Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Now you're trying to move the goalposts. First you said "Obama won't bomb them. [ISIS]", now you're arguing the effectiveness of the strategy and reaching while committing an argument from silence and basing your conclusion off the absence of evidence.Obama's limp dick has less chance of landing an effective strike on ISIS oil, than you losing your virginity to your retarded little sister. If a map were drawn for Obama where to drop bombs on ISIS and take them out for good, he'd fuck it up. A 14 year old boy scout could run a more effective military campaign than Barry from Honolulu.
Also, you can't bomb this problem away, we did that for damn near 15 years in Iraq & Afghanistan and look where we are today, much worse off for it and much less safe as a nation. Not to mention the explosion of "terrorists" since the war on terror began in 2001. That's an aspect of the big picture your side doesn't seem to either understand or acknowledge as the truth. You could bomb every terrorist in the middle east today and a new batch of terrorists would be there tomorrow, that's why we're involved in the situation in the first place; private military contractors make a lot of money waging perpetual war and those same contractors help finance war hawk politicians in our government which presents a huge conflict of interest when it comes to foreign policy.
How did we decisively win in Europe and the Pacific in WW2? How are non-traditional, asymmetric battles won? What went wrong in Vietnam? How are Vietnam and the war on terror similar?
There is nothing to win. This moment in American foreign policy will be remembered by future generations just like Vietnam is remembered by us now; a failure that wasted hundreds of thousands of lives and cost trillions of dollars, and nothing was gained in the process but enrichment for a few select industries