Obliterating Islamic State (ISIS)

[mmarsh]

The formation of ISIS happened independently from the invasion of Iraq .

And, after 9/11 there was no fear-mongering crap : Bush did his duty as president by invading Iraq.

The mistake was caused by the Liberals (mostly Democrats,but also Pepublicans ) who as usualy were very eager to transform victory in defeat by imposing on the ME democracy made in US, while every one knows that there is no place for such thing in the ME (and also other places).

I hate to break it to you, be the rationalization to go to Iraq has been debunked several times over now. It has about has about as much justification as the Japanese occupation of Manchuria

Do you know who was in Power in the USA in 2003

White House..Conservative Republicans
House of Representatives...Conservative Republicans
Senate...Conservative Republicans
Supreme Court...Conservative Republicans
Majority of the Governorships...Conservative Republicans

And you blame Iraq on the Liberals...

 

[I3BrigPvSk]

The formation of ISIS happened independently from the invasion of Iraq .

And, after 9/11 there was no fear-mongering crap : Bush did his duty as president by invading Iraq.

The mistake was caused by the Liberals (mostly Democrats,but also Pepublicans ) who as usualy were very eager to transform victory in defeat by imposing on the ME democracy made in US, while every one knows that there is no place for such thing in the ME (and also other places).

This is the first time I have ever heard somebody calling president Bush a liberal.

 

[I3BrigPvSk]

Something Belgium did in a proper way is how the government increased the threat level. Instead of using colors or numbers, the Belgian government pinpointed some areas and could avoid increasing the threat level for the entire country. When a country using colors or numbers to describe the threat level, the risk for making the job more difficult for the security agencies and causes fear among the public.

 

[JOC]

Sounds more like an excuse to avoid hearing a divergent point.

You are so prejudiced against the USA it isn’t funny, preferring instead to companion terrorists states like Iran. I provided a list of accurate facts about the US that no country can surpass.

You simple have the naivety to say (insert your country here) as though any nation can meet these criteria. Has your native land provided a home for millions upon millions? Who has been #1 in providing foreign aid in times of hunger and disaster worldwide? Who has saved Europe 2ce over? Oh I know you will claim that Stalin could have done it all on his own. BS, without our aid and resources Europe would have been speaking German. The same could be said for S. Korea as far as N Korea is concerned.

Yes the US doesn’t have a perfect historical track record, neither does Britain or France but we still stand up for democracy. And one can’t just fill in the (blank) with any other country. Believe me it not that I won’t listen to a divergent point. It’s that I am a veteran that loves his country.

 

[lljadw]

I hate to break it to you, be the rationalization to go to Iraq has been debunked several times over now. It has about has about as much justification as the Japanese occupation of Manchuria

Do you know who was in Power in the USA in 2003

White House..Conservative Republicans
House of Representatives...Conservative Republicans
Senate...Conservative Republicans
Supreme Court...Conservative Republicans
Majority of the Governorships...Conservative Republicans

And you blame Iraq on the Liberals...

And it was a good thing : Iraq/Saddam deserved what he got .


Besides the mistake was not made in 2003 when the war starte, it was made later when it was decided to remain in Iraq to transform the Iraqi in America loving democrats .

Besides: not all republicans in Congress were conservatives.

Besides: having a majority in Congress does not mean that one can fight against the wish of the Democrats : unanimity was needed.

 

[lljadw]

I hate to break it to you, be the rationalization to go to Iraq has been debunked several times over now. It has about has about as much justification as the Japanese occupation of Manchuria

Do you know who was in Power in the USA in 2003

White House..Conservative Republicans
House of Representatives...Conservative Republicans
Senate...Conservative Republicans
Supreme Court...Conservative Republicans
Majority of the Governorships...Conservative Republicans

And you blame Iraq on the Liberals...

To label Bush as a conservative republican is also very questionable : Sanders would say such a thing, but for Sanders,even Hillary is conservative .

 

[MontyB]

You are so prejudiced against the USA it isn’t funny, preferring instead to companion terrorists states like Iran. I provided a list of accurate facts about the US that no country can surpass.

You simple have the naivety to say (insert your country here) as though any nation can meet these criteria. Has your native land provided a home for millions upon millions? Who has been #1 in providing foreign aid in times of hunger and disaster worldwide? Who has saved Europe 2ce over? Oh I know you will claim that Stalin could have done it all on his own. BS, without our aid and resources Europe would have been speaking German. The same could be said for S. Korea as far as N Korea is concerned.

Yes the US doesn’t have a perfect historical track record, neither does Britain or France but we still stand up for democracy. And one can’t just fill in the (blank) with any other country. Believe me it not that I won’t listen to a divergent point. It’s that I am a veteran that loves his country.

And you are so blinded by the idea that you are right that you can not entertain the idea that you aren't.

The arrogance of your answer is the best response I have to say yes I am right, as you well know there is enough evidence to say you were on the winning side in WW2 but in reality your input only shortened the war which is vastly different to being the reason it was won.

