How Many Bombs Did the United States Drop in 2015?

Just add a few hydrogen bombs in the mix. Let the world know we are crazy and pissed.

 

wouldn't it be a very weird moment, if north korea came to syria to fight terrorism, and used their rumored hydrogen bomb to flex their muscles and scare americans?

 

if our bombing is anywhere near accurate, then we can kill more of them, leaving far less to become 'battle hardened' as you put it.

 

But we did drop 100,000,000,000 leaflets on their widdle heads first, warning of the bombs. I understand we sent cookies and milk ahead as well.

 

23,144 wasn't enough. I hope we can double that this year.

 

Why do you wear a mask and hold a gun? Is it because you can't convince anyone your ideas have value? You can only convert them to your side by force?

Pathetic.

 

Now that is the plan of all plans. Very well done.

 

Isn't it hilarious when faux-humanitarian "anti-war" Lefturds try and have it both ways?

I love it when Obama and the rest of the Jihadist Internationale's useful "progressive" idiots contend that the response to jihadist violence creates jihadist violence.

 

Totally hilarious! I was thinking almost the exact same thing when I read that.

 

you know the (*)(*)(*)(*)ed up part... this is like third year war strategy classes at west point... why on earth haven't any of the commanders graduated from and clearly have progressed in ranks and now are advisers and leaders, or prior presidents advisers and leaders, sounding off on this... we literally have leaders who were trained with this very basic and simple strategy as we learned our lessons from vietnam, and it seems we continue to let ego rule our logic when they learned in school what to do...

I just don't get it...

maybe this is the ultimate example of "commander in chief" not allowing those actually trained in war to lead the war, political agendas have proven to be bad war strategy... countless examples of that in the history of the world...

 

We should send in every pro-war American. And they shouldn't get to leave until the job is done.

 

i guess the verdict is in our current tactic doesnt work. Time to make a choice either leave them the hell alone or if we need to go in do it with more vicousness. No more honoring human shields and kill the families of those who fight against us. Clearly going in half assed isnt doing anything.

 

Why stop there, why not every person in the world who is for ending ISIS, Boko Haram, Taliban, Al Qaeda, Hezbollah and Hamas?

Oh an no rules and no crying about how those psychos are treated. Sound good?

- - - Updated - - -

If you go in half assed to any fight, do you think you will win? of course not. You either go in 100% or face certain defeat. Or check out post #24, that is the best option yet honestly.

 

If you think a war is worth fighting, then you should fight in it, regardless of where you're from.

 

How do you suggest the US wins the hearts and minds of the Muslim world? by converting to Islam and neglecting our Constitution for Sharia Law??? because that is what THEY WANT and that is the only (*)(*)(*)(*)ing thing that will make them happy...

People like you don't get it....

These people won't be content until you're a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing Muslim...

 

We dropped them on terrorists who happen to be Muslims, not Muslims in general

yes, some in war are killed by friendly fire, tragic, but it's war....

.

 

Muslims will never be happy until all 7.8 billion people on this planet are Muslim...

 

so who will you be supporting, the people against ISIS or ISIS ?

 

I already fought ISIS for seven months in 2007. The rest of pro-war America has a lot of catching up to do.

 

Well thank you!!!!!!!


And since you are a soldier then let me ask you this. Do you support bringing down ISIS or just letting them roam free?

 

You thank me for fighting terrorists... right after you accuse me of supporting terrorists. How amusing.

So when are the millions of pro-war Americans presently sitting on their sofas going to get some? My guess is never.

 

True, that much bombing should have been done each month. Collateral damage should also be allowed so we can actually be successful, not like the "(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)" has ordered!

 

You're missing too many issues here, I think.

These countries have not wanted US troops in them.

In Syria, our objectives have long included the replacement of their government - something their government isn't interested in expediting by inviting our troops. The US analysis is that there will be no resolution there until there is a government that represents the Sunni majority rather than the Shiite/Alawite minority that Iran and Russia back.

In Iraq, we were unable to eliminate AQ even when we had surge-level troops in Iraq. What was required was support of local Sunnis. By the time we left Iraq we had broken relations with Sunnis. So, one aspect you have omitted, especially for Iraq, is to identify how we would regain the support of Sunnis while still maintaining so much trust from the Iraqi government to invite large numbers of US combat troops.

Your solution doesn't recognize the extreme flexibility shown by ISIL. They have been unable to resist direct opposition. However, they have been able to move against new objectives far faster than opposition has been able to resist.

Each of these countries now has numerous nations in contribution. Any idea that this is US v. ISIL is nonsense. Iran doesn't agree with that. Russia doesn't agree with that. France doesn't see it as that. And, as you point out, not even WE see it as that.


Perhaps a far more significant point here is that another regional invasion (especially a combat mission in multiple states) will once again cost trillions. As even Trump pointed out, we are likely to be FAR better off by investing trillions in the US and NOT investing trillions in blowing up foreign nations - which does essentially nothing for our security, does nothing for our deteriorating infrastructure, does nothing for our education, and shoves far too many other issues to the back burner.

 

I was a Marine, not a Soldier. And obviously I support killing them, otherwise I wouldn't have volunteered to do just that. But we need a better strategy, one that doesn't rely exclusively on militarism and conventional strategies.

 

You are a Marine who has been there, so I will thank you for your efforts and respect your opinion, but that does not mean I am going to kiss your ass and agreew ith you just because you are a Marine. Hassan was a soldier too.

But anyways I asked another question....... Do you support the end of ISIS, or do you say just leave them alone and let them kill whoever and get killed by whoever?

And I am sure we will all get some eventually, Obama and the left wants to bring them to us.