Why we must fight

Now let's set the record straight. There's no argument over the choice between peace and war, but there's only one guaranteed way you can have peace—and you can have it in the next second—surrender.

Admittedly, there's a risk in any course we follow other than this, but every lesson of history tells us that the greater risk lies in appeasement, and this is the specter our well-meaning liberal friends refuse to face—that their policy of accommodation is appeasement, and it gives no choice between peace and war, only between fight or surrender. If we continue to accommodate, continue to back and retreat, eventually we have to face the final demand—the ultimatum. [Historical analogy] And what then—when Nikita Khrushchev has told his people he knows what our answer will be? He has told them that we're retreating under the pressure of the Cold War, and someday when the time comes to deliver the final ultimatum, our surrender will be voluntary, because by that time we will have been weakened from within spiritually, morally, and economically. He believes this because from our side he's heard voices pleading for "peace at any price" or "better Red than dead," or as one commentator put it, he'd rather "live on his knees than die on his feet." And therein lies the road to war, because those voices don't speak for the rest of us.

You and I know and do not believe that life is so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery. If nothing in life is worth dying for, when did this begin—just in the face of this enemy? Or should Moses have told the children of Israel to live in slavery under the pharaohs? Should Christ have refused the cross? Should the patriots at Concord Bridge have thrown down their guns and refused to fire the shot heard 'round the world? The martyrs of history were not fools, and our honored dead who gave their lives to stop the advance of the Nazis didn't die in vain. Where, then, is the road to peace? Well it's a simple answer after all.

You and I have the courage to say to our enemies, "There is a price we will not pay." "There is a point beyond which they must not advance." Winston Churchill said, "The destiny of man is not measured by material computations. When great forces are on the move in the world, we learn we're spirits—not animals." And he said, "There's something going on in time and space, and beyond time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty."

Ronald Regan

except its not going to be a "fight"

Its going to be a concentrated aerial bombing campaign against a foe that may or may not be in the bombing locations but where civillians most certainly will be.

A fight would imply that those people could mount a serious defence against state of the art planes and missiles.

By saying "bombing is never justified" you are ignoring the times at when bombing has been effective and caused a resolution. In fact, it is immoral and disgusting you could say such a thing. (to anyone who would, not you personally)

You want to take a closer look from atop that high horse bubba, and find exactly where i said bombing is never justified.

I am all for stopping ISIS with military action I am not a pacifist. I am very much against however blanket bombing where civilians will be killed/targeted/treated as collateral damage. If there is a settlement with Daesh soldiers in it then by all means flatten it.

We are supposed to be good guys, if we are to maintain any kind of moral high ground we CANNOT start blowing up innocent men, women and children. That makes us no better than them.