First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
Post Reply ISIS has been militarily defeated in Iraq and Syria
7849 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / Pacific North West
Offline
Posted 11/25/17 , edited 11/25/17

runec wrote:

Avoiding civilian casualties has been a prerogative of the US military since the aftermath of Vietnam. It's standard operating procedure which became even more crucial when fighting an ideological war. Especially one where your opponent is claiming you're at war not with them but with their entire religion. To suggest that it's somehow okay to indiscriminately kill innocent people now because maybe you'll save more later is absurd, inhumane and frankly a complete betrayal of everything America claims to stand for. Never mind proving the point of everyone you're fighting and ensuring their cause lives on. You can't fight a monster by becoming a monster yourself.

That you're not just okay with but literally cheering on this approach speaks volumes.


To be fair Runec civilian casualties aren't a direct result of any president in this particular case. As before Mr. Obama left office the military was going for the hands off approach. By that I mean US airstrikes were directed and carried out on the behest of what I can only describe as "Localized" forces(Non US). Mean our bombers were told by Syrians where to drop bombs and we did so without question. If you ask me its kind of pointless for us to drop smart bombs if we aren't going to ask if the building is a school or hospital.

Lets not forget that Coalition forces(US included) allowed thousands of ISIS/IS/Dash troops leave Raqqa with literally truckloads of munitions, vehicles, and suicide bombs. I would love to dream that ISIS/IS/Dash is gone, however I suspect it will return to its usual guerilla methods rather then all out war. I hope I am wrong.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/raqqas_dirty_secret
http://www.businessinsider.com/isis-members-secretly-escape-raqqa-with-weapons-ammo-us-knew-2017-11
4189 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 11/25/17 , edited 11/25/17

DevinKuska wrote:


runec wrote:

Avoiding civilian casualties has been a prerogative of the US military since the aftermath of Vietnam. It's standard operating procedure which became even more crucial when fighting an ideological war. Especially one where your opponent is claiming you're at war not with them but with their entire religion. To suggest that it's somehow okay to indiscriminately kill innocent people now because maybe you'll save more later is absurd, inhumane and frankly a complete betrayal of everything America claims to stand for. Never mind proving the point of everyone you're fighting and ensuring their cause lives on. You can't fight a monster by becoming a monster yourself.

That you're not just okay with but literally cheering on this approach speaks volumes.


To be fair Runec civilian casualties aren't a direct result of any president in this particular case. As before Mr. Obama left office the military was going for the hands off approach. By that I mean US airstrikes were directed and carried out on the behest of what I can only describe as "Localized" forces(Non US). Mean our bombers were told by Syrians where to drop bombs and we did so without question. If you ask me its kind of pointless for us to drop smart bombs if we aren't going to ask if the building is a school or hospital.

Lets not forget that Coalition forces(US included) allowed thousands of ISIS/IS/Dash troops leave Raqqa with literally truckloads of munitions, vehicles, and suicide bombs. I would love to dream that ISIS/IS/Dash is gone, however I suspect it will return to its usual guerilla methods rather then all out war. I hope I am wrong.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/raqqas_dirty_secret
http://www.businessinsider.com/isis-members-secretly-escape-raqqa-with-weapons-ammo-us-knew-2017-11



Um... what? Are you really trying to say U.S President had no influence on the military's "hands off approach"? The guy you are responding to already knows how the forces work there, he mentioned it already. The point is U.S since Vietnam (like he said which is accurate) made a much bigger effort in reducing civilian casualties. Why? Because Vietnam 2 million civilians or more died, a large part due to U.S carpet bombing (more bombs dropped than all of WW2) and chemical warfare (though it wasn't mean to harm people).

Also, I don't think it is wise for us to determine if the decision to let militias escape Raqqa was bad or not. Much of those munitions will not reach the west, so its not even a danger except for the local regions. It was either that or kill more civilians and lose more men fighting them it seems, so they took that approach.
7849 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / Pacific North West
Offline
Posted 11/25/17 , edited 11/25/17

TarNaru33 wrote:

Um... what? Are you really trying to say U.S President had no influence on the military's "hands off approach"? The guy you are responding to already knows how the forces work there, he mentioned it already. The point is U.S since Vietnam (like he said which is accurate) made a much bigger effort in reducing civilian casualties. Why? Because Vietnam 2 million civilians or more died, a large part due to U.S carpet bombing (more bombs dropped than all of WW2) and chemical warfare (though it wasn't mean to harm people).

