U.S., Arab Allies Strike ISIS in Syria

[mmhmm]

The United States and Arab partner nations launched massive airstrikes against ISIS targets in Syria for the first time Monday, the Pentagon said. In a major escalation of the U.S. war against ISIS, the U.S. military planned to strike up to 20 targets, including fuel and weapons depots, training sites, troop encampments, command and control centers, and headquarters for the Sunni fighters. The bombing began at approximately 8:30 p.m. ET Monday, a senior U.S. defense official told NBC News.

The U.S. military will deploy manned and unmanned air assets, including F-22s, B-1 bombers, F-16s, F-15s and F/A-18s. The aircraft carrier USS George H.W. Bush is at the ready in the Persian Gulf, and the USS Arleigh Burke, a guided missile destroyer that fires Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles (TLAMs), is in the Red Sea.

Read more HERE

[Tennesseer]

Allegedly, in addition to the U.S., the air forces of Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, the UAE and Jordan took part in the air bombings.

[mmhmm]

CNN is saying Qatar is also involved; although, it isn't clear whether they were involved in these air strikes, or not.

[Jaguar]

From CNN

www.cnn.com/2014/09/22/world/meast/u-s-airstrikes-isis-syria/index.html

cnnworldlive.cnn.com/Event/US_launches_airstrikes_against_ISIS_inside_Syria?hpt=hp_t1

[djAdvocate]

kinda had it with Obama, now. 

[billisonboard]

Sept 23, 2014 0:20:03 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

kinda had it with Obama, now. 

Now?

[deziloooooo]

Sept 23, 2014 0:22:10 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Sept 23, 2014 0:20:03 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

kinda had it with Obama, now. 

Now?

Not me...Not sure if this is necessary, though from all reports by the so called specialists and experts on the topic, these people, ISIS are really bad dudes...bad enough to have enemies cooperating together in attempting to keep them at bay, weaken them, take the starch out of their sails so to speak...they are considered a major threat to the whole middle east  and a threat to the western nations as well, thus so many are together on this...


Obama has shown he is anything but one who is interested in getting us involved in  major conflicts but that does not mean he will just sit on his hands and not take any actions if it is felt there is a threat to our interests..If for no other reason, even these just air attacks by our air fleet and tomahawk missles are a very expensive matter besides the fact that when ever force like this is used you are putting our troops at risk...there are flight accidents, plane failures,  ground accidents that can cause injuries and much worse ..as any who have ever served can vouch fore.."sh*t happens" and the results are not pretty,...

As far those with  unhappiness with our POTUS.. { A natural occurence with all POTUS it seems as they near the end of their terms..LOL }relax, just about two years left here...then you all can start ramping it up again against the next one who ever he or she will be...

[Virgil Showlion]

Benjamin Franklin, writing to his English friend Joseph Priestly in late 1775:

Britain, at the expense of three millions, has killed 150 Yankees this campaign, which is 20,000 pounds a head… During the same time, 60,000 children have been born in America. From these data his mathematical head will easily calculate the time and expense necessary to kill us all.

Ironic that the words of a US statesman should so readily describe a war against America's enemies.

[Wisconsin Beth]

Sept 22, 2014 23:18:23 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Allegedly, in addition to the U.S., the air forces of Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, the UAE and Jordan took part in the air bombings.

I was wondering who the partners were.  Thanks. 

[billisonboard]

Sept 23, 2014 3:46:23 GMT -5 deziloooooo said:

... ...Not sure if this is necessary, ...


Obama has shown he is anything but one who is interested in getting us involved in  major conflicts ...

As far those with  unhappiness with our POTUS.. { A natural occurence with all POTUS it seems as they near the end of their terms..LOL }relax, just about two years left here...then you all can start ramping it up again against the next one who ever he or she will be...

I don't question the necessity, I question the effectiveness.

Obama did not get my vote in 2012 due to his Afghanistan surge where he showed his willingness to engage US troops.

[mmhmm]

Sept 23, 2014 7:50:50 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Sept 23, 2014 3:46:23 GMT -5 deziloooooo said:

... ...Not sure if this is necessary, ...


Obama has shown he is anything but one who is interested in getting us involved in  major conflicts ...

As far those with  unhappiness with our POTUS.. { A natural occurence with all POTUS it seems as they near the end of their terms..LOL }relax, just about two years left here...then you all can start ramping it up again against the next one who ever he or she will be...

