework on aircraft used and whoís fighting who in the ME before one accuses one of wearing blinkers.
November 27th, 2015  
mmarsh
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JOC
The Russian option is more effective (as my previous posts had stated, had you bother to read them) because they are using heavy backfire bombers akin to our B-52's. To repeat in brief: these can drop the kind of payload and saturation bomb an area in a way that our carrier based fighter-bombers can't. They also cause a lot of collateral damage.

The French are not really in league with the Russians and are also using carrier based planes. They have a temporary marriage of convenience, however France also supports the Syrian freedom fighters as does the USA.
The problem with this Russian bombing campaign is that they that champion the bombing of the freedom fighting rebel group as well as ISIS.

Oh that's right you champion Iran and Hezbollah and not freedom fighters, but those who champion oppression and terrorism. It may pay to do your homework on aircraft used and who’s fighting who in the ME before one accuses one of wearing blinkers.
What makes you say the French are not in the same league? I'd say the opposite. The French are flying the Rafale, that's probably one of the hottest fighter/bombers out. Right now its one of the very few aircraft that can give the SU-35 a serious run for its money. The Russians are relying on much older aircraft SU-24, SU-30 and the newer SU-34 (which is based on the SU-27).

The French also have more of them than the Russians do

Not all the Rafales are Carrier Based, there is a squadron based *somewhere* (top secret) of Air Force Rafales. AB in Jordan or the UAE is my quess.
--
Obliterating Islamic State (ISIS)
November 27th, 2015  
mmarsh
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lljadw
To label Bush as a conservative republican is also very questionable : Sanders would say such a thing, but for Sanders,even Hillary is conservative .
I have no idea what your definition of conservatism is, but by US political standards there is very little doubt.

His title during the 2001 election was "A Compassionate Conservative".

The title was only half right, I saw a lot of conservatism but only a little compassion.
November 27th, 2015  
lljadw
 
Bush is much more liberal than was Goldwater or than is Trump .In fact Bush belongs to the center of the GOP.
November 27th, 2015  
JOC
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmarsh
What makes you say the French are not in the same league? I'd say the opposite. The French are flying the Rafale, that's probably one of the hottest fighter/bombers out. Right now its one of the very few aircraft that can give the SU-35 a serious run for its money. The Russians are relying on much older aircraft SU-24, SU-30 and the newer SU-34 (which is based on the SU-27).

The French also have more of them than the Russians do

Not all the Rafales are Carrier Based, there is a squadron based *somewhere* (top secret) of Air Force Rafales. AB in Jordan or the UAE is my quess.
Where did I say the Rafale fighter was inferior to the Russian fighter planes? One is really comparing apples and oranges here. The Rafale it is not a bomber per say. Such as the Russian SU-24 which can deliver a payload of around 18 thousand pounds of bombs and the Russian SU-34 which can carry a bomb load of 8.8 thousand pounds of bombs. Missiles and rockets are effective for smaller targets, but cannot damage the enemy’s infrastructure and introduce the heavy damage the way heavy saturation bombing can. This is where the Russian planes shine to date.
As far as I know nobody other the US and Russia has this capability that is true jet bombers. The heaviest bomber is still the B-52 which was originally dates back to the 1950’s yet is capable of dropping a payload of 70,000 pounds of bombs per plane. The French planes can do little f anymore than the US F/A-18 Hornets and F/A-18E Super Hornets. The only difference France has taken off the gloves since the attack on Paris and the USA hasn’t. Our top fighter and the best fighter to yet come off the assembly lines anywhere is not in use in the ME the F-35.

I'm personally glad to see France's participation and glad to see they aren't playing with kit gloves like the US has done. I wasn't aware of French noncarrier based planes being used but the more the better. One can only get so many planes on a carrier. I also like that France is only targeting ISIS, unlike the Russians.
November 29th, 2015  
mmarsh
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JOC
Where did I say the Rafale fighter was inferior to the Russian fighter planes? One is really comparing apples and oranges here. The Rafale it is not a bomber per say. Such as the Russian SU-24 which can deliver a payload of around 18 thousand pounds of bombs and the Russian SU-34 which can carry a bomb load of 8.8 thousand pounds of bombs. Missiles and rockets are effective for smaller targets, but cannot damage the enemyís infrastructure and introduce the heavy damage the way heavy saturation bombing can. This is where the Russian planes shine to date.
As far as I know nobody other the US and Russia has this capability that is true jet bombers. The heaviest bomber is still the B-52 which was originally dates back to the 1950ís yet is capable of dropping a payload of 70,000 pounds of bombs per plane. The French planes can do little f anymore than the US F/A-18 Hornets and F/A-18E Super Hornets. The only difference France has taken off the gloves since the attack on Paris and the USA hasnít. Our top fighter and the best fighter to yet come off the assembly lines anywhere is not in use in the ME the F-35.

I'm personally glad to see France's participation and glad to see they aren't playing with kit gloves like the US has done. I wasn't aware of French noncarrier based planes being used but the more the better. One can only get so many planes on a carrier. I also like that France is only targeting ISIS, unlike the Russians.
I was actually just wondering why you thought France wasn't in Russia's league...I used the Rafale as an example.
November 29th, 2015  
mmarsh
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lljadw
Bush is much more liberal than was Goldwater or than is Trump .In fact Bush belongs to the center of the GOP.
Where are you getting your information from? You couldn't be more wrong. W. was far more conservative than Goldwater OR Reagan.

Bush Senior was center right, but W. was FAR more conservative than his father.

I know, I voted for his father, and I NEVER voted for W.
November 29th, 2015  
JOC
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmarsh
I was actually just wondering why you thought France wasn't in Russia's league...I used the Rafale as an example.
The Rafale a fine fighter bomber. I would think more advanced than any Russia has. Perhaps the only plane to surpass it is the F-35.
November 29th, 2015  
lljadw
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmarsh
Where are you getting your information from? You couldn't be more wrong. W. was far more conservative than Goldwater OR Reagan.

Bush Senior was center right, but W. was FAR more conservative than his father.

I know, I voted for his father, and I NEVER voted for W.
That you didn't vote for Bush does not mean that Bush was more conservative than Reagan/Goldwater.


Besides, Gleaves Whitney would disagree with you : he is director of the Hauenstein Center for Presidential Studies at the Grand Valley State University and author of : "Anatomy of a Divorce : Conservatives versus GWBush".

Was a man who appointed as AG the son of a Latino immigrant and who praised the virtues of immigration,a staunch conservative ?

And the Pumpa Bay Times(12/20/2008) said the following : "Some think that Bush was too liberal".

Bush was more conservative than Nixon who was more conservative than Bush sr who was more conservative than Ford , but it is very questionable to say that he was a staunch conservative .

I would say that on some points he was a center right man while on other points he was more liberal than people could assume .
 


Similar Topics
Syrian Kurds battle Islamic State in northeast
U.S. fears Islamic State is making serious inroads in Libya
Islamic State says it's holding 'Israeli spy' in Syria
Iranian Phantom jet strikes the Islamic State in Iraq - IHS Jane's 360
Islamic State says executes second Lebanese soldier