Also, I don't think it is wise for us to determine if the decision to let militias escape Raqqa was bad or not. Much of those munitions will not reach the west, so its not even a danger except for the local regions. It was either that or kill more civilians and lose more men fighting them it seems, so they took that approach.


I think you misread something or have some personal bias that has you misinterpreting. I never said nor implied that the "Commander in Chief" has no influence on the military. If we look at how our govt is SUPPOSED to work then he/she would be quiet the opposite no? My point was unlike from Vietnam to present day.... we had actual troops on the ground, as well as US higher ups making the go/no go on bomb runs. With the US dropping bombs wherever we are told without questioning by local forces.... Its a bit hard to even call it a US military action.. more like US Mercenary force dont you think? Again why are we using smart bombs if we(US) aren't even checking the targets? Basically this is a no win situation if we are honest about it. We either only drop bombs(safest from a PR standpoint) or we put troops on the ground(career ending with public opinion as it stands).


Subjective at best.... While I do get the nuances of allowing an enemy to retreat while saving face for the sake of minimizing casualties. Such a tactic (that I am aware of) has never been used on brainwashed terrorists with no state or home. Generally speaking when such a tactic is used its because you know where the opposing force is retreating to, and you can prepare peace talks or safety measures. As far as munitions go.... I don't think you can make any real guarantees. You don't pack up semi trucks only to keep your rifles(original deal was personal rifles only). Reports say alot of those who fled had suicide vests... don't you think letting someone go with truckloads of weapons and knowledge of how to build such a thing is problematic? Though to be fair again we have a no win situation. #1 you keep at it until ISIS is gone but in the aftermath you get painted as butchers #2 you let them go and then they possibly go on to incite mass terror via cell based tactics. Also keep in mind quiet a few "Civilians" they were trying to avoid getting killed were the families of the ISIS fighters some of whom later wore bomb vests and carried weapons.
1453 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 11/25/17 , edited 11/25/17
Obviously troll thread is obvious.
There isn't too much to be said that hasn't been said already.
Although, the OP appears to simply post something out of context with personal commentary that hasn't any logical reason applied to it to create a stir within the liberal scene on Crunchyroll.
I wonder how many pages this one will go for...
I wonder....

runec 
41924 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 11/25/17 , edited 11/25/17

DevinKuska wrote:
To be fair Runec civilian casualties aren't a direct result of any president in this particular case. As before Mr. Obama left office the military was going for the hands off approach. By that I mean US airstrikes were directed and carried out on the behest of what I can only describe as "Localized" forces(Non US). Mean our bombers were told by Syrians where to drop bombs and we did so without question. If you ask me its kind of pointless for us to drop smart bombs if we aren't going to ask if the building is a school or hospital.


The Obama era policy to not approve strikes unless there was an minimal risk of civilian casualties. Trump's policy ( aside from do the opposite of everything Obama did ) was to ease those restrictions and allow forward commanders more authority to order strikes without that level of scrutiny. As Mattis said, they moved from attrition to "annihilation".

An increase in casualties is to be expected as combat moves into more densely populated areas with ISIS. However, 7 months into Trump's presidency and the civilian casualty total eclipsed Obama's entire administration.




Mattis's new plan was implemented in Feb.


When Airwars asked the Department of Defense whether, once implemented, the new plan was expected to lead to more civilian casualties, officials did not answer the question and only pointed to Mattis’ remarks.

Yet beginning in March 2017—the month after Mattis handed over the new plan—Airwars began tracking a sharp rise in reported civilian fatalities from U.S.-led strikes against ISIS. In part this was due to the savagery of the battle for Mosul. But in Syria—where almost all strikes are American—likely civilian fatalities monitored by Airwars researchers increased five-fold even before the assault on Raqqa began.



8663 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
100 / a pop tart
Offline
Posted 11/25/17 , edited 11/25/17

Cydoemus wrote:

Obviously troll thread is obvious.
There isn't too much to be said that hasn't been said already.
Although, the OP appears to simply post something out of context with personal commentary that hasn't any logical reason applied to it to create a stir within the liberal scene on Crunchyroll.
I wonder how many pages this one will go for...
I wonder....


This guy gets it.
29637 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M
Online
Posted 11/25/17 , edited 11/25/17

Cydoemus wrote:

Obviously troll thread is obvious.
There isn't too much to be said that hasn't been said already.
Although, the OP appears to simply post something out of context with personal commentary that hasn't any logical reason applied to it to create a stir within the liberal scene on Crunchyroll.
I wonder how many pages this one will go for...
I wonder....



