“As long as the body politic or president or whoever is making decisions absolutely refuses to put American air controllers on ground, essentially pilots are flying with one eye closed.” And losing one eye makes it very, very difficult to take any effective action.
But hey, Obama says we’re winning! He wants you to spark up a fattie and relax!
“U.S. bombers hold fire on Islamic State targets amid ground intel blackout,” by Jacqueline Klimas, The Washington Times, May 31, 2015:
Nearly 75 percent of U.S. bombing runs targeting the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria returned to base without firing any weapons in the first four months of 2015, holding their fire mainly because of a lack of ground intelligence and raising questions about President Obama’s key tactic in pushing back an enemy that continues to expand its territory in the war zone.
Key lawmakers are growing increasingly frustrated by the slow rate of U.S. bombing sorties, a frustration shared by a former Navy pilot who said in an interview that U.S. forces are clearly needed on the ground in Iraq to help provide targets for these pilots to hit.
Without ground forces, argues Cmdr. Christopher Harmer, a retired Navy helicopter pilot, U.S. airmen are essentially flying half-blind and, as a result, are returning to base with their bombs still in the bay.
“As long as the body politic or president or whoever is making decisions absolutely refuses to put American air controllers on ground, essentially pilots are flying with one eye closed,” Cmdr. Harmer said. “It’s almost impossible for pilots to designate between [Islamic State] fighters and coalition fighters.”
The U.S. conducted 7,319 sorties over Iraq and Syria as part of Operation Inherent Resolve in the first four months of 2015. Of those, only 1,859 flights — 25.4 percent — had at least one “weapons release,” according to data provided by United States Air Force Central Command. That means that only about one in every four flights dropped a bomb on an Islamic State target.
The slow tempo of strikes has long been a source of frustration for Sen. John McCain, chairman of the Armed Services Committee. The Arizona Republican said at a hearing this year that missions that don’t drop bombs needlessly put American pilots in danger and that U.S. boots on the ground would produce better intelligence that could lead to more effective bombing missions.
Cmdr. Harmer, who now serves as a senior naval analyst with the Middle East Security Project at the Institute for the Study for War, said airstrikes can hit big, static targets such as bridges, runways and tanks without on-the-ground guidance. But to be effective in hitting moving targets such as enemy troops in a firefight, U.S. pilots need American joint terminal attack controllers to give specific directions from the ground to guide their missiles precisely.
Col. Pat Ryder, spokesman for U.S. Central Command, told reporters Friday that while pilots can often place bombs on targets “within minutes,” it’s very important to be very precise and exercise tactical discipline to protect civilian populations.
“We’re dealing with a hybrid adversary who often hides among the population,” he said. “It’s more important for us to accurately target the enemy with a high degree of precision in order to minimize civilian casualties than it is to strike with such speed or force that would risk disenfranchising the very population we’re there to protect.”
Although most defense analysts agree with Cmdr. Harmer, not all agree that the absence of more U.S. forces on the ground is the only reason many of these airstrike missions are coming back with their bombs still in tow.
There may just be fewer targets that pilots can hit in a war, and all agree it cannot be won by air power alone, said Janine Davidson, senior fellow for defense policy at the Council for Foreign Relations.
“It makes sense that, over time, you’re going to run out of targets,” she said….
Yeah, that’s it.
Stardusty Psyche says
We already have thousands of troops in Iraq…what is the Washington Times on about now?
Please tell the direction of this chart
https://admin.govexec.com/media/gbc/docs/pdfs_edit/iraqtroops3e_05.png
from
http://www.defenseone.com/threats/2015/01/us-send-more-troops-iraq-train-iraqi-forces/102345/
That is just up through January 2015.
So, Mr. “bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran” is frustrated. We are supposed to take seriously the judgment of a man who picked Palin as a running mate? The people rejected McCain and voted for Obama. He can say he is frustrated, fine, that is his right, but the commander in chief does not direct the armed forces on the frustration of every carping senator.
We have thousands of troops in Iraq right now. The more we put in, the more that come home dead, especially if we regularly place them inside enemy territory.
Ramadi fell because 2000 men ran when 200 men attacked. Do we really want more of our fine young men coming home in coffins for a people who will not stand and fight even with a 10 to 1 advantage?
Obama is forcing the Iraqis to fight for Iraq. If we come to the rescue and bail them out history has shown they will squander the opportunity for freedom we hand them on a silver platter paid for in American blood and treasure.
Obama is conserving the lives of American soldiers, and the lives of innocent civilians. Air strikes can be a decisive advantage but ultimately it is ground forces that take and hold territory and Obama is forcing the Iraqis to stand and fight for themselves if they want their country back.
RonaldB says
I agree with you up to a point, particularly about McCain’s intelligence and intellect, which is nothing to write home about.
“Obama is forcing the Iraqis to stand and fight for themselves if they want their country back.”
Obama is wishy-washy as usual, but in this case, his weakness serves a purpose in keeping the US from direct involvement in Iraq more than it is.
We all know the Muslim Middle East is intensely tribal. Iraqis are not going to fight for Iraq because as Iraqis, they have no stake in the fighting. They identify as Sunni tribe members, Shi’ite tribe members, Kurdish tribe members. Saddam Hussein had a government terror apparatus that was obviously the big guy on the block, and the Iraqis respected that. US bungling under the bungle king, George H Bush, blew that away.
The future is that the Kurds will likely remain autonomous with US support, and will fight off ISIS. Iran will support the Shi’ite parts of Iraq and most likely the combination will keep ISIS out of their territory. The US will have to accommodate with Iran on shared control of Iraq, although that doesn’t mean the US has to surrender to Iran on their possessions of nuclear weapons. The best possible outcome is that the government of Syria, supported by Iran, Hezbollah, and Russia, will maintain its cohesion. It’s not the job of the US to topple the Syrian government because it may or may not use chemical weapons.
The very worst case I can imagine is the US involved in a ground war against ISIS, totally not understanding the tribal and religious loyalties, and taking casualties from suicide “martyrs” from both sides….oh, and feeling obligated to allow still more Muslim refugees into the United States.
If I had my choice between annihilating ISIS, and cutting off Muslim immigration totally, I’d choose without hesitation to cut off immigration.
Huck Folder says
What’s obuMBoy like in bed, honey?
Jack Gordon says
” The people rejected McCain and voted for Obama.” You say that as if it really meant something. McCain is a stupid puppet, agreed, but the notion that a ”democratic vote” makes someone more than an ass is….well….asinine. Using the title “Commander in Chief” doesn’t rub the mud off Obama’s tarnished image and certainly doesn’t convince anyone that this flim-flam artist from Cook County knows what he is doing.
Stardusty Psyche says
Hi Jack Gordon,
“mud off Obama’s tarnished image ”
Like the image of economic measures that are vastly improved across the board since Jan 2009?
How about his image as the world’s leading jihadi killer?
Yes, there are a lot of armchair quarterbacks out there slinging mud.
Sorry, simplistic answers to extraordinarily complex and nearly intractable problems don’t impress me.
If i thought there was a god I would thank it every day that McCain lost and Romney lost.
Stardusty Psyche says
Hi Phiip Jihadski,
““Like the image of economic measures that are vastly improved across the board since Jan 2009?”
_______
Huh? Why you slimy little Obamatron. Last quarter was -0.07 “growth”.”
“Last quarter” is not “since Jan 2009”
I know you might suffer from short term thinking, so here are just a few little reminders
Federal deficits cut in half
Trade deficits slashed
Energy independance nearing
Jobs up
Markets up
“right2bright on HotAir”
Huh?
How did you make this particular false attribution?
“Get your ass kicked there again – like I did before.”
Indeed, you are a legend in your own mind.
William Lucas Harvey Jr. says
“75% of U.S. bombing runs targeting Islamic State returned without firing a shot as U.S. bombers hold fire on Islamic State targets amid ground intel blackout”.
So – America’s apparent Pro Islam, Pro Muslim, Obama Administration, STRIKES at America’s Security instead, by protecting HIS Muslim “Friends”.
Bezelel says
I know what the problem is not. It is not because we lack 1st class military personnel. however these current events are not moral boosters.
Sabri S. says
Salaam wa alaikum…not surprising given the intelligence level of your
American leadership…all those billions wasted every single year….indefinitely..
US out of the middle east “yesterday”…what a despicable, immoral and useless
And dishonorable Way to die or go back to the usa injured or without a limb….
All in vain as your infidel government bankrupt s your country….
mortimer says
Sabri, you waste millions of brain cells justifying the irrational and delusional and groundless and vicious and vindictive and contradictory. Your faith in the epileptic desert weasel has no historical support.
Angemon says
The deficient muslim posted:
“what a despicable, immoral and useless
And dishonorable Way to die or go back to the usa injured or without a limb….”
And just how is that going to happen? Are your correligionists going to bring planes down with sticks and rocks?
Oh, it’s a desert – maybe they’ll use sand instead.
duh_swami says
Salaam wa alaikum…Who’s that for Sabri? Certainly not kuffar…It’s haram to say that to kuffar, isn’t it?
Jack Diamond says
Alaykum al-mawt, little lord haw haw.
“your American leadership””your infidel country”…in other posts you’ve said it was “our military” and that your cousin was on his 4th tour. When did “our” become a “your”? When you formed the ISIA? or just by virtue of being Muslim… did you include your cousin in your desire for all American soldiers to come home in coffins?
btw Philip J. isn’t the only one who turned you in. Syria awaits.
profitsbeard says
How do you miss striking parades of ISIS maniacs in long open convoys entering a conquered area as they celebrate?
Not exactly inscrutable targets.
mortimer says
How did they miss the ISIS mass attack convoys?
Daniel Triplett says
Our pilots often see enemy targets of opportunity, but due to Obama’s micromanaging and impossible Rules of Engagement, they aren’t authorized to engage. Strike pilots in Vietnam had similar complaints, but Obama is far worse than LBJ was, and LBJ was a tragically horrible CINC.
