‘Mad Dog’ Mattis Celebrating On Day One, Blows Up ISIS 31 Times

Its possible that Obama ramped up attacks for plausible deniability,
Lets say Trump wipes them out completely in a month. This would make Obama look so bad that it would like Obama was purposely not wiping them out.
Now he has a bunch of strikes in that did real damage. gives him some credit.

a reply to: BeneGesseritWitch

There is no sudden blitz.

It's an atypically normal day.

Dumb conservatives are making out its significant.

ETA: From November..

Attack, fighter, bomber and remotely piloted aircraft conducted 12 strikes in Syria:
-- Near Abu Kamal, two strikes engaged an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed two oil tanker trucks, an oil tanker trailer and a vehicle.
-- Near Shadaddi, four strikes engaged an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed a vehicle and an anti-air artillery system.
-- Near Raqqah, two strikes destroyed three vehicles, two oil wellheads, an oil tank and an oil pumpjack.
-- Near Ayn Isa, three strikes engaged an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed a vehicle bomb-making facility and a fighting position.
-- Near Dayr Az Zawr, a strike destroyed four oil tanker trucks and two oil tanker trailers.

That's just in Syria on that one particular day.

www.defense.gov...

originally posted by: weirdguy
a reply to: sad_eyed_lady

President Trump will stop the funding and training of terrorists/moderate rebels in Syria.

And on American soil as well.

originally posted by: Agit8dChop
I noticed in Obama's last week or so some very unusual strikes at the last minute.

edition.cnn.com...

US B-2 bombers struck and destroyed two ISIS camps in Libya overnight, with initial estimates that over 80 militants were killed, US officials told CNN Thursday.

he mission was approved several days ago by President Barack Obama and is expected to be the last short-notice military operation ordered by him, according to sources.

to me this was the Obama admin removing a few key personnel who knew the facts the us never wanted to admit, that they were the primary source of backing for ISIS.

Now Trumps in, I hope Mad Dog blitzs all the terrorist scume

I think maybe Obama was covering up who they were running weapons to IS through. Covering his tracks. We have known that the weapons (and toyota trucks) were in large part being run through Libya, and that was at the heart of the Clinton Benghazi issue.

a reply to: Agit8dChop

Why is that unusual?

As I've shown, Mattis has changed nothing, you can see for yourself on the original source of the OP article, defence.gov news.

They do a daily update of campaigns, I've gone through to November so far and there is no uptick.

a reply to: Chadwickus

No dammit. It was a bigly blitz. And it was yuge. Who cares if there were recent days with lots of ISIS killing before Trump and Mad Dog... this bombing was all because Mad Dog is so tremendously excited about Trump and he just needed to kill him some baddies.

#Alternative Fact: In fact, I'm pretty sure Mad Dog and Trump were both on one of those bombers.

a reply to: Chadwickus

Yeah but that day looked like they were targeting manufacturing and distribution of oil in syria, 90 boats though? Isn't there a strong anti pirate presence in the tigriss why 90 boats thats like "ISIS Harbour" for the continued effort its like a bake sale if you want to sell cookies you got to have someone to buy them.

Get it done!

a reply to: infolurker

OH, that hadn't even occurred to me!!

Well done!!

Were he to do so, I think he'd, right now anyway, have my vote. My only reservation about the man was I feel a civilian should be in charge of the DoD. But as long as he does the job, that reservation will go by the board.

originally posted by: Pyle
I knew Trump didnt know forgien policy but jesus. Iran has been powerful in the region for a long as time. Well before the US even got involved in the middle east. I guess he thinks the Iran Nuke deal is all the reasons for Iran?

No, he's right in that Iran is on the comeback trail.

From 1980 to 1988, Iran fought a costly war with Iraq, the Iran-Iraq war. As Iraq enjoyed western arms support, Iran at times was forced to resort to really desperate stuff, like human wave attacks and child soldiers. That they held out is testament to their natural/fundamental advantages in the region, but it was a devastating war for them.

The other main thing keeping Iran down for a long time was the oil price. They could still sell some oil even with sanctions, but during the 80s and 90s the oil price was usually around $10 a barrel. It was 9/11 and the China boom that got oil up over $30 barrel. Oil prices were then very high for about 15 years but Iran basically had a very deep hole to climb out of.

Overall, their situation was/is comparable to Russia's in the 80's/90s only even worse(except for the weather!), so it has taken them even longer to recover, and of course they are stuck with serious sanctions still as well.

a reply to: Abysha

President Whitmore style!

originally posted by: Chadwickus
Many seem confused here..

Just because there is a new president, it doesn't mean that their strategy against ISIS changes overnight.

In fact, looking at the news page on defence.gov shows that just before Mattis took charge, 90 ISIS boats were hit in a 3 day campaign as well as 28 seperate campaigns the day before he took over.

www.defense.gov...

I read somewhere that the 3 day campaign was the Obama's administration last campaign. No doubt he was responsible for the 28 separate missions, too.

Thanks for the link.

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: Abysha

President Whitmore style!

I'd vote for Bill Pullman any day of the week.

a reply to: 11andrew34
I remember them electrocuting people in the waterways. They did all kinds of disgusting things, then took Americans hostage. We owe them still. A nuke to their capitol should seal the deal

a reply to: Chadwickus

Who do you stand with?
State it right here and now

a reply to: visitedbythem

Brain dead conservatives or whingey liberals?

Neither.

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: visitedbythem

Brain dead conservatives or whingey liberals?

Neither.

Then You stand with me? You are a Ron Pail man? Clarify please

a reply to: visitedbythem

Not a fan of Ron Paul either.

Why does one have to stand with anyone?

Stand and deliver, or deliver not. Be brave and expose your innermost thoughts. That's why we are here Bro

a reply to: Chadwickus

Your choice