Ted Cruz says hes goint to �carpet bomb� terrorists.

[seer]

Or perhaps Cruz is talking about carpet bombing these Isil training camps:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ghanistan.html

[nickcopernicus]

NEWSFLASH ----

He's a politician! He'll say what he thinks it will take to stoke up the base. Same with Democrats.

Film at 11

Nick:
I already said that I know he's pandering. Just like I was using hyperbole when I said perhaps a drone should be headed his way. The difference between the extremes with the Democrats, of course is that Sanders isn't calling for outright communism, which is what he would have to do to equal Cruz's War crime rhetoric.

[nickcopernicus]

Unless he's using rhetoric to draw up images between WWII and how he views ISIS and what he wants to do with them (which will not be achieved by bombing them anyway). Plus, carpet bombing has had questionable effectiveness anyway.

Nick:
I don't recall what you did (if you're still in) in the Air Force, but I do expect that you, of all people would agree that Cruz has no ideal what he's talking about when he claims he's going to "carpet bomb" terrorists. If he was making references to WWII, then he's just demonstrating his complete lack of knowledge of military tactics. the Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM) system is the reason we don't "carpet bomb" anymore. Of course, you already know all this.

[seer]

Nick:
I already said that I know he's pandering. Just like I was using hyperbole when I said perhaps a drone should be headed his way. The difference between the extremes with the Democrats, of course is that Sanders isn't calling for outright communism, which is what he would have to do to equal Cruz's War crime rhetoric.

Except Sanders, is pandering nonetheless to his base, he knows darn well that free college is a pipe dream. Besides men like Sanders are even more dangerous that Cruz since he doesn't have a clue on how to deal with groups like ISIS - he would give them all a Prius.

[seer]

Nick:
I don't recall what you did (if you're still in) in the Air Force, but I do expect that you, of all people would agree that Cruz has no ideal what he's talking about when he claims he's going to "carpet bomb" terrorists. If he was making references to WWII, then he's just demonstrating his complete lack of knowledge of military tactics. the Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM) system is the reason we don't "carpet bomb" anymore. Of course, you already know all this.

Perhaps he wants to carpet bomb these:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ghanistan.html

I'm surprised we haven't yet.

[nickcopernicus]

They're targeting the oil smuggling which is the economic heartbeat of ISIS, something that the US is strangely ignoring and even denying is a problem. In other words, it's evident they're just looking the other way (possibly because of the Turkey connection). Cruz knows this and knows he could do far more damage by questioning why the current admin is ignoring this, but this would go passed the head of his boneheaded low information supporters. Instead, he's just playing to the emotions of his supporters, like the family guy clip. It's just pre-election rhetoric.

Nick:
If you turn away from Russian propaganda networks like RT, you'd see that...

Source: Reuters:

Four-fifths of Russia's Syria strikes don't target Islamic State: Reuters analysis

Almost 80 percent of Russia's declared targets in Syria have been in areas not held by Islamic State, a Reuters analysis of Russian Defence Ministry data shows, undermining Moscow's assertions that its aim is to defeat the group.

The majority of strikes, according to the analysis, have instead been in areas held by other groups opposed to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, which include al Qaeda offshoots but also fighters backed by Washington and its allies.

© Copyright Original Source

Oops!

But by all means, let's blame the US for not setting Oil fields on fire, not only killing civilian workers, reducing the global oil supply (thus increasing the price of fuel for everyone), and crapping up the environment.


Cheers,

Nick

[seer]

But by all means, let's blame the US for not setting Oil fields on fire, not only killing civilian workers, reducing the global oil supply (thus increasing the price of fuel for everyone), and crapping up the environment.


Cheers,

Nick

So you wouldn't attack ISIS controlled oil production? One of their main sources of funding?

[nickcopernicus]

Sure beats the hell out of the liberal rhetoric which says that we can win the war by giving terrorists a job and a hug.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015...r-to-isis.html

Or Crazy Bernie and B. Hussien O. blaming terrorism on global warming.

http://fortune.com/2015/12/05/terror...-change-cop21/

Cruz at least seems to be living in this reality.

