Is this guy a fucking cuck or what.
>"Indiscriminate bombing where we don't care if we are killing innocents or combatants is just inconsistent with our Values"
So you basicly saying the greatest generation who bombed the living shit out of the Germans and Japan and won the war don't have American values, pethetic.
Fucking level Raqqa. If your in the capital of Isis out of your own will no matter who you are you get what's coming to you. We need to make these people fear us.
If they don't overthrow Isis or get out they get what's coming to them.
I wanna say bullshit, but somehow I believe you.
The proper answer is that carpet bombing is a waste of time and money, due to the risk it places on planes in a non-permissive environment, but even in permissive environments, it's a waste of time and a waste of airframe hours because the mass unguided bombing known as "carpet bombing" has an utterly unconvincing record of actually hitting the targets it is supposed to hit. It's second purported benefit, terrorizing an opposition's populace into submission is not supported by examination of either carpet bombing campaigns which involved it as a secondary objective (US WW2 bomber campaign) or those where such terrorization is the main purpose (the Blitz, initial phase of Operation Allied Force).
Anyone that thinks carpet bombing is a good use of airpower, before getting to the moral issues involved - and fuck you if you think they don't -, has no place determining foreign policy as commander in chief.
Not to mention carpet bombing is great when the enemy has industry clustered together. Not when your enemy is so spread out over a large area it would be a massive waste of resources.
Carpet bombing is not okay because of the collateral damage to civilians. both world wars .
technology has changed considerably in the last 70 years Anon, the fighting tools dictated the fighting strategy.
Dunno what you guys learn in US schools about the Vietnam bombing campaign, but here in the 'Nam, all we learn about it is how we "won" the "Dien Bien Phu on air" by shooting down several B-52s for morale boosts (with "improvised AA missile", no less!) and how you guys managed to bomb Bach Mai Hospital (some things don't change much do they), so we hate your guts even more after it. If the goal is to terrorize the people then obviously you guys didn't do good enough.
Heck, I read an article from an ex-air force guy about how Strategic Air Command was an idiot for carpet bombing, and how the fighter's Top Gun and Red Flag programs helped the US win the air war of the first Gulf War (can't remember the source, it was posted on 4chan a couple months ago).
Precision bombings of supply stations, command posts & HVTs is the better option. Of course it requires either boots on the ground or the signal intelligence level of Skynet, but the pros outweigh the cons. As for counter-insurgency, maybe carpet dropping food instead of bombs might be a better idea.
As far as I'm concerned, the "civilian" population living in Raqqa are all supporters (officially or unofficially) of ISIS. Ask yourself, why has there been no attempts on the part of the population to overthrow ISIS? The place is awash in weapons, so it's not like getting access would be difficult.
Yeah, I think carpet bombing would be an excellent use of airpower in this situation. The city is full of ISIS sympathizers and cowards.
The US air war in Vietnam had two huge problems.
One, the rules of engagement were chosen by politicians and White House approval was required for every single bombing sortie. This led to an inefficient, meandering bombing campaign. The overall strategy laid out by Johnston and McNamara was graduated escalation, meaning that the bombing was intended to intimidate the North Vietnamese into a settlement.
Two, and more importantly, up until Tet, the Viet Cong was actually a real thing in the South.
You can't bomb an insurgency out of supplies.
Once the Viet Cong was crippled by Tet and the Pheonix program, and Johnston was replaced by Nixon, you started to see strategic bombing achieve meaningless progress in terms of crippling the North Vietnamese war effort.
>why have their been no attempts by the Serbian people to overthrow Slobodan Milosevic
And yet, the campaign to terrorize the Serbs by hitting schools and civilian infrastructure did not break their will to fight. It's almost as though people hardened by years of conflict can suck it up.
It was the shift to operations that denied Serbian forces the freedom to operate and accomplish Milosevic's political objectives that ultimately led to the success of Noble Anvil, see Yurovich.
>Fucking level Raqqa
That is baisically already done.
Also the USAF litterally leveled over 95% of nort korea, and they still hate us 60 years later.
