BREAKING: French jets target ISIS in Raqqa - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Jordax;49123428]It worked for America against Japan. It saved countless of civilian lives all over Asia too, in places and countries still occupied by the Japanese.[/QUOTE] why do you guys keep bringing up WW2 this conflict is not WW2, it is not the war between two sovereign states, you're talking about a terrorist organisation there is no government to capitulate here has anyone got any examples where bombing has caused an insurgent enemy to surrender? legitimately, I'm interested to know

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;49123392]Proof for this? The Iraq war + aftermath killed 160000 civilians. Not to mention displaced people, destroyed property, torture, rapes and kidnappings, lasting sectarian violence, the spawning of ISIS[/QUOTE] What about all of those who are killed every day, in areas under IS control? They face those problems you mentioned. Are we supposed to turn a blind eye and accept it? They're rabid dogs, everyone can see that. And you don't let rabid dogs run around, biting whoever they please. You hunt them down and destroy them. Threats must be eliminated, and there's no bigger threat out there. And sitting on our thumbs and waiting for them to come to us is not an option.

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;49123439]why do you guys keep bringing up WW2 this conflict is not WW2, it is not the war between two sovereign states, you're talking about a terrorist organisation there is no government to capitulate here has anyone got any examples where bombing has caused an insurgent enemy to surrender? legitimately, I'm interested to know[/QUOTE] Wait, so you can bring up history, and your statement is very broad. But other people can't bring up examples of history?

[QUOTE=bdd458;49123406]The amount of people Saddam Hussein killed is estimated anywhere from half a million to a million people.[/QUOTE] I saw he apparently killed 100000 kurds. Any number would be inexcusable. I do think this is tainted by propaganda though. In the run up to the first gulf war people were fed lies about his regime, specifically saying he was purposefully killing babies, news delivered by an actor. Hard to get a figure for this not provided by bias sources. I can't find a source for your one million but the half million figures I find include those who died under his regime generally. UN imposed sanctions killed an estimated 1m (UN) people, 500000 (UNICEF) of which were children. Seems incorrect to attribute those killed from starvation by sanctions in the number he killed does it not? Good argument though I'll give you that. If they did care abot civilian casualties they wouldn't have waited so long and would have stopped the sanctions when they realized it was killing more than saddam did.

Revenge time fuckers.

[QUOTE=Ricenchicken;49123456]Wait, so you can bring up history, and your statement is very broad. But other people can't bring up examples of history?[/QUOTE] you're welcome to bring up examples of history which are completely unrelated to this conflict, I mean, by this logic we should just march some red coats against ISIS because that worked in the Napoleonic war how many times has military intervention got to fail in that region before we learn from it - because it sounds like we've been at this game for decades [B]and we're still being hit by terrorists.[/B]

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;49123439]why do you guys keep bringing up WW2 this conflict is not WW2, it is not the war between two sovereign states, you're talking about a terrorist organisation there is no government to capitulate here has anyone got any examples where bombing has caused an insurgent enemy to surrender? legitimately, I'm interested to know[/QUOTE] Come on mate. If France really didn't give a toss about civilian casualties, they would have fucking nuked Raqqa off the map right now.

War sucks and it is never a good thing when innocents are caught up in it, but these guys aren't the type to sit down and have peace talks over tea and biscuits, they're blood thirsty maniacs who want to kill everyone who isn't them, or shares their ideals. It sucks, but you have to break a few eggs to make an omelette.

[QUOTE=Jordax;49123428]It worked for America against Japan. It saved countless of civilian lives all over Asia too, in places and countries still occupied by the Japanese.[/QUOTE] The was a nuke. The Japanese knew they were totally out of US' league so surrended. ISIS know they are out of US' league, they know they are out of frances league, they know the US has nukes and tanks which are neigh on indestructible without really advanced munitions (chobham armour on a challenger survived 70 rpg hits and still drove home). They are a different kind of enemy.

[QUOTE=Jordax;49123471]Come on mate. If France really didn't give a toss about civilian casualties, they would have fucking nuked Raqqa off the map right now.[/QUOTE] I'm not saying that France doesn't give a toss about civilian casualties what i'm saying is that it is utter folly to pursue a strategy that has historically FAILED to prevent terrorist attacks against western nations the past 2 to 3 decades it is literally the logic of "well bombing works against sovereign nations so it ought to work against this decentralized insurgent group!!!!"