So yes I will say that a combination of Soviet man power and industry combined with Britians refusal to surrender to Germany was the point at which the Germans could not win after that the only argument is whether they could have achieved a stalemate or how long until they were defeated.

But here is the thing it is difficult to carry on this argument because as much as I don't want it to be I am sure it will be misinterpreted as a slap in the face of American service personnel and I do not want that as I have the utmost respect for anyone that put their lives on the line but please stop insulting the rest of the world by pretending that without you the Europe would be speaking German as it is clear that without the US France would be speaking Russian and Italy, English.

But we have moved well off topic here so if you want this argument do us both a favour and move it to the WW2 section.

This is not correct : there is no one in Belgium who considers his "nation " as a "great nation ": there is NO Belgian nation .

You are correct I was responding to JOC's comments not yours as out side of Great Britain there is no other country that would do that and since it is the name of the country it cant really be considered arrogant to call it that.

 

[JOC]

And you are so blinded by the idea that you are right that you can not entertain the idea that you aren't.

The arrogance of your answer is the best response I have to say yes I am right, as you well know there is enough evidence to say you were on the winning side in WW2 but in reality your input only shortened the war which is vastly different to being the reason it was won.

So yes I will say that a combination of Soviet man power and industry combined with Britians refusal to surrender to Germany was the point at which the Germans could not win after that the only argument is whether they could have achieved a stalemate or how long until they were defeated.

But here is the thing it is difficult to carry on this argument because as much as I don't want it to be I am sure it will be misinterpreted as a slap in the face of American service personnel and I do not want that as I have the utmost respect for anyone that put their lives on the line but please stop insulting the rest of the world by pretending that without you the Europe would be speaking German as it is clear that without the US France would be speaking Russian and Italy, English.

But we have moved well off topic here so if you want this argument do us both a favour and move it to the WW2 section.

I provide a statement about how I view the USA, it’s attributes and history, you call it arrogant. I expected as much.

You stated (that a combination of Soviet man power and industry combined with Britain’s refusal to surrender to Germany was the point at which the Germans could not win). For simplicity’s sake, I say Germany lost the war the day Hitler declared war on the United Sates, if such an actual point actually exist. Enough we’ve argued this time and again.

Back to ISIS and the ME. BTW I noticed that Russia is again bombing the US supplied Syrian rebels who are opposed to ISIS. It seems they bomb anyone opposed to Assad.

 

[MontyB]

I provide a statement about how I view the USA, it’s attributes and history, you call it arrogant. I expected as much.

You stated (that a combination of Soviet man power and industry combined with Britain’s refusal to surrender to Germany was the point at which the Germans could not win). For simplicity’s sake, I say Germany lost the war the day Hitler declared war on the United Sates, if such an actual point actually exist. Enough we’ve argued this time and again.

Which proves my arrogance comment in that you still insist the world revolves around the USA, here is a clue Germany could not Invade Britain, it could not break the Russian will to fight nor could it capture Moscow and was eventually defeated at Stalingrad all without the input of the USA in terms of combat forces and with extremely limited material aid.

There is no doubt that Britain and the Commonwealth could not have retaken Europe without American manpower however by the time the Allies set foot in France Germany was all but finished in Russia.

Back to ISIS and the ME. BTW I noticed that Russia is again bombing the US supplied Syrian rebels who are opposed to ISIS. It seems they bomb anyone opposed to Assad.

Of course they are Assad is a Russian ally what did you expect them to do, I would suggest that the reason the USA is putting almost no effort into defeating ISIS is that they are fighting Assad who isn't a US ally and I suspect it is more important to America that Assad is defeated than ISIS.

If you have not figured it out by now let me be blunt both you and the Russians are playing the same games, however the Russians seem to be playing it better at the moment.

 

[JOC]

Which proves my arrogance comment in that you still insist the world revolves around the USA, here is a clue Germany could not Invade Britain, it could not break the Russian will to fight nor could it capture Moscow and was eventually defeated at Stalingrad all without the input of the USA in terms of combat forces and with extremely limited material aid.

There is no doubt that Britain and the Commonwealth could not have retaken Europe without American manpower however by the time the Allies set foot in France Germany was all but finished in Russia.

Of course they are Assad is a Russian ally what did you expect them to do, I would suggest that the reason the USA is putting almost no effort into defeating ISIS is that they are fighting Assad who isn't a US ally and I suspect it is more important to America that Assad is defeated than ISIS.

If you have not figured it out by now let me be blunt both you and the Russians are playing the same games, however the Russians seem to be playing it better at the moment.

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?

 

[MontyB]

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.

 

[JOC]

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 who’s fighting who in the ME before one accuses one of wearing blinkers.

 

[mmarsh]

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.

 

[mmarsh]

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.

 

[lljadw]

Bush is much more liberal than was Goldwater or than is Trump .In fact Bush belongs to the center of the GOP.

 

[JOC]

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.

 

[mmarsh]

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.

I was actually just wondering why you thought France wasn't in Russia's league...I used the Rafale as an example.

 

[mmarsh]

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.

 

[JOC]

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.

 

[lljadw]

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 .