The United States Has Attacked ISIS

Politics International Politics
221

France joins the fight!

huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/1 … 48706.html

[quote]PARIS (AP) — Joining U.S. forces acting in Iraqi skies, French fighter jets struck Friday against the militant Islamic State group, destroying a logistics depot, Iraqi and French officials said.

A pair of Rafale fighter jets accompanied by support planes struck in northern Iraq on Friday morning, and the target was “entirely destroyed,” President Francois Hollande said. Four laser-guided bombs struck the Iraqi military installation that had been overrun by the militants, and hit a munitions and fuel depot, a French military official said, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss operational details.

Iraq’s military spokesman said dozens of extremist fighters were killed in four strikes.[/quote]

222

[quote=“Gao Bohan”]France joins the fight!

huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/1 … 48706.html

[quote]PARIS (AP) — Joining U.S. forces acting in Iraqi skies, French fighter jets struck Friday against the militant Islamic State group, destroying a logistics depot, Iraqi and French officials said.

A pair of Rafale fighter jets accompanied by support planes struck in northern Iraq on Friday morning, and the target was “entirely destroyed,” President Francois Hollande said. Four laser-guided bombs struck the Iraqi military installation that had been overrun by the militants, and hit a munitions and fuel depot, a French military official said, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss operational details.

Iraq’s military spokesman said dozens of extremist fighters were killed in four strikes.[/quote][/quote]

Does his means Americans can once again eat French fries?

223

The US and its Arab allies have begun bombing ISIS in Syria. The US took separate and independent action against the Khorasan Group.

cnn.com/2014/09/23/world/mea … ?hpt=hp_t1

I’m not exactly sure why Congress is not getting involved. They authorized funding for “moderate” rebel groups in Syria, but they didn’t authorize military action or funding against ISIS in Iraq or Syria. Nobody seems to really care, but my reading of the Constitution says they are required to provide both BEFORE the president takes any action. Even if the War Powers Resolution is in force, the action in Iraq would expire on Oct. 6, and we all know that’s not going to happen. Congress seems uninterested in protecting its institutional interest, and the public doesn’t seem to care.

224

[quote=“Gao Bohan”]The US and its Arab allies have begun bombing ISIS in Syria. The US took separate and independent action against the Khorasan Group.

CNN.com/2014/09/23/world/mea … ?hpt=hp_t1

I’m not exactly sure why Congress is not getting involved. They authorized funding for “moderate” rebel groups in Syria, but they didn’t authorize military action or funding against ISIS in Iraq or Syria. Nobody seems to really care, but my reading of the Constitution says they are required to provide both BEFORE the president takes any action. Even if the War Powers Resolution is in force, the action in Iraq would expire on Oct. 6, and we all know that’s not going to happen. Congress seems uninterested in protecting its institutional interest, and the public doesn’t seem to care.[/quote]

Unless someone has standing to sue, the Constitution is a dead letter. Ozymandias will do whatever he can get away with – as always.

What are they gonna do, impeach him?

225

But the Republican leadership in Congress isn’t even objecting to the lack of Congressional authorization. In fact, they’re supporting the mission, and some are criticizing him for not acting sooner. But they never granted authorization, despite the clear requirement in the Constitution. It’s not as if Republican leadership would shy away from trying to sue the president; they’re already suing him over minor administrative delays in the ACA. This is far, far bigger. And yet, nothing.

226

I can predict some evolution of warfare from these attacks., perhaps the first mini drone fighters being sent in to pick off armed militants individually instead of sending in troops.This is the brave new world coming fast. If the US uses mini armed drones ISIS fighters have absolutely nowhere to hide. The allies should isolate individual cities and towns and wipe out the militants one by one, they will have nowhere to run.

227

A decade or so ago, when the Republican-controlled govt was preparing to invade Iraq, basically the entire world was opposed to it citing, amongst other things, the instability, sectarian violence, civilian casualties and that it would create a new batch of terrorists far worse than already existed. Now all of that has come true, so is it any surprise that no one’s rushing to grant authorization. In another few years, when this latest foray has proved to be another disaster that doesn’t solve anything, and likely makes the situation even worse, the GOP can lay all the blame on the Obama White House.

228

Well they have been able to road-test their new $67 billion toy.

theguardian.com/world/2014/s … mbat-debut

Imagine they spent $67 billion on peace instead of war. It would cost $30 billion / year to end world hunger. Instead of enriching the arms manufacturers, they could have fed everyone for 2 years, setting them well on the way to self-sufficiency, spurring economic growth everywhere and largely making the world a better, safer place. But let’s destroy shit and get rich instead.

229

CFI, it is a 67 billion investment in peace, for the USA and allies. Spending the 67 billion elsewhere would not get them peace in other ways. ISIS and other Islamic groups are not interested in your offerings of peace, they just want to cut off your head because you’re an infidel. And mine too, and everyone else who won’t support their version of “Allah the beautiful, the peaceful, and the divine”. Islam is a religion of peace, apparently, but only once the whole world is Muslim.

You can’t stop that by buying them breakfast.

230

And just like ISIS are arguably worse than bin Laden or Saddam ever were, when they get killed, somebody even worse pops up. Bombing them doesn’t solve the problem, just kills the outward symptoms. It’s like giving someone a Panadol for a brain tumor - it might make the headache go away for awhile but doesn’t fix anything.

If the US and their coalition genuinely wanted to protect the innocent from Iraq and Syria from the likes of ISIS, they’d send soldiers into the villages as peacekeepers.

231

Oh, so now Fearless Leader LIKES those things?

Let’s hope this time he’s right.

