HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Why is nobody bombing ISI...

Sun Aug 3, 2014, 12:11 PM

Why is nobody bombing ISIS???

I'm talking
* bridges
* railway
* pipelines
* gas-depots
* anything looking like industry and metal-workshops
* radio-masts, telephone-lines
* anything resembling military material

ISIS is bascially an occupying army. That means, that civilians and military installations are strictly separated from each other for fear of sabotage. The risk of civilian casualties would be low.

As an occupying army, ISIS depends on a network of supply-depots and occupied infrastructure. And they need that big-time, because they are fielding the equivalent to mechanized infantry. That means, they need gas, they need bullets.

Why is nobody bombing the supply-lines of ISIS? Let's blow up everything that has any relationship to refined fuel in their territory and we'll see how they keep fighting over villages in a no-man's-land.

22 replies, 3278 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 22 replies Author Time Post
Reply Why is nobody bombing ISIS??? (Original post)
DetlefK Aug 2014 OP
Warren Stupidity Aug 2014 #1
cheapdate Aug 2014 #2
Agnosticsherbet Aug 2014 #5
TwilightGardener Aug 2014 #3
Agnosticsherbet Aug 2014 #4
Comrade Grumpy Aug 2014 #9
Agnosticsherbet Aug 2014 #10
Comrade Grumpy Aug 2014 #13
TheKentuckian Aug 2014 #11
Comrade Grumpy Aug 2014 #6
Lurks Often Aug 2014 #7
JCMach1 Aug 2014 #8
flamingdem Aug 2014 #12
JCMach1 Aug 2014 #21
GeorgeGist Aug 2014 #14
Comrade Grumpy Aug 2014 #15
kelliekat44 Aug 2014 #16
Johnyawl Aug 2014 #17
Warren Stupidity Aug 2014 #19
Johnyawl Aug 2014 #22
Warren Stupidity Aug 2014 #18
RandiFan1290 Aug 2014 #20

Response to DetlefK (Original post)

Sun Aug 3, 2014, 12:12 PM

1. "ISIS is bascially an occupying army"

 

no it isn't. Please define "occupying army" such that it covers ISIS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DetlefK (Original post)

Sun Aug 3, 2014, 12:16 PM

2. Let me make sure I've got this correct.

You're suggesting that the United States should begin bombing,

" * bridges
* railway
* pipelines
* gas-depots
* anything looking like industry and metal-workshops
* radio-masts, telephone-lines
* anything resembling military material "

in Iraq?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cheapdate (Reply #2)

Sun Aug 3, 2014, 12:26 PM

5. About half of the Islamic States territory is in Syria. We would be attacking Syria, also.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DetlefK (Original post)

Sun Aug 3, 2014, 12:21 PM

3. When we start bombing them, we are opening up a new front with new enemies.

So far they have not attacked Americans or American interests, most likely because when they do, they'll be attacked in return, and set back. My feeling is that they're going to continue to take and hold whatever territory they can, tighten their grip, without directly confronting the US or any other country with a military (besides Iraq/Syria and their embattled crap of militaries) until they decide they're strong enough to do so. There's also the possibility that ISIS is somehow being supported/encouraged in ways we can't see as regular citizens, but that the CIA/Pentagon sees. I think we're just watching where it all goes in Iraq, picking up intelligence, figuring out who's really doing what.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DetlefK (Original post)

Sun Aug 3, 2014, 12:25 PM

4. As disgusting as they are, we are not at war with them, or Syria, or Iraq.

Bombing them in Syria would be an act of war on what passes as a Syrian government. I doubt, considering our rocky relations with that regime, they would allow it, and their ally in Moscow, would oppose our involvement.

Bombing them in Iraq would require becoming involved, once again, in a bottomless pit of blood. Because Iran is allied with the Iraqi regime, it will tend to cause allies in he Gulf states an Saudi Arabia less than happy with us.

We should engage with Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, and Gulf States. They are neighbors of the Islamic Caliphate, and are directly threatened by them. We should consult with the UN.

This not something we can do alone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Agnosticsherbet (Reply #4)

Sun Aug 3, 2014, 12:56 PM

9. Actually, we are at war with Syria. We just haven't declared it. And we're using proxies.

 

The CIA for the past few years has been helping arm and train "good rebels."

And Obama just asked for $500 million for more.

The effort to overthrow the Assad regime has given ISIS breathing space.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Comrade Grumpy (Reply #9)

Sun Aug 3, 2014, 01:08 PM

10. Actually, we are not at war with Syria.

There is an enormous difference between smuggling weapons, medical supplies, and food into Syria, and sending the Air Force with bombers to bomb what infrastructure remains in Iraq and Syria into dust.

At minimum, that difference would amount to ten million dollars a day and 25,000 dead non-combatants.

