I may be wrong on this . . .

While bombing a whole city to rubble might make you feel good, it's a stupid strategy.
We need intelligence about locations and movements of isis communications, propaganda and personnel and then send in drones to obliterate those targets quickly.
The collateral damage would be kept to a minimum while achieving the actual degradation of isis.

I think that isis has pissed off enough countries by now, western and Muslim, that we should all contribute to a massive army and encircle the whole territory of isis then work our way in toward the middle until we met, like a noose tightening.
Each country could be given a stretch of the perimeter and let them work their way in using whatever tactics they see fit.

 

I'm not disagreeing, simply pointing out that an attack on Rakka doesn't risk innocent lives. The fact is we could have already taken Rakka, just promise the Kurds they can keep it as part of an independent Kurdistan. They're already in striking distance.

 

So the babies in Raqqa are ISIS supporters?

 

Yea sure, that's what I do. Go away.

 

Nagasaki and Hiroshima were full of civilians.
The phrase "civil war" has always struck me as stoopit.

- - - Updated - - -

Anyone here from France??

 

So you are against the OP's plan to carpet bomb Raqqa?

 

The inhumanity of right wingers is ...amazing

Kill babies because what?

 

Usually with most wars, the time for trying to justify things comes to an end. I was opposed to the Afghanistan invasion and doubly opposed to the Iraq invasion. Couldn't help it that my leaders were FUBAR. Ain't nothing left but detention camps for suspicious Muslims in the West and Dresden-like bombing attacks on Raqqa-type cities in Syria and Iraq. Probably within 2-3 years even without Trump. Westerners are under no obligation to "live with" the kinds of events we've had in NYC, Paris and Nice.

 

Yes, show how much you are outraged by people murdering innocent people and trying to force them into oppression by mass murdering innocent people and forcing others into oppression.

 

It's a vicious cycle that, once spun into motion, has never been successfully stopped in the history of the world based on my readings. I believe you know that. And, although there is no way to know this, my guess is that quick brutal wars have frequently saved lives in the long run. You can't allow people like al Baghdadi do their thing IF what we hear about him is true.

 

There has never been a such thing as a quick counter insurgency, unless you are suggesting committing genocide.

 

We're going to disagree on what constitutes genocide, of course, but we wouldn't be countering an insurgency. Raqqa and cities like it are the 'enemies' home turf. Invasions with boots would follow the demolition of infrastructures. White flags would be waved this time around.

 

ISIS would disappear in to the population and there would be no one but civilians waving flags begging you to stop murdering their children.

 

What about this Sanskrit?

You agree with this crazy crap too?

 

We obviously figured out how to overcome that problem with Japanese and German war criminals.

 

Yea.... that aint going to happen.... you see, IS is the creation of the CIA, NATO, and Saudi Arabia, and they have not finished their mission yet........