I don't question the necessity, I question the effectiveness.

Obama did not get my vote in 2012 due to his Afghanistan surge where he showed his willingness to engage US troops.

I tend to agree, billis. I'm not savvy enough to predict any outcome in all this mess and I'm not about to claim to be that savvy. What I will say is:  I'm impressed that the Middle Eastern countries are actually stepping up to the plate and doing something besides wringing their hands and foaming at the mouth. To get them to actually cooperate in their own defense is, to me, quite a feat.

[The Captain]

Sept 23, 2014 0:20:03 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

kinda had it with Obama, now. 

DJ - would you please elaborate?

I don't read all your posts so I've probably missed a lot.

Do you not believe the US should be involved in any more conflicts, or just this one?

Or do you believe ISIS is not a threat to the US and we should stay out of what is not US business?

Or something else entirely?

[billisonboard]

Sept 23, 2014 8:21:12 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

... I'm impressed that the Middle Eastern countries are actually stepping up to the plate and doing something besides wringing their hands and foaming at the mouth. To get them to actually cooperate in their own defense is, to me, quite a feat.

I am reserving judgement on this. What I was hearing was "We have confirmed reports that ...". I want to see a little more before I applaud.

[Virgil Showlion]

Sept 23, 2014 8:46:05 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Sept 23, 2014 8:21:12 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

... I'm impressed that the Middle Eastern countries are actually stepping up to the plate and doing something besides wringing their hands and foaming at the mouth. To get them to actually cooperate in their own defense is, to me, quite a feat.

I am reserving judgement on this. What I was hearing was "We have confirmed reports that ...". I want to see a little more before I applaud.

What I've read is that they've paid a great deal of lip service to the problem but committed nothing more than a pittance in military assets to the campaign. They're basically "what's left" after France, the last of the "broad coalition", backed out a short time ago.

[billisonboard]

Sept 23, 2014 9:17:27 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

... they are nothing but a bunch of sand rats running around.

Which is why I question mega-ton bombs being effective.

[mmhmm]

Sept 23, 2014 8:57:46 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Sept 23, 2014 8:46:05 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

I am reserving judgement on this. What I was hearing was "We have confirmed reports that ...". I want to see a little more before I applaud.

What I've read is that they've paid a great deal of lip service to the problem but committed nothing more than a pittance in military assets to the campaign. They're basically "what's left" after France, the last of the "broad coalition", backed out a short time ago.

What I've read is France is not participating in the air strikes in Syria. That does not mean they're not providing other support. If you have a link to something that says otherwise, I'd like to see it.

[djAdvocate]

Sept 23, 2014 3:46:23 GMT -5 deziloooooo said:

Sept 23, 2014 0:22:10 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Now?

Not me...Not sure if this is necessary, though from all reports by the so called specialists and experts on the topic, these people, ISIS are really bad dudes...

so....fucking----what?

there are bad dudes everywhere.  if we are going to go waving our dicks around every time a bad dude comes on the scene, we are going to be reduced to poverty in a generation.

this stupidity has to stop.  now would be a good time.

[djAdvocate]

Sept 23, 2014 8:25:34 GMT -5 The Captain said:

Sept 23, 2014 0:20:03 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

kinda had it with Obama, now. 

DJ - would you please elaborate?

I don't read all your posts so I've probably missed a lot.

doubtful, i have not written much on this subject.

Do you not believe the US should be involved in any more conflicts, or just this one?

i don't think we should be involved in anything this conspicuously, for any reason other than defense.

Or do you believe ISIS is not a threat to the US and we should stay out of what is not US business?

correct.  i think our involvement is more of a threat than ISIS.

Or something else entirely?

no, i think you got most of it.

[djAdvocate]

Sept 23, 2014 0:22:10 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Sept 23, 2014 0:20:03 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

kinda had it with Obama, now. 

Now?

i try to support my president until he does something clearly wrong internationally, or states his intention to do so.

for example, i supported W until 1/29/03.  i supported Obama until yesterday.

[Virgil Showlion]

Sept 23, 2014 9:17:27 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

They don't need but a pittance to destroy the "actionable" targets. Other than a few hard targets they are nothing but a bunch of sand rats running around.

That's the thing about ISIS, they're not just sand rats running around. They have broad military assets, a deep command hierarchy, logistics, modern weapons.