If war is necessary against ISIS, it should be the countries in the region that make that decision and pursue that type of diplomacy. If they can not do it alone, they can send diplomats to the UN to seek assistance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Agnosticsherbet (Reply #10)

Sun Aug 3, 2014, 03:15 PM

13. Semantics. Our policy is to overthrow Assad. We have been intervening...

 

...with training, supplies, and military equipment. And we intend to ramp it up.

No, the US has not taken direct military action against the Assad regime. Obama was smart enough to walk back from that last year.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Comrade Grumpy (Reply #9)

Sun Aug 3, 2014, 01:09 PM

11. Breathing space and material support, directly and intentionally or not.

These folks are not very absorbed with the borders we see nor our dumb ass geopolitical "chess moves", at least as we perceive them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DetlefK (Original post)

Sun Aug 3, 2014, 12:29 PM

6. ISIS is the bastard godson of our earlier interventions.

 

Working with the Saudis and the Pakistanis to export wahhabism to Pakistan and Afghanistan so the Islamist crazies could help us fuck with the Russians.

Out of that, Al Qaeda (and others) emerged.

Then, overthrowing Saddam's Sunni regime in Iraq, and Al Qaeda in Iraq emerged. Remember Zarkawi?

Then, allying ourselves with the anti-Assad forces in Syria gave breathing room for more Al Qaeda affiliates to emerge there.

Now, some of the Iraqi and Syrian Al Qaeda elements have merged to form the Islamic State. This is a horrid development. These guys are ultra-violent, ultra-reactionary, love to execute prisoners and brag about it.

Personally, I think the US should get out of the way and let an Iran-Iraq-Syria alliance smash them to pieces.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DetlefK (Original post)

Sun Aug 3, 2014, 12:35 PM

7. Who would you suggest?

 

Last edited Sun Aug 3, 2014, 07:55 PM - Edit history (1)

I don't remember Iraq inviting those countries to use their militaries in Iraq, so it would be an act of war for Turkey, Iran or Syria to attack ISIS in Iraq and Syria has it's own problems with it's civil war right now.

Iraq is not going to bomb the targets you suggest because that is civilian infrastructure and they are going to need that intact after ISIS is dealt with, presuming they can do it.

As for air attacks against ISIS, the Iraqi Air Force doesn't currently have aircraft capable of ground attacks, although there are rumors that Russia has or will supply some SU-25 "Frogfoot" ground attack planes.

I don't much think that the US going back into Iraq is going to be very popular politically and I sure don't see it happening, if it does, before the November election.

Based on your post, you don't seem to have any real knowledge whatsoever on how to handle a situation that currently occurring in Iraq.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DetlefK (Original post)

Sun Aug 3, 2014, 12:42 PM

8. You don't understand the war... ISIS is backed by the Saudis

and Gulf states...

Hamas is aligned with Iran, the Shiites and the Muslim Brotherhood...

Israel is doing the Saudis dirty work here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JCMach1 (Reply #8)

Sun Aug 3, 2014, 01:14 PM

12. So Hamas are the moderates in the region

at least relative to ISIS. ouch

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamingdem (Reply #12)

Sun Aug 3, 2014, 07:50 PM

21. IT's all relative...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DetlefK (Original post)

Sun Aug 3, 2014, 04:27 PM

14. Who would you suggest do the bombing?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GeorgeGist (Reply #14)

Sun Aug 3, 2014, 04:32 PM

15. Iran. It's the local regional power. And ISIS would put them all to the sword.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DetlefK (Original post)

Sun Aug 3, 2014, 05:04 PM

16. Here is what the US and Israel ought to worry about: everything that happens in the ME is connected

 

Just wait for the other shoe to drop. I fear when Obama is out of office we will be sending our loved ones back into the fray.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DetlefK (Original post)

Sun Aug 3, 2014, 05:46 PM

17. When ISIS takes over all of Syria and begins confronting Israel...


...The Israelis will bomb them savagely and relentlessly. And the majority on DU will sit around and complain about the Israelis.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Johnyawl (Reply #17)

Sun Aug 3, 2014, 05:48 PM

19. Perhaps we ought to stop aiding them in their efforts to take over Syria then.

 

Wouldn't you agree?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #19)

Sun Aug 3, 2014, 08:30 PM

22. Absolutely.


More blowback to US meddling. We created the Taliban and Al Queda by trying to thwart the Soviets in Aghanistan in 1980, now we've participated in creating possibly an even worse monster by trying to get rid of Assad. (Who by the way while bad for his own people was absolutely no threat to us or Israel.)

If the Kurds can't rally and stop them, Iran will get involved to protect the Iraqi Shites. An Iranian victory over ISIS would create all kinds of headaches for the US, Saudis and Israel over the next 10 to 20 years.

An ISIS military victory over Iran would be disastrous.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DetlefK (Original post)

Sun Aug 3, 2014, 05:47 PM

18. Yet another drive by posting.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DetlefK (Original post)

Sun Aug 3, 2014, 05:53 PM

20. The 'publicons and the Democrats spent billions arming Iraq

and helping them become a 'Democracy' in the region. I'm sure they'll be fine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread