Should more country get involve for airstrike on ISIS?
Would it be more effective if we get more country to help in conducting air strike on ISIS, whether it is to make things easier for the Americans or to create additional fire power, to the air assault.
No the airstrikes are a waste of time for the most part and I think by now everyone knows that troops will be needed to take down ISIS. It's not like we are attacking a nation we are attacking a group of fundamentalists so there is only so much air striking you can do without hurting innocent people. ISIS is aware of this and strategically positions themselves in and around towns of innocent people. The USA would most likely be opposed to a war with ISIS so air striking is what we can do right now without declaring war.
I heard when ISIS go into a town, they kill all none Muslim and Muslims who won't join them. Which mean, ISIS rule town have no none enemies. So, I think we should just nuke them
Well thats true but I mean if we dropped a nuke it there will be collateral damage. Obama isn't going to do that he's just dropping some bombs here and there but a committed air striking campaign lasting months and then infantry after is the only way
Get a none western country to nuke them, or even better get a middle eastern country to nuke them, if the guy nuking them ain't the west, all problem solve
|HubPages Device ID|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Google Analytics|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel|
|Google Hosted Libraries|
|Google AdSense Host API|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels|
|Author Google Analytics|
|Amazon Tracking Pixel|