Carpet bombing muddslimes wont really make them love you if thats what you think. Take out ISIS with precision, thats probably cheaper and more effective to.
>we need to make these people fear us
>implying that that isn't the lynchpin of ISIS recruitment and propoganda
ISIS would welcome more coaliton/wester/america attacks that result in civilian casualties. It plays right into their hands.
>Isis mocked with rubber ducks as internet fights terror with humour
Whilst carpet bombing is clearly retarded, I don't see anything wrong with the duck shooping.
Obviously it isn't going to singlehandedly bring down ISIS, but if it ends up being more popular than actual pictures of ISIS fighters or ISIS videos then so be it. Terrorists' main weapon is terror, turning them into an object of ridicule lessens that.
I will stress again that I don't think its somehow going to solve everything.
(and I swear to fuck that the second the captcha hits 'street names' or 'street signs' it purposefully says I'm wrong even though I'm not).
this is why russians will eventually win it all. they have no such qualms and they don't give a fuck about SJW media.
The point was, and has been, that carpet bombing in WW2 was certainly not decisive and not particularly effective.
The loss of the German in WW2 is a combination of a variety of factors, of which I will admit strategic airpower is one, but I don't consider it decisive or the best use of resources
Strategic bombing didn't cripple Vietnam like it did Germany because the factories producing arms and supplies for Vietnam aren't in Vietnam, they are in China, the Soviet Union, and other second world nations.
Add in the fact that there's no way to apply enough pressure on the Vietnamese to strain their supply chain past the breaking point.
The Leuna plants were essential for Germany's war effort. Bombing them broke Germany's back because tanks, u-boats and airplanes don't run without fuel. So the May 12th attacks were both effective and decisive as Speer himself admitted.
You do realize there is 1,3 billion muslims right? Killing 1,3 billion of anything will make the rest of the world hate you. Not to mention the millions of muslims outside of the middle east, they will hate you to. Sure, you will eliminate ISIS but the rest of the world will hate you and thats not really better.
>Just the entire population of the Middle East.
The result would still be the same. And every living muslim would create/join a new organization similar to ISIS due to you, you know killing hundreds of millions of innocent muslims.
>inb4 hurr durr all muslims are ebil ISIS.
Not even that guy, but let's put it like this, if precision bombing and guided munitions were a thing back in the 1940s, it would have been a more effective use of resources that produced the same results.
Same today, why carpet bomb when you can do the same thing with precision munitions for less?
Yes. Because Al-Mahmod the goat herde living in some pakistanian mountain and never talking with anyone outside his 20 people village is such a huge threat to the United states.
He may be a retard, but he isnt a threat.
that was never the question. the question was if it was a waste of resources or not, whether it achieved something meaningful or not. the orginal assertion by that other anon was that it's neither decisive nor effective. Albert Speer disagrees.
>Germany in World War Two
It's called area bombing, its because that's how you hit targets back then. It was also total war and the targets were factories, transport hubs, communications centres, workers housing etc It wasn't all 'lol lets bomb ebry german city to dust'.
Some of the bombs had an effect. But those 90% that didnt hit their target didnt have any effect.
But 10% of millions of bombs was still enogh to a lot of damage to germany.
It was more a case of throw enogh shit at the wall and some of it will stick.
I don't know why my brain keeps inserting a t in his last name.
Carpet bombing and bombing cities was not an intentional strategy when WWII started: it was more of something that evolved when precision bombing when actually dodging anti-aircraft fire and enemy fighters turned out to be a myth.
When the war started, the Germans bombed Rotterdam, but afterward surprisingly both the British and Germans concentrated on strictly military targets for awhile (continued)
Thanks for not really adding anything. I knew all that and I wasn't questioning it.
Don't need to bother. Bombing forced them to waste resources, that alone was effective enough, even without all the damage done to infrastructure etc
>This guy thinks that this outdated strategy that didn't work against the last guerrila force we fought won't work against the current guerrila force we're fighting, what a cuck, amirite?
OP, you are the cuck.
not just any political cartoonists,
sputnik news cartoonists
>This article was amended on 29 November 2015 because an earlier version said 4chan was a subset of Reddit. This has been corrected.