Stardusty Psyche says
Ok, Daniel Triplett,
So we should do more like we did in Vietnam but even that was not enough? Right, I mean, why stop with napalm, white phosphorous, area bombing from B-52s, and Puff the Magic Dragon? That was not enough ground engagement for you? Yes, those pesky rules of engagement, if only we had dropped more I’m sure WHAM would have succeeded.
Do you think it might be a good idea to identify your target before you pull the trigger? Or do you prefer to simply open fire and let St. Peter sort them out?
Bezelel says
SP, The B52’s were working just fine and again rules of engagement obstructed every opportunity to seal the deal. I’ve heard retarded opinions from people like for years and they all have one thing in common. Unless you were there your opinion counts for zip.
Joseph says
@ Stardusty Psyche
I bet you still have your “Obama” stickers on your car…….
Did your momma throw you down the stairs a few times too many?
The best part of you dripped down your momma’s crack.
You are so full of shit your eyes are brown.
You should work in a fertilizer factory with all that crap you spew.
Stardusty Psyche says
Hi Joseph,
Thank you for that incisive analysis. What a witty way with words you have!
Joseph says
@ Stardusty Psyche
IT WASN’T ME,..JOSEPH HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH JOSEPH
OR IT MUST HAVE BEEN THE JEW’S FAULT
OR CLIMATE CHANGE
OR THOSE WORDS HAVE A DIFFERENT MEANING IN MY VOCABULARY
OR IT IS ALL YOUR FAULT FOR BEING HERE
SORRY, Yes i did go overboard, but does the above sound a little familiar? The lies the public is being fed, don’t fall for it
Daniel Triplett says
As a USAF pilot and 6 year war vet myself, I’ll explain:
There’s a difference between tactical strikes and strategic strikes.
Tactical strikes are done at low altitudes against smaller targets of enemy hardware or personnel. “Targets of Opportunity” are different than the designated targets in the Air Tasking Order. A target of opportunity would be something like a tank or artillery piece hiding amongst the bushes, or a column of enemy soldiers, or a resupply convoy/train on known enemy supply routes, etc. Things that spring up, without prior knowledge of Intel. Pilots often see these targets on the ingress or egress from their primary ATO targets.
Strike pilots are fully capable of identifying and engaging these targets, but during Vietnam and ever since have been required to radio in to get permission from someone who is not in the airplane and can’t even see the target. This ridiculous and unnecessary rule wastes time, and usually allows the target to escape, since strike aircraft have a very limited supply of fuel with which to loiter.
Strategic strikes involve area bombing of communications centers, war material factories, food and water storage, dams, agricultural centers, population centers, etc. Targets that if destroyed would make waging war difficult for the enemy. These targets are designed to destroy the morale of the enemy population, and persuade them to force their government to comply with our terms.
Strategic Area Bombing of population centers is how our grandfathers won WWII. Defeating the Germans and Japanese would have been impossible with today’s ROE.
Obviously, with Strategic Area Bombing, we can’t identify everyone who dies. Nonetheless, Area Bombing is an indispensable strategy that our military has always, and continues to teach every USAF Officer. This is how wars are won.
Now that I’ve answered your question, please explain your proposed strategy to counter the Iranian nuclear weapons program, if in fact you consider it a threat at all.
Angemon says
Always a pleasure to read your posts, Daniel. And I’m sure I’m not the only civvie who appreciates your insider knowledge of military strategy and rules of engagement.
Also, thank you for your service.
Daniel Triplett says
@Angemon
Thanks Angemon, the sentiment is mutual. I’m happy to keep learning and sharing.
I loved the way you wiped the floor with the Muslima heather in the newer thread. You expertly poured on the facts and reason. I was going to jump on her too, but couldn’t have articulated the case nearly as well as you. Your arsenal of Islam knowledge, texts, and history is impressive. I even copied that particular post of yours to my personal read file for reference later, for it will surely come in handy in any debate of wits with a Muslim.
Keep fighting the good fight. A Counter-jihadst you are. Stay strong; we have a big fight ahead of us.
Stardusty Psyche says
Hi Daniel Triplett,
“As a USAF pilot and 6 year war vet myself”
Really? That seems to be an incredible claim considering the details of your comments.
” but during Vietnam and ever since have been required to radio in to get permission from someone who is not in the airplane and can’t even see the target. This ridiculous and unnecessary rule”
Ok, so Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama…all the military planners in the Air force, Navy, Army, and Marines who set rules for air to ground attacks…all theses people all seem to have missed over the last 50 years what a ” ridiculous and unnecessary rule” our claimed “USAF pilot and 6 year war vet” has kindly informed us of. Yes, how unfortunate indeed that our entire corps of ground attack control doctrine planners for the last 50 years has not had the benefit of his sage advise.
“Strategic Area Bombing of population centers is how our grandfathers won WWII”
Well, if wiping out millions of civilians worked for our grandfathers how utterly stupid it is of our commanders in chief to not apply the same doctrine to every theater of operations over the last 70 years.
” Area Bombing is an indispensable strategy,,,This is how wars are won. ”
Really? Did we topple Saddam with area bombing of population centers? Did we topple the Taliban with area bombing of population centers?
But sure, our claimed USAF pilot might have a point, after all, I suppose if we razed to the ground with explosives followed by incendiaries all the population centers, all the cities, all the villages, of all IS held territory then indeed, we might in some sense call that a victory. Brilliant strategy Captain Triplett.
“Now that I’ve answered your question”
Funny, I don’t recall asking how to be an archaic mass murdering lunatic..
Joseph says
@ Stardusty Psyche
It is people like you that should be ashamed of yourselves. While these men and women are risking their lives for YOUR freedom you pay them back with shit.
If you don’t like it here why don’t you go to Peru or anyplace else for that matter.
You would not even make it through boot.
—————————————————
“Now that I’ve answered your question”
Funny, I don’t recall asking how to be an archaic mass murdering lunatic..
—————————————————————————————
YOUR PASSIVE ATTITUDE MAKES YOU A MASS MURDERER.
Just think about that one for a while.
Also it is YOU who is the lunatic
Stardusty Psyche says
Hi
“While these men and women are risking their lives for YOUR freedom you pay them back with shit.”
I have the very greatest respect for our service members. So some guy gets on a blog and claims he is a pilot, so what? Ok, maybe it’s true, who knows? Anybody can get on line and claim to be anything. Not impressive.
His ideas are ridiculous. If he is a pilot that is evidence that our high ranking officers are wise to keep tight reigns on guys like him!
“YOUR PASSIVE ATTITUDE MAKES YOU A MASS MURDERER.
Just think about that one for a while.”
Where did you get I have a passive attitude. I reject the radical pacifism of Jesus. We should not turn the other cheek to IS.
Daniel Triplett says
I should’ve known better than to respond to an arrogant know-it-all lib. I’ve seen enough from my younger brother and Obama water-carrier to know that leftist boobs never yield to reason, and the debate never ends.
I neither need nor expect your gratitude for taking risks and getting shot at for 6 years while defending your Constitution. But I also won’t tolerate being called a liar, especially from some asswipe who hides behind a fictitious screen name, spewing his condescending horse shit to fellow Americans, choosing to remain oblivious to the realities of what’s required to keep his country free. Or maybe you’re a woman. I don’t know, because you’re too much of a coward to identify yourself.
None of us in the military serve because we seek adulation from those we serve. I do it for God and Country, neither of which you have the humility to respect.
“*our* claimed USAF pilot and 6 year war vet has kindly informed *us* of”
The women who post on this site have more balls than you. Sack up. If you have something to say to me, then say it to me like an adult, insteady of speaking of me in the third person, like some insecure school yard bully trying to rally support from the crowd.
You’re an ignorant punk, insulting fellow American Infidels, and denigrating vets who would die to preserve your freedom. You criticize everyone else’s ideas, but offer none of your own, and you disparage the longstanding US military strategy and tactics that have successfully kept you safe.
I respectfully answered your questions, and all you give in return is pompous non-sense, dishonor, and disrespect. I asked you a question about the Iranian nuke threat, but you refused to answer, responding instead like a little bitch with juvenile insults. The truth is, you don’t have the faintest idea about what threatens the Free World, and the strategies required to save it.
Wise up. You get treated like a narcissistic jerk because you act like one.
We’re done here. You waste my time, and I have more important things to do than exchange endless banter with an idiot. If you’re talking to me, you’re talking to yourself from now on. Go ahead and have the last word. I know you will. You’re too insecure to stop broadcasting and just tune in.
Stardusty Psyche says
Hi Daniel Triplet,
“I respectfully answered your questions, and all you give in return is pompous non-sense, dishonor, and disrespect.”
Your answer was “Strategic Area Bombing of population centers is how our grandfathers won WWII” ” Area Bombing is an indispensable strategy,,,This is how wars are won. ”
That answer as a proposed strategy for our present conflicts deserves even far more dishonor and disrespect than I gave it. It is a genocidal and maniacal proposal and anybody who seriously suggests we should area bomb Mosul, Fallujah, and Ramadi is in fact a lunatic.
The fact that you touted area bombing of population centers as an indispensable war winning strategy certainly calls into question your voracity and authenticity as well as your sanity.
If you don’t like all those characterizations then stop calling for mass murder of civilians.
Angemon says
Stardusty Psyche posted:
“Your answer was “Strategic Area Bombing of population centers is how our grandfathers won WWII” ” Area Bombing is an indispensable strategy,,,This is how wars are won. ”
That answer as a proposed strategy for our present conflicts deserves even far more dishonor and disrespect than I gave it. It is a genocidal and maniacal proposal…
(…)
The fact that you touted area bombing of population centers as an indispensable war winning strategy certainly calls into question your voracity and authenticity as well as your sanity.”
