system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: A US/NATO ground intervention against ISIS would only make things worse.

Syria is in a state of total chaos and destruction. With many different factions fighting each other, the war has no clear solution, and a NATO military intervention would ultimately only bring more bloodshed and despair. Even if we somehow managed to destroy ISIS, there would almost certainly be hundreds of thousands of mostly innocent people killed in the proccess, which could result in a major backlash (just like in Iraq), and ultimately create an even stronger and more radical fundamentalist group. Meanwhile, even if ISIS is completely wiped out, not much will change. The numerous rebel factions, other Islamist groups, the government forces, Peshmerga etc. will continue to fight each other, whether ISIS exists or not.
gpt
ISIL is in terms of military power smaller and weaker then Iraq was in 2003. It therefore, seems likely that military intervention would have at most similar casualty numbers to Iraq. You are most certainly correct that this number would probably be over a hundred thousand. However, the war has already caused significantly more then that number with no sign of slowing down. It seems reasonable then that by stopping a war that currently shows no signs of stopping that the casualty numbers would be reduced.

You are correct that the humanitarian costs of intervention would be huge. However, the humanitarian costs of not intervening are almost certainly going to be much higher.