They shouldn't have bothered "correcting" it because the former statement is probably accurate in 2016.
The main purpose of bombing cities in WW2 was to destroy factories. Do you think ISIS can run any of these factories? Of course you don't. You're a dumb cunt who just wants to see the place bombed based on animalistic anger and a childish generalization of who ISIS is in Raqqa. Kill yourself retard, you're not fit to vote.
carpet bombing is retarded in the 21st century for entirely non-political reasons.
it's simply wasteful and pointless in the era of PGM no matter how "hardcore and badass" you think it looks
What became a problem was that high-level bombing was inherently inaccurate. Half the bombs would only land within ONE HALF MILE of the aiming point. It became clear that to destroy factories bombers had to destroy the entire area around the factories. Since hundreds of thousands of civilians were dying from bomber raids anyway, it became strategy for both sides to destroy cities to try to undermine civilian morale. In the long run, destroying cities tends to be counterproductive. It usually just convinces civilians that their enemies are truly evil and makes civilians more determined to resist surrender..
I wonder what would have happened if use of primitive PGMs was more common.
I know shit like the AZON and Fritz X would likely have been pointless, but by the end of the war, you had TV guided bombs and radar guided bombs.
>Half the bombs would only land within ONE HALF MILE of the aiming point.
Half the aimed bombs, you mean. They gave up trying to aim the things around the middle of 44 when flak started getting real bad. Even before that only the lead bomber used it's bomb sight.
Bombing against population in Europe was brits thing. They bombed during night less accuracy, also they sabotaged every attempt to bring their bombers and fighters into daylight to help US.
>It became clear that to destroy factories bombers had to destroy the entire area around the factories.
There were many cases when 8 AF erased specific factory without much damage around.
>ISIS is way less scary when you make them rubber ducks
ISIS is far scarier as rubber ducks
Imagine an enemy which does not know fear or remorse, and enemy made of a durable and resilient material, an enemy which can walk on water. Does this not terrify you?
You don't understand, none of the people in charge actually want ISIS defeated. The longer ISIS remains a threat the longer they can ignore the constitution to get what they want. Why the fuck do you think obama dropped leaflets on a convoy of trucks before blowing them up?
The longer ISIS is fucking up Syria the longer Russia is focusing their attention on the middle east instead of Ukraine. It's not like eradicating ISIS will prevent future terrorism and terrorist attacks, so in the views of the elite there is no downside to keeping ISIS are for as long as possible.
Yes, of course carpet bombing would work. That is exactly why so many are against it. They don't want ISIS to be completely wiped off the map and all their infrastructure destroyed. Why do you think all the establishment fucks are so dead set on sending troops into Syria? Because another occupation means even more terrorism which leads to even more power for them.
>between Tel Aviv and Tehran
include them in it. Problem solved, instead of a shithole kittylitter box, it can be repurposed as "Glass Paradise" with all sorts of vacation resorts.
Everyone has their gloves on when it comes to ISIS.
If it were real war, then the entire region would be firebombed and +500k people would be dead, and ISIS would be gone because everybody in region will be dead. That is how WW2 went.
>So you basicly saying the greatest generation who bombed the living shit out of the Germans and Japan and won the war don't have American values, pethetic.
As pathetic as America, which does one thing and then 10 years later declares it is "unAmerican to do so".
Check your privilege.
I stand corrected. Most of the literature I had thus far read focused on the less than successful attacks on german heavy industry rather than something softer like petroleum plants
I'll just sum up this book for you
>Area bombing in the European theater was generally ineffective
>strategic bombing of factories and fuel depots was the most decisive factor in ending the war
Fucking retard. Russians are only now doing what the USA did in Korea and Vietnam. Didn't work then, wont work now. Who are they going to bomb when the packed commuter trains in Moscow start exploding, as they surely will.
One produces masses of civilian casualties, costs millions-billions and only fans the flames more.
The other is some fat people on photoshop wasting nothing but their own worthless time that has no real negative consequences.
