The US federal government should bomb ISIS

As requested, I'll do my rebuttals (to Pro's opening argument). R1: “If we take ISIS lightly and they have their way the word will be harmed beyond what you can imagine. In fact some believe that ISIS wants to bring forth the apocalypse, and frankly I wouldn't be surprised if that's what they want. (http://www.theatlantic.com......... ) ISIS has been rapidly capturing territory. Fairly recently ISIS captured Baghdad, while slaughtering citizens and military in the process, leaving the streets littered with bodies. ( http://www.cbsnews.com......... ). ISIS has been nothing but brutal. ISIS kills dozens of innocent people at a time for doing nothing but failing to conform with their beliefs. ISIS has been known to carry out public executions and Crucifixions. ISIS reaches out an manipulates those in 1st word countries and instructs them to "kill where you are". Those killings have no benefit. There is no gain for ISIS to have innocent people killed thousands of miles away, yet they do it anyways. ISIS has shown no mercy to anyone whether it be civilians, military, the religious or impressionable youth they manipulate. ISIS simply knows no mercy. They will not show us mercy and will destroy us the instant they have the opportunity. So we should not show them mercy. (http://www.cnn.com.........http://www.nbcnews.com.........)” However, most countries under the US-Led coalition are geographically distant from ISIS territory. So to most countries a part of the coalition, they do not face direct threat from ISIS. Note, that the Islamic State can be more accurately comparable to the Taliban than Al-Qaeda, in the sense that the Taliban’s goals were to establish an Islamic state (or Emirate) in Afghan territory, as a result they have held little interest in attacks against the US or other countries abroad. The same could be applicable to ISIS, though on a larger scale. The interests of ISIS is to establish an Islamic state ( in this case a Caliphate) in the Levant region. Just like the Taliban, ISIS has little interest in engaging in attacks abroad. If one looks at the Islamic terrorist attacks done in west in the past year (such as but not limited to, the Hebdo shooting in Paris and the Parliament shooting in Ottawa) one may notice that ISIS was not directly responsible to any of those attacks, they may have inspired the attacks, but have not directly employed the attackers. Hence this shows that ISIS has little interest in attacking Western countries (especially the US) for the time being. As, just like the Taliban, they are looking to consolidate their regional territories before issuing any attacks abroad. Hence, ISIS is by no means a threat to the US homeland as that does not suite ISIS’s interests. Sources: 1. http://news.nationalpost.com... 2. R2: “Airstrikes against ISIS have been our best method of fighting them. Very little to no casualties on our side, and most importantly very effective. We can use airstrikes and bombings to strategically target strike points, take out military leaders and drive ISIS into submission. 500 pound bombs being dropped on your head will take away your will to fight very quickly. According to these two out of many reports airstrikes and bombings against ISIS are working and are very effective.http://www.huffingtonpost.com......... http://abcnews.go.com.......... The only downside to it is the unfortunate reality of civilian casualties. With bombings there will inevitably be civilians who will lose their lives in the blast. Many people believe that because of this we should not bomb ISIS, but there are a few key points they are missing. 1. Some civilian casualties are absolutely inevitable in war. No matter what we do they can not be avoided. 2. These attacks are done by talented, trained military professionals. They know what they are doing and they know how to minimize civilian casualties and they will do so. Still not convinced? Well let me help you think about it in a different way.” Simply because airstrikes can cause the least casualties from the offending side, that does not make it a sufficient reason for it to be the only form of military intervention against ISIS. As mentioned previously, airstrikes may be effective at temporarily hindering ISIS but it would not be enough to do any long term damage to ISIS. Simply put it, no war has ever been won through air superiority alone. The United States had attempted to subdue the North Vietnamese thourough the use of air superiorirty, but airstrikes if not followed by ground troops is not only ineffective but counterproductive, since ISIS ground units would eventually adapt to the airstrikes. Sources: 1. https://en.wikipedia.org... 2. (This rebuttal is applicable to Pro’s 3rd and 4th arguments)