That's blatantly false.
The US hasn't bombed cities ... except for Kobane, which they ONLY bombed once the YPG defended it. So, no, it is NOT false.
Where else has the US government had the need to heavily bomb a town? Can you name one other city that had as many munitions dropped on it than Kobane? No, cannot.
Numbering your points as if they're some sort of self-evident truth shows how you're incapable of constructing a proper argument.
That's actually how you build an argument, which you have shown an inability to do. Your entire premise is based on "what ifs" as opposed to events as they happened.
Sure they could, how do you think YPG got Kurdish reinforcements? By magically teleporting or getting air dropped?
No, by moving along the border. You didn't even watch the siege, did you? Because you would have noticed all the Turkish forces parked across the border from Kobane and you would have read about all the people that Turkey were denying entrance into Turkey and into Syria (except for Islamic State fighters).
You're doing a false equivalency by basing your argument on unequals while arguing for equivalence of cases.
Baloney. It was a simple question that you couldn't answer because your argument falls apart. Plus, you aren't even using "false equivalency correctly here.
NO WHERE ELSE has the US had success except with the YPG. You refuse to acknowledge this FACT.
NAME ME ONE REGION where the US has had such success in Syria. One. You can't.
You don't know what absolute means.
Yes, I do, and I can use "absolutely" to assert why your argument is made of papier-mâché. Not once have you been able to use examples to backup your asserts. Not. Once.
They were talking about strategic victory.
Huh? Strategies supports the tactics on the ground and vice-versa. The strategy is to work with partners on the ground. The tactics is, as I showed you in an article, the YPG coordinating with the USAF on calling targets.
Read a manual on combined arms. It will educate you.
I'll say it again : The battlefield of a particular battle in any parts ofSyria is not the same. Kobane isn't Raqqa. Difference in terrain, size of city, amount of civilians living there, etc... These are all factors that are important to consider.
Why do you keep mentioning Raqqa? There USAF isn't operating there. It's pointless to mention the city. If anything, you are specifically ignoring the towns that the YPG have retaken in alliance with the USAF.
"In most cases". Are you implying that it's not always the case? Seems you don't disagree.
Yes, because there have been battles that involved mostly aircraft or tanks. But, MOST OF THE TIME, infantry plays a critical role. It is a fact that you cannot argument against no matter how hard you try.
Again, you haven't given a SINGLE example to backup your assertions because you can't. You're unable to even describe why you believe infantry aren't the most important elements on land warfare.
Admit you're an idiot who can't tell the difference between tactic and strategy.
You don't even know the 101 basics of warfare. It's why you continually talk about of your arse. You're terrible at this topic. You think war is all about dropping bombs, which is fucking retarded, and it shows how you represent all those video game kiddies who push a few buttons and think they know something about the war. You've never read Von Clausewitz, or Montgomery, or Grant, or any US Army field manuals, or anything else, and you certainly don't know jack shit about the siege of Kobane.
It's about USAF defeating ISIS in a very particular tactical instance.
And what fucking happened in this instance? You CONTINUE to act like the USAF bombed an empty city. You REFUSE to admit that the YPG had something to do with the battle.
It is obvious that your hatred of the YPG has led you into irrationality.
You keep showing that you believe all battles, all battlefieds and all situations are the same. So if something didn't happen before
And, again, you CANNOT provide me with an example to support your assertion.
My argument, unlike yours, are based on premises that are not reasonable truths, truths that you haven't even challenged and even implied to agree on them later, hence why you said "most cases". And the conclusion follows the arguments.
What a bunch of pure horseshit. You are made of hot air and words, devoid of a single fact.