Isis ARE the civilians. You don't control a city that large without a significant support from the population.
Of course this would force the cucks in power to acknowledge that Islam is actually the problem so don't expect any meaningful action.
He's right dickhead.
>Surely those who survive will like us then.
oh yes they will, ever wondered why all those barbarians lords and muslims caliphate and shit were liked ? it because violence
>they came, rape your womens, pillage your towns, enslave your mans, and raise your newborn child to like them
just do the same without the rape & pillage part and voila, a whole new generation ready to serve the USA
I'm tired of this postmodern meme that we need to get everyone to love us and thus we should mold all our strategy around that. Fuck that. Make them fear us, like the old days. You think the japs loved us when they surrendered?
Break their spirit. Crush their morale. Grind them into dust.
>They are never going to like us
It is true.
>We need to make these people fear us.
Why would they fear the US? Nothing has been more beneficial to the rise of Islam than the United States, they are Islam's number one supporter.
Japan and Germany used to hate us, now they are some of our closest allies.
Several other islamic states are/has been our allies and had a generally good impression about USA. But if you carpet bomb someone they will hate you.
>Carpetbombing cities with historical and cultural value in Europe and Asia when it was totally unnecessary was right
>Carpetbombing mudhuts in the middle east is wrong
They hate everything the west represents, freedom of cult, of sex, etc... The only way the will like you is if you bow down to their stone age religion.
They will always blame the US/West for each and every lives taken wether in a "surgical strike" or a carpet bombong.
We would be better off if we blew the hell out of them, without mercy, without respite, and of course if we weren't so goddamn apologetic to their vision all the time.
They should fear us, not like us.
They only respect might. The ME has been like that since the days of
>since the days of
They don't have the culture of freedom and individuality, that we have inherited from the Greeks.
>You don't control a city that large without significant compliance of the population
You can either either pray x times and get on with life without getting in their way, or you can you get burned/drowned/run over by a tank/raped by donkeys/decapitated by det cord/watch your family get decapitated by det cord/etc
Guess which one most people (outside of the Middle East as well) would choose.
They got "fucked up" as you put it because the US Navy's submarines strangled their SLOCs, the US Navy decisively defeated the air and surface forces of the IJN and degraded their freedom of action to accomplish any objectives. Remove the bomber raids and none of this changes. The Japanese still lose for the same reasons.
Frankly, the fanaticism with which the Japanese prepared for the defense of home islands indicates that they were not in fact broken.
Don't use historical analogies when they can be casually shot to shit because your IQ is somewhere in the double digits
>fanaticism with which the Japanese prepared for the defense of home islands
>begging the US to let them have any surrender besides unconditional
>folding like a cheap suit when Russia started getting involved
Sure...muh warrior spirit and all that.
Most of the "civilian" deaths would be other sand niggers that fully support ISIS.
The only thing of value that could be lost is historical sites... Which ISIS is already blowing up.
A good deal of the worlds problems would be solved if the dune coons just started nuking each other.
This post is entirely correct.
As opposed to the Japanese who had literally no ships of the line. None. All gone. Surely the Japanese would have been able to stop a logistically shaky Soviet landing. Oh wait.
No, you dumbass nigger. They literally did not have the landing craft needed to stage that kind of invasion. The Japanese might not have been able to STOP it, but they could easily smash whatever piecemeal forces the Soviets could land on the beaches.
Japan and Germany weren't guided by an Arab ideology that opposes every single thing you take for granted.
You're simply ignorant about Islam. Learn more about it and it'll be clear to you why anywhere muslims go, there's trouble. Its not just America and Europe, they're trying to establish Islam all over the world.
The only way they'll like you is if you convert or pay a non muslim tax.
Be my guest pal. Show them how nice you are.
The bombing thing is overstated. Its just one component of an overall strategy. You also need boots on the ground and an entire social component too.
You can't fight wars from the air and expect any long term results. You need to go there and show them that you're bigger, better and tougher than they are. That's the way it is. That's the way its always been.
If they don't support them than they are dead. Its human shields in ISIL land, not citizens.