More liberating an unliberatable area

[QUOTE=Pvt. Martin;49123074]Relevant picture [t]http://i.imgur.com/CVmMDDJ.jpg[/t][/QUOTE] I really hope the other sides of those bombs said "Suck a baguette" or something.

[QUOTE=Ricenchicken;49123389]There will ALWAYS be deaths in conflicts like I said. Something has to be done against ISIS. Saying France should have done nothing is basically saying "hey ISIS, we won't fight back, continue to do what you want". Letting ISIS do what they want with no one fighting back is the dumbest thing to do.[/QUOTE] It's not that people are talking about action that's the problem, it's that everything that'll actually stick only happens in the space after ISIS has been disassembled. If ISIS has proven anything to us it's that you need to think long-term no matter what you do in the Middle East, or else other potentially much worse groups will crop up just a couple years after you think you're done. That's why it never works. People just want feel-good solutions that don't take any longer than five years, they want to imagine it's the kind of problem you can solve with nothing but mortar shells and tanks - silver bullets that didn't work the first time. So the thing you've gotta ask isn't "should we take action," but "would shelling these cities into the dirt and openly getting off on civilian casualties be likely to come back and bite us?"

[QUOTE=RayvenQ;49123266]And the quote to go with that from the book:"My mother said violence never solves anything." "So?" Mr. Dubois looked at her bleakly. "I'm sure the city fathers of Carthage would be glad to know that." … I was not making fun of you personally; I was heaping scorn on an inexcusably silly idea — a practice I shall always follow. Anyone who clings to the historically untrue and thoroughly immoral doctrine that violence never settles anything I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler could referee and the jury might well be the Dodo, the Great Auk, and the Passenger Pigeon. Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and their freedoms."[/QUOTE] God I love that book.

[QUOTE=Infab;49122890][video=youtube;T5K0JjzPCN4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5K0JjzPCN4[/video][/QUOTE] Better version, happens to be very fitting given the circumstances. [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4K1q9Ntcr5g[/media]

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;49123267]129 innocents died in paris. How many innocents will die from your retaliation?[/QUOTE] You fail to consider those that will inevitably die by allowing their continued existence.

[QUOTE=gastyne;49123028]They are growing in size with every bombing against them when innocent civilians are killed. They use that as recruitment material.[/QUOTE] "Come join our organisation that's currently getting its shit pushed in" The effects of destroying their leadership, infrastructure and any other high-value assets far outweighs the threat posed by any number of new recruits.

The fact is, even if it hasn't worked before, there is no other way to progress. They say that if all you have are hammers, every problem begins to look like a nail. And maybe we are just breaking further an already shattered region. But if we leave it to break itself, it will never be fixed regardless.

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;49123479]I'm not saying that France doesn't give a toss about civilian casualties what i'm saying is that it is utter folly to pursue a strategy that has historically FAILED to prevent terrorist attacks against western nations the past 2 to 3 decades it is literally the logic of "well bombing works against sovereign nations so it ought to work against this decentralized insurgent group!!!!"[/QUOTE] A decentralised insurgent group is pretty far from what ISIS is.

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;49123330]The same rhetoric was used to justify invading Iraq. 160000 dead civilians later and the problem still isn't solved. Also see my point about boots on the ground + take and hold. Bombing them alone will not get rid of them, it never has and never will.[/QUOTE] I like how your first point is "oh we said the same thing about Iraq", and your second point is for france to do literally the exact same thing that the US did in Iraq. a decade of 'Boots on ground' really helped that region, right? no, it fucking didn't. all it did was cripple the american economy to the point where donald trump might be president now because people are so sick of their country's wealth plummeting that they think electing a loud business man might change something. how stupid would the french government have to be to put their boots in the quick sand that is the middle east? hint: borderline brain dead There is no clean solution to the middle east, and there never will be. using civilians as shields is a core foundation of the tactics of ISIS and pretty much every other islamist terror group. we can either let them continue killing us and their own people, or we can kill a gut wrenching amount of civilians in the process of ridding the middle east of this plague once and for all. it's clear to me which is the lesser evil.

