ISIS Militants Less Than 2 Miles From Baghdad, Fierce Fighting Reported Near Ira

[240 is Back]

Excellent!   They've shown themselves and are confident enough to try to charge Baghdad.  Sure, Bush and his SOF removed our troops, but that's okay.  They'll lose a big chunk of their troops just fighting their way to baghdad, making their position known loud and clear with lots of fire we can see from above. 

Now, will the US air support rain down on them?


ISIS Militants Less Than 2 Miles From Baghdad, Fierce Fighting Reported Near Iraqi Capital

3 hrs ago - Fierce fighting has gotten closer and closer to Baghdad, with some reports saying the Islamic State is within one mile of the city limits. The Vicar of Baghdad sent an SOS from the besieged Iraqi capital Monday

[Shockwave]

Bush and his SOF?

wat?

[Soul Crusher]

You really are drunk while posting most of the times huh?

Excellent!   They've shown themselves and are confident enough to try to charge Baghdad.  Sure, Bush and his SOF removed our troops, but that's okay.  They'll lose a big chunk of their troops just fighting their way to baghdad, making their position known loud and clear with lots of fire we can see from above. 

Now, will the US air support rain down on them?


ISIS Militants Less Than 2 Miles From Baghdad, Fierce Fighting Reported Near Iraqi Capital

3 hrs ago - Fierce fighting has gotten closer and closer to Baghdad, with some reports saying the Islamic State is within one mile of the city limits. The Vicar of Baghdad sent an SOS from the besieged Iraqi capital Monday

[Kazan]

Excellent!   They've shown themselves and are confident enough to try to charge Baghdad.  Sure, Bush and his SOF removed our troops, but that's okay.  They'll lose a big chunk of their troops just fighting their way to baghdad, making their position known loud and clear with lots of fire we can see from above. 

Now, will the US air support rain down on them?


ISIS Militants Less Than 2 Miles From Baghdad, Fierce Fighting Reported Near Iraqi Capital

3 hrs ago - Fierce fighting has gotten closer and closer to Baghdad, with some reports saying the Islamic State is within one mile of the city limits. The Vicar of Baghdad sent an SOS from the besieged Iraqi capital Monday

How can this be "the air strikes are working", I thought they were all smoldering corpse's by now...........

[240 is Back]

How can this be "the air strikes are working", I thought they were all smoldering corpse's by now...........

who said they were all smoldering?  there are 31,000 of them.  We blew up a shitload of their bases, safe houses, vehicles, and oil/grain for income.  maybe they're going for that "last stand" since their houses are smoldering.  Either way, if I'm fighting what's left of ISIS, I would MUCH rather have them on an open battlefield, ADVANCING, so their movements are visible and obvious, and they're vulnerable to airstrikes.

What we don't want is them retreating into the cities and disappearing for 1,2,3,5 years.   I love the idea of them fighting to the death against the iraqi military.  lose half of them in battle, and we'll airstrike whoever is left, or let them limp to a safehouse, track them, and blow that place up too. 

again, nobody said they were all smoldering corpses.  I like the idea of destroying infrastructure, driving them into an advacing battle, and finishing them on the battlefield, where we have HUGE advantages. our advantages do NOT lie in urban warfare, door to door combat in a foreign country.   let them advance for that mile to baghdad.  I'm betting we haev a red dot on every one of them from a satellite.

[Kazan]

who said they were all smoldering?  there are 31,000 of them.  We blew up a shitload of their bases, safe houses, vehicles, and oil/grain for income.  maybe they're going for that "last stand" since their houses are smoldering.  Either way, if I'm fighting what's left of ISIS, I would MUCH rather have them on an open battlefield, ADVANCING, so their movements are visible and obvious, and they're vulnerable to airstrikes.

