SpokenTruth said:
You just asked how we should fight these people. I gave you an answer and you call that changing the subject? It was your question. |
I asked him that question because he's taking an unrealistic moral high stance. I didn't direct that question to everyone else but oh well, water under the bridge. I kinda agree with that plan but I think it would take a lot longer than that considering that it's a plan of attrition and leaders can be replaced. If you hit enough of their leadership at once then maybe. It would probably reguire some ground troops to weasel them out of holes that have alot of supplies/resources.
I disagree with bombing terrorists in general unless it's one of the top guys because you destroy any intel you could have gotten from the people at the location and whatever else is laying around. It's a waste. The collateral damage would be lessed a good deal that way but I don't care about the human shields because their lives were forfeit the moment ISIS decided to use them that. If we save some, great that will make a good headline but that's not the objective or overall goal of hitting one of their places. it's to get intel and wipe out their forces.
I get why Obama and Trump just wanna bomb terriorists instead of wiping them out. It's because they dont have to commit any actual ground troops, vehicles, etc. The idea of fighting another actual war is frowned upon. People don't want it. Your way would be good with some changes but I think it would work.
