Is the U.S. doing more harm than good in the fight against ISIS? (Pro=Yes, Con=No)

If you actually watched the videos I added to the debate, you'd know that, in reality, drone strikes kill more civilians than other conventional aircraft (i.e.: bomber planes). Yes, the drones do allow for a greater safety for U.S. troops, yet not so much for civilians. The drones have been proven time and time again to hit civilians more than intended targets. The Guardian reports that, in Pakistan, "Attempts to kill 41 men resulted in the deaths of an estimate 1,147 people, as of 24 November." You can find it here: http://www.theguardian.com... You mean to tell me that none of those 1,147 people were civilians? There were 41 original targets, yet 1,147 people died from U.S. drone strikes. That happened in Pakistan, so it can obviously also happen in Iraq and Syria. The idea that civilians can't get revenge because they don't have the means to attack the U.S. and it's allies is simply not true. Yes, the U.S. is a great deal away from Iraq and Syria, but the U.S.'s allies against ISIS; Iraq, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Qatar, etc.; are quite close. In case you didn't know, they are our ALLIES. As in, we are sworn to protect and help them. Maybe not so much Iran and Syria, but the rest are blatant friends to us. ISIS knows this. The civilians know this. All it would take would be a storming of Amman or an assault on Baghdad, places where the U.S. has embassies where U.S. citizens work, to trigger the U.S. to send troops to fight ISIS. The drone strikes enrage civilians because of the injustice and retaliate by joining ISIS, who in turn sends these new recruits that the U.S. made to attack the allies of the U.S., thus triggering the U.S. to send ground troops to Iraq and Syria. Right now, Congress is in the process of passing a bill that would allow the U.S. to send ground troops to fight ISIS. The last time we sent ground troops into Iraq was in 2003 at the start of the Iraq war. Dick Cheney, the Vice President, said that the war would be over in a few months, but only ten years later did we actually pull out of Iraq. The last time we sent in ground troops into Iraq, we practically CREATED ISIS out of the horrible injustice of the Iraq War. You mean to tell me Also, just because ISIS doesn't have the means to shoot down U.S. drones right now doesn't mean they can't acquire the means to do so from dead Iraqi, Iranian, and/or Syrian soldiers. It is NOT like a firing squad because the civilians and ISIS DO know who they are fighting. It doesn't take much to watch the news or go on the internet. ISIS members have Twitter accounts for Pete's sake! You don't think they don't know who they're fighting? The loss of ISIS territory cannot necessarily mean that it's the U.S. who's done this. As you have stated before, there's more than 30 nations fighting ISIS. You can't seriously think that it's the U.S. that's done this when it's been proven that the U.S. drone strikes are like fertilizer for ISIS, can you? So therefore my first argument has NOT been refuted, all it takes is for someone to look at the facts. My second argument DOES relate to the topic. The U.S. is funding the Iraqi government, which commits horrible and inhumane acts of barbarism against ISIS; the very same horrible and twisted acts that ISIS does. The U.S. is FUNDING these people and you mean to tell me that this DOESN'T hurt U.S. interests? There is no doubt that other countries know who funds Iraq's current government to commit these terrible acts. This causes the U.S. to lose reputation in the Foreign Affairs sector. You don't think people would just let this slip by? Funding those people just makes us look like bad guys in the eyes of our other allies like France, Germany, or the U.K. Let's also not forget that the U.S. practically created ISIS. After the unjust Iraq War, Iraqi's wanted revenge for the terrible injustice they received and still clearly do today. Thus, ISIS formed. The very enemy of the U.S. is the result of U.S. actions. Fun fact: ISIS has a large and growing support in Jordan and Libya. Also, just because territory has diminished in Iraq doesn't mean it hasn't expanded in Syria. Also last I checked, ISIS was only 8 miles from the Baghdad airport. If Baghdad falls, surely that would mean victory over Iraq. ISIS states that there is a prophecy of the apocalypse. They state that when the Crusaders (as represented by the U.S.) attack true Muslims in a certain town in Turkey or Syria (I can't remember which) that's a sign the apocalypse is near, so all Muslims better become true Muslims. Obviously, ISIS is IN Syria, and Turkey isn't too far either. All they would need to do is go to that town, the U.S., who at this point is basically on a Crusade, to attack them. You don't think we're on a Crusade? George W. Bush said we were going on a Crusade when we first entered Iraq. The last time we sent ground troops into Iraq was in 2003 at the start of the Iraq war. Dick Cheney, the Vice President, said that the war would be over in a few months, but only ten years later did we actually pull out of Iraq. The last time we sent in ground troops into Iraq, we practically CREATED ISIS out of the horrible injustice of the Iraq War. You mean to tell me that doing more of what created them would help? Also, drone strikes, damage infrastructure in Iraq and Syria, be they from the U.S. or otherwise. They hit oil pipelines and blow up roads and bridges. Homes and other structures are destroyed as well. You don't think civilians aren't at all mad that we are basically tearing Iraq apart? The majority of Iraqi's actually think that the U.S. is SUPPLYING ISIS so Iraqi's will become dependent on U.S. aid. Do you really think they LIKE the U.S. bombing them and, even if it's false, the idea that we're supplying the enemy? A U.S. arms airdrop already landed inside ISIS territory, thus giving the idea more support. Check the facts, the U.S. is doing more harm than good.