What we don't want is them retreating into the cities and disappearing for 1,2,3,5 years.   I love the idea of them fighting to the death against the iraqi military.  lose half of them in battle, and we'll airstrike whoever is left, or let them limp to a safehouse, track them, and blow that place up too. 

again, nobody said they were all smoldering corpses.  I like the idea of destroying infrastructure, driving them into an advacing battle, and finishing them on the battlefield, where we have HUGE advantages. our advantages do NOT lie in urban warfare, door to door combat in a foreign country.   let them advance for that mile to baghdad.  I'm betting we haev a red dot on every one of them from a satellite.

We have no advantage without reliable troops to finish them off, the Iraqi army is not reliable. These fuckers are just going to blend in, regroup, rearm, and replenish their numbers. How long should the US keep assets on station? Your fantasy land assessment of the situation is comical at best.

[240 is Back]

We have no advantage without reliable troops to finish them off, the Iraqi army is not reliable. These fuckers are just going to blend in, regroup, rearm, and replenish their numbers. How long should the US keep assets on station? Your fantasy land assessment of the situation is comical at best.

They don't have to be all that reliable.  They can soak up bullets and force the ISIS troops to reveal their positions.  Then we can use our special forces (snipers, etc) to drive them where we want them, and drop a lot of bang  bang on their heads.  Or a dozen other strategies way better than that.


I guess what I"m saying is - WHAT BETTER ALTERNATIVE do we have here?   Do you want a SINGLE US SOLDIER dying on the ground?  Do you want the US soldiers on the ground taking fire because "our army is more reliable"?   Sheeit, let the iraqis lose 5,000 troops in the battle if it means we don't lose one.  And we have such amazing technology.  ANY enemy troops engaged with iraqi forces can be picked up and neutralized from teh sky.

Really, do you prefer a war where there are 100,000 US Troops, 1 mile from baghdad, dodging ISIS fire?  Because they're more "reliable?"

[Kazan]

They don't have to be all that reliable.  They can soak up bullets and force the ISIS troops to reveal their positions.  Then we can use our special forces (snipers, etc) to drive them where we want them, and drop a lot of bang  bang on their heads.  Or a dozen other strategies way better than that.


I guess what I"m saying is - WHAT BETTER ALTERNATIVE do we have here?   Do you want a SINGLE US SOLDIER dying on the ground?  Do you want the US soldiers on the ground taking fire because "our army is more reliable"?   Sheeit, let the iraqis lose 5,000 troops in the battle if it means we don't lose one.  And we have such amazing technology.  ANY enemy troops engaged with iraqi forces can be picked up and neutralized from teh sky.

Really, do you prefer a war where there are 100,000 US Troops, 1 mile from baghdad, dodging ISIS fire?  Because they're more "reliable?"

Wow man maybe you should be a general, it make sound so simple to defeat ISUS 

[240 is Back]

Wow man maybe you should be a general, it make sound so simple to defeat ISUS 

don't attack the messenger... tell me

1) if you prefer thousands of us troops fighting it out with isis on the ground right now?

or

2) If you have a better strategy than airstrikes to blow up their support/$, drive them to battle, let the iraqi forces take a bite of them and ID their positions, then bomb/snipe/machine gun them from afar... what is it?

ISIS is out of $, out of hiding places, on a custer's stand to "take baghdad"?  LOL an obvious suicide mission, but hey, the US can oblige them with very very minimal loss.  What beats that?

[Kazan]

don't attack the messenger... tell me

1) if you prefer thousands of us troops fighting it out with isis on the ground right now?

or

2) If you have a better strategy than airstrikes to blow up their support/$, drive them to battle, let the iraqi forces take a bite of them and ID their positions, then bomb/snipe/machine gun them from afar... what is it?

ISIS is out of $, out of hiding places, on a custer's stand to "take baghdad"?  LOL an obvious suicide mission, but hey, the US can oblige them with very very minimal loss.  What beats that?

The correct strategy would have been to take these assclowns out when we had troops in theater, now its up to the Iraqi army to mop up. These fuckers are going to be a problem for the foreseeable future. Custer my ass............