5 ms·

I'm just going with the only real strategic targets ISIS has, oil equipment. Russia claims to have destroyed 500-1000 oil tankers (that's a huge gap), and the U

I'm just going with the only real strategic targets ISIS has, oil equipment. Russia claims to have destroyed 500-1000 oil tankers (that's a huge gap), and the US says 116 tankers. And if the coalition had really hit 16,000 targets, there wouldn't be any ISIS left. They only have ~30,000 soldiers, and maybe a few thousand military vehicles. 16,000 military targets would have ground them into proverbial dust. There would be no command centers, no military vehicles, a huge reduction in combat soldiers. So maybe 16,000 bombs (or leaflet canisters) have been dropped, but they certainly haven't hit 16,000 important targets. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-11-19/caught-tape-russian-air-force-destroys-dozens-isis-oil-trucks http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-11-19/caught-tape-russian... http://edition.cnn.com/2014/09/11/world/meast/isis-syria-iraq/ http://edition.cnn.com/2014/09/11/world/meast/isis-syria-ira...

knowaveragejoe 11y ago
> I'm just going with the only real strategic targets ISIS has, oil equipment. This is completely arbitrary nonsense. > And if the coalition had really hit 16,000 targets, there wouldn't be any ISIS left. So is this. This also belies a misunderstanding of both the situation and warfare in general. The key difference between the two parties involved here is that Russian doctrine has exactly zero considerations for collateral damage and civilians. For example, Russian news sources would have you believe one cruise missile "killed 600 terrorists".
- merpnderp 11y ago
  This might help clarify why no one thinks the US has been effective against ISIS. Because they haven't. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/11/23/analysts-accuse-centcom-of-covering-up-cooked-isis-intelligence.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/11/23/analysts-ac...
  - knowaveragejoe 11y ago
    This doesn't convince me that they've been entirely ineffective, but rather makes me believe that those claiming they are completely ineffective don't know what that actually means.
- merpnderp 11y ago
  What's the word for when you call something nonsense and and then don't explain why? And when you point out the "key difference" between the West and Russia, what's your point exactly? If the goal is to not hurt innocents, then the best way to do that would be to go home. The goal is to degrade ISIS's ability to wage war.
  - knowaveragejoe 11y ago
    Do you understand how doctrine works? Degrading ISIS and avoiding civilian casualties aren't mutually exclusive things. My point is that if you think the US strikes have been ineffective, is because you don't know what "effective" looks like. You want to see many bombs drop and big explosions with not thought as to what that's actually accomplishing.
    - merpnderp 11y ago
      I think you've lost sight of the original point. That Russia was degrading ISIS faster than the western coalition.
      - knowaveragejoe 11y ago
        I guess we'll have to wait and see. I personally doubt it, not because I'm pro-western, but because I don't have faith in Russia's ability to do their due diligence in all facets of conducting war.
    - lenkite 11y ago
      The US only recently started targeting Oil trucks and rigs. For over a year, ISIS was making millions of dollars of oil money every month money via Turkey. The US was never serious about degrading ISIS. To me personally, it appeared to be just a time-holding tactic to get rid of old munitions and have a war on the cheap until Obama passed from office and could give the entire mess to his successor. It was only after the Russians started making the US look incompetent by flying more sorties in a couple of days then the US did in a month, did the US begin to start bombing in earnest. Even laughable is PBS showing footage of Russian bombing and claiming it to be American. http://www.pbs.org/ombudsman/blogs/ombudsman/2015/11/23/bombs-away-russians-strike-isis-oil-but-pbs-gets-blasted/ http://www.pbs.org/ombudsman/blogs/ombudsman/2015/11/23/bomb...

knowaveragejoe 11y ago

> I'm just going with the only real strategic targets ISIS has, oil equipment. This is completely arbitrary nonsense. > And if the coalition had really hit 16,000 targets, there wouldn't be any ISIS left. So is this. This also belies a misunderstanding of both the situation and warfare in general. The key difference between the two parties involved here is that Russian doctrine has exactly zero considerations for collateral damage and civilians. For example, Russian news sources would have you believe one cruise missile "killed 600 terrorists".

merpnderp 11y ago
This might help clarify why no one thinks the US has been effective against ISIS. Because they haven't. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/11/23/analysts-accuse-centcom-of-covering-up-cooked-isis-intelligence.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/11/23/analysts-ac...
- knowaveragejoe 11y ago
  This doesn't convince me that they've been entirely ineffective, but rather makes me believe that those claiming they are completely ineffective don't know what that actually means.
merpnderp 11y ago
What's the word for when you call something nonsense and and then don't explain why? And when you point out the "key difference" between the West and Russia, what's your point exactly? If the goal is to not hurt innocents, then the best way to do that would be to go home. The goal is to degrade ISIS's ability to wage war.
- knowaveragejoe 11y ago
  Do you understand how doctrine works? Degrading ISIS and avoiding civilian casualties aren't mutually exclusive things. My point is that if you think the US strikes have been ineffective, is because you don't know what "effective" looks like. You want to see many bombs drop and big explosions with not thought as to what that's actually accomplishing.
  - merpnderp 11y ago
    I think you've lost sight of the original point. That Russia was degrading ISIS faster than the western coalition.
    - knowaveragejoe 11y ago
      I guess we'll have to wait and see. I personally doubt it, not because I'm pro-western, but because I don't have faith in Russia's ability to do their due diligence in all facets of conducting war.
  - lenkite 11y ago
    The US only recently started targeting Oil trucks and rigs. For over a year, ISIS was making millions of dollars of oil money every month money via Turkey. The US was never serious about degrading ISIS. To me personally, it appeared to be just a time-holding tactic to get rid of old munitions and have a war on the cheap until Obama passed from office and could give the entire mess to his successor. It was only after the Russians started making the US look incompetent by flying more sorties in a couple of days then the US did in a month, did the US begin to start bombing in earnest. Even laughable is PBS showing footage of Russian bombing and claiming it to be American. http://www.pbs.org/ombudsman/blogs/ombudsman/2015/11/23/bombs-away-russians-strike-isis-oil-but-pbs-gets-blasted/ http://www.pbs.org/ombudsman/blogs/ombudsman/2015/11/23/bomb...