How is the current strategy for dealing with the IS working out for you? Oh, yeah, 75% of bombing runs are just a waste of resources and the islamic state keeps pilling victory after victory.
Good luck trying to win a war while trying to avoid killing anyone in the process.
And, of course, you can give no arguments to dispute what Daniel said about WWII. Germany bombed Britain because they thought it was the best way to win the war, the Allied forces bombed the crap out of Germany and Japan because they thought that how they could win the war, but according to you, anyone who advocates bombing an enemy must be a “genocidal maniacal” and clearly not know anything about military strategy.
Stardusty Psyche says
Hi Angemon,
“Good luck trying to win a war while trying to avoid killing anyone in the process.”
False dichotomy. The alternative to “area bombing of population centers ” is not the absence of all deaths in war.
“And, of course, you can give no arguments to dispute what Daniel said about WWII”
This isn’t WWII. We are not in the Battle of Briton. Our fighter command is not near collapse. His point is irrelevant and preposterous.
We did not use “area bombing of population centers ” in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait, or the many smaller and successful invasions and conquests we have executed since WWII.
A USAF pilot would know that, hence my assertion Daniel is a likely fraud.
“but according to you, anyone who advocates bombing an enemy must be a “genocidal maniacal””
Straw man. We bomb the enemy. We no longer area bomb masses of innocent civilians.
“and clearly not know anything about military strategy.”
Then neither did Bush or Bush, or their military subordinates, since they won 3 major wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Kuwait without this supposedly “indispensable” strategy of “Area Bombing of population centers” advocated by our claimed pilot blogger Triplett.
Angemon says
Stardusty Psyche posted:
“False dichotomy. The alternative to “area bombing of population centers ” is not the absence of all deaths in war.”
Strawman. I never said it was. Meanwhile, my point remains valid.
“This isn’t WWII. We are not in the Battle of Briton. Our fighter command is not near collapse. His point is irrelevant and preposterous.”
Nope. His points remain valid, especially because you, while quick to anger and snap back, have yet to disprove them. Much easier to throw a couple of ad-hominems, eh?
“We did not use “area bombing of population centers ” in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait, or the many smaller and successful invasions and conquests we have executed since WWII.
A USAF pilot would know that, hence my assertion Daniel is a likely fraud.”
Faulty logic. The islamic state is not Afghanistan, Kuwait or Itaq. The war being fought against the islamic state is not on the same terms and conditions as the wars fought in Afghanistan, Kuwait or Iraq. In Kuwait, the US went to fight the Iraqi invasion. In Afghanistan and Iraq, the US went to topple the regime. The islamic state is a nation wholeheartedly dedicated to bring the Western world down. Cutting the head of the snake will do nothing. It’s a situation far more comparable to, for example, WWII Japan that to any of the example you named.
“Straw man. We bomb the enemy. We no longer area bomb masses of innocent civilians.”
Nope. Not a strawman. The people fighting against you are the enemy. The people working behind the scenes to keep the enemy supplied are also the enemy. The people whose religion tells them you must either convert or die are the enemy.
“Then neither did Bush or Bush, or their military subordinates, since they won 3 major wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Kuwait without this supposedly “indispensable” strategy of “Area Bombing of population centers” advocated by our claimed pilot blogger Triplett.”
See above for the differences between the war with the islamic state and Afghanistan, Iraq or Kuwait. And, of course, you simply make personal attacks on Daniel while offering no alternative strategy.
Stardusty Psyche says
““Good luck trying to win a war while trying to avoid killing anyone in the process.””
False dichotomy. We don’t have to choose between either winning without killing anyone or using area bombing of population centers.
“Much easier to throw a couple of ad-hominems, eh?”
False attribution of ad-hominem.
I said
“His point is irrelevant and preposterous.”
My statement was not “to the man”, it was to the point made by the man, which is the antithesis of ad-hominem.
Considering your inability to correctly apply basic fallacy definitions I don’t see much hope your further points will have rational validity…but what the heck…let’s see..
“The Islamic state is not Afghanistan, Kuwait or Iraq”
Hmmm…well, IS is in Iraq! The Taliban/AL-qaeda connection had a nearly identical theological basis as IS, and we are fighting Islamic fundamentalists in desert warfare to take away the territory they hold. Bombing enemy positions, shooting enemy fighters, clearing IEDs, destroying enemy equipment and supplies…not so different.
“The people whose religion tells them you must either convert or die are the enemy. ”
Ok, then I suppose you would feel justified in exterminating all 1.6 billion self identifying Muslims, correct?
Not all of us share your genocidal tendencies.
“See above for the differences between the war with the Islamic state and Afghanistan, Iraq or Kuwait. And, of course, you simply make personal attacks on Daniel while offering no alternative strategy.”
You didn’t describe any significant differences between defeating IS and defeating our various enemies in Kuwait, Afghanistan, and Iraq.
I did not personally attack our claimed pilot, I called into question his claim to be a USAF pilot based on his blanket and absurd condemnation of target engagement procedure over the last 50 years, and his blatantly erroneous assertions about how our wars have actually been won in the last 50 years.
If you want my strategy here it is
1. Minimize loss of our fine young men for people who turn and run even when they have a 10 to 1 advantage.
2. Do not come rushing to the rescue of such people. Give them as much support as they need to prevent a total collapse and then push them back into the fight.
3. Continue to sell arms to countries like Saudi Arabia and Jordan so they will continue to fight our enemies themselves on their dollar.
4. Continue to attack enemy positions, vehicles, supplies, and individual fighters from our strongest positions.
5. Continue to increase our ground forces primarily in roles such as training, target identification, and special operations.
6. Keep our enormous stockpile of equipment in Kuwait combat ready in case a full scale ground invasion becomes truly necessary.
Angemon says
Stardusty Psyche posted:
“““Good luck trying to win a war while trying to avoid killing anyone in the process.””
False dichotomy. We don’t have to choose between either winning without killing anyone or using area bombing of population centers.”
Once again, strawman. I never said we had to.
““Much easier to throw a couple of ad-hominems, eh?”
False attribution of ad-hominem.
I said
“His point is irrelevant and preposterous.”
My statement was not “to the man”, it was to the point made by the man, which is the antithesis of ad-hominem.”
Red herring. I was referring to your personal attacks on Daniel, such as doubting his credentials.
“Considering your inability to correctly apply basic fallacy definitions I don’t see much hope your further points will have rational validity”
Considering that my alleged inability came from your strawmen, I believe I’ll manage just fine…
“Hmmm…well, IS is in Iraq!”
The IS is also in Syria. And several organizations through the world pledged allegiance to it, so your inapt analysis fails. Also, is the IS in Afghanistan and Kuwait? If not, then you’re arguing against your own point.
If you were replying to what I actually said, then you’d have noticed I compared the war against IS to the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Kuwait and explained why they were fundamentally different. So far you have not addressed any of my points, and I doubt you ever will – much easier to create strawmen and throw a couple of ad-hominems to the mix.
“Ok, then I suppose you would feel justified in exterminating all 1.6 billion self identifying Muslims, correct?”
You can suppose whatever you want – those are your words, not mine.
“Not all of us share your genocidal tendencies.”
What genocidal tendencies are those? The ones you randomly decided to attribute me to mask the fact you’re incapable of addressing my points why the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Kuwait are fundamentally different from the war with the IS?
“You didn’t describe any significant differences between defeating IS and defeating our various enemies in Kuwait, Afghanistan, and Iraq.”
Was I supposed to do that?
“I did not personally attack our claimed pilot, I called into question his claim to be a USAF pilot”
Oh, you didn’t personally attack him, you just placed his character in cause and implied he’s a liar. Totally different things, right?
“based on his blanket and absurd condemnation of target engagement procedure over the last 50 years, and his blatantly erroneous assertions about how our wars have actually been won in the last 50 years.”
Huh, you realize we can read what Daniel wrote, right?
“If you want my strategy here it is
1. Minimize loss of our fine young men for people who turn and run even when they have a 10 to 1 advantage.”
How is that incompatible with what Daniel said?
“2. Do not come rushing to the rescue of such people. Give them as much support as they need to prevent a total collapse and then push them back into the fight.”
Right, because giving weapons and supplies to the Iraqi army has worked so well so far, and 75% of the air support runs end up being a waste of resources.
“3. Continue to sell arms to countries like Saudi Arabia and Jordan so they will continue to fight our enemies themselves on their dollar.”
Because the Saudi army is doing so well in battle and the approval ratings of the IS in SA and Jordan are so low, right?
“4. Continue to attack enemy positions, vehicles, supplies, and individual fighters from our strongest positions.”
How’s that working out so far? 75% of bombing runs don’t fire a shot and the islamic state keeps piling up victory after victory.
“5. Continue to increase our ground forces primarily in roles such as training, target identification, and special operations.”
Once again, how is that working out so far?
“6. Keep our enormous stockpile of equipment in Kuwait combat ready in case a full scale ground invasion becomes truly necessary.”
BWAHAHAHAHA!!! You’d have us trust the Kuwaiti alongside Saudis and Jordanians?!?!?! And you expect Barak “Let’s bring our troops back, No more boots on the ground” Obama to do something remotely close to an invasion?!?!?!
Ha ha, thanks for the joke, mate!!! Not that we needed any more evidence that you’re not to be taken seriously.
Angemon says
And you know what’s ironic, SP? None of your generic “strategies” rules out what DT posted. Much Ado About Nothing, indeed…
Stardusty Psyche says
Hi Angemon,
“6. Keep our enormous stockpile of equipment in Kuwait combat ready in case a full scale ground invasion becomes truly necessary.”
BWAHAHAHAHA!!! You’d have us trust the Kuwaiti alongside Saudis and Jordanians?!?!?!
Ok, Angemon, I never said anything about trusting Kuwaitis or anything like that. We have a large stockpile of equipment in Kuwait right now, which is yet another smart move by Obama. That gives us the option of driving North if the need arises. But military equipment deteriorates and must be maintained to be battle ready, and I favor that kind of maintenance to keep our ground strike option viable.