Nick:
First, I agree that that was a serious non sequitur when the President made the impression that current terrorists are here are as result of Global Warming (he did not directly say that, but it was implied).

Second, you're apparently living in fantasy land with Ted Cruz. If President Cruz were to carpet Bomb Mosul, an ISIS controlled area, for example, he'd risk killing the over 600,000 people who lived there. Of course unless he nuked the place, he'd not kill them all. But I would guess that if even 20% of them lived after being "carpet bombed," he would just have created 60-120 thousand new terrorists.

I can't believe that idiotic State department is trying to suggest that perhaps if we give these young people who are being recruited by ISIS jobs, better lives, then they would not grow up to be terrorists. You and Cruz seem to think that if you just melt their faces off with bombs, they'll never live to be terrorists.

Sounds reasonable. ,

Nick

p.s. if you actually took the time to read some of the stories of who is being recruited and how, that stooopid State Department just might make sense. Of course, like Cruz, you have no ideal what you're talking about. Being as I've forgotten more about the Middle East than you, or him, most likely, will ever know. You have an excuse. You're not a member of the US Senate, charged with helping run our country. Your boy Cruz has no excuse.

[nickcopernicus]

So you wouldn't attack ISIS controlled oil production? One of their main sources of funding?

Nick:
Unless they're selling all that oil in cash (not likely, as it's not practical nor profitable), then NO! Why? well, you sure as heck can't just take crude oil, put in a car and be on your way! It has to be refined. That takes expertise. Who's doing business with oil in Iraq? Mostly Chinese and Russian Companies. Thus, while it would be difficult in practice to cut off ISIS oil revenues, in theory, it's quite simple.

[nickcopernicus]

Except Sanders, is pandering nonetheless to his base, he knows darn well that free college is a pipe dream. Besides men like Sanders are even more dangerous that Cruz since he doesn't have a clue on how to deal with groups like ISIS - he would give them all a Prius.

Nick:
It's a pipe dream eh?

In the national guard. For one weekend month

• Tuition Assistance covers up to 100% Tuition and Fees Not to exceed: $250 @ Semester Credit Hour
  $166 @ Quarter Credit Hour $4500 @ Fiscal Year
• Post 9/11 GI Bill Paid Tuition and Fees, Living (Housing) Stipend and Book Stipend.

In New Mexico:

The Legislative Lottery Scholarship will pay a portion of tuition (up to undergraduate degree) for New Mexico high school graduates or GED recipients who want to attend a New Mexico public college or university.

There are lots of ways for people who aren't super smart to get much, if not all, of their college paid for. We just can't all go to Harvard. But wait! According to Harvard, parents making lest than 65K are expected to contribute $0 to their student's tuition. They don't need your money.

That dang internet sure does have a lot of information on it!

[seanD]

Nick:
If you turn away from Russian propaganda networks like RT, you'd see that...

Source: Reuters:

Four-fifths of Russia's Syria strikes don't target Islamic State: Reuters analysis

Almost 80 percent of Russia's declared targets in Syria have been in areas not held by Islamic State, a Reuters analysis of Russian Defence Ministry data shows, undermining Moscow's assertions that its aim is to defeat the group.

The majority of strikes, according to the analysis, have instead been in areas held by other groups opposed to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, which include al Qaeda offshoots but also fighters backed by Washington and its allies.

© Copyright Original Source

Oops!

But by all means, let's blame the US for not setting Oil fields on fire, not only killing civilian workers, reducing the global oil supply (thus increasing the price of fuel for everyone), and crapping up the environment.


