| FAQ |
| Members List |
| Calendar |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
![]() |
|
| Serious Debates & News Debate and discussion about political, moral, philosophical, celebrity and news topics. |
| Register to reply Log in to reply |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|
|
#1 | ||
|
|||
|
-
|
Not undoubtedly. WHEN the destruction of the oilfield can be shown to have had a meaningful impact on ISIS numbers or operations then it will be undoubted. As it stands there are plenty of analysts who don't think it has had the intended or hoped for effect.
|
||
|
|
|
|
#2 | ||
|
|||
|
Senior Member
|
So you think an IS asset being destroyed could be a bad thing?
|
||
|
|
|
|
#3 | ||
|
|||
|
-
|
Depends on the consequences. Regardless, that has no bearing on whether or not it can be demonstrated to be "worth it". No matter how hard you try, you're not going to be able to do that right now I'm afraid. It's guesswork. That's my point, really. Thus far, there are horrendous consequences of bombing that can be seen, heard and observed. Any and ALL positives and benefits are ifs, buts, maybes, hypothesis and guesswork.
|
||
|
|
|
|
#4 | ||
|
|||
|
Senior Member
|
Quote:
Last edited by Northern Monkey; 06-12-2015 at 04:34 PM. |
||
|
|
| Register to reply Log in to reply |
|
|