Your last response is so embematic of your inability to read for comprehension that I will just leave it at that
Angemon says
Stardusty Psyche posted:
“Ok, Angemon, I never said anything about trusting Kuwaitis or anything like that. We have a large stockpile of equipment in Kuwait right now, which is yet another smart move by Obama. That gives us the option of driving North if the need arises. But military equipment deteriorates and must be maintained to be battle ready, and I favor that kind of maintenance to keep our ground strike option viable.”
Ah, thank you for the clarification. So you don’t wish to leave valuable equipment in the lads, and udner the reach of, people you trust. Instead, you wish to leave valuable equipment on the land, and under the reach, of people you don’t trust. Clearly that makes things quite better, eh? So much so you consider it to be “another smart move by Obama”.
“Your last response is so embematic of your inability to read for comprehension that I will just leave it at that”
Is that so? Because it seems you tried to nitpick one point to as to misrepresent my whole post and avoid answering my criticism and ended up digging yourself deeper in the process. But hey, rationalize it whatever way it helps you sleep better. You do know that the people you’re seemingly depending on, like Saudi Arabia or Kuwait, are financing the islamic state, right? You do know that? You’re aware that what you call a “smart move by Obama” amounts no leaving valuable equipment at arms reach of the people funding the enemy that equipment is supposed to be used against. And, of course, the chances that Barak “No Boots On The Ground” Obama decides to launch a ground strike are very close to zero. And I don’t flat out say it’s zero because Obama may very well decide to send troops in sneakers or flip-flops just so he doesn’t have to eat his own words – there would literally be no “boots” on the ground.
Also, excuse my reading comprehension, but what does “embematic” mean?
Stardusty Psyche says
Hi Angemon,
We don’t have to trust the Kuwaitis much, we dominate their little country militarily and use it as a military base under our control.
Yes, I am well aware that even though the Saudi government attacks our enemies with the military hardware they bought from us there are also elements within Saudi Arabia actively working against our interests. Complicated world, isn’t it?
“embematic” means I failed to press the “l” key while attempting to type “emblematic”. The fact you asked me that question has more than one possible meaning, any or all might apply, I really don’t know which is the true case:
1, You are a very petty individual
2. You lack substantial points so you make frivolous points instead
3. You genuinely do not know the meaning of “emblematic”
Angemon says
Stardusty Psyche posted:
“We don’t have to trust the Kuwaitis much, we dominate their little country militarily and use it as a military base under our control.”
Except Kuwait is funding ISIS. Is that how you’re “dominating” Kuwait? Letting it fund your enemies?
“Yes, I am well aware that even though the Saudi government attacks our enemies with the military hardware they bought from us there are also elements within Saudi Arabia actively working against our interests. Complicated world, isn’t it?”
No, not “elements”. The Saudi government funds ISIS. The Saudi government funds mosques in the US who preach the same ideology ISIS does. The Saudi government defends its own interests. 92% of Saudis believe that ISIS conforms to the values of islam and islamic law, and you expect the Saudis to fight ISIS? Lol, great joke, SP! Great joke!|
““embematic” means I failed to press the “l” key while attempting to type “emblematic”. The fact you asked me that question has more than one possible meaning, any or all might apply, I really don’t know which is the true case”
Well, I’m shocked. Shocked and appalled! Not because of your knee-jerk reaction to having what you say nitpicked, or because you actually admitted not to know something, but because I made it quite clear that it was probably a case of my “reading comprehension”. You know, that comprehension you keep questioning.
“1, You are a very petty individual”
Could be. But I suspect you’re just trying to sneak in another insult, so it’s a “No” on that one.
“2. You lack substantial points so you make frivolous points instead”
That is not the case. You’re the one not replying to my points. Any cursory examination of our exchanges so far will reveal that you’re the one avoiding discussion and complaining about my capabilities. For example, I replied to all 10 bullets points of your strategy and noticed nothing in there contradicted what Daniel said about bombings. You decided to take offense at one thing I derived from your words and act like an offended virgin. Probably because you’re a petty person? I don’t know. But your lack of self-awareness is staggering.
“3. You genuinely do not know the meaning of “emblematic””
Since you didn’t wrote “emblematic” that’s a moot point, isn’t it? Seems like you0re trying to sneak another insult in, but what do I know? I don’t even know the meaning of “embematic”, right?
The truth is, you seemed quite touchy and offended every time I drew some conclusion from your words, so I decided to play it safe and ask you what you meant.
Anyway, weren’t you just going to “just leave it at that” because of my “inability to read for comprehension”?
Stardusty Psyche says
ok
Angemon says
Also, you’re quite inconsistent, SP. You reacted violently at the idea of bombing runs against an enemy as it was expressed by Daniel but you don’t see any problem dominating a country and using it as a military base? F-, SP. F-.
Angemon says
Also, “read for comprehension”? Bad form, SP, bad form…
Stardusty Psyche says
Hi Angemon,
“Also, you’re quite inconsistent, SP. You reacted violently at the idea of bombing runs against an enemy as it was expressed by Daniel but you don’t see any problem dominating a country and using it as a military base? F-, SP. F-.”
Area bombing of population centers kills and horribly injures huge numbers of innocent people. It is an extremely blunt instrument, which is why Bush and Bush chose not to use strategic area bombing against population centers and still won quite handily in Kuwait, Afghanistan, and Iraq.
Not only is it not “indispensable” (not your word Angemon), it is not necessary for initial victory and it would be gravely counter productive in the longer view. That is why Bush and Bush both decided against it.
Unlike our enemies we factor in humanitarian interests even when we make war. That is one of the things that makes us better than our enemies.
Our military domination and use of Kuwait as a military base is entirely different. We liberated Kuwait in one of the most clear cut cases of liberation in recent history. Kuwaitis are generally happy to have our military based there. Nobody is going to overrun Kuwait again as long has America has large forces based within its borders.
We don’t operate a police state in Kuwait or abuse the Kuwaiti people generally. We have our equipment and people stationed in their desert in a win/win arrangement.
Why would you even attempt to compare the two?
And 2 F- Stardusty Psyche? I mean, I usually get only an single FU…so I am pretty pumped right now!!!
Angemon says
Stardusty Psyche posted:
“Kuwaitis are generally happy to have our military based there. Nobody is going to overrun Kuwait again as long has America has large forces based within its borders.”
And they repay America by funding and supporting an organization who has declared war on it. If you really believe that Kuwaitians – or any muslim nation for that matter – enjoys having a foreign military “dominating” them in their country – particularly American, the “Big Satan” – then you have no idea what you’re talking about and you’re more clueless than Bush.
mortimer says
Only qualified officers can be trusted to select targets. Such valuable leaders have to be sent in with a team to protect them. It’s a complicated matter to plan a successful raid, but such bold raids will demoralize and turn ISIS leadership against one another with accusations of incompetence and treachery.
FatherJon says
Sounds more like Obama doesn’t seriously want to enter the fray at all. The UK and other European forces have no problem finding their targets. This sounds like Obama wanting to appear uninvolved to his Muslim constituency.
Daniel Triplett says
Part 1
@Sandusky Psyche
I thought we already had a talk about this A-hole. What is your name, and how do you make your living?
Libel is a crime. You must cease and desist now. If you don’t, as a next step we can discuss the issue with Robert. If you continue, I can involve the police. But I will no longer tolerate your willful attacks on my professional reputation, and you must stop. I’ve given you fair warning, and have tried to handle it at a low-level personally and directly with you.
“Libel – law
a published false statement that is damaging to a person’s reputation; a written defamation.”
Impersonating a Federal US Military Officer is a serious crime. You falsely accuse me of doing that, with zero evidence, because there is no evidence. I’ve said nothing but the truth. You’re a dishonorable criminal by posting on here that I am a fraud, and not who I say I am. You’re guilty of libel, which is a serious crime.
You lie about things that I’ve said in this and other threads, and you still lie about yourself to the rest of us by using a false name. You falsely accuse me of fraud and lying, when you hypocritically lie with fiction about yourself.
There is nothing at all false about anything I’ve said. Furthermore, you’re proclaiming that I suggested strategies and tactics I’ve never advocated at all.
You’ve obviously never had the balls or honor to wear your country’s commissioned officer uniform and serve in hostile action yourself. I promise you that you wouldn’t have fit in, but I’m guessing you’d never be selected anyway for this very competitive privilege, nor would you have made it through the intensive training. Perhaps only 2% of the officer corps even comes close to sharing your attitudes and values.
You called me “an archaic mass murdering lunatic” for sharing some of the strategies that the USAF has taught all of us Field and Flag Officers (O-4 and above). This is no way to treat a US war veteran. I sacrificed many years of my life during the war defending you and your family. I also lost a marriage over it, as did 75% of the other pilots. Many vets came home missing limbs, or sealed in a flag-draped aluminum box.
Do you also hang out on neurosurgery blogs, and call the doctors archaic lunatics, because you’re an all-knowing genius who knows more than they about their profession too? Is there anything about which you are not an expert? You evidently consider yourself a towering genius.
Your level of narcissism is quite stunning. You don’t have the foggiest fukcing idea what USAF officers are taught in the many years of professional military training we all strive to learn.
I worked hard to be accepted to become an Air Force pilot, during the most competitive period in history, when pilot production was at its all time low. My Undergraduate Pilot Training class, 96-07, was the smallest (most competitive) in history. I was the number one graduate in the nation. This followed my USAF OTS class 95-04, where I was a Distinguished Graduate. This followed my college graduation at Embry-Riddle University, where I was the Valedictorian. I had the respect of my senior officers. None needed to “keep tight reigns on [me]” you disrespectful POS. They sought me for my advice, and sent me on the most difficult missions.
Only 10% of civilians applying to OTS get accepted, and only 2% of USAF officers are selected for UPT. Less than half ever graduate UPT.
