Featured Will Obama join with France after meeting with Hollande?

Not sure why I have to explain this. Lunacy is a description of a behavior in the context in which I used it. I did not call Obama a lunatic and I am not ducking your other responses I just do not care about them. Sooner or later your posts will deteriorate into personal attacks. I am trying to keep that to a minimum. As it stands you have regularly twisted and added to my words. I just should have never responded to you at all.

 

Sigh, I've not done any personnel attacks. This is what you do though. You get in over your head and when called to actually support your position you play word games and then try to paint yourself as a victim so you can bow out before you get called on it. You continually dodge my questions. You refuse to make a point and instead rely on an elaborate waste of words simply to tell me what you aren't saying.

If you have a point then find it and make it. You have been all over the place in here and not made one bit of sense. Lunacy is a strong word. All I want to know is how it applies to the situation and what is your advice then? Is that so hard?

 

Read more: http://conservativetribune.com/pilots-provide-solid-proof/#ixzz3sRIMESbl

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...-fire-on-islamic-state-targets-amid/?page=all



Nearly 75 percent of U.S. bombing runs targeting the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria returned to base without firing any weapons in the first four months of 2015, holding their fire mainly because of a lack of ground intelligence and raising questions about President Obama’s key tactic in pushing back an enemy that continues to expand its territory in the war zone.

Key lawmakers are growing increasingly frustrated by the slow rate of U.S. bombing sorties, a frustration shared by a former Navy pilot who said in an interview that U.S. forces are clearly needed on the ground in Iraq to help provide targets for these pilots to hit.

SNIP

The U.S. conducted 7,319 sorties over Iraq and Syria as part of Operation Inherent Resolve in the first four months of 2015. Of those, only 1,859 flights — 25.4 percent — had at least one “weapons release,” according to data provided by United States Air Force Central Command. That means that only about one in every four flights dropped a bomb on an Islamic State target.

 

And as UoT has posted that has changed dramatically since June.

 

"Providing yet another piece of evidence that President Barack Obama is shielding the Islamic State group from destruction"

Man those are some journalistic standards if I've ever seen them.

 

A lot of liberties taken in the articles posted by Rev and Carpro. Most of these are probably moving targets that left the impact area prior to delivery and were waived off by embedded SF. These articles are hilarious because they almost make it sound like Obama is personally calling pilots mid flight and saying "hold your fire, don't hurt my people." LOL. If nothing is there and the target isn't confirmed then you go home. That's it. This isn't uncommon but it's funny to watch the armchair quarterbacking in progress.

 

A 66% increase from only 25% is dropping ordnance only 41% of the time. Still very poor. And there is no evidence that it was more than a blip in overall and continued performance.

 

This isn't a video game Carpro. There isn't a quota we are trying to meet. You strike when you have actionable intelligence. As of late we have had more success in pinpointing high value targets and we have also coordinated air cover for Pershmergan ground forces. We don't just bomb to bomb. This isn't some thing where it's just "more bombs, more bombs!" I mean you have to actually have a target right?

 

41% is still only 41%. And there is no evidence it has continued.

 

No evidence what has continued?

41%. Okay? Is that supposed to be some damning statistic.

 

...that about sums up the wisdom of our on board arm chair generals and it gives them the perfect opportunity to bash Obama (which I do believe some of them live to do, it gives meaning to their existence).

 

UOT, I love the sense and the logic you bring to these discussions!