just_sayin' Loc: Former United States of America

Stu Tarlowe writes...

Anyone notice that when ISIS held its victory parade in Ramadi, there were no US air strikes there? Looks like a target rich environment to me.

Yup. Michael Savage has been saying that ONE A-10 Warthog could've turned that "parade" into "the highway of death".

Cheers, ST


http://www.debka.com/article/24615/

robmull Loc: florida

If you noticed, just_sayin', as I did immediately after the first few gigantic, blatant ISIS parades in Iraq, and the first feeble and very few American air-strikes [on small empty buildings and empty, lonely 1997 Ford pick-up trucks in the middle of nowhere], that BHO, [or whatever (his) name really is] is just being very careful not to hurt anybody. I believe that has been the liberal progressive war strategies since around the middle of the Korean War, Vietnam, and now in the Middle East. Of course pro-Western Koreans, Vietnamese, Iranians and Christians don't really count in ANY meaningful way to the liberal progressive ideology; and NEVER will!!!

grumpymarine Loc: Florida

I used to direct air strikes in Vietnam from my helicopter. Bombing doesn't win wars, boots on the ground is the answer, but I sure don't want to see more Americans in body bags again. A no win situation with the civilian Obozo in charge.

straightUp Loc: California

Savage is an idiot.

Yes, an A-10 could have killed many Muslims, men, women and children, which of course doesn't matter to you, they are all animals right? But is would also justify (and guarantee) a backlash, probably against American civilians and they have the capacity and the will to do that until we run out of money. So whether it's a good idea or not depends on whether your interest lies in attacking Muslims or saving Americans.

The idea that we can rely on our massive array of hardware to solve our problems is so retarded. We had total firepower superiority in Vietnam and we were STILL defeated by peasants and small arms. I'm sure you have a whole list of politicians to blame for that one, but the fact is the Vietnamese were fighting for their own destiny and they knew it. Our involvement was political and most Americans in-country and at home didn't even understand it. That's why we lost, the "enemy" had more to fight for.

It's the same set up in the Middle-East today. The Muslim-Right (religious-nationalists), fighting for their destiny (mostly fighting secularism in their own territories). Our involvement is entirely political, with reasons that most Americans don't understand.

If we actually want to save/protect Americans, we would need to use brains not more shipments of hardware... On the other hand, if we want to turn their jihad into a profitable business, then by all means ship the hardware and bill the American citizens at home. The military can then be ordered to attack selected targets, with two favorable results...

1. We spent the hardware, so we get to order more. (cha-ching!)
2. We encourage the "enemy" to retaliate - probably against civilian targets, which gives us the green light on using more hardware.

The A-10's that we have already used in Iraq are probably responsible for creating more enemies than they killed, but that's good business... it means return customers. I just don't know if you still think we're actually over there trying to STOP the violence. That makes as much sense as hiring a CEO to stop the business.

rjoeholl

Run, rabbit, run!

dwallace2015

Sounds like they missed the "golden opportunity" to test their latest "WMD", on the waiting enemy crowd. Comes from firing all the Admirals and Generals.