[QUOTE=Jordax;49123428]It worked for America against Japan. It saved countless of civilian lives all over Asia too, in places and countries still occupied by the Japanese.[/QUOTE] it also lead to decades of fear and a world of sovereign states with apocalyptic capabilities. these things have consequences. i know it's satisfying to see the bad guys get hurt in retaliation, but we have no idea how effective these actions will turn out to be and if this wasn't planned for from the start when they coordinated these attacks.

[QUOTE=Lium;49123525]The fact is, even if it hasn't worked before, there is no other way to progress. [/QUOTE] it hasn't worked before, but we'll keep trying it the definition of madness

[QUOTE=Bruhmis;49123533]I like how your first point is "oh we said the same thing about Iraq", and your second point is for france to do literally the exact same thing that the US did in Iraq. a decade of 'Boots on ground' really helped that region, right? no, it fucking didn't. all it did was cripple the american economy to the point where donald trump might be president now because people are so sick of their country's wealth plummeting that they think electing a loud business man might change something. how stupid would the french government have to be to put their boots in the quick sand that is the middle east? hint: borderline brain dead There is no clean solution to the middle east, and there never will be. using civilians as shields is a core foundation of the tactics of ISIS and pretty much every other islamist terror group. we can either let them continue killing us and their own people, or we can kill a gut wrenching amount of civilians in the process of ridding the middle east of this plague once and for all. it's clear to me which is the lesser evil.[/QUOTE] You base this on the incorrect assumption that you will be "ridding the middle east of this plague once and for all" It won't be once and for all. they'll rise up or splinter. If we do kill every last ISIS/radical islamist/west unfriendly militant then from the rubble of bombed cities will rise the children of murdered parents who will rightfully see us as the assholes who killed their parents. Bombs aren't going to delete extremism, if anything they are the cause or at least an agent to help it propagate. "if the only tool you have is a hammer then every problem starts to look like a nail"

Fuck am I glad actual decision makers don't listen to people on forums when considering what to do

[QUOTE=Bruhmis;49123533] or we can kill a gut wrenching amount of civilians in the process of ridding the middle east of this plague once and for all. it's clear to me which is the lesser evil.[/QUOTE] Pretty much. War is hell, and the eradication of a force like this can't be done without killing a shitload of civilians. Even easier to realize when you figure out that the two aren't always separate.

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;49123546]it hasn't worked before, but we'll keep trying it the definition of madness[/QUOTE] All I've seen from you in the last page essentially boils down to "We shouldn't be attempting to combat ISIS". What's your solution?

[QUOTE=LoganIsAwesome;49123490]More liberating an unliberatable area[/QUOTE] Well others said that about Al Hasakah, and look what happened. Airstrikes in support of ground troops...like it should be. I mean it's a fucking conflict...people are going to die on all sides. Yes collateral damage sucks, and it's terrible when it happens, and ffs it would be nice to have some more ground troops to eliminate these unconventional fighters. BUT IT WILL HAPPEN! There's literally no way to avoid it in a long term fight, even with ground troops. Sure there's measures that we can implement to minimize or even negate collateral for an op or two. Shit is constantly moving around, people will be in the wrong place at the wrong time. If we were to seize airstrikes/ground advances every time civilians were in vicinity of an op, then absolutely nothing would be accomplished. It's not like we can sweet talk them to death. They want to go around slaughtering people for a fucked up cause, then I'm pretty sure others will be more than willing to send a bit of blast/frag in their direction.

[QUOTE=Cocacoladude;49123562]Pretty much. War is hell, and the eradication of a force like this can't be done without killing a shitload of civilians. Even easier to realize when you figure out that the two aren't always separate.[/QUOTE] Thats the mindset ISIS have. One of total war. How can you criticize them for it then in the same breath approve its use against them? You target civilians then in the civilians eyes (and mine tbh) you become the/a bad guy.

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;49123567]Thats the mindset ISIS have. One of total war. How can you criticize them for it then in the same breath approve its use against them? You target civilians then in the civilians eyes (and mine tbh) you become the/a bad guy.[/QUOTE] He never said anything about deliberately targeting civilians, but that civilian casualties in war are historically proven to be inevitable no matter how careful one is about preventing them. Especially when you add high explosives in to the mix.

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;49123311]You are trying to frame this as some kind of heroic lets kill ISIS thing. Its not. Its retaliation and revenge.[/QUOTE] Retaliation and revenge against these savages is heroic enough for me.