Well you can inject nuance. Talk about the timing, with the Iraqi Kurds, Turkey, Russia and Iran all coming together, attacking ISIS positions. The U.S. ramping up its military activities in the Middle East and Africa. Just like with any war it's the results that get the headlines and if ISIS is vanquished the current administration gets to point to that as their success, regardless of who pulled the trigger.

If you want to complain about something you can point to the civil war in Yemen. The Saudi-led coalition is failing on the humanitarian front and the food and supplies that do get in are seized by militias. Al Qaeda and ISIS are living it up there and the U.S. is involved but has made little progress in ending the conflict.
25230 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
54 / M / In
Online
Posted 11/25/17 , edited 11/25/17
Say we do beat ISIS in that area

Then what?

The syrian civil war will still be going on and when all those forces no longer have ISIS to fight you think they are just peacefully go home?

No they are most likely going to turn on the Kurds which will either draw America in deeper or force them to abandon them altogether
29637 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M
Online
Posted 11/25/17 , edited 11/25/17

uncletim wrote:

Say we do beat ISIS in that area

Then what?

The syrian civil war will still be going on and when all those forces no longer have ISIS to fight you think they are just peacefully go home?

No they are most likely going to turn on the Kurds which will either draw America in deeper or force them to abandon them altogether


Russia is gonna stick around and help Assad win the war. Turkey will have to work something out with Russia and Iran until the war is over. The U.S. will probably be the odd man out and leave with their side losing ground.
36013 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / U.S.A.
Offline
Posted 11/25/17 , edited 11/25/17

Cydoemus wrote:

Obviously troll thread is obvious.

Hit the nail on the head.
3874 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Online
Posted 11/25/17 , edited 11/25/17

XxDarkSasuxX wrote:


Cydoemus wrote:

Obviously troll thread is obvious.

Hit the nail on the head.


As Mysticgon has (kind of) pointed out, even if it's pretty obvious Ruji was trying to troll when he made the thread, the topic is worth discussing. If only to point out things like how the Trump administration's choice of tactics has caused civilian casualties to spike and why it's a bad thing.
runec 
41924 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 11/25/17 , edited 11/25/17

uncletim wrote:
No they are most likely going to turn on the Kurds which will either draw America in deeper or force them to abandon them altogether


https://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2017/11/25/Turkey-Trump-pledges-to-stop-arming-Syrian-Kurds/7191511618317/


Nov. 25 (UPI) -- The U.S. will stop arming Kurdish fighters in Syria, Turkey's foreign minister said after a telephone conservation between President Donald Trump and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

During a news conference in Ankara, Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu said Trump on Friday agreed to end a policy of supplying weapons to the Kurdish group, known as the YPG.


On a side note, the White House is abdicating information to a foreign power again by letting Turkey dictate what the US said without clarification.
10126 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Palm Coast, Florida
Offline
Posted 11/25/17 , edited 11/26/17

uncletim wrote:


Come on dude they were brown trump and his supporters don't give a shit about brown people to them those killed civilians were just a means to an end nothing more


I tend to just stay away from cesspit posts like this, but no. I'm tired of this "Trump and his supporters are racist!" BS and the mods just letting it slide. But whatever. I'd say what I really want to but the mods don't like me, so I'll leave it at that. I'd just like to stop being called racist and said that just because I support the president that I don't give a shit about people with different skin tones.
24648 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
777 / The White House
Offline
Posted 11/25/17 , edited 11/26/17

niotabunny wrote:

first off welcome back from the temp ban, second, there will always be terrorists, after all those who strike terror into people either by action or word, will be there. as for the snake ISIS they are probably going to still be around, their tamer cousins the al-hijra I believe, they are still around. and once ISIS (female goddess got to love it) is finally pushed back into their holes, then another group will come along and/or resurface once we lose the current president and exchange for another one (unless they have guts too, if not the world will start to fall once more). this is history...


Islamic groups can pop up anywhere there is a power vacuum. We need to avoid destabilizing countries then countries will have the ability to prevent ISIS from popping up elsewhere.


runec wrote:


Rujikin wrote:
Well then good job Obama you managed to prevent US civilian casualties and enabled ISIS to genocide entire cities while trying to keep your hands clean *golf clap*. The death toll is now many times higher than if you just bombed ISIS to hell in the start.

Had Obama just hit ISIS with full force we would have saved lives and never let ISIS get to the point where they had stable territory.