Stop trying to dehumanize people in a shitty situation, that's not proper gentlemen behavior.
You misunderstood. I'm not saying I'm opposed to total war, I'm simply stating that the local populace won't surrender, so your only choice is go home defeated or kill them all. A bombing campaign won't break their will, you'd have to wage a war of extinction.
If the local people support ISIS, then why is it getting pushed back on all fronts and just a little while ago announced that its pay for all its soldiers has been cut?
Its a dying lump state that is desperately lashing out in futile attempts to regain momentum.
I didn't get involved lol not sure who you think I am. If you're implying I think the US or NATO or someone should go fight isis you're wrong. No one has the political will to dominate the region which is required to pacify. Ergo, we should restrain from all fighting. The threat is small but real (Paris) but bombing raqqa won't reduce the risk to us so why do it.
For what it's worth if a nation wanted to go ham and take over I'd support it, but that's totally unrealistic.
>No one has the political will to dominate the region which is required to pacify.
Iran does. Which is why the region is in such a mess in the first place. US is trying to stop the inevitable of Iran dominating the region.
Well perhaps, I didn't think of them. However they would surely face some sort of international response for what amounts to a religious genocidal campaign. Sunni nations like KSA would likely be motivated to direct conflict in such an event. These two are already fighting proxy wars in two maybe three nations right now.
Eventually the Free Syrian Army or Assad will win their civil war or agree to a truce of some kind.
The Kurds and their allies already are doing pretty good at fighting ISIL.
And the Iraqi army will eventually grow some competence.
And Iran and Russia is getting more involved, and maybe China too.
On top of US air strikes.
ISIL is fucking doomed
Don't forget the region is a proxy war between team USA, Israel, and Saudi Arabia VS team Iran, Russia, and China. ISIL is the 3rd party, so to say, and will first get eliminated from the game.
ISIS is but one head of the hydra known as salafism. It was previously known as AL qaeda. You may kill baghdadhi but the next head under a new name will grow to replace it. There's nothing you can do because all of the civilians support the movement. If you occupy they'll start new militant groups underground. Funds for salafi terrorists flow from many other nations and will fuel an insurgency with no end.
The kurds have recently taken over some sunni isis villages and conquered them for real. They bulldozed the homes and kicked all sunnis out. That's what you'd have to do in the entire region...
>However they would surely face some sort of international response for what amounts to a religious genocidal campaign
There is no such thing. The only ones getting persecuted are Kurds and Christians.....by Gulf-Arab backed Sunnis.
Yes, but Iran is such heads and shoulders above them it is glaringly obvious. US doesn't know what to do when Iraqis, Kurds, and Assad loyalists all support Iran. Cutting up Iraq to give to the Kurds means Iran will pretty much control the remnants of Iraq, and will undoubtedly be much closer to the new Kurdish State than anyone else in the region, especially Turkey.
Destroying ISIS means Iran will swoop in and pick up all the pieces and form its own local coalition backed by Syria, Kurdistan, and Iraq. SA has money, but they are incompetent as shown in Yemen and their relations with Turkey are not really the best.
The Kurds are largely Sunnis themselves though, and there are arab Sunnis that are with them. (along with christian Arabs and Yazidis and Zoroastrians).
So yeah, let the communists win over the Salafists then.
In related news, are the talks between the Kurds and Assad and Russia still going on? It seems the Kurds are falling into the Assad camp in exchange for Rojava autonomy within the Syrian state once things settle down. (rather than true independence)
Iran has mostly been helping out their religious and to a lesser extent ethnic brethren in a nation that should never have been. Their support for Syria and Yemen has been limited. They have not, and will not as long as most of the region and most Muslims are Sunni.
Any talk of an Iranian ""empire"" or ""domination"" is poorly informed threat inflation.
Kill everyone who isn't afraid of dying, and the ones left behind will fear you.
Seriously, with all of this muslim pigfuckery going on, I'm starting to think my ancestors proclivity towards genocide isn't an unreasonable response.
Holy macaroni, this thread is still on?
This guy got the point
Different perspective again: in our history book, thanks to the "victory" of the "Dien Bien Phu on air" (or Linebacker II in the US docs), we "managed" to get the US to call for peace.
