ISIL, ISIS, Daesh discussion thread.

@ Roff there will be all out mass use of nukes as soon as nukes are used, there is no chance of a limited war as no side can afford 2nd or 3rd strikes against them, so once it's on it's on like donkey kong.

All target options will be hit including cities, power stations, transport, ports and water management systems all to force multiply the effect of weapons and disrupt enemy survival and recovery.

Why would anyone leave an enemy country with any potential to recover or fight back when they have the option to completely destroy them after they used nukes on you.

Obviously I read the 80's propaganda book by the ex uk head of nato as soon as it was published, ww3 or wtf it was called, what utter bs that was then and now.
 
Last edited:
Yemen funeral bombing: US to ‘immediately review’ support for Saudi-led coalition

The White House has announced an “immediate” review of US support for the Saudi-led coalition in wake of a funeral hall bombing in the Yemeni capital, Sanaa, that left over 150 dead and hundreds injured.
Washington, which has been a major arms supplier to Saudi Arabia, appears to have distanced itself from Saturday’s devastating bombing that took place amid Saudi-led airstrikes against Houthi rebels in Yemen, saying it was “deeply disturbed” and promising to review its military support for Riyadh.
Click to expand...
 
Lol review of support. US warplanes dropping US bombs/missiles/bullets. Tens of billions in arms exports signed... Stopping support? Not a chance
 
RaohNS said:
Lol review of support. US warplanes dropping US bombs/missiles/bullets. Tens of billions in arms exports signed... Stopping support? Not a chance
Click to expand...

I dunno - the PR aspect of it could have a lot of fall out - though the cynic in me says it would be stopping "direct" support and probably still be funnelled through back channels.
 
Why do that? Who's watching Yemen anyway? I've recently started looking again and its not changed. They are still attacking the houthis and who knows what they promised price will be
 
thep02 said:
@ Roff there will be all out mass use of nukes as soon as nukes are used, there is no chance of a limited war as no side can afford 2nd or 3rd strikes against them, so once it's on it's on like donkey kong.

All target options will be hit including cities, power stations, transport, ports and water management systems all to force multiply the effect of weapons and disrupt enemy survival and recovery.

Why would anyone leave an enemy country with any potential to recover or fight back when they have the option to completely destroy them after they used nukes on you.

Obviously I read the 80's propaganda book by the ex uk head of nato as soon as it was published, ww3 or wtf it was called, what utter bs that was then and now.
Click to expand...

Not sure of the context of this but the old Soviet UK targets list doesn't have much in the way of power infrastructure or water management, etc. infact not much in the way of multipliers hit at all - most of the targets were either air bases, ports or slap in the middle of population centres the main focus being denial of military assets and denial of ability to move military assets anywhere to use them offensively - much of their nuclear capabilities were probably reserved for targets in the US.
 
it may take longer, but its clear that his strategy in Iraq is working, and ISIS are done for there at least for now, using small, careful use of SF and let Iraq / Kurds be the ones to clear them out

I just hope the new Iraq government are a bit more inclusive so we dont end up back here again in a few years

its positive at the moment that the Iraq army got its act together a bit more, and they are sensible enough to not let the Shia militias or turks take the lead into Mosul
 
gettothechopper said:
it may take longer, but its clear that his strategy in Iraq is working, and ISIS are done for there at least for now, using small, careful use of SF and let Iraq / Kurds be the ones to clear them out

I just hope the new Iraq government are a bit more inclusive so we dont end up back here again in a few years

its positive at the moment that the Iraq army got its act together a bit more, and they are sensible enough to not let the Shia militias or turks take the lead into Mosul
Click to expand...

Agreed, it's slow and steady but it is working. I don't know what the Iraqi Army have done to turn things around but for once they are not hot tailing it in the opposite direction.
 
Major re training.

The Iraq army were initially trained as an anti insurgency force but then ISIS started fighting as a proper army.

The last few months/year have been spent retraining to fight an army - things like attacking fortified and dug in forces, then digging in and repelling attacks themselves etc. It seems to be working nicely at the moment, hopefully it continues.
 
Amp34 said:
Major re training.

The Iraq army were initially trained as an anti insurgency force but then ISIS started fighting as a proper army.

The last few months/year have been spent retraining to fight an army - things like attacking fortified and dug in forces, then digging in and repelling attacks themselves etc. It seems to be working nicely at the moment, hopefully it continues.
Click to expand...

ISIS early on started using some fairly advanced tactics - which I guess isn't unexpected given supposedly elements of high ranking former Iraqi military, etc. were part of it. A lot of US, etc. efforts have been in locating and eliminating those people one way or another. Problem with fighting ISIS isn't just like fighting against an army they also aren't fettered by normal regulations of war and have made extensive use of for instance long range desert patrol (SAS) type tactics to slowdown the enemy and avoid being forced into hard confrontations to beat them you not only have to take the fight to them but also ensure they have nowhere to run to.
 
The Running Man said:
What's the difference in taking back Aleppo or Mosul?

Apart from political agenda of course?
Click to expand...

Yeah a lot of it is political,

Syria is incredibly complicated, due to the many rebel groups / agendas, as well as who does / doesn't support who, which groups are / aren't fighting etc etc

Iraq is far simpler in that their is just one enemy who needs to be removed, and for now everyone else is working together to do it (this may lead to other problems once ISIS is gone however)

The other thing is that the main criticism of Aleppo was that it was being flattered by indiscriminate bombardment

Mosul isn't having the same criticism because it hasn't really started yet, hopefully it wont lead to massive destruction / large scale civilian deaths
 
gettothechopper said:
Yeah a lot of it is political,

Syria is incredibly complicated, due to the many rebel groups / agendas, as well as who does / doesn't support who, which groups are / aren't fighting etc etc

Iraq is far simpler in that their is just one enemy who needs to be removed, and for now everyone else is working together to do it (this may lead to other problems once ISIS is gone however)

The other thing is that the main criticism of Aleppo was that it was being flattered by indiscriminate bombardment

Mosul isn't having the same criticism because it hasn't really started yet, hopefully it wont lead to massive destruction / large scale civilian deaths
Click to expand...

Well who are the iraq army and pershmerga going to arty in Mosul? Do you think they can pin point 3000 isis members amongst 1 million + people. They are expecting mass civilian destruction and refugees possibly a millions
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom