Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"U.S. military pilots who have returned from the fight against the Islamic State in Iraq are confirming that they were blocked from dropping 75 percent of their ordnance on terror targets because they could not get clearance to launch a strike, according to a leading member of Congress.
Strikes against the Islamic State (also known as ISIS or ISIL) targets are often blocked due to an Obama administration policy to prevent civilian deaths and collateral damage, according to Rep. Ed Royce (R., Calif.), chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
The policy is being blamed for allowing Islamic State militants to gain strength across Iraq and continue waging terrorist strikes throughout the region and beyond, according to Royce and former military leaders who spoke Wednesday about flaws in the U.S. campaign to combat the Islamic State."
"U.S. military pilots who have returned from the fight against the Islamic State in Iraq are confirming that they were blocked from dropping 75 percent of their ordnance on terror targets because they could not get clearance to launch a strike, according to a leading member of Congress.
Strikes against the Islamic State (also known as ISIS or ISIL) targets are often blocked due to an Obama administration policy to prevent civilian deaths and collateral damage, according to Rep. Ed Royce (R., Calif.), chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
The policy is being blamed for allowing Islamic State militants to gain strength across Iraq and continue waging terrorist strikes throughout the region and beyond, according to Royce and former military leaders who spoke Wednesday about flaws in the U.S. campaign to combat the Islamic State."
How dastardly, that the president wants to try to limit civilian deaths! Who cares about the civilians, amiright? Just wipe them all out! It's their own fault for being born there!
Sad to say, that seems to be the attitude of many right wingers here.
How dastardly, that the president wants to try to limit civilian deaths! Who cares about the civilians, amiright? Just wipe them all out! It's their own fault for being born there!
Sad to say, that seems to be the attitude of many right wingers here.
Imagine how things may have turned out during WW2 if we had people like this guy running the show.
How dastardly, that the president wants to try to limit civilian deaths! Who cares about the civilians, amiright? Just wipe them all out! It's their own fault for being born there!
Sad to say, that seems to be the attitude of many right wingers here.
You see... this is where Liberals are mistaken.
This policy allows ISIS to operate almost with impunity. As a result they have been able to carry out mass murders, public crucifictions, thousands of beheadings, etc... In other words, far fewer civilians would die as collateral damage than as victims of ISIS if we changed our policy on this. But kneejerk leftists are incapable of seeing this.
"U.S. military pilots who have returned from the fight against the Islamic State in Iraq are confirming that they were blocked from dropping 75 percent of their ordnance on terror targets because they could not get clearance to launch a strike, according to a leading member of Congress.
Strikes against the Islamic State (also known as ISIS or ISIL) targets are often blocked due to an Obama administration policy to prevent civilian deaths and collateral damage, according to Rep. Ed Royce (R., Calif.), chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
The policy is being blamed for allowing Islamic State militants to gain strength across Iraq and continue waging terrorist strikes throughout the region and beyond, according to Royce and former military leaders who spoke Wednesday about flaws in the U.S. campaign to combat the Islamic State."
What's your point?
Are you saying that we should bomb the s#!t out of civilian targets to get one terrorist?
Are you saying this is the best way to win hearts and minds of the resident population?
Or are you praising the American military establishment for attempting to keep the level of civilian causalities to a bare minimum?
Based on your post, you seem to think that Obama sits in a conference room and personally looks over the shoulder of every pilot who goes on a sorte in Syria or Iraq.
Are you advocating all out war?
What's your point?
Are you saying that we should bomb the s#!t out of civilian targets to get one terrorist?
Are you saying this is the best way to win hearts and minds of the resident population?
Or are you praising the American military establishment for attempting to keep the level of civilian causalities to a bare minimum?
Based on your post, you seem to think that Obama sits in a conference room and personally looks over the shoulder of every pilot who goes on a sorte in Syria or Iraq.
Are you advocating all out war?
What IS your point?????
It seems pretty clear. The OP's point is that the president is gutless for attempting to not bomb innocent civilians.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