Might need more sources to decide who got who to the Paris conference.
Say again mate? Pic especially related to you.
Back on topic: What would be the most probable scenario that would happen in Syria within the next 2 years?
ISIS dead or splintered into smaller cells that forms other factions?
Kurds gain their autonomy and alliance with Assad, wiped by Turks, or merged with the Turks to form Turds?
FSA either got a truce, miraculously win, or wiped out?
Turkey still butthurt about the whole thing?
All these marxists are adamantly opposed to carpet bombing non-whites
But they would be 100% in favor of mass bombing russia, or serbia, or whoever else
Just so long as they are white/christian.
The idea that shooting down a dozen B-52's somehow caused them to go to the peace table is nonsense.
The US built 750 of them.
Whether a dozen or two dozen were shot down makes no difference.
The human losses on the ground is a far more relevant thing
If nixon wasn't replaced by a democrat, there would probably still be two Vietnams
But that might have been planned & intended.
>Yes. Because Al-Mahmod the goat herde living in some pakistanian mountain and never talking with anyone outside his 20 people village is such a huge threat to the United states.
>He may be a retard, but he isnt a threat.
Until you import him and his family into a western state
Then they just hide in their enclaves raping with impunity until they can force sharia law and begin executing infidels
How about you >>>/pol/ with the rest of the butthurt poor people who blame liberals for everything?
I hate to say it but that's not an argument against what he is saying. I support his premise that liberals would be for bombing white people.
I on the other hand think that bombing the shit out of ISIL is a fucking great idea. Those people living in ISIL controlled areas have had 5 years to get out of there, they haven't left so they are supporting ISIL. Just like the germans and the Nazi's.
We do bomb the shit out of ISIL. Carpet bombing them at best would be unnecessary, and at worst give ISIL more support from people because they have been fucking carpet bombed.
Its a pants-on-head retarded idea.
And western nations would bomb white people and Christians if they are doing shit, just like anyone ells, not for no reason. Serbians were removed because they were chimping out on Croats and Bosniaks, not because they were white or "christian".
>Just like Germans and the Nazis.
That's like all the people who tell Califags to "just move to a better state" not realizing that sometimes you can't always simply drop everything and leave, just because you want to be somewhere else. People have other considerations.
This is even more relevant if you're just some poor fucker living day-to-day, and/or have nowhere to go, and/or might risk serious harm, like half the people in ISIL-controlled areas.
They're still part of the war, not combatants. Sure, you can target facotires and infrastructure, since those are directly supporting the military effort and thus sort of "agree" to make themselves killable targets. Although those who are just extremely religious but do not directly support the war effort in any way, such as women in that society, shouldn't be targeted.
I disagree. Carpet bombing them rather than the targeted strikes the Americans use now would definitely increase the support for ISIL overseas but would also mean a significant decrease in support for them on the ground because everybody would be dead. Sometimes the best way to end an argument is to kill everybody that opposes you.
Not going to happen though in any case.
Even if Trump wasn't stumped in Iowa and went on to become president.
To be fair, what we should be doing is being somewhat isolationist, while also funding Kurds. I've agreed on Rand in the debates on what should happen, and even took the lessons from Iraq. When you destroy a nation, groups like ISIL prop out of the woodwork from said nations ashes. We can't get rid of Syria, and we shouldn't get involved. The best we could do for the time being is fund Kurds unfortunately.
steps to defeating IS:
bomb the saudis
bomb the qataris
bomb the kurds
tell the Russhits to fuck off, this is our playground
if Putin has problems poison that autistic midget
form a coalition including Turkey and Israel and have them invade Syria and split the land as they see fit, Lebanon can be up for grabs next.
Carpet bombing was a thing because it was NECCESSARY if you wnated to actually hit something back in the day. Nowadays, a single JDAM can land right on target and get the job done without you needing to drag a hundred dumb bombs over and level half a square mile just so you have a good chance to actually hit the target at least once.
>Precision guided munitions cost a fortune.