The Syrian targets the US is hitting are the so-called "low hanging fruit"--the stuff that was easy to sniff out, not deeply embedded in civilian areas, and able to be destroyed with ATS missiles. But of course if the ISIS commanders have a shred of military sense, most of their assets are going to be hidden, buried, embedded in civilian areas, or distributed over a huge area such that bombing and missile strikes have limited effectiveness.

If the US wants to stop this--not just mitigate the problem for a while--it will take a full-on commitment with soldiers, daily airstrikes, etc. on par with the early years of the Iraq war. In other words, it will take another war. That's what everything I've read thus far strongly implies.

Hence the question is: is getting rid of ISIS worth the cost of another war to you? And factor into that decision the possibility that ISIS v2.0 will spring up the moment US troops leave once it's "Mission Accomplished" 2.0.

My position, for what it's worth, is the same as it's been since ISIS (or IS, or ISIL, or whatever you want to call it) popped up: Uncle Sam can't afford another war. I also predict that Pres. Obama, the Nobel Peace Prize -winning "candidate for peace" is going to fulfill the will of TPTB (as he and his predecessors always have) by dragging the US kicking and screaming into a new war whether Americans want one or not. Whoever is next elected to fill the US Presidency, which doesn't particularly matter, will stay the course regardless of whatever platform (s)he happens to run on. My personal thoughts are that Ms. Clinton will be put in.

[djAdvocate]

Sept 23, 2014 11:44:46 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Sept 23, 2014 9:17:27 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

They don't need but a pittance to destroy the "actionable" targets. Other than a few hard targets they are nothing but a bunch of sand rats running around.

That's the thing about ISIS, they're not just sand rats running around. They have broad military assets, a deep command hierarchy, logistics, modern weapons.

The Syrian targets the US is hitting are the so-called "low hanging fruit"--the stuff that was easy to sniff out, not deeply embedded in civilian areas, and able to be destroyed with ATS missiles. But of course if the ISIS commanders have a shred of military sense, most of their assets are going to be hidden, buried, embedded in civilian areas, or distributed over a huge area such that bombing and missile strikes have limited effectiveness.

If the US wants to stop this--not just mitigate the problem for a while--it will take a full-on commitment with soldiers, daily airstrikes, etc. on par with the early years of the Iraq war. In other words, it will take another war. That's what everything I've read thus far strongly implies.

Hence the question is: is getting rid of ISIS worth the cost of another war to you? And factor into that decision the possibility that ISIS v2.0 will spring up the moment US troops leave once it's "Mission Accomplished" 2.0.

My position, for what it's worth, is the same as it's been since ISIS (or IS, or ISIL, or whatever you want to call it) popped up: Uncle Sam can't afford another war. I also predict that Pres. Obama, the Nobel Peace Prize -winning "candidate for peace" is going to fulfill the will of TPTB (as he and his predecessors always have) by dragging the US kicking and screaming into a new war whether Americans want one or not. Whoever is next elected to fill the US Presidency, which doesn't particularly matter, will stay the course regardless of whatever platform (s)he happens to run on. My personal thoughts are that Ms. Clinton will be put in.

when it comes to war, no price is too high for the US, Virgil.

and surprisingly, this is a war the American public wants, according to polls.  not me, but about 2/3 of the US public.

[mmhmm]

*chuckle* I got an email from an old Saudi friend this morning. He's in Houston at the moment. He said he hopes he'll have time to come this way before he returns to Saudi. I'm really hoping he can. It'll be great to be able to sit and talk to him about all that's going on. He made a "funny" this morning about the new-found friendship developing between Iran and Saudi. That really is something!

[djAdvocate]

Sept 23, 2014 12:22:57 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

*chuckle* I got an email from an old Saudi friend this morning. He's in Houston at the moment. He said he hopes he'll have time to come this way before he returns to Saudi. I'm really hoping he can. It'll be great to be able to sit and talk to him about all that's going on. He made a "funny" this morning about the new-found friendship developing between Iran and Saudi. That really is something!

by the time we are done in Syria, the entire Arab world will be united with ISIS rather than being against them.

well done. Obama.  you wanted Arab Unity, you have it!

[mmhmm]

Sept 23, 2014 13:03:39 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Sept 23, 2014 12:22:57 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

*chuckle* I got an email from an old Saudi friend this morning. He's in Houston at the moment. He said he hopes he'll have time to come this way before he returns to Saudi. I'm really hoping he can. It'll be great to be able to sit and talk to him about all that's going on. He made a "funny" this morning about the new-found friendship developing between Iran and Saudi. That really is something!

by the time we are done in Syria, the entire Arab world will be united with ISIS rather than being against them.

well done. Obama.  you wanted Arab Unity, you have it!

