(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); Just a general question on a very serious and current topic which seems to be filling my Facebook page.

Personally, I would agree with the airstrikes. Fighting fire with fire is sometimes the only option however I say this and purely only want to see terrorist units in Syria being destroyed, not towns with innocent people. I know a lot of you may disagree with me but that's just how I feel.

Honestly, I have more respects for the Kurdish fighters fighting against the ISIS than suited governments ordering the airs trikes. Yes, I support the airstrike against the militants but after seeing the videos on Facebook, militants hide everywhere so it's hard to find em. Plus, I've seen the videos of child crying begging for the peace and innocents bloodshed. None of em are ISIS militants.

Let's not forget, the more airstrike, the higher chances innocent people dies and the orphan child survives, grows up and gets angry so they join the terrorist organization and get a revenge. And we don't need more refugees. Don't give em more reasons to flee their own country.

It's hard to decide whether to support the airstrike or not.

I saw a question one Christian girl asked: Would parliaments be deciding to order airstrike on Syria if it's Christian country?

Well for me it's different since I'm from the United States, so I'm just gonna answer the same question but for the U.S.. I totally approve of the air strikes that we are making on ISIS positions but we can only go so far with them. We need ground units if we plan on taking out ISIS. No matter how many air strikes, new ISIS leaders and members are going to pop up. Congress needs to debate a new AUMF based on strictly ISIS. We need to come in this with a clear goal and no restraints, that's the only way we can do this. The war is not going to be politically correct but it has to happen. We've learned from all of the previous wars in the Middle East that if you don't come in with a clear goal and no restraints you won't get anywhere. Also, we have a civil war in Syria where Russia is backing Assad forces and we are backing Anti-Assad forces. This is technically a proxy war between the U.S. and Russia, and we need to bring a lot more to the table then air strikes if we want to be taken seriously.

Rant over.

I'm in favor of any country that wants to bomb the shit out of Syria. It's ISIS headquarters. Bring it the fuck on.

Honestly, I think that it is good that other countries besides the US are getting involved in this war. Don't get me wrong, I know they have been for awhile. It is good to see other countries stepping it up a bit though. I don't want one organization like the UN to control the world or anything remotely close to that, but I do believe there are regions of the world that need a bit of policing and it can't be one or two countries doing it. If the world as a whole, or the majority of the world anyways, disagrees with what is going on somewhere, then the world as a whole, or the majority anyways, needs to act together.

AMERICA FUCK YEAH! Wait what about the shitstorm you left in Iraq and Libya?

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, I still think they should put an end to ISIS tho.

Instead of insulting why don't you answer me? lol

I agree that something must be done about Syria but maybe we should learn from the past.

Yes and no.

Bombing along won't get rid of ISIS, boots on the ground will but we won't/can't do that. President Assad although a bad person per say, under his power it kind of works. We don't want to have another Afghanistan etc.