Is all out bombing worth it?

[Shankapotomus]

The U.S. has devoted a fortune in lives, treasure and time to Iraq with little to no return. In fact, it can be argued the region is worse.

For what we already gave to not only Iraq, but the region, we should have a stable Middle East.

We don't.

It seems whether we continue with our past bombing strategy or stay completely out of the conflicts in the regions, people are going die. They are going to die at the hands of ISIL and the various unending conflicts that engulf the region. Or they are going to die under the past and current level of our bombing campaigns.


If ISIL or any of the various extremists of the region win out, it can be expected that the people of the region will suffer indefinitely under the restraints of a cruel ideology.

So with all that suffering and dying lying ahead of us no matter what we do or don't do, can a case be made for ending the conflicts once and for all with the threat or use of our superior strength (not necessarily our nuclear arsenal) as we did in World War Two?

Such an all out war doesn't have to mean bombing civilians but it could mean taking a heavier hand on extremists and their sympathizes than we have and outlawing extremist ideologies as was Nazism in Germany. In addition, getting the UN to create a referendum to outlaw all armies, both national and private in the regions, with that eventually being applied world wide except for a global UN peace keeping force.

As distasteful as an all out war was, it did put an end to the conflict and the ideology that gave rise to it and it did it all on multiple fronts within 6 years. And for all the expense of World War Two, yes, including selling their souls to the devil, the allies got what they wanted out of it in the end.

Can we say the same? We've already bombed. We've already sold our souls to get rid of these terrorists and they're still fucking here.

If we're going to sell our souls anyway should we not go all the way in order to get the return we are looking for?