There’s not a chance in Hell you would have ever made it through all of that. You must be satisfying some sort of an inferiority complex to publicly disparage and repudiate those of us who have.
My service record is available to the public. So STFU before you criminally print more lies and libel against me again, and dig yourself even deeper into the crime hole you’ve already dug for yourself.
I served 12 years on Active Duty, before transferring to the Ready Reserve, taking an airline job flying 757/767/747 at the World’s highest paying airline, which hires just 2% from the pool of highly qualified pilots who apply.
When you address me by my rank, get it right. It’s Major, not Captain.
Daniel Triplett says
Part 2
@Sandusky Psyche
I don’t even know where to begin with you. No matter where I start though, it will be a waste of more of my time, so I’ll keep it short. I just don’t have time in this short post to explain the many years of strategic and tactical planning that we learned in the military, and to suggest that it can all be summed up in an Internet post is absurd.
I never proposed nuking Ramadi, Fallujah, Mosul, or anywhere else in Iraq. That’s yet another lie that you pulled out of your arrogant demented head. The only target I specifically proposed targeting with nuclear weapons was the Iranian nuke production facilities and the Pakistani nuke arsenal. Hardware first, threatening population centers later. I never proposed any specific population target.
I NEVER said anything about genocide or exterminating Muslims. I only ever advocated extinguishing the Islamic ideology, and destroying the Muslims’ capacity to produce nuclear weapons. I don’t want to kill all Muslims. In fact, I’d prefer not to kill any Muslims at all. Do you think our grandfathers took pleasure in knowing that hundreds of thousands of women, children, and elderly were dying when they leveled all of their major cities? That’s what needed to happen though to break the Nazi’s and Japanese will to fight, and force the them to surrender their Nazi and Japanese Imperialist ideologies. This had NOTHING to do with a depletion of British or American fighter squadrons, as you foolishly claim.
Strategic Area Bombing is designed to hinder war-making capacity and make life suck for them, and scare the enemy population into surrendering.
You really have your head jammed way up your ass if you think you’re smarter than our grandfathers, and they were inferior to us in reason and intellect.
War is a Battle of Wills. Whichever side loses the will to fight first loses the war. We are losing this war Sandusky. For the last 1400 years, the Muslims have been willing to sacrifice their own children, and do whatever it takes to break our will to fight. They’re never going to stop until we drastically change our strategy to break their will to fight. Meanwhile, half or more of Americans, especially libs like you, want to end all wars, bring all the troops home, then eat ice cream. You just don’t get it. Make no mistake, the World’s Muslims have a MUCH greater will to fight than Americans do.
We neither have the time, money, nor method to distinguish the “good” Muslims from the bad ones in this World. And are there any good Muslims anyway? One out of seven US KIAs in Afghanistan are Green on Blue: US trained Afghans turning their guns on us. We’re fools to trust any of them. Just look at the stats of how many Muslims in the Western World advocate Sharia law and support ISIS. Anyone buying into the evil contained between the covers of the Quran has a heart and soul manipulated by demons.
Our grandfathers didn’t have the time, money, or resources to distinguish good from bad Germans or Japanese either. So they bombed every man, woman, and child in sight until they surrendered unconditionally. Yes, this is how wars are won.
Stardusty Psyche says
Whoa, I missed this Major one,
“We neither have the time, money, nor method to distinguish the “good” Muslims from the bad ones in this World. And are there any good Muslims anyway?”
Here is a resource for you…seriously, maybe you can take it from some fellow anti-islamists
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/statement-on-muslims.htm
Even the guys who tally the bodies have kept their humanitarian perspective…I really think you should read what they have to say.
Daniel Triplett says
Part 3
@Sandusky Psyche
The problem is Islam, and Islam must end. I’d ask you what your plan is, but I know you don’t have one. You’re too busy using adolescent derogatory slurs to denigrate those of us who do. You insult the people with the training and education to actually form strategies that will work, injecting your counter-productive invective to give aid and encouragement to our enemy. Muslims love guys like you and my younger brother. He was dancing around on the National Mall with his lib buddies, holding signs that were calling Bush and the troops war criminals, at the same time his own brother and half a million other American brothers were in the war zone getting shot at by the same enemy they were encouraging.
War protesters may as well be standing right next to our troops on the front line holding their “Bush lied, while kids die” signs. It has the same effect. Do you think that’s supporting our troops? Do you think our servicemen appreciate that? I promise you they don’t. I am a serviceman, and I speak for all when I say we totally resent it. We’d prefer you just keep your mouths shut. Once the POTUS makes the decision to put troops in combat, the debate is over. Then it’s the duty of ALL Americans to support the troops AND the National mission, whether you agree with it or not. THAT is what “I support the troops” means. And that is what the enemy fears most…an entire American nation who stands resolutely behind our National mission.
Our enemies are students of American history. They’re not stupid. They know they can’t defeat our military on the battlefield. They know the only way to defeat us is to turn American public political opinion against the National Mission. It’s a strategy that works. It worked in Vietnam. It worked in Somalia. It worked in Iraq. And it’s going to work in Afghanistan too. Do you feel better now? Thousands of better men than you died defending your freedom in those missions. Shooting at my airplane was a weekly occurrence. And sometimes they hit me, but for the Grace of God they didn’t take me down.
Sandusky Psyche:
“If you want my strategy here it is
1. Minimize loss of our fine young men for people who turn and run even when they have a 10 to 1 advantage.
2. Do not come rushing to the rescue of such people. Give them as much support as they need to prevent a total collapse and then push them back into the fight.
3. Continue to sell arms to countries like Saudi Arabia and Jordan so they will continue to fight our enemies themselves on their dollar.
4. Continue to attack enemy positions, vehicles, supplies, and individual fighters from our strongest positions.
5. Continue to increase our ground forces primarily in roles such as training, target identification, and special operations.
6. Keep our enormous stockpile of equipment in Kuwait combat ready in case a full scale ground invasion becomes truly necessary.”
This demonstrates you don’t have any fukcing idea what you’re talking about. This is no strategy. This is pure microscopic, naive, arrogant, conceited, and useless BS that’s typical from Leftist boobs like you. People like your hero Obama think like this.
You’re missing the bigger strategic picture, which doesn’t surprise me with your lay perspective. You apparently believe the threat confronting us in the World begins and ends at what’s left of the Iraqi/Syria borders. This crisis, Sandusky, extends from Morocco to Indonesia, and everywhere in between, where devout Islam reigns supreme. I know you’ve not been there, but while in the USAF, I’ve been to about 70 of these shithole countries within this region, and believe me, you wouldn’t want to step foot into any one of them without military escort, and fully armed (Excepting Dubai). And I’m not even including in this, the Islamic threats and attacks, some executed but many more planned, that are happening all across non-Muslim countries in Europe and North America. Have you turned on the news lately? Try tuning into Fox once in a while, and maybe you’ll learn something.
Stardusty Psyche says
Daaannnngggg,
“Once the POTUS makes the decision to put troops in combat, the debate is over. Then it’s the duty of ALL Americans to support the troops AND the National mission, whether you agree with it or not”
That’s some Majorly scary stuff…welcome to robot America.
Alright all you bloggers out there, just shut the hell up cause POTUS Obama has spoken and the Major just issued his orders!
So, all you guy just have to shut up and fall in line behind the decisions of POTUS Obama cause the debate is now over!!!
Daniel Triplett says
Part 4
@Sandusky Psyche
I NEVER suggested using nuke ordnance anywhere in Iraq. You’re forgetting that I spent 6 years in Iraq and Afghanistan, and I know full well what we did to secure our objective there. And we did. But all we really did was shift the local populace from Stage 3 jihad back into the Stage 2. We really didn’t solve the problem, which is Islam. If you can’t see that Islam is the source of all these problems, then you are really in the dark, and haven’t been paying attention at all.
Islam is a Worldwide problem. Although you gave a simplified, lay, and useless strategy for defeating ISIS, you STILL can’t answer if or how you propose countering the Iranian nuke weapons program. Because you don’t know how. And beyond Iran, defeating the World wide Islamic threat is so far over your head, it’s not even funny. You have no idea what you’re talking about Sir.
That’s what we spend years and years in the military learning how to do. Don’t worry, you don’t need to know how to do it. That’s why you pay taxes for a military that spends every waking minute of their lives planning and training to defeat these threats.
Strategic Area Bombing isn’t something we use “only when our fighter squadrons are near collapse, like in the Battle of Britain,” as you naively suggest. Strategic Area Bombing is used against many different types of targets. Fighting a war involves a concept of five concentric rings, with population centers being in the center ring, and final option.
We start off with the outer ring, Tactical strikes, and if we succeed, we stop. If we fail, we move to the next inner ring, progressively getting more severe. Eventually, we strike dams, flooding their crops; electrical grids, forcing them to live in the dark; sewage treatment plants, forcing them to live in their own shit; television, radio, and Internet; making them ignorant; food and water storage, making them go hungry; weapons factories; making them feel hopeless and overpowered; bridges, rail, and roads, isolating their movements; etc. If none of that breaks their will to fight, we move to our last option, striking population centers. This is our last choice, not first. But it’s still often necessary. When we’re facing a rabid enemy with 1.6 Billion adherents, tactical strikes, one at a time on a few enemy combatants sitting around a card table, or some guys driving down the road in a Toyota truck, is not going to win the War against Islam.
As Gen Curtis LeMay said, architect of the Strategic Area Bombing campaign, “If you kill enough of them, they stop fighting.”
LeMay also said, “There are no innocent civilians. It is their government and you are fighting a people, you are not trying to fight an armed force anymore. So it doesn’t bother me so much to be killing the so-called innocent bystanders.”