I disagree, dj. I don't think that's the way this is going to go down.

[b2r]

  

[djAdvocate]

Sept 23, 2014 13:51:24 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Sept 23, 2014 13:03:39 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

by the time we are done in Syria, the entire Arab world will be united with ISIS rather than being against them.

well done. Obama.  you wanted Arab Unity, you have it!

I disagree, dj. I don't think that's the way this is going to go down.

really?  how do YOU see it going down?

[deziloooooo]

Sept 23, 2014 7:50:50 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Sept 23, 2014 3:46:23 GMT -5 deziloooooo said:

... ...Not sure if this is necessary, ...


Obama has shown he is anything but one who is interested in getting us involved in  major conflicts ...

As far those with  unhappiness with our POTUS.. { A natural occurence with all POTUS it seems as they near the end of their terms..LOL }relax, just about two years left here...then you all can start ramping it up again against the next one who ever he or she will be...

I don't question the necessity, I question the effectiveness.

Obama did not get my vote in 2012 due to his Afghanistan surge where he showed his willingness to engage US troops.

I agree that was a tough one..decision. If one can remember, eight six years ago, he took a very long time to make that decision..calling on all parties to give opinions and his own studys..lots of criticism for the time it took ...
Military wanted a open ended decision..similar to Nam in my opinion..basically no time table , fight till we win..immediate surge by 30,000...Biden wanted no nation building..less troops but active fight where ever..including Pakistan , the territories , against Taliban but mostly against Osama, his people, reason we were supposedly there for...

Obama decided  a one time surge , no more then 30,000 unless military could show real real cause for any more , nation building, AND a time table for withdraw as a fighting force..which we are doing...out by end of this year...History will tell which if any was the right decision..
I think it is still up in the air..I voted for him, both times, don't regret my call on him

As with the economy verging on a real depression, he was left a lousy hand when he took over..and Afghanistan and then the focus going on Iraq and most commitments there ...Over all , he made his decisions...considering all and few really have given him other choices...I think considering everything , he has done ok...

Definitely no depression...unemployment , the official figures is down, employment and economy is definitely up, we have the healthcare and it's looking that it is doing ok..still will be tweaked and with the constant sniping and congress stalemate for over four years..IMHO , he did good considering...mistakes yes but you want to hear about mistakes I have made in eight years?..Who doesn't make em...

Just finished watching the docudrama, Ken Burns.."The Roosevelts.."..Franklin  made many, if you listen to many Republicans even today, seemed his whole administration was a mistake..when he was President they wouldn't even refer to him by name..it was "that man in office.." Seems the zingers come with the perks  of office too...In Obamas case it seemed to start before he ever took office...

[mmhmm]

Sloooowly, dj. Very sloooowly, the way things are now. That may change. I'm lousy at predicting the future; especially, details. I don't, however, believe the Islamic countries are going to allow the likes of ISIS to continue to paint their world. I'm very anxious to talk more with my friend, so am hoping he can carve out the time for a visit.

[Virgil Showlion]

Sept 23, 2014 14:01:14 GMT -5 b2r said:

  

This is just depressing.

I wonder if they ever go back and watch these videos themselves. What do they think when they watch them?

Boy, I sure had them fooled. ?

Yes it was a bald-faced lie, but so what? People lie all the time. ?

What have I become? ?

It's no wonder comedians lampooning politicians is such popular TV fare. How else does one cope with the absurdity, when you could put these men circa 2012 into a raging debate with themselves circa 2013-2014? And how does one retain a shred of confidence in the political system?

[djAdvocate]

Sept 23, 2014 14:12:47 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Sloooowly, dj. Very sloooowly, the way things are now. That may change. I'm lousy at predicting the future; especially, details. I don't, however, believe the Islamic countries are going to allow the likes of ISIS to continue to paint their world. I'm very anxious to talk more with my friend, so am hoping he can carve out the time for a visit.

that is what Obama says, too.  i think we just upped the ante in the terror war.  i thought maybe, if we had gotten out of Afghanistan, and stopped messing with folks in the ME, MAYBE we had a shot at getting past this.  now, i think we are hip deep in shit again.  depressing.