Question on the ISIS or ISIL or whatever they go by now.

[LiberalArkie]

I have my flame retardant suit on.

In WW2, when there was an area that could not be taken easily, the bombers flew over and level entire cities and very large areas. We called that a war. There were of course a lot of innocents killed. But What is wrong with saying that this is a war and filling up some B-52s and leveling the entire area they hold.

To me, it would seem that in the end a lot more lives would be saved. IS does not seem to worry about loosing 100 to 200 people, but what would happen if 100,000 people were killed because of them. And the next week the same, and the next week the same.

[Duckhunter935]

1. we have been spoiled

by a few targeted strikes and the other side just gives up. This will not work with this conflict. carpet bomb Raqqa, the "capital" of the jihadist's embryonic Islamic State. and where known buildups of militants are. Also do the same thing to lost military bases of both Syria and Iraq. But you will also need some kind of good guys to fill the vacuum left. Should be Arab or UN led by the Arabs.

[Comrade Grumpy]

8. How many innocent civilians are you willing to kill with your carpet bombing?

And what would the consequences of that be?

We're already getting considerable static from our "moderate rebel" Syrian allies about the limited air strikes we've done.

[Duckhunter935]

10. How many innocent civilians are you willing

to let ISIL keep killing? I guess they do not count. War is ugly and you have to stop them from slaughtering innocents. Yes, many may die but hopefully many have already been able to get away from those towns.

[Comrade Grumpy]

14. The US Air Force killing thousands of civilians is one us. What ISIS does isn't.

How many innocent civilians are you willing to let Boko Haram keep killing?

How many innocent civilians are you willing to let the Israelis keep killing?

How many innocent civilians are you willing to be slaughtered in the Congolese civil wars?

How many innocent civilians are you willing to let radical Buddhists in Burma keep killing?

The world is not our responsibility. What our government does is our responsibility.

[oberliner]

17. You group "the Israelis" with Boko Haram and ISIS?

Amazing.

[Rhinodawg]

18. Gruuuumpy...

You couldn't help yourself , could you?

[grahamhgreen]

2. Cuz all you'll do is create more terrorists. Which is what we're doing now.

[NRaleighLiberal]

3. Wow. "There were of course a lot of innocents killed."

Empathy for fellow human beings - especially innocent ones? It is hard for me to understand things these days..

[Dreamer Tatum]

4. People have no taste for that. WWII wasn't facebooked or tweeted

and it was almost impossible for enemies to manipulate public opinion.

Also, ISIS fights, to use a technical phrase, like a bunch of sissies. They're tough when
beheading women, not so stand-up tough when there's a real fight.

Adding ground troops won't do much to help, either.

[Comrade Grumpy]

7. Uh, ISIS does seem to have some real fighting ability.

They've taken huge hunks of Iraq and Syria, they've beat back counter-offensives, they're fighting hard for Kobani.

[Dreamer Tatum]

12. Against almost no resistance. nt

[Comrade Grumpy]

15. The Kurds in Kobani might take issue with that.

And the Iraqis are trying to fight them. They're just doing very well.

[Enrique]

5. what good would that do?

a lot of innocent people die, for what aim?

[Comrade Grumpy]

6. I think there's a name for what you're advocating: Crime against humanity.

Why stop with bombers? Why not just nuke Mosul?

[TwilightGardener]

9. We could do that. We could flatten every city that ISIS takes as a stronghold.

Here's what could happen (aside from the international outcry against the US): the civilians who support or tolerate terrorists in their midst would learn a quick lesson that it is not in their advantage to do so, because the US simply no longer is going to go to great efforts to make a distinction anymore. It would be cheaper, easier, faster, and it might work for short-term deterrence in terms of groups like ISIS finding willing partners to hide them, but it would be a terrible lesson to have to teach. More likely is that we'd just risk a big backlash that will cost us down the road. And again, our standing in the international community would be greatly lowered.

[Spider Jerusalem]

11. The problem with that is that this isn't a conventional war and IS is not a state

Bombing campaigns against legitimate military targets are legal under the law of war, that includes military depots and barracks, weapons and aircraft factories, naval dockyards, and such. The bombing of Europe and Japan in WWII was directed against cities which had such facilities and thus were legitimate military targets, and, further, that were in the sovereign territory of states with which the Allies were at war. Similar bombing campaigns against IS-held areas in Iraq would not be legitimate under the law of war (any more than Nixon's "secret bombing" of Cambodia and Laos was legal).

[TexasProgresive]

13. We've tried that before it never works

unhappycamper posted this Thursday:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1016104233

http://atimes.com/atimes/World/WOR-01-091014.html



Anything that flies on anything that moves
By John Pilger
Oct 9, '14

In transmitting President Richard Nixon's orders for a "massive" bombing of Cambodia in 1969, Henry Kissinger said, "Anything that flies on everything that moves". As Barack Obama ignites his seventh war against the Muslim world since he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, the orchestrated hysteria and lies make one almost nostalgic for Kissinger's murderous honesty.

As a witness to the human consequences of aerial savagery - including the beheading of victims, their parts festooning trees and fields - I am not surprised by the disregard of memory and history, yet again. A telling example is the rise to power of Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge, who had much in common with today's Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS). They, too, were ruthless medievalists who began as a small sect. They, too, were the product of an American-made apocalypse, this time in Asia.

According to Pol Pot, his movement had consisted of "fewer than 5,000 poorly armed guerrillas uncertain about their strategy, tactics, loyalty and leaders". Once Nixon's and Kissinger's B52 bombers had gone to work as part of "Operation Menu", the west's ultimate demon could not believe his luck.

The Americans dropped the equivalent of five Hiroshimas on rural Cambodia during 1969-73. They levelled village after village, returning to bomb the rubble and corpses. The craters left monstrous necklaces of carnage, still visible from the air. The terror was unimaginable. A former Khmer Rouge official described how the survivors "froze up and they would wander around mute for three or four days. Terrified and half-crazy, the people were ready to believe what they were told … That was what made it so easy for the Khmer Rouge to win the people over."

[jakeXT]

16. I haven't heard that one before

Last year, the former French Foreign Minister Roland Dumas revealed that "two years before the Arab spring", he was told in London that a war on Syria was planned. "I am going to tell you something," he said in an interview with the French TV channel LPC, "I was in England two years before the violence in Syria on other business. I met top British officials, who confessed to me that they were preparing something in Syria … Britain was organising an invasion of rebels into Syria. They even asked me, although I was no longer Minister for Foreign Affairs, if I would like to participate … This operation goes way back. It was prepared, preconceived and planned