(02-13-2015 03:09 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  So...ISIS can't even get past some Iraqi soldiers? And eight die in the process.

Yeah...sounds like an existential threat too me.

Were the terrorists based in Afghanistan an existential threat in 2001? Probably not, but they did some damage on 9/11.

If we wait for them to land a ship on the New Jersey coast, it's going to be too late.

You'd have to be a complete idiot to think we didn't have operators helping the ISF in this particular fight.

(02-13-2015 09:13 PM)Pyrizzo Wrote:  You'd have to be a complete idiot to think we didn't have operators helping the ISF in this particular fight.

You have to remember who we are talking about here.

(02-13-2015 09:18 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-13-2015 09:13 PM)Pyrizzo Wrote:  You'd have to be a complete idiot to think we didn't have operators helping the ISF in this particular fight.

You have to remember who we are talking about here.

Exactly my point.

My opinion is that this is a lot of bluster from ISIS in response to recent moves by the administration. It seems pretty trivial for ISIS to take over a bunch of sand and a village of a few hundred people. That's a far cry from launching an attack on a US military base. ISIS famously "encircled" Baghdad, but what came of that? Not exactly a siege, and not exactly an invasion.

https://goo.gl/maps/TGw9M

The fact is, that when you see maps of Iraq and Syria with pretty colors showing what parts of the country are controlled, and by whom, you are really talking about a half dozen cities. How many fighters would it really take to take control of a small town? Four pickup trucks and a dozen thugs? Does this really represent anything significant, other than "sending a message"?

I wrote this earlier this morning, but held off posting this earlier, but the 8 dead ISIS fighters kind of puts it in perspective. This sounds like nothing more than a gentle FU in response to Obama's request for ground troop authorization.

Sacrificing 8 soldiers just to stay FU Obama? Yeah, sounds like some leadership to worry could threaten our existence...lol

(02-13-2015 09:19 PM)Pyrizzo Wrote:  

(02-13-2015 09:18 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-13-2015 09:13 PM)Pyrizzo Wrote:  You'd have to be a complete idiot to think we didn't have operators helping the ISF in this particular fight.

You have to remember who we are talking about here.

Exactly my point.

I'm sure that was covered in that mysterious fox 'news' story that was never posted. Of course we did train a lot of the Iraqi forces.

If we attack ISIS on the ground, is the left going to say we did it for the oil?

Why would they?

(02-14-2015 09:20 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Why would they?

Ah, maybe because exactly that was said in an earlier time when we put boots on the ground, but the president at that time was a republican. Selective amnesia? Nah, never happen!

(02-14-2015 09:27 AM)Crebman Wrote:  

(02-14-2015 09:20 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Why would they?

Ah, maybe because exactly that was said in an earlier time when we put boots on the ground, but the president at that time was a republican. Selective amnesia? Nah, never happen!

The airfield has around a 15 mile perimeter. You have overhead ISR 24/7 and CAS on call if you get a high denisty target. AC-130 would be perfect for this situation

(02-14-2015 09:00 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-13-2015 09:19 PM)Pyrizzo Wrote:  

(02-13-2015 09:18 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-13-2015 09:13 PM)Pyrizzo Wrote:  You'd have to be a complete idiot to think we didn't have operators helping the ISF in this particular fight.

You have to remember who we are talking about here.

Exactly my point.

I'm sure that was covered in that mysterious fox 'news' story that was never posted. Of course we did train a lot of the Iraqi forces.

No it would not be covered by any news outlets, and its convenient for you that much of the US support on the ground including close air support and aerial reconnaissance would be classified. That you way you can continue with your smug ignorance in your posts and feel somewhat happy about it.

(02-14-2015 08:58 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Sacrificing 8 soldiers just to stay FU Obama? Yeah, sounds like some leadership to worry could threaten our existence...lol

It's the culture of death (i.e. Islamists), and that's exactly how they were able to advance through most of Sunni Syria and Iraq.

(02-14-2015 04:04 PM)Pyrizzo Wrote:  

(02-14-2015 09:00 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-13-2015 09:19 PM)Pyrizzo Wrote:  

(02-13-2015 09:18 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-13-2015 09:13 PM)Pyrizzo Wrote:  You'd have to be a complete idiot to think we didn't have operators helping the ISF in this particular fight.

You have to remember who we are talking about here.

Exactly my point.

I'm sure that was covered in that mysterious fox 'news' story that was never posted. Of course we did train a lot of the Iraqi forces.

No it would not be covered by any news outlets, and its convenient for you that much of the US support on the ground including close air support and aerial reconnaissance would be classified. That you way you can continue with your smug ignorance in your posts and feel somewhat happy about it.

Dude, get real. ISIS isn't a nation directly controlling any defined segment of the global oil market like Iraq was.

That's the only point I'm making.

And you can make a pretty good case about Iraq without much trouble:
Why the war in Iraq was fought for Big Oil

Quote:"Of course it's about oil; we can't really deny that," said Gen. John Abizaid, former head of U.S. Central Command and Military Operations in Iraq, in 2007. Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan agreed, writing in his memoir, "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil." Then-Sen. and now Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said the same in 2007: "People say we're not fighting for oil. Of course we are."

(02-16-2015 11:16 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-14-2015 04:04 PM)Pyrizzo Wrote:  

(02-14-2015 09:00 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-13-2015 09:19 PM)Pyrizzo Wrote:  

(02-13-2015 09:18 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  You have to remember who we are talking about here.

Exactly my point.

I'm sure that was covered in that mysterious fox 'news' story that was never posted. Of course we did train a lot of the Iraqi forces.

No it would not be covered by any news outlets, and its convenient for you that much of the US support on the ground including close air support and aerial reconnaissance would be classified. That you way you can continue with your smug ignorance in your posts and feel somewhat happy about it.

Dude, get real. ISIS isn't a nation directly controlling any defined segment of the global oil market like Iraq was.

That's the only point I'm making.

And you can make a pretty good case about Iraq without much trouble:
Why the war in Iraq was fought for Big Oil

Quote:"Of course it's about oil; we can't really deny that," said Gen. John Abizaid, former head of U.S. Central Command and Military Operations in Iraq, in 2007. Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan agreed, writing in his memoir, "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil." Then-Sen. and now Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said the same in 2007: "People say we're not fighting for oil. Of course we are."

What on earth are you talking about? Talk about going on a wild tangent.

It's really simple...you said this:

(02-13-2015 03:09 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  So...ISIS can't even get past some Iraqi soldiers? And eight die in the process.

Yeah...sounds like an existential threat too me.

And I said this...

(02-13-2015 09:13 PM)Pyrizzo Wrote:  You'd have to be a complete idiot to think we didn't have operators helping the ISF in this particular fight.

Then you followed with:

(02-14-2015 09:00 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I'm sure that was covered in that mysterious fox 'news' story that was never posted. Of course we did train a lot of the Iraqi forces.

And then I attempted to make the point that to your benefit any real support on the ground would be classified to maintain the WH position that we are not assisting in ground operations. Thus allowing you to make ignorant statements like the first.

Simple...

I mean c'mon man really, do you really think US forces would be hands off in a ground operation to repel an advance toward a U.S. military facility?

Sorry Pyrizzo. I clicked on the wrong post to reply. That was supposed to be a reply to Post #30 from Crebman.

Again, please accept my apology.

(02-16-2015 11:44 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Sorry Pyrizzo. I clicked on the wrong post to reply. That was supposed to be a reply to Post #30 from Crebman.

Again, please accept my apology.

Gotcha, no worries..