And here’s one more from LeMay, our longest serving 4-Star in history:
“I think there are many times when it would be most efficient to use nuclear weapons. However, the public opinion in this country and throughout the world throw up their hands in horror when you mention nuclear weapons, just because of the propaganda that’s been fed to them. As far as casualties were concerned I think there were more casualties in the first attack on Tokyo with incendiaries than there were with the first use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima. The fact that it’s done instantaneously, maybe that’s more humane than incendiary attacks, if you can call any war act humane. I don’t, particularly, so to me there wasn’t much difference. A weapon is a weapon and it really doesn’t make much difference how you kill a man. If you have to kill him, well, that’s the evil to start with and how you do it becomes pretty secondary. I think your choice should be which weapon is the most efficient and most likely to get the whole mess over with as early as possible.”
This is longstanding US strategy we’ve even used on our own people. Gen William T. Sherman: “War is cruelty. There is no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over.”
Here’s a quote from our allied friend, Sir Arthur Harris, commander of RAF Bomber Command during WWII:
“The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everyone else, and nobody was going to bomb them. At Rotterdam, London, Warsaw and half a hundred other places, they put their rather naive theory into operation. They sowed the wind, and now they are going to reap the whirlwind.
the aim of the Combined Bomber Offensive…should be unambiguously stated [as] the destruction of German cities, the killing of German workers, and the disruption of civilised life throughout Germany.
… the destruction of houses, public utilities, transport and lives, the creation of a refugee problem on an unprecedented scale, and the breakdown of morale both at home and at the battle fronts by fear of extended and intensified bombing, are accepted and intended aims of our bombing policy. They are not by-products of attempts to hit factories.”
Again, these are not strategies we use “only when our fighter command is near collapse,” as you foolishly claim.
Do you think these men were “archaic, genocidal, insane lunatics” too?
Although none of us enjoys killing other human beings, this will be necessary, on a large scale, if we intend to win this conflict. Our grandparents had to do it, and so will we. The objective here is not to exterminate Muslims, but rather to exterminate the Islamic ideology. But the unpleasant fact is we need to kill a lot of Muslims to do that. Not all of them; just enough to break their will to fight, and force the surrender of their ideology, making the practice or promotion of Islam a capital offense worldwide, including within our own borders.
Similar to WWII: The problem wasn’t so much the Germans, as it was Nazism. Once we extinguished the Nazi ideology, the World could then live in peace with the Germans.
Perhaps you haven’t been paying attention, but Iran is rapidly building nuke weapons TO USE THEM ON US. They promise to do so. Many experts believe they already have at least one bomb, but are waiting to launch the Apocalypse until they’ve amassed dozens of them, and perfected their ICBM technology. If you don’t see this as the major threat the World faces today, you’re an even bigger idiot than I thought.
You have no plan to defeat Iran, and you libel those of with a plan by calling us insane. The strategies I’ve posted in other posts are ALL strategies that our military taught me. As much as you’d like to think, I’m “archaic and insane” for proposing them, I’m proposing strategies that are time tested and have been around for centuries. The only thing that’s changed is the evolution and efficiency of the weapons at our disposal.
Just because you don’t agree with American military strategy, doesn’t mean those of us in the military are insane.
Perhaps YOU are the one who is mentally challenged, if you think this problem is going away on its own.
Iraq and Afghanistan are simply small battles in the larger War against Islam. You’re really naïve if you think this War ends at the Iraqi/Afghanistan borders.
As I just said, all we’re really doing in Afghanistan and Iraq is containing the problem, and shifting them for the time being back to Stage 2 jihad. Women are walking around in burkas now, honor killings and FGM are the norm, and Afghanistan is the #2 country on the list for Christian persecution. So what have we really accomplished there anyway? As soon as Caliph Ohammad goes to zero Force in 2016, they’ll be right back to Stage 3 jihad, just as what happened in Iraq.
Do you think we have enough troops to conventionally invade and occupy every Muslim sovereignty on the Globe, and stay there supervising them forever?
Even if we defeat ISIS and Iran conventionally, which we could, at enormous cost in time, American blood, and treasure, do you seriously think our problem is solved? Dude, it’s just a matter of time before some other Muslim group with a different name figures out how to buy, build, or steal the nukes, then use them against us. Whether it be in 1 year, 10 years, or 100 years, the Muslims won’t stop until the entire World is Caliphate. Is that the World you want to leave for your children and grandchildren? Not me. Shame on you if you do.
The problem is ISLAM, Worldwide. Do you get it? It must be extinguished. You don’t even have an effective strategy to defeat ISIS, let alone destroy Islam.
I use my full legal name in these Internet posts, unlike you. If you repeated what I’ve ACTUALLY said in other posts, they wouldn’t support your libel. So you lie about what I’ve said, and what I propose. This is classless, and when you print that I’m impersonating a USAF Officer, you’re disrespecting my service and sacrifice, and you’re damaging my public and professional reputation. This is libel, LIBEL IS A CRIME, and you’re breaking the law. You have no right to victimize me like that, and I demand you stop NOW.
You can call me names, you can criticize American Military tactics and strategy if you want to look like a narcissist, but you do NOT get to publicly say I’m fraudulently impersonating a US Military Officer. That part is LIBEL, and I demand you stop NOW.
Once again, you’ve wasted my time and yours. We could have used this time focusing on our common enemy, but instead, you’ve chosen to attack another Counter-jihadist, and vet, on your own side.
If you had any class, you’d publicly apologize to me.
Champ says
Bravo, Daniel, to all of your comments!!! …and you covered all the bases, Sir!
“If you had any class, you’d publicly apologize to me.”
Absolutely!! …but clearly “Sandthrowing Psycho” does not *have* any class, so I wouldn’t count on an apology from him.
Angemon says
Indeed Champ. A masterfully crafted response which I doubt will ever get a proper reply. Or a reply at least addressing Daniel’s points. Or a reply at all. Kudos for Daniel’s astonishing display of patience, and remember Proverbs 29:9
Champ says
Proverbs 29:9: “If a wise person goes to court with a fool, the fool rages and scoffs, and there is no peace.”
Very apropos, Angemon!
Stardusty Psyche says
Hi Daniel Triplett,
Gee, a multiparter against me…oooouuuchhhh 🙂
“A USAF pilot would know that, hence my assertion Daniel is a likely fraud.”” does not even come remotely close to liable. Nor is calling into question the voracity of some guy on a blog come anywhere remotely close to a police matter.
Again, I say a USAF pilot would or should know these things, again calling into question your entire diatribe.
Fine, send this statement to the DA:
“I have the very greatest respect for our service members. So some guy gets on a blog and claims he is a pilot, so what? Ok, maybe it’s true, who knows? ”
The primary reason I do not publish my name is that I often say things like “Islam is a fascistic doctrine”. That tends to piss off Muslims and right now pissing off Muslims can be unhealthy.
I also don’t publish because of people who go verbally ballistic and start making all kinds of threats because they can’t defend their original words or the logical conclusions of those words.
You said
“” but during Vietnam and ever since have been required to radio in to get permission from someone who is not in the airplane and can’t even see the target. This ridiculous and unnecessary rule””
That sounds like outright disrespect for your superior officers. I happen to have a great deal of respect for our military and how they do their many jobs. Somebody calling a 50 year old rule “ridiculous” in my mind calls into question the judgment of the individual issuing such a harsh criticism of such a long standing and presumably well justified tactical procedure.
You said
“Obviously, with Strategic Area Bombing, we can’t identify everyone who dies. Nonetheless, Area Bombing is an indispensable strategy that our military has always, and continues to teach every USAF Officer. This is how wars are won. ”
That is a demonstrably false statement. We did not use strategic area bombing to win Kuwait, Afghanistan, or Iraq. We did use tactical bombing of troop concentrations using unguided bombs, but we did not wage a strategic area bombing campaign as you defined it to include “population centers”.
Anybody can get on a blog and claim any identity they want. I am under no obligation to take your word for it. I never said you were not who you say you are or that I could prove you are lying, only that I call into question your statements based on the errors I have identified in them.
That is my right whether you like it or not.
The guys here have called me lots of names, I’m not crying about it or even mad about it. I mean, whatever dude and have a nice day…
But let’s just assume for a moment you are telling the truth. First, let me say, thank you for your service to our country. Second, I am very sorry to hear about your divorce, that is a big loss and I am very much opposed to divorce in general except in extreme cases where personal safety is and issue. Third, you don’t get a pass on making erroneous statements just because you served, you have to justify your statements on the merits just like anybody else.
But, again, who knows? Anybody can say anything about themselves on a blog and nobody has any obligation to take on faith the representations made by bloggers about themselves.
I don’t know, maybe you are used to having a bunch of sycophants and yes men around who will kiss your ass because you say you are a pilot. Who knows, maybe every word you say about yourself is true, but in my view your statements about area bombing of population centers are outrageous.
Angemon says
Stardusty Psyche posted:
“Again, I say a USAF pilot would or should know these things, again calling into question your entire diatribe.”
And you clearly have all the required skills and knowledge to assess what a USAF pilot would or should know, right?
“I often say things like “Islam is a fascistic doctrine”. That tends to piss off Muslims and right now pissing off Muslims can be unhealthy.”
Good thing you informed us of that, since that’s not what we’re seeing here. Judging from your actions here, one could think that you’re a run-of-the-mill troll of the kind that usually pops up, like clockwork, to derail topics and smear regulars every time a forefront figure of the CJ movement gets a little media exposure.
“I happen to have a great deal of respect for our military and how they do their many jobs.”
Once again, good thing you informed us of that. We just might get the opposite idea if we were to judge you for your actions alone. And, of course, you seem to think you can do their job better than them.
“That is a demonstrably false statement. We did not use strategic area bombing to win Kuwait, Afghanistan, or Iraq. We did use tactical bombing of troop concentrations using unguided bombs, but we did not wage a strategic area bombing campaign as you defined it to include “population centers”.”
You claim it’s a “demonstrably false” statement but you never get around to demonstrate why is it false that Area Bombing is an indispensable strategy that the military has always, and continues to teach every USAF Officer. Much ado about nothing.
