You are reading a single comment by @hoefla and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
-
There are lots of things we don't know that influence what the "right" decision is, but one outcome that is certain is that airstrikes would kill a significant number of civilians. Surely this should be more than a minor consideration.
hoefla-
and euphemisms like 'collateral damage' don't help this.
-
It's a grim choice to have to make. I'm glad it's not my decision.
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/isis-terror-group-executed-over-10000-men-women-children-syria-iraq-1521094
c00ps
William.
The war in Iraq is a bad analogy for the war against ISIS. The war against Hitler is possibly also an inadequate analogy, but helpful to understand the thinking of those who want to extend the bombing. Many blame the rise of fascism in Germany on the Allies treatment of Germany after WWI: they had territory confiscated, were banned from raising an army, and were economicaly destroyed. This created an athmosphere in which a violent, nationalistic cult could easily be stirred up.
Perhaps it was wrong of the Allies, britain in particular, to destroy Germany the way it did after WWI, and they were to blame in a sense for the second war. That is not an argument for allowing the nationalist, expansionist, racist, genocidal group that followed a free rein to destroy Europe.
I personally do not think Bombing ISIS will make them more of a threat to us as a recruiting tool etc. However I don't believe it will solve anything long term either. It is possible we can co-ordinate with syrian troops on the ground, but unlikely. I don't know enough to judge that issue, which I think is what the decision hangs on.