Registered User
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 04:13

17 Sep 2014, 11:27 #121

From day one there have been contradictions between what Obama has been saying and what military folks at the highest levels were saying. Does that mean that there is an argument between them in which case Gen. Dempsey had better have his retirement plans sorted out? Or, is this an administration ploy designed to give the president an "it's not my fault" excuse for having to give in on the use of ground forces in the fight against ISIS? If the former, we can expect a shake up at the Pentagon. If the later,  it demonstrates ineptness on the part of the president and, if the ploy works, on the part of his supporters.
The president should have worked out the military needs of the mission with his military advisors and he should have established his coalition behind closed doors before he announced any kind of strategy to the public. He should have left as many details as possible to the imagination of ISIS. His "it's not my fault" excuse would be just as valid (if that's possible) and he would look more like he thought this through to everyone involved. Is it a regional problem to be solved by Syria, Iraq, and their neighbors or is it a global problem needing a global solution? Al Jazeera has an article titled "Obama's unstrategic strategy." Probably a lot of folks are wondering just what he can reasonably expect to happen soon or after November the 4th.

Registered User
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 04:13

18 Sep 2014, 02:05 #122

In stretching words and meanings to the breaking point, the Whitehouse is trying to persuade everyone that they aren’t at odds with the chairman of the Joint Chiefs. General Dempsey has made it clear to anyone with an ounce of intelligence that he doesn’t believe that the Iraqi military can handle the task and that it will ultimately take American ground forces to do the job. Translation: he doesn’t agree with Obama’s plan. The general must be a very frustrated man knowing that an enormous amount of resource is being expended on a mission to which he’s been ssigned and that he expects to fail.
So, what’s the problem with American ground forces being used if that is what the current situation requires? Is it a “read my lips” kind of pomise that he’s determined to keep no matter what the cost? Does anyone really believe that you could put foot soldiers near the front lines and keep them out of harm’s way? If they are near the front lines and have orders not to engage the enemy, what do they do if the enemy engagesthem? Does the president really think that he can fool the American people until after the election with such bullshit?
The truth is that we are already doing more than Americans have been led to believe. Who do they suppose is identifying targets for the aerial bombardment? The following video was posted on Facebook by an Iraqi from Kirkuk. His caption (translated by Bing) reads:
Apache helicopters pounded positions on 15/8/2014 and wasphotographed by U.S. military units in the region in Kurdistan.                                  
The link: ... =2&theater

ISIS has made use of social media on the Internet and they certainly know what’s happening on the ground. The above link was sharedmore than 16,000 times so it’s safe to assume that the enemy knows about this. So, what’s the point of the administration trying to pretend we are safely behind the lines?
I wonder what will happen if Obama fires Dempsey or if Dempsey decides to quit? If the general is willing to express his opinion whilestill holding his position, what do you suppose he would be saying if he no longer had to say yes sir/no sir?
footnote: Several questions come to mind when viewing the video. How did the Iraqi come by the video? There is no explanation of this. Where were the Apaches based? They couldn't have been carrier based as the Apache doesn't have the range to reach Kurdistan from the nearest possible carrier location. What was the function of the high powered light beam that appeared briefly in the video and why didn't it prompt return fire? It doesn't fit the characteristic of a laser designation and didn't seem to correspond to any particular ordinance. (A designator isn't in the visible light range and must be on target from launch to impact of the ordinance that it directs.) The video certainly fits the scenario of air attacks in Northern Iraq but, if it is authentic, there should be answers to these questions. If not, what would be the motive for producing it and where and when was the footage really made? Clearly the voices in the background are American and it makes sense that people on the ground would be helpful in identifying  worthwhile targets especially at night.
Last edited by BBMGRBL on 19 Sep 2014, 01:42, edited 1 time in total.

Registered User
Joined: 19 Aug 2011, 06:50

19 Sep 2014, 15:14 #123

To: Bill LujdinFrom: LRRP6Good questions you posed; Let me clear it up for you.This video you mentioned did NOT take place in Kurdistan on the date you mentioned, nor did it involve "Apache" helicopters, nor is the video "recent". The choppers you are seeing are specially outfitted MH60 DAP's and MH6 Little Birds" from the 160th SOAR regiment. (Google night stalkers). The munitions you see that are burst exploding on the ground are 30MM. The rest of the munitions are a combination  of GAU 19's and 7.62 miniguns, and 2.75 inch FFAR's (Folding Fin Aerial Rockets).
As to what you call the "high powered light beam" and why it didnt draw return fire"....The beam is not visible "light" but an IR beam visible only to the pilots in the air and the persons on the ground using visual IR gear. The "beam" is coming from a SOFLAM (google it) laser assisted target marker operated by1x US SF operator on the ground. He is "sparkling" the target, in other words, I am on the ground and I aim the SOFLAM laser at the target and when the beam makes contact with the target, it "sparkles". I will ask the pilot, "Do you see my 'sparkle'?" If he replies" affirmative", I reply, "Engage".No need to mention where this took place, but the "Iraqi from Kirkuk" who claims to have posted this video is full of shit.Hope this helps,LRRP6
Last edited by lrrp6 on 19 Sep 2014, 15:24, edited 3 times in total.

Registered User
Joined: 10 Oct 2007, 19:40

19 Sep 2014, 17:54 #124

Bill the WH  has parsed his words and lied ever since he cam on the scene
as a Senator and I am sure he did it long before that.

   I am not a military person or from a military background but votes are
always first and foremost for anyone that backs strong military, all else is

 If you fail to have a strong military and you are taken over by China or
Russia or whomever, all your other stuff is miniscule, yep that right you

 No more face book or Itunes  when you are occupied.

 So I think there is a reason that  BO and cohorts do not call it “war, or
no boots on the ground”. I believe it to be  more than just he don’t want that
terminology connected with his name.

It is most likely the payout?

   Isn't it  more costly to the government if you declare war and deploy
troops and arms under that term?

  Comes back as more benefits, healthcare , retirements, money  for troops
that are cited or wounded?

   I may be wrong  not being from a military background  but it did work to
BO’s favor to call Fort Hood “ work place violence” than an act or terrorism, he
is money ahead and no medals/benefits or money for survivor's, correct?

 Again this it the man that won a Nobel Peace Prize for just running for
President and community Organization.

 We are so Fuc—d , we can get rid of him  because of a no
balls Republicans,  filthy mouthed Democrats and Race Baiting  DOJ.

  Our only hope is to see him on Youtube with the British accented ISIS guy
and he in a orange smock and giving his last speech.


Registered User
Joined: 10 Oct 2007, 19:40

19 Sep 2014, 18:02 #125

Bill I saw this same video when the Iraq war was still going on, its not from current events.