Quote:
Originally Posted by Nebe
I think our strategy is to let them get comfortable and take the land that they want to take. Once they've settled in and their locations are known, we bomb the crap out of them. When they are on the move and expanding there is too much chance for collateral damage. Being reactionary can be dangerous. It's better to not loose sight of the main objective and not let emotions take over. It's not like we are not bombing them every day ...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
You may well be right. My issue with that strategy is that once ISIS has movbed into a large area...well, that means that the previous inhabitants of that area are all dead. A case could be made for killing them before that point, but then how the heck do you identify where they are, and who goes in on the ground? Easy for me to say, cuz it won't be me...
"When they are on the move and expanding there is too much chance for collateral damage"
Agreed, but those civilians will mostly be murdered by ISIS anyway. Maybe it's better to kill some of them with a bomb, then wait for all of them to be dead to avoid collateral damage. Easy to avoid collateral damage when all of the collateral is dead...not sure that's the best strategy.
You would never know this by listening to any liberal historian, but this is how the Crusades started. Contrary to popular current belief, the Crusades wasn't started by a bunch of bloodthirsty Christians hell-bent on killing everyone who didn't share their faith.
The Crusades was a response (a justifiable response) to the fact that it wa sthe other side (Muslims, once again) who wanted to expand their territory, and did so by killing everyone in their way. They got just about from the Holy Land, through Africa, up to southern France, before Charlemagne stopped them. The Christians invaded the Muslim-held lands, much the same way that the Allies invaded France on June 6, 1944.
You would never, ever know that by listening to Obama's remarks yesterday at the prayer breakfast. Not only was his blaming Christians 700 years too late, it's alsi historically inaccurate. Other than that, it was a swell speech.