Cheers,

Nick

It's all propaganda during times of war, my man. All sides engage in propaganda to bulwark their own geopolitical agenda, which is why it's necessary to read between the lines. It's not about blowing up oil fields, it's about taking out the oil transports from the oil fields to the apparent billionaire buyers of said oil. It wouldn't have much of an effect on the price because: a) it's illegal black market oil and b) we already have a glut of global oil production, hence the current record low price. During times of war, civilian causalities are unfortunately a probability (which certainly hasn't stopped indiscriminate US military aggressiveness in the past!). However, you'd be hard-pressed to convince me that the truck drivers don't know what they're doing and who they're doing it for. The main success of ending a war is striking at the heart of the enemy, which would be the main source of finance, not indiscriminately carpet bombing locations that would only fuel more anger and potential ISIS recruits (something I think you'd agree with).

Cruz's pre-election rhetoric means nothing; just emotional political fodder. This tells me you don't want any real discussion about the issue, you just want a cheap retarded political spar match between yourself and the supporters of Ted Cruz that you believe will get all riled up at the OP. Carry on then.

[nickcopernicus]

It's all propaganda during times of war, my man. All sides engage in propaganda to bulwark their own geopolitical agenda, which is why it's necessary to read between the lines. It's not about blowing up oil fields, it's about taking out the oil transports from the oil fields to the apparent billionaire buyers of said oil. It wouldn't have much of an effect on the price because: a) it's illegal black market oil and b) we already have a glut of global oil production, hence the current record low price. During times of war, civilian causalities are unfortunately a probability (which certainly hasn't stopped indiscriminate US military aggressiveness in the past!). However, you'd be hard-pressed to convince me that the truck drivers don't know what they're doing and who they're doing it for. The main success of ending a war is striking at the heart of the enemy, which would be the main source of finance, not indiscriminately carpet bombing locations that would only fuel more anger and potential ISIS recruits (something I think you'd agree with).

Nick:
I don't see how one can defeat ISIS by destroying a few truck convoys. In the first place, one would have to make sure they're actually ISIS supported. without the proper intel, you could kill innocent people, and just create more terrorists. The cost benefit ratio of selecting proper targets is simply not high enough. You don't have to believe me on this. We can just agree to disagree if you'd like.

SeanD:
I explained to you Cruz's obvious political objective but you seem just be brushing it off. This tells me you don't want any real discussion about the issue, you just want a cheap retarded political spar match between yourself and the supporters of Ted Cruz that you believe will get all riled up at the OP. Carry on then.

Nick:
On the contrary, if you had read what I'd wrote in my previous replies to other posters, I said I know he's just spouting off rhetoric. The problem is that people like Mountain Man swallow that crap whole. So I guess it's achieving his (Cruz's) objective, pandering to the ignorant; however, don't expect me to like it.


I'm going to bed. Have a good night,

Nick

[Adam]

She gets a pass, cause she's the darling of the extreme left.

You are quite misinformed. The extreme left hates Hillary, but is willing to settle for Bernie even though they hate his soft view on gun control.

[seanD]

Nick:
I don't see how one can defeat ISIS by destroying a few truck convoys. In the first place, one would have to make sure they're actually ISIS supported. without the proper intel, you could kill innocent people, and just create more terrorists. The cost benefit ratio of selecting proper targets is simply not high enough. You don't have to believe me on this. We can just agree to disagree if you'd like.


Nick:
On the contrary, if you had read what I'd wrote in my previous replies to other posters, I said I know he's just spouting off rhetoric. The problem is that people like Mountain Man swallow that crap whole. So I guess it's achieving his (Cruz's) objective, pandering to the ignorant; however, don't expect me to like it.


I'm going to bed. Have a good night,

Nick

Who cares what the political rhetoric does to the supporters When has that ever changed? What a boring topic that is, and it's basically just forum trolling anyway. I"m now trying to understand what your solution is in eliminating ISIS since you not only poo-poo carpet bombing ISIS but now poo-poo the idea of taking out their smuggled oil operation. That discussion's more interesting.

[Cow Poke]

You are quite misinformed. The extreme left hates Hillary, but is willing to settle for Bernie even though they hate his soft view on gun control.

I happily confess to not being an authority on Hillaryness.