Kek. They're vastly more cost-efficient for actually hitting point targets than saturation bombing. Fuck, even first-gen LGBs during Vietnam were already doing things in one sortie that conventional bombing didn't manage in a dozen.
That's what we should do.
We should GBU-strike any of those 'Syrian observatory for human-rights' aka sunni islamist propaganda groups, sever any lines of communications and launch B-1s and B-52s full of incendiaries and MOPs to raze Raqqa to the ground.
After that, we set up a zone where nothing comes out alive and a fleet of ground-pounders hover over to pick anything still alive off and turn it into a really big version of the Highway of Death.
Trump 2016 make it happen.
>Listening to debate on Radio 2 about whether we should nuke ISIS in Raqqa
>All the white people calling in to say it would be a crime against humanity
>Ahmed from Birmingham calls in and says "Yeah mate I'd do it me proper like"
For point targets, yes, but that requires you have either a reliable spotter(meaning not another durka) or some other way to have eyes on the target, which isn't always possible.
By the time the US occupation started, the population of Japan was starving to death. The first priority of the occupying force was food security for the Japanese. That was entirely due to American domination at sea.
Kicking people out just pisses them off. Doesn't work unless you're prepared to murder them all too and assimilate the survivors. Otherwise they'll hold a grudge and hang onto a causus belli for generations.
India/Pakistan/Bangladesh, Israel/Palestine, China/Tibet, are just a few examples of where kicking people out did not settle the issue. The French and Germans held grudges and fought over Alsace/Lorraine for almost a thousand years.
Sunni is a large diverse group though, its like the Protestantism of Islam.
Important to note, ISIL doesn't like anyone who isn't with them and considers all other Muslims, Sunnis included, as heretics.
Congress, ruled by the Democrats, pulled funding for all things Vietnam after Nixon's scandal came to light. Who was president afterwards wouldn't have mattered because the ones holding the pursestrings had spoken.
>FUCKING KEBAB REFUGEES SHITTING UP EUROPE THEY'RE ALL OBVIOUSLY ISIS SLEEPERS
>WELL IF YOU DON'T WANT TO GET BOMBED, MOVE. IF YOU DON'T YOU OBVIOUSLY SUPPORT ISIS
Come the fuck on.
I'm all for carpet bombing ISIS, as long as we provide asylum and aid for the innocents.
This is how this shit got started, mind you, with Shock and Awe.
The kids who saw their parents disemboweled by coalition bombings in 2003 are the jihadists of today.
What the US government did to the Sunnis of Iraq and Syria is nothing compared to what the governments of Iraq and Syria did to them.
Of course, a huge amount, maybe the majority, of ISIS is bored thrillseekers from the parts of the Muslim world that aren't at war.
The problem is bombs have no staying power. Saddam killed more Sunnis than we did, but he also had guns at their heads to ensure they stayed in line.
We dropped some bombs, destabilized the country in a week, conquered it in a month, and then backed off.
We don't do "imposed order" well, so we became the whipping boy of the Middle East, and these massive insurgencies rise against us.
Now, if we had established Kurdistan as a stable, pro-American democracy and regional power, things might have gone better...
Well, we spent the next 7 years and 5,000 KIA attempting to create a government for Iraq that would work.
I strongly blame this entire mess on the Shia, especially Al-Maliki.
He was the one who was demanding that US troops leave the country back in 2011. He was the one who did his best to rule Iraq as a sectarian state.
We tried to give Iraq a chance to succeed, and we did that. They failed with that chance. Nothing to do now but try and keep them bouncing from blast wave to blast wave, as opposed to on their feet where they can give us more problems.
>We tried to give Iraq a chance to succeed
Yeah, but we didn't give it a chance to fail. Iraq is a fucking mess, designed by some Britbong a couple centuries ago. We should have allowed it to peacefully break apart into several states rather than force it to be something it wasn't. The states would be pro-America, cos we'd be the ones who "finally liberated them", and they wouldn't war on each other because we would maintain a presence, if only token, in the region.
The problem with allowing large states to disintegrate into smaller states is that it heavily incentivizes warfare.
