So, how would you go about it? Go in with the infantry and have the innocents get killed by bullets? Warfare means killing and to me precision bombing those lunatics is the most humane solution, although bystanders might get killed in the process.
If you know a more humane way to disable ISIS, be sure to let me know
Bombs or bullets. It's killing and neither is humane. If you think a bomb is humane I can show you some pictures that you might disagree with. Of course, you don't seem to be addressing the double tap policy. How humane is killing first responders trying to save the bystanders? How humane is bombing the funerals?
Our drone policy accidentally kills people who don't deserve it, intentionally kills those who are only present because we dropped a bomb, and those who are guilty by nothing more than association. It's not humane. It's criminal.
Now, as for how I would go about it: If I were to become president when Obama did and inherit the situation that Obama did I would have started by not getting involved in three countries that we were not actively engaged with. There are indicators that ISIS got their power because of the situation in Syria. It sounds almost like ISIS got its ability to take power the way AL Qaeda did; with our unintentional aid.
Syria, Libya, and Pakistan. Why are we there? Why did we feel the need to get involved in internal disputes? Why are over 3500 Pakistanis dead due to American bombs?
In light of all of this, it is no wonder ISIS managed to gain power. We gave them the ability to fight and the justification to recruit new members.
If I could go back further than Obama, we wouldn't have been in the situation we were in when Obama took office. I wouldn't be that entangled with the Middle East. It is too unstable and no longer necessary to rely on for their resources.
Or maybe Obama thinks ahead and just wants to contain this, without making things worse by making impulsive decisions of either parading Murica's power or create tricky alliances.
If he had thought ahead ISIS likely wouldn't be where they are today. But he had to get on the same side as John McCain.
Thank god this man stays on for another year, it's going to be a very delicate last year for him internationally with so much crisis, but i'm confident he's smart enough to make wise decisions at all time.
Considering his past record of getting involved in conflicts that have nothing to do with us in countries that we have not declared hostilities with, I am not so sure about his wise decisions.
Make a cowboy handle this conflict and it would only escalate.
I, for one, don't want a cowboy either. I don't want a McCain, a bush, a Hilary or an Obama involved in this. I want someone who won't just start dropping bombs, without consent from Congress, and using a secret kill list. There is so much wrong and un-American about that scenario that I can't begin to explain it.
ISIS wants us to go in there balls over brains, as it suits their master plan/ agenda. A president like Donald Trump would be perfect for their propaganda machine.
You're right. And we want ISIS to go all insane too, just so we can justify more war. They escalate and we use it to justify us escalating. They use our escalation to justify their escalation. Then we use their escalation to justify our escalation. And on and on and on.
The only one of us capable to say, "This is madness," is us. Unfortunately, we are too busy screaming, "THIS IS SPARTA!!!" and looking bold and brave to just want to stop.
of his opposition to same-sex marriages.