“I call into question your statements based on the errors I have identified in them.”
Using all the authority and knowledge you have on the matter, which amounts to… apparently, whatever feel outrageous in your view.
“That is my right whether you like it or not.”
Oh, you have the “right” to call others into question when you “identify” errors? Who granted you that right, what errors have you identified, and on which authority are you qualified to identify said errors?
“Who knows, maybe every word you say about yourself is true, but in my view your statements about area bombing of population centers are outrageous.”
And it boils down to this: you rail against Daniel for no apparent reason, and spend time questioning his knowledge, skills and experience, only to end up admitting you have no idea whether what he said is true or not – and you tried to discredit his background on several posts – but it just sounds “outrageous” to you. Unlike, for example, expecting that Saudi Arabia, where 92% of the population supports ISIS, to fight ISIS for America – the same Saudi Arabia who funds mosques dedicated to spreading anti-americanism and ISIS’s understanding of islam.
Stardusty Psyche says
Hi Angemon,
“You claim it’s a “demonstrably false” statement but you never get around to demonstrate why is it false that Area Bombing is an indispensable strategy that the military has always, and continues to teach every USAF Officer. Much ado about nothing.”
You left out a part of Daniel’s statement that is demonstrably false “This is how wars are won. ”
He claims this strategy of strategic area bombing is “indispensable” and “how wars are won”
Bush and Bush did not agree because they won Kuwait, Afghanistan, and Iraq without this supposedly “indispensable” strategy that is asserted to be “how wars are won”
My assertions have been confirmed with Daniel’s rantings about LeMay, civilians, and his continued support of area bombing of population centers.
Our first president Bush was, of course, a WWII vet.. He served very honorably and we owe our freedom to men like him. He had no intention of area bombing population centers. He ordered a strategy that brought victory without the wholesale slaughter that so often occurred in WWII.
In WWII we did what we had to do to win a war we did not start. Bush had the insight to realize Kuwait was not WWII and should not use all the same strategies.
Angemon says
Stardusty Psyche posted:
“You left out a part of Daniel’s statement that is demonstrably false “This is how wars are won. ””
That’s not “demonstrably false” for the aforementioned reasons: you failed to demonstrate that he was not taught that during his training. That you insist it was is very telling of your character.
“He claims this strategy of strategic area bombing is “indispensable” and “how wars are won””
Let me quote Daniel for you, since you seem to suffering of a serious case of selective reading:
“Nonetheless, Area Bombing is an indispensable strategy that our military has always, and continues to teach every USAF Officer. This is how wars are won.”
Are you saying that Area Bombing is not an indispensable strategy that the military has always, and continues to teach every USAF Officer? If so, where’s your evidence for that? Oh, wait, by your owd admission, you don’t have a clue, it’s just that it “feels outrageous” to you. That’s what your “credentials” amount to.
Speaking if selective reading, would you mind answering my questions? They are important to the matter at hand.
You claim you have the “right” to call others into question when you “identify” errors. Who granted you that right, what errors have you identified, and on which authority are you qualified to identify said errors?
Why should the US trust Saudi Arabia, who is one of the states funding ISIS, and where 92% of the populace feels ISIS correctly implements islamic law? Why would Saudi Arabia fight ISIS?
What compelled you to spout the absurdity that Kuwaiti like having US military in their country? Are you so daft as to refuse to face what’s been common knowledge for well over a decade now, that one of the alleged grievances muslims have against the West is the presence of American troops in muslim nations?
Stardusty Psyche says
Hi Philip Jihadski,
Hey, I wish somebody would send me a check for getting you guys straightened out here!!!
And why would I not like names?
I mean, calling me “a little prick” is ever so clever 🙂
Angemon says
Stardusty Psyche posted:
“Hey, I wish somebody would send me a check for getting you guys straightened out here!!!”
Ah, is that how you evaluate what you’re doing here, with the whole (and I’m paraphrasing here) “what you say might be true, but it sounds outrageous to me” thing?
Good show, chap, good show!!!
Stardusty Psyche says
Holllyyyy Kaarappp,
” “There are no innocent civilians. It is their government and you are fighting a people, you are not trying to fight an armed force anymore. So it doesn’t bother me so much to be killing the so-called innocent bystanders.” ”
Major Dan, have you read your own words? I mean, wowwwww. There are no innocent civilians. Alrighty then…Gee, I guess they are guilty from birth..,all of ’em, all ages, male, female…every stinkin one
Guilty,
Mirren10 says
”Major Dan, have you read your own words? I mean, wowwwww. There are no innocent civilians. Alrighty then…Gee, I guess they are guilty from birth..,all of ’em, all ages, male, female…every stinkin one”
This is the sort of wishy washy, bleeding heart nonsense evinced by fools.
Dan Triplett is talking about **war**, in the twentieth and twenty first centuries. It is no longer a matter of two opposing armies in a field advancing on each other, with little to no involvement of non-combatants.
It is, instead, a matter of *total war*, unless one wishes to kneel in submission to the aggressor. In that scenario, it is inevitable, however much one wishes it were not so, that civilians are killed.
As I noted before, you’re a fool. One of those who employ bleeding heart rhetoric in order to puff yourself up as such a moral person, condemning those who actually fight for freedom, which necessarily entails the killing of civilians, whilst happily enjoying the fruits of the victory.
The hypocrisy of such as you sickens me.
Stardusty Psyche says
Hi Mirren10,
Where was I “condemning those who actually fight for freedom”?
I have the greatest respect for the men who have fought for our freedom, and have never said otherwise.
But that doesn’t give every vet a free pass on their stated positions. Vets have to argue on the merits and will have their ideas criticized just like everybody else.
I still honor their service even if I think their ideas are nutty.
Western Canadian says
Have you ever read anyone’s words, even your own? Not likely. Your willing to be a cheerleader for an abomination and chronic liar like Obama, is all anyone needs to read of your endless streams of utter drivel. As for innocent civilians in war time… yes, they do exist…. until they are indoctrinated and swallow the hatred preached by the fascist (and I use the word properly, unlike your ilk) bastards who dominate their barbaric cultures (barbaric in this case referring to nazi or islamic doctrine). As for area bombing, while it was at one time a common tactic, modern weapons have rendered it a less necessary tool. But one with it’s place, which is sadly very much to be found in the islamic middle east. And I just wasted a bit of my time, on an uncommonly dim witted and low grade troll.
Stardusty Psyche says
Hi Angemon,
“ou claim you have the “right” to call others into question when you “identify” errors. Who granted you that right,”
I hold that truth to be self evident and that right to be inalienable.
“what errors have you identified,”
Not gonna re-hash the whole list…
“and on which authority are you qualified to identify said errors?”
Argument from authority is a logical fallacy. I argue on the merits.
Western Canadian says
You have argued nothing on it’s merit. You are merely a stupidly contrarian troll, and one with an uncommonly shabby education and resultant mind to match. You name call, offer made up out of thin air drivel (your own as well as that created by others), and in general merely offer your self up as a product of an education system designed to create dumbed down losers who have been taught what to think, and never how to think.
Mirren10 says
“what errors have you identified,”
Not gonna re-hash the whole list…
Of course you won’t, because you can’t. Typical leftard cowardice; employ lofty dismissal rather than answering the question.
”and on which authority are you qualified to identify said errors?”
Argument from authority is a logical fallacy. I argue on the merits.”
Uh huh. Not so far, you haven’t. So far, you haven’t produced one logical argument to refute anything anyone has said here. All you do is blow your own trumpet, and attempt to portray yourself as superior, an exercise at which you have dismally failed.
You’re hopelessly outclassed and out of your league, here. Run along and bore the pants of people on some other blog.
Alternatively, you could actually answer the questions put to you, drop your silly pretensions, and engage with people on an intelligent level. But that wouldn’t give you that warm frisson of deluded superiority, would it ?
Angemon says
Stardusty Psyche posted:
“I hold that truth to be self evident and that right to be inalienable.”
Your logic is circular and faulty. A right is given to you, so who gives you that right? You’re not answering my question, just running around in circles pretending to do so.
“Argument from authority is a logical fallacy.”
Funny thing. Here’s what you had to say not long ago:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/06/obama-still-secretly-backing-muslim-brotherhood-as-moderate-alternative-to-islamic-state-and-al-qaeda/comment-page-1#comment-1248776
“No sources are cited, no text of the document is provided, and nobody in the article even claims to have read it at all.”
And:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/06/obama-still-secretly-backing-muslim-brotherhood-as-moderate-alternative-to-islamic-state-and-al-qaeda/comment-page-1#comment-1248811
“By that standard anybody can print anything without any mention of any sources”
Further down that topic you go and say:
“If the times has some documents that reference the secret document then they should print those references or at least cite them.”
You require others to have an authoritative source while exempting yourself from that standard. Quite the hypocrite, aren’t you?
“I argue on the merits.”
Nope. Like you said, “maybe every word you[Daniel] say about yourself is true, but in my view your statements about area bombing of population centers are outrageous“. It seems you’re arguing based on whatever feelings you might happen to have, not the merits of the argument.
Also, would you mind answering my questions? After all, they are important to the matter at hand.
You claim you have the “right” to call others into question when you “identify” errors. Who granted you that right, what errors have you identified, and on which authority are you qualified to identify said errors?
Why should the US trust Saudi Arabia, who is one of the states funding ISIS, and where 92% of the populace feels ISIS correctly implements islamic law? Why would Saudi Arabia fight ISIS?
What compelled you to spout the absurdity that Kuwaiti like having US military in their country? Are you so daft as to refuse to face what’s been common knowledge for well over a decade now, that one of the alleged grievances muslims have against the West is the presence of American troops in muslim nations?
Stardusty Psyche says
Hi Angemon,
Argument from authority is different from argument from evidence.
I don’t claim to have rights given to me by a higher authority, I claim my rights as self evident and inalienable.
