Obama has been launching air strikes against ISIS for a while now. But since the beginning, they have always been labeled as limited air strikes. What does this mean? It means that the United States launches about seven air strikes a day against ISIS, usually after various different groups verify that the targets in question are indeed being used by ISIS. This means that the United States has a good insurgent to civilian death ratio. Does slow and steady win the race?
Compare that to the air strikes launched against the Iraqi forces after the 9/11 attacks: Over 1100 air strikes a day. The Iraq War has always been criticized for it's large number of civilian deaths, but we managed to topple the country's government, killed it's leader and shattered the insurgents that
had rose to prominence after the death of Saddam Hussein.
What are the air strikes against ISIS doing? According to Obama, they're keeping the terrorists in check and preventing them from growing stronger. According to everyone else, they're being used as a smokescreen to create an illusion that the United States is actually fighting ISIS. In reality, shortly after Obama had defended his actions (or lack thereof) against ISIS, a large attack perpetuated by ISIS had left 130 people dead in France.
What was Obama's reaction to this attack? His reaction was to defend his strategy against the Islamic State, and to reject a coalition with France and Russia to destroy ISIS for good, or at least do some real damage against them. Obama doesn't care about ISIS or the thousands (over six thousand innocent people were killed by ISIS last year) of people they're killing. All he cares about is creating a 'legacy' of his presidency before passing the mantle onto the next president. He's launching an insignificant amount of air strikes against ISIS to create the illusion that the United States is actually combating the terrorist group. Meanwhile, Russia and France are having their stadiums and commercial planes attacked.
Will Obama be persuaded by the other world leaders to do more, or will the United States have to suffer a terrorist attack (several cities are already bracing for an attack) before he wakes up from his stupor and realize that his strategy isn't working? At this trajectory, a terrorist attack is inevitable.
Well your point may be right but the thing is that Obama and other country leaders (France and Russia) are not as nice as everybody thinks , sure Iraq did attacks on france and many other locations but this is just a kids game where if lets say hit you , you get back that hit doubled on strenght and that'ssswhat all are doing they're just destroying eachother by doing this , and killing innocents in the process
First of all, Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks on France. Iraq is actively fighting against (fleeing from in reality) ISIS. ISIS also isn't only in Iraq, but various other countries around it as well, mostly Syria.
About your point about Russia and France not being as nice as everybody thinks: Nobody likes Russia at the moment. They made ***** of themselves with the Ukraine scandal, and are still actively supporting the Syrian President despite the fact that he's the one that allowed ISIS to grow so powerful in the first place. But regardless of his previous actions and affiliations, Putin can still fix the situation by cutting off ties with Bashar al-Assad and work with the allied coalition being formed to fight ISIS.
Russia is the lesser of two evils at the moment. ISIS killed over six thousand innocent people last year. That's more civilian deaths than all the airstrikes from all the various countries combined. Allowing ISIS to continue expanding would only cause more civilian deaths. They kill literally anyone who does not meet their standards of a true Muslim. They have killed more Muslims than any other group.
What people don't understand is that ISIS isn't your typical terrorist organization. These people are willing to kill themselves, and anyone they can get their hands on in order to draw the allied coalition into a ground invasion. Whereas al-Qaeda were a large group of people who wanted to control the Middle East, ISIS doesn't want to control the territory but destroy it and everything else. They follow the Quran to the letter. They want a ground invasion because the Quran says that when the armies of the west invade, God will turn their armies into pillars of salt. Literally.
I'd go further and actually state that Putin's stance on the Ukraine scandal was totally justified. Not lawful, but entirely justified. But that's beside the point.
These people are willing to kill themselves, and anyone they can get their hands on in order to draw the allied coalition into a ground invasion. Whereas al-Qaeda were a large group of people who wanted to control the Middle East, ISIS doesn't want to control the territory but destroy it and everything else.
Then it is NATO's job to fight them as a coalition in its own right or at least, help other countries fighting them.
First of all, Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks on France. Iraq is actively fighting against (fleeing from in reality) ISIS.
Not really. They may not be anywhere near as effective as a highly trained army would be but give them some credit. Not only are they doing their best, they have exceeded expectations.
Will Obama be persuaded by the other world leaders to do more, or will the United States have to suffer a terrorist attack (several cities are already bracing for an attack) before he wakes up from his stupor and realize that his strategy isn't working?
Therefore, my point is, that you should NOT once again barge in, like you did in the past. And you seem to learn from your mistakes. Maybe a few more airstrikes but civilian deaths are important and you have screwed up in the M. East before as well. So, it is good to see that the government is playing it safe. Regulating its aggression and helping at a reasonable level.
and are still actively supporting the Syrian President despite the fact that he's the one that allowed ISIS to grow so powerful in the first place.
Yes, Bashar trained and armed "opposition" against himself and actively trades with ISIS. /sarcasm.
Putin can still fix the situation by cutting off ties with Bashar al-Assad and work with the allied coalition being formed to fight ISIS.
Do you really believe that "coalition" fights ISIS?
Turkey purchases oil from ISIS with the help of "moderate syrian rebels", which are, in fact, turkish citizens
Obama wouldn't do **** against ISIS because it damages Turkey, NATO member.
What people don't understand is that ISIS isn't your typical terrorist organization. ISIS doesn't want to control the territory but destroy it and everything else.
They are pretty good at controlling oil fields, getting $billions annually.