Everyone who fought against ISIS was critisizing Obama for half-ass fighting and since Trump released the mad dog of war the people fighting ISIS see an end to this bloodshed. They are ecstatic!


Avoiding civilian casualties has been a prerogative of the US military since the aftermath of Vietnam. It's standard operating procedure which became even more crucial when fighting an ideological war. Especially one where your opponent is claiming you're at war not with them but with their entire religion. To suggest that it's somehow okay to indiscriminately kill innocent people now because maybe you'll save more later is absurd, inhumane and frankly a complete betrayal of everything America claims to stand for. Nevermind proving the point of everyone you're fighting and ensuring their cause lives on. You can't fight a monster by becoming a monster yourself.

That you're not just okay with but literally cheering on this approach speaks volumes.


niotabunny wrote:
first off welcome back from the temp ban, second, there will always be terrorists, after all those who strike terror into people either by action or word, will be there. as for the snake ISIS they are probably going to still be around, their tamer cousins the al-hijra I believe, they are still around. and once ISIS (female goddess got to love it) is finally pushed back into their holes, then another group will come along and/or resurface once we lose the current president and exchange for another one (unless they have guts too, if not the world will start to fall once more). this is history...


There will always be terrorists but there's no sense lowering yourself to their level and legitimizing their cause in the process. Even putting the dubious morality of it aside it's a poor long term strategy unless your eventual plan is to just wipe entire countries off the map. You don't need even more anti-Americanism out there in the world.

You're bleeding global influence like a stuck pig as is.




First off you know nothing about what America stands for, don't project Canadian ideals onto America. If you want to criticize our time proven methods of flattening a city then hows about your country of Canada instead lead the attack on ISIS while we sit back and do nothing? Oh wait Canada don't even want to attack ISIS or stop ISIS: http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/canada-not-at-war-with-isis-trudeau-says-following-brussels-attacks-1.2829596

You do not fight a war with your hands tied and expect to win. If you do that then your just losing while wasting millions of dollars.

Yes we have been for the past 8 years. Only recently have we begun to regain some respect.
22354 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Leanbox, Gameindu...
Offline
Posted 11/25/17 , edited 11/26/17
Good riddance. While ISIL needed to be wiped out for security purposes let's just hope our efforts now focus on assisting Iraq in keeping another terrorist insurgency from taking over the country again and not getting way too involved in the Syrian Civil War which quite frankly has little to nothing to do with our national security. Other than helping with humanitarian assistance efforts, I fear that getting dragged too far into that war will keep us in a long lasting proxy war with the Russians and Iranians for geopolitical control over the region and looking at the $20 trillion in debt we currently have we simply cannot afford it.


DevinKuska wrote:


runec wrote:

Avoiding civilian casualties has been a prerogative of the US military since the aftermath of Vietnam. It's standard operating procedure which became even more crucial when fighting an ideological war. Especially one where your opponent is claiming you're at war not with them but with their entire religion. To suggest that it's somehow okay to indiscriminately kill innocent people now because maybe you'll save more later is absurd, inhumane and frankly a complete betrayal of everything America claims to stand for. Never mind proving the point of everyone you're fighting and ensuring their cause lives on. You can't fight a monster by becoming a monster yourself.

That you're not just okay with but literally cheering on this approach speaks volumes.


To be fair Runec civilian casualties aren't a direct result of any president in this particular case. As before Mr. Obama left office the military was going for the hands off approach. By that I mean US airstrikes were directed and carried out on the behest of what I can only describe as "Localized" forces(Non US). Mean our bombers were told by Syrians where to drop bombs and we did so without question. If you ask me its kind of pointless for us to drop smart bombs if we aren't going to ask if the building is a school or hospital.

Lets not forget that Coalition forces(US included) allowed thousands of ISIS/IS/Dash troops leave Raqqa with literally truckloads of munitions, vehicles, and suicide bombs. I would love to dream that ISIS/IS/Dash is gone, however I suspect it will return to its usual guerilla methods rather then all out war. I hope I am wrong.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/raqqas_dirty_secret
http://www.businessinsider.com/isis-members-secretly-escape-raqqa-with-weapons-ammo-us-knew-2017-11


Of course they will return to guerilla methods. As long as their are a large number of adherents to ISIL's radical ideology they are going nowhere. The war may end, but the Iraqis and whatever government gains control over Syria is going to have to deal with ISIL and other terrorist groups for the foreseeable future.
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.