If the borders are changing anyway, now is the time to go on the offensive and grab some land.
I'm imagining a partition of Iraq turning out the way the partition of Yugoslavia did a decade earlier.
Naw they'd all be happy with their territory, it's all the wests fault (especially the UK the bastards) and they'd go back to the peaceful utopia it was before the europeans got there
>So long as the Arabs fight tribe against tribe, so long will they be a little people, a silly people - greedy, barbarous, and cruel, as you are.
I don't understand the issue with carpet bombing
yeah but, they were either going to be displaced by friendly forces, killed by isis, or recruited and turned into killers. and if you kill, over a campaign, 500-ish civvies, that's nothing compared to the full scale war which will happen if we don't kill these fuckers now.
>If your in the capital of Isis out of your own will no matter who you are you get what's coming to you
>try to leave capital
>aha, so you think the infidels are going to win!
>stay in capital to ensure you keep your head
>aha, so you're an ISIS supporter!
>beheaded by shrapnel
>and if you kill, over a campaign, 500-ish civvies, that's nothing compared to the full scale war which will happen if we don't kill these fuckers now.
Yeah, except a) carpet bombing generally kills far more than that, and b) you can't reason like that with the civilians you subsequently have to keep pacified.
Say hello to drones and sniper pods.
If you don't have some kind of eyes on target, go and get eyes on target. That's gonna be a hell of a lot more effective and a hell of a lot cheaper than trying to just dump a shitload of unguided bombs randomly into the same postcode you suspect your target to be in.
They did in fat have insurgency problems at times. They also tended to run a very loose ship amongst their subjects anyway - you paid your annual tax and otherwise you were pretty much free to do whatever you wanted to. Getting conquered by them was fucking horrifying, but living inside the mongol empire was suprisingly decent compared to most other contemporary polities.
From what I understand, their primary mechanism for dealing with insurgencies was to depopulate any area that posed a threat of resisting in the future.
After all, they had essentially no spare forces to deal with uprisings behind their lines.
> it was just a democrat congress acting while Nixon was still in office.
Again, no. Congress only has the power to declare war (or authorize military action). Once it starts, the executive branch is the sole authority for military activity. That's what "Commander in Chief" refers to. The president and his advisers are the responsible for all foreign policy, including military policy.
Stop trying to turn American policy/strategy in the Vietnam war into a partisan issue. Or at least do a little homework on how the US government works before spouting off some bullshit.
>Destroying ISIS means Iran will swoop in and pick up all the pieces and form its own local coalition backed by Syria, Kurdistan, and Iraq.
Along with improving relations with the US, this could be the beginning of some kind of united Middle East. It also includes whatever parts of Yemen and southern Saud the Houthis overthrow and other regions that ally with Iran and it's new coalition. Mohammar Ghaddafi tried to build something like that across North Africa and got the banhammer for it. This however, is a logical playing out of the situation in the Middle East.
>This is not a bad thing. Persians are civilized human beings.
>if you kill, over a campaign, 500-ish civvies
That's a couple weekends worth of wedding parties under precision-guided bombing. This is exactly what we have been doing across the region for years. Everyone in favor of carpet bombing and total war have no idea what those things mean.
> Dresden, 3 nights in 1945
> 1000+ Burger and Bong bombers
> 25,000 dead
>Japan and Germany used to hate us, now they are some of our closest allies.
>Several other islamic states are/has been our allies and had a generally good impression about USA. But if you carpet bomb someone they will hate you.
How does this even begin to approach being a cohesive argument?
we carpet bombed the FUCK out of Japan and Germany.
like 200,000 people died in the firebombing of tokyo alone. There basically wasn't a city in Japan that wasn't burned to ashes with incindiary carpet bombing strikes, except for Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which were fucking nuked.
If they're our close allies now, then at most you can say that carpet bombing doesn't meaningfully affect how much someone will like us afterward.
>"Japan and Germany used to hate us, now they are some of our closest allies"
>we carpet bombed the fuck out of japan and germany killing many hundredthousands of civilians
>"if you carpet bomb someone they will hate you"