[DougB]

Your thoughts?

[chachacha]

most posters must know that i am not a fan of President Obama, but in this case i believe he is doing the right thing, albeit better late than never...we have a muslim coalition of five arab nations which will help the world to see that even other muslims are against the radical idealogy of ISIS. this will be a longterm war. consider that Spain struggled for 800 years to defeat the caliphate that took over granada and half their country! ironically, that victory gave isabel and ferdinand the extra funds to back Christopher Columbus in his voyages which ultimately led to US the absence of Turkey in the coalition is troublesome, however.

[kittygilchrist]

Relief. Weight off my shoulders. This is an answer to fervent intense prayer in addition to useless yelling at the television for people to wake up.
God bless Fox news for blasting a trumpet.

When you see how other countries live in the constant, real threat of hate and terrorism, you want to not have it in the USA?
Example...every Friday afternoon, when Shabbat begins in Jerusalem, squads of police don riot gear to control Muslim violence against Jews coming to pray in the old city at the wall.

[rubicon]

The problem with all of the wars or whatever you care to label them since Korea have been compromised because of the interference of politicians and lawyers. It has been a continual progression and today the politicization driven by the upcoming elections and the over emphasis of applying laws.
I agree with the Geneva Convention, etc but if you look closely at what politicians and lawyers are doing its clear they are putting soldiers in harms way. Let the generals fight wars.

So as to this latest offense I believe that it will be redirected and compromised by politicians and lawyers wasting unneeded life and resources. Too many people do not acknowledge that there are limits to nature and that wars are ugly and they have unintended consequences but if you are not intent to win them at all costs then you are doomed to fail.

[janmcn]

Getting five Arab nations partnering on the airstrikes against ISSL is historic.

[Irishmen]

Originally Posted by janmcn

Getting five Arab nations partnering on the airstrikes against ISSL is historic.

Operational cooperation only. Another words, they allow us to take off and land from our own bases within their countries. They are not dropping bombs. Big difference.

[kittygilchrist]

Originally Posted by janmcn

Getting five Arab nations partnering on the airstrikes against ISSL is historic.

Arab-Israeli conflict - Basic facts

In my view, the ultimate and spoken prize of jihad is to obliterate Israel and the Jews.
...grateful for the Arab nations partnering in opposition to barbarism...Delaying attack on Israel.

[shcisamax]

Originally Posted by Irishmen

Operational cooperation only. Another words, they allow us to take off and land from our own bases within their countries. They are not dropping bombs. Big difference.

It was just noted on CNN by a The Pentagon Press Secretary that not only were our targets successful but those of the allies were also..I thought he was referring to the Arab allies because he had just referred to them earlier.

I wonder if they are actually actively engaging or just "allowing us to take off and land".

[graciegirl]

If ONLY we could know the real truth and not the spin from the news editors of the pick a direction leaning major news stations. The facts are what I want please.

For a long time earlier this year any military activity in the east was against " militants". Not any other word. Who directs that kind if incomplete information? Is it from the White House??

[Rags123]

Originally Posted by janmcn

Getting five Arab nations partnering on the airstrikes against ISSL is historic.

In actuality, 4 of the 5 you reference have been begging the USA to get involved for about 3 years !!!

A small example from last year...

"In comments to European diplomats last weekend, Saudi Arabia’s intelligence chief Prince Bandar bin Sultan confirmed that his country’s decision last Friday not to accept a temporary seat on the UN Security Council was “a message for the US, not the UN.”

Having collaborated closely in the US-led war for regime change in Syria, Saudi Arabia reacted angrily to the Obama administration’s decision to pull back from an imminent missile and air attack on Syria last month. It also has concerns over Washington’s involvement in international talks with Iran, which Riyadh regards as its chief rival in the region."

http://www.globalresearch.ca/saudi-o...-syria/5355525

They would have a hard time saying no to any coalition in that area !!! If you have been reading any of the international media for the last two to three years, the frustration of not getting help has caused a bit of angst in the area.

This is some of the most encouraging news on this specific front....

"Two countries that have very strained relationships with the United States are considering joining the fight against the Islamic State group. Russian President Vladimir Putin told his Security Council Sunday night that he would consider working with international partners and the Iranian government said it is ready to collaborate with the U.S. to fight the Sunni militant group, in exchange for breathing room on their uranium enrichment program, Reuters reported."

http://www.ibtimes.com/russia-iran-c...t-isis-1692762

[2BNTV]

There will never be peace, in the middle east. IMHO

[Rags123]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

If ONLY we could know the real truth and not the spin from the news editors of the pick a direction leaning major news stations. The facts are what I want please.

For a long time earlier this year any military activity in the east was against " militants". Not any other word. Who directs that kind if incomplete information? Is it from the White House??

The attacks were actually only on ISIS locations in the area that they have sort of taken as their capital. Hard targets, meaning buildings, equipment etc.

Did hear, and have not seen any confirmation, that the military made a strike on another group in Syria which halted an imminent attack on the USA.

[Irishmen]

NBC Pentagon guy just said by giving notice to ISIS , they took all they're flags and markings and moved equipment into urban areas. Basically said we were just throwing missiles into the sand. No ISIS leadership were targeted.

[nitehawk]

Originally Posted by DougB

Your thoughts?

and what are your thoughts ????

[Rags123]

Originally Posted by Irishmen

NBC Pentagon guy just said by giving notice to ISIS , they took all they're flags and markings and moved equipment into urban areas. Basically said we were just throwing missiles into the sand. No ISIS leadership were targeted.

I am not sure of the point of this post. Anyone expecting BODIES from this bombing will be dissapointed.

These attacks were utilitarian but also symbolic in a big way. The coalition DID KNOW that scattering had taken place when the bombing began in Iraq and that further would follow. The mission was HARD targets....buildings infrastructures, etc.

Wish folks who quote others would follow the rules and give links or some sort of accreditation so we can see things in context.

"Citing the ongoing operations, Kirby said the Pentagon would not provide additional details immediately. But a U.S. military official said the strikes are meant to target the ability of ISIS to command and control, resupply and train."

http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/22/world/...es-isis-syria/