solon,you have to play the same game they are playing,they shoot to kill,not to hurt,but kill.
you said nuke,i did not say that cause we do not need to nuke them.why not ask the saudis to get involved in negotating an end to this and taking in the syrian refugees?
if we want to stop them,yelling trick or treat is not gonna help much. kill them and we no longer have to worry about them,i am talking about soldiers,not innocent people.
can you name 1 major war that innocent people did not get killed in? are you saying our government is in cohoots with isis? so that must mean you agreee bush 43 is the real cause of this then,right?
I don't know what game you are talking about. Also, the problem in city fighting is that the soldiers are mixed in with civilians, so you kill a lot of innocent people if you carpet bomb. You don't specify the means by which you can kill only soldiers in such a setting. In fact, you can't.
1. The Saudis actually put together the team of opposition groups in Syria that attempted to negotiate with the Assad government to end the war via some kind of agreement. Assad and the Russians seem to think they can destroy eastern Aleppo and win the war. Time will tell if that is true. I tend to think it is an illusion.
2. Syrian refugees evidently prefer Europe, Lebanon, Jordan, and Turkey to Saudi Arabia. Frankly, who can blame them.
3. Of course innocent people die in war, but to deliberately massacre as many as a million Sunnis to end the territorial rule of ISIS would be criminal as well as stupid. As I said before, it would alienate a billion Muslims for no good reason. The Islamic State is shrinking into oblivion and has been for the last year.
4. The effort to take Mosul, which is an Iraqi city, is important for the Iraqi government. It must prove its ability to defend its territory in order to create a viable country. This campaign is about more than ISIS which will eventually lose. It is about creating a viable peace between Iraqi Shias and Iraqi Sunnis. That is ultimately the most critical part of the campaign. The failure to do that in the wake of the US war in Iraq is the reason for the rise of the Islamic State and al Qaeda in Iraq before it.
5. The enmity between Sunnis and Shias existed long before the United States existed. The particular circumstances in Iraq were unleashed as a result of the US invasion. Is the sectarian civil war all George Bush's fault? In this particular case his actions provided the occasion for it to erupt in Iraq. Some historians point to that as the trigger for the current conflict. (Fawaz Gerges, ISIS: A History
is the most recent book to argue that.) At this point it doesn't matter much except as a counter to the absurd notion that Obama and Clinton created ISIS. The problem to be faced is how do we clean up this mess...and the "we" doesn't mean just the United States.
Also, the constant claim is made that Obama's withdrawal of all US troops from Iraq made possible the rise of ISIS. I think there is some truth to that in so far as the continued presence of US troops might have continued the pacification of Sunnis begun during the Petraeus era. HOWEVER, Obama offered to leave around 5,000 US troops in Iraq, but that was rejected. The Bush administration had negotiated the Status of Forces Agreement that required all US troops to leave. It wasn't Obama who did that, it was the Bush administration. Obama's offer had to be approved by the Iraqi Parliament and it refused to do so. The reason the US could not leave troops was because the Iraqi government would not allow US troops to be judged by US law rather than Iraqi law. This requirement is a part of every agreement where US forces are stationed. The whole issue became toxic in Iraq as a result of the massacre of Iraqi civilians by a private security force, Blackwater. It poisoned the waters so badly that no Iraqi Parliamentarian could expect to be elected to office if he voted to allow US troops not to be subject to Iraqi criminal law. This was especially true in 2008 when the SOFA was negotiated and signed. Its key provision required all US troops to leave Iraq by the end of 2011. Obama, like a typical politician, took credit for the departure, but he had no control over it.
The Status of Forces Agreement signed by the Bush administration expired after three years, which is why US troops can be invited back by the Iraqi PM without the approval of Parliament. If SOFA still existed, the Islamic State would be a permanent fixture of the Iraqi countryside.