If somebody writes an article about a particular document I expect some evidence they have read the document or have some chain of evidence to the document. The Washington Times provided no such thing in the link you posted above.
You fail to see the distinction. Well, I did say I am trying to get you guys straightened out here!
“Why would Saudi Arabia fight ISIS?”
Because IS considers the Saudis to be Murtad. In the view of IS the Saudis have sold out to the West and need to be deposed. The Saudis, in the view of IS and Al-Qaeda, blasphemed the prophet by allowing the infidel army into the Islamic holy lands.
In fact, the Saudis are fighting to maintain power. So we sell them weapons, and they are using those weapons against our enemies. They sell us the oil we want, and they fund Islamic attacks against us at the same time.
From the point of view of IS the Saudis are duplicitous murtad blasphemers of Islam and IS is the true pure caliphate of the faith, all of which is true.
“What compelled you to spout the absurdity that Kuwaiti like having US military in their country? Are you so daft as to refuse to face what’s been common knowledge for well over a decade now, that one of the alleged grievances Muslims have against the West is the presence of American troops in Muslim nations?”
The Kuwaitis are practical enough to realize that without our protection they are at risk of being conquered again. Yes, I am sure that our presence is also offensive to many Muslims inside and outside of Kuwait, but polls of Kuwaitis and a couple personal encounters I have had with Kuwaitis indicates they have fairly favorable attitude toward America and Americans. .
Kuwait is a military ally of ours.
Angemon says
Stardusty Psyche posted:
“Argument from authority is different from argument from evidence”
Considering that there’s no such logical fallacy as “argument from evidence” and that you don’t know what the fallacy of “argument from authority” is, any attempt to compare them is moot and pointless.
“I don’t claim to have rights given to me by a higher authority, I claim my rights as self evident and inalienable.”
No one said nothing about a “higher authority”, so good luck trying to argue that. You still need to explain why should we take your assertions on Daniel. Oh wait, it’s because what he said “is outrageous”, in your view.
“If somebody writes an article about a particular document I expect some evidence they have read the document or have some chain of evidence to the document. The Washington Times provided no such thing in the link you posted above.”
One would expect someone so concerned with sources would provide some evidence to back his assertion about what Daniel said regarding what’s taught to USAF officers. You provided nothing to back your claim. Dual standards indeed.
“Because IS considers the Saudis to be Murtad.”
And 92% of Saudis consider IS to comply to the values of islamic law. If/when the islamic state reaches Saudi Arabia there’s no reason not to expect Saudis to receive them with open arms.
“ In the view of IS the Saudis have sold out to the West and need to be deposed. ”
Nope. Not the Saudis, just the House of Saud.
“The Saudis, in the view of IS and Al-Qaeda, blasphemed the prophet by allowing the infidel army into the Islamic holy lands.”
I’m going to let you figure out the nonsense in that by yourself.
“In fact, the Saudis are fighting to maintain power.”
Fighting against who to maintain what power over what?
“From the point of view of IS the Saudis are duplicitous murtad blasphemers of Islam and IS is the true pure caliphate of the faith, all of which is true.”
Again, 92% of the Saudis agree that the IS abides by islamic law. If you expect the Saudis to take up arms against the IS, you’re a bigger fool than I thought – and by now I thought you a substantial fool.
Also, that’s a nice Freudian slip you had in there.
“The Kuwaitis are practical enough to realize that without our protection they are at risk of being conquered again. Yes, I am sure that our presence is also offensive to many Muslims inside and outside of Kuwait”
So your presence in Kuwait is offensive to the majority of Kuwaitis, but you somehow see nothing wrong with that. Got it.
“but polls of Kuwaitis”
Could you give some of them? Because last time I checked, only 46% of Kuwaitis had a favorable opinion of the US. That was in 2007, and a drop from 63% in 2003:
http://www.pewglobal.org/database/indicator/1/survey/all/
A 17% drop in 4 years, and that was 8 years ago. At that rate, the rate of Kuwaitis who have a favorable view of the US by now could very well be 12%.
“and a couple personal encounters I have had with Kuwaitis indicates they have fairly favorable attitude toward America and Americans.”
Ah, you’re one of those. “I know a couple of X therefore I can extrapolate what all X feel”. Got it. Why even bother mentioning alleged polls? Also, can you provide some sort of evidence that you do, in fact, had personal encounters with Kuwaitis? Who knows, maybe every word of that is true, but in my view your statement is outrageously convenient to you.
“Kuwait is a military ally of ours.”
And you expect that a nation where, according to the Pew survey, the majority of the population has an unfavorable view of you, a nation that funds those who fight against you, a nation whose ideology mandates them to wage war against you, will stand by their treaties when push comes to shove? Especially when Obama has left quite clear he’s unwilling to put “boots on the ground” to fight against the IS?
Stardusty Psyche says
Hi Angemon,
““Argument from authority is different from argument from evidence”
Considering that there’s no such logical fallacy as “argument from evidence””
!!!Exactly!!!
Argument from authority is a fallacy. I am not arguing from authority.
Argument from evidence is not a fallacy. I am arguing from evidence.
The reason I do not address all your points is that most of them are so badly formed that it just is not worthwhile in any way for me to continually correct your endless pedestrian errors.
““Because IS considers the Saudis to be Murtad.”
And 92% of Saudis consider IS to comply to the values of Islamic law. If/when the Islamic state reaches Saudi Arabia there’s no reason not to expect Saudis to receive them with open arms.”
We were talking about government actions, so by “the Saudis” I meant the house of Saud, the royal family, the government in power.
IS is attacking Saudi Arabia because they consider the royal family dictators to be apostates who have failed in their guardianship of the Islamic holy lands who must be deposed so the pure Islamic caliphate can take its rightful possession of the land of Muhammad. That is the kind of bullshit IS believes, just read Dabiq at the Clarion project or wherever.
” Because last time I checked, only 46% of Kuwaitis had a favorable opinion of the US. That was in 2007, and a drop from 63% in 2003:”
That’s pretty damn high still. What do you think the numbers would be in other Arab nations? But Kuwait is a dictatorship like every other Arab nation except maybe Tunisia and used to be for a short while Egypt. Our military arrangements are with the dictators in power. That sucks, but we can’t fix everything everywhere overnight.
“Obama has left quite clear he’s unwilling to put “boots on the ground” to fight against the IS?”
We already have boots on the ground fighting IS, and the numbers are growing.
I generally support most of the policies Obama has implemented on a wide variety of issues, but from time to time Obama tells a blatant lie as part of his plans. The most obvious is the whole “nothing to do with Islam” nonsense.
Our men on the ground have in fact been engaged in firefights. We are staging massive amounts of equipment nearby in Kuwait. Hopefully we will not have to drive North from Kuwait because hopefully the Iraqis will manage to plod their way to more victories like Tikrit, but given their track record of retreats and defeats there is no way to accurately predict..
Angemon says
Stardusty Psyche posted:
“Argument from authority is a fallacy. I am not arguing from authority.
Argument from evidence is not a fallacy. I am arguing from evidence.”
Nope. You’re not arguing from evidence. You’re doing the opposite, in fact – you’ve demanded evidence from someone else who wrote something you disagreed with and you failed to provide anything to back your assertions when asked. Quite the hypocrite, aren’t you? Also, you still don’t know what “argument from authority” is. So my questions still stand:
You claim you have the “right” to call others into question when you “identify” errors. Who granted you that right, what errors have you identified, and on which authority are you qualified to identify said errors?
“The reason I do not address all your points is that most of them are so badly formed that it just is not worthwhile in any way for me to continually correct your endless pedestrian errors.”
I’m sorry you feel that way. But don’t worry though, I’m going to keep pointing out your falsehoods and errors in judgment until you grow a pair and face them.
“We were talking about government actions, so by “the Saudis” I meant the house of Saud, the royal family, the government in power.
IS is attacking Saudi Arabia because they consider the royal family dictators to be apostates who have failed in their guardianship of the Islamic holy lands who must be deposed so the pure Islamic caliphate can take its rightful possession of the land of Muhammad. That is the kind of bullshit IS believes, just read Dabiq at the Clarion project or wherever.”
Once again: why are you placing your trust in a country where 92% of the population agrees with the islamic state? Do you really expect Saudi Arabia to fight the IS in America’s behalf?
“That’s pretty damn high still.”
46% is the minority, no matter how high you’re trying to spin it. In any case, this shatters your nonsense about polls showing that Kuwaitis having a fairly favorable attitude towards the US – polls you have not brought up, even when asked. No, wait, let me guess: showing that you’re lying is the kind of point that is” so badly formed that it just is not worthwhile in any way for you to correct”. Am I right?
So, have you figured out what’s wrong with what you said?
Stardusty Psyche says
Hi Angemon,
“Who granted you that right,”
Nobody. I don’t need my claimed rights to be granted, as I have stated previously.
“what errors have you identified,”
Asked and answered many times. If you really want to know, just scroll up to where I point out a host of errors made by various posters here.
““That’s pretty damn high still.”
46% is the minority, no matter how high you’re trying to spin it. In any case, this shatters your nonsense about polls showing that Kuwaitis having a fairly favorable attitude towards the US ”
46% is “fairly favorable”. I doubt we could get those kinds of numbers in most countries.
“No, wait, let me guess: showing that you’re lying is the kind of point that is” so badly formed that it just is not worthwhile in any way for you to correct”. Am I right?”
No.
Angemon says
Stardusty Psyche posted:
“46% is “fairly favorable”. I doubt we could get those kinds of numbers in most countries.”
Nope. The majority is unfavorable. And, like I said, that was 8 years ago. You have yet to bring any poll to back your claim, so I guess it’s safe to conclude you lied about that as well.
Also, why are you placing your trust in a country where 92% of the population agrees with the islamic state? Do you really expect Saudi Arabia to fight the IS in America’s behalf?