232

[quote=“cfimages”]
If the US and their coalition genuinely wanted to protect the innocent from Iraq and Syria from the likes of ISIS, they’d send soldiers into the villages as peacekeepers.[/quote]

So… you’re calling for boots on the ground? Which would, of course, require an invasion simply to install these peacekeepers in the villages. On the credit card, of course. Approval by the regime optional.

Just making sure we’re on the same page.

233

[quote=“cfimages”]And just like ISIS are arguably worse than bin Laden or Saddam ever were, when they get killed, somebody even worse pops up. Bombing them doesn’t solve the problem, just kills the outward symptoms. It’s like giving someone a Panadol for a brain tumor - it might make the headache go away for awhile but doesn’t fix anything.

If the US and their coalition genuinely wanted to protect the innocent from Iraq and Syria from the likes of ISIS, they’d send soldiers into the villages as peacekeepers.[/quote]

It’s not the same. If a dog is tearing off your leg, you shoot the dog. You don’t let the dog continue to bite it for fear that if you make it go away, another bigger dog will take your foot. Sure, there always will be dogs out there, but that’s why you have to act to protect yourself.

I’ve said this before, that it would be much better to wall off the entire Middle East and let them eat each other till the last man, woman or child standing, but it can’t be quarantined off like that. It’s a global disease, and it’s unfortunately appealing to supporters all over the world. Leaving it untreated only emboldens the assholes who think it’s cool to murder other people for the “crime” of not following the tenets of a 2,000 year old fairy story, as seen through the narrow-minded eyes of a handful of strict Sunni interpretations of that book of myths.

234

You can’t cordon them off and leave them to it because then you submit millions to a fate of genocide. It’s messy , that’s life.

I think the US could achieve 10x results with a 500 million dollar drone army than a 68 billion luxury fighter jet trying to blow up ants on the ground.

These jihadists should be cordoned off and wiped out , don’t let them escape the area.

235

Blithe spirit! Drone thou never wert!

Reality: defense contractors are too inept to secure the drones we’ve got using such existing commnsense techniques as… encryption. Until the culture is changed, it’s just more toys for them to hijack and use against us.

I’m not anti-technology; I’m anti-idiot. In the end, it all comes down to culture, and the culture is messed up.

236

Thats not the type of drone I’m talking about, I’m talking about small helicopter type drones.

237

[quote=“rowland”][quote=“cfimages”]
If the US and their coalition genuinely wanted to protect the innocent from Iraq and Syria from the likes of ISIS, they’d send soldiers into the villages as peacekeepers.[/quote]

So… you’re calling for boots on the ground? Which would, of course, require an invasion simply to install these peacekeepers in the villages. On the credit card, of course. Approval by the regime optional.

Just making sure we’re on the same page.[/quote]

No, I’m not calling for boots on the ground. I’m saying if TPTB were genuine in their concerns, that’s what they’d be doing.

238

[quote=“urodacus”][quote=“cfimages”]And just like ISIS are arguably worse than bin Laden or Saddam ever were, when they get killed, somebody even worse pops up. Bombing them doesn’t solve the problem, just kills the outward symptoms. It’s like giving someone a Panadol for a brain tumor - it might make the headache go away for awhile but doesn’t fix anything.

If the US and their coalition genuinely wanted to protect the innocent from Iraq and Syria from the likes of ISIS, they’d send soldiers into the villages as peacekeepers.[/quote]

It’s not the same. If a dog is tearing off your leg, you shoot the dog. You don’t let the dog continue to bite it for fear that if you make it go away, another bigger dog will take your foot. Sure, there always will be dogs out there, but that’s why you have to act to protect yourself.

I’ve said this before, that it would be much better to wall off the entire Middle East and let them eat each other till the last man, woman or child standing, but it can’t be quarantined off like that. It’s a global disease, and it’s unfortunately appealing to supporters all over the world. Leaving it untreated only emboldens the assholes who think it’s cool to murder other people for the “crime” of not following the tenets of a 2,000 year old fairy story, as seen through the narrow-minded eyes of a handful of strict Sunni interpretations of that book of myths.[/quote]

If you’re an everyday civilian going about your daily life, it doesn’t really matter if your death comes by beheading or a bomb dropped from the sky. You’re still dead because somebody in a cave or a Washington office thinks your life can be sacrificed for their aims.

The US and the rest of the western world don’t give a shit with Muslim villagers are massacred by Christian gangs in CAR, or when the Saudi govt cuts heads off daily, or when schoolgirls are taken prisoner in Nigeria, or Nazi’s take control of the military in Ukraine or etc. In terms of evil, ISIS isn’t really any different. The innocent will pay the price, the arms dealers and politicians will get richer, and 10 years later we’ll be doing it all again, when a new generation of weapons needs testing. I’m not sure what’s worse, killing for religious beliefs or killing for money while pretending to be a good guy.

239

Killing in the name of religion is still much much worse, because in that argument they leave no room for people to criticize their wrong doing, since they actions are will of God.

At least when it comes to killing for money, sometimes shit gets exposed. By the way, they had cover up in the first place because they know killing for money is wrong, or at least they know letting that kind of fact get to the public is wrong…

By the way, can we start referring to DAESH as DAESH now?

240

Looking ahead a few moves if President Pinocchio isn’t able to extricate the U.S. from the quagmire in Iraq with airstrikes and they just end up being a recruiting tool for Islamic extremists then what? Send in the cannon fodder? Not likely since that didn’t solve the problem last time. What I’m seeing is a war of attrition between Chinese credit, which is, after all, paying for the barrel bombs, and 1.8 billion Muslim, all potential recruits. In other words, the odds of a happy ending don’t look good.