What's new

Reporter’s Execution Could Unleash U.S. Against ISIS

You could say it was Obama's creation when he pulled troops out while Iraq was still weak and not stable enough. Shrugs* After all there were terrorist attacks by the ISIL against the Iraqi govt. as well as joined forces to turn into ISIS.

True, but without the vacuum they found in the civil war in Syria, it is doubtful that IS would be able to grow and get organized the way they did, occupy and hold land and become a threat. So I maintain, it was not the troops withdrawal from Syria that affected things that much, rather it was Maliki's sectarian massacre of Iraqi Sunni's and Obama's hands off approach in Syria that created the background for the growth and rise of IS.

I remember about a year ago lamenting Obama's hands off approach:
Disaster for US foreign policy and credibility

You may want to go through that entire thread as we extensively discuss this very problem there, predicting doom and gloom with Obama's approach at that time.
 
Obama, now please bomb these insects to hell and be done with it. Thank you.

Reporter’s Execution Could Unleash U.S. Against ISIS - Yahoo Finance

Reporter’s Execution Could Unleash U.S. Against ISIS


Reporter’s Execution Could Unleash U.S. Against ISIS

The release Tuesday of a shocking video showing the brutal beheading of American journalist James Foley by a representative of the Islamic State may wind up backfiring on the Islamic fundamentalist movement that has taken over much of Iraq in recent months.

The U.S. has undertaken limited bombing of IS targets in Iraq, which has helped the Iraqi Army and the fighters from the country’s autonomous Kurdish region, dislodge IS troops from some areas they had taken over, including the critically important Mosul Dam.

Foley, a talented young journalist who had spent years in conflict zones reporting on the human toll of war, was killed by a single member of IS, who appears on the video warning the U.S., in British-accented English, to stop attacking its troops.

“Obama authorized military operations against the Islamic State effectively placing America upon a slippery slope towards a new war against Muslims,” he said. The man, whose face was covered, also threatened to execute another American journalist, Steven Joel Sotloff, if the U.S. involvement in Iraq continues.

However, judging from the public outcry over Foley’s murder, it seems possible that support for President Obama’s limited efforts to impede the progress of IS, rather than being cooled, may be strengthened going forward.

The decision to recommit even limited American military assets to Iraq was criticized by politicians on the left and right. But an outpouring of disgust in both the traditional media and on social media Wednesday left little doubt that there is now a powerful strain of public opinion in favor of taking further action to rein in – and severely punish – the Islamic State.

To be sure, some warn that further U.S. engagement might be exactly what ISIS wants. But the idea that Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of ISIS, is sitting in the desert playing three-dimensional chess with the U.S. doesn’t hold much water.

Related: Why Obama’s Mideast Policy Won’t Stop Genocide

What ISIS is trying to do, by all accounts, is establish an actual functioning Islamic state or Caliphate in the Middle East. It may be different from its neighbors in that its rulers intend to impose a centuries-old legal system designed to oppress millions of people. But it will not be different in its need for centralized institutions of government, transportation and energy infrastructure, and a more or less public set of leaders.

All these things are necessary for a functioning state. They are all, also, potential military targets if the U.S. were to decide to intervene against the establishment or the continued existence of the Islamic State.

The U.S. military has struggled with certain kinds of adversaries over the years. In living memory, the Viet Cong and Al Qaeda, for example, have been challenging foes particularly because they were less concerned about holding territory than they were with damaging American troops.

For the U.S. military, fighting established governments has been a very different story. Ask Saddam Hussein, or Mullah Omar. That doesn’t bode well for the future of ISIS.
inshallah …. i hope they bomb these scums to hell.
the world can't live with an ISIS.
 
Sure FSA good Terrorist ISIS bad terrorist Understood. Spin it all you like, at the end of the day you guys trained these monsters.

Iraqi military abandoned their post because they were attacked by highly trained Terrorist with more superior weapons then they had, where did the terrorist acquire those weapons and training when they crossed into Iraq from Syria?

some guy from Iraq said that he signed his name a volunteer , Iraq government only gave him an Ak47 with 60 bullets and after just 1 month (poor ) training they sent him to street to post , and he and his friends had no commander to command them and no good food to fill their stomach , most of them died or flee and after 1 month , he just abandon his post and saved his life ....

as a man with minimal military knowledge I don't except anything from this kind of army and solders ...
 
some guy from Iraq said that he signed his name a volunteer , Iraq government only gave him an Ak47 with 60 bullets and after just 1 month (poor ) training they sent him to street to post , and he and his friends had no commander to command them and no good food to fill their stomach , most of them died or flee and after 1 month , he just abandon his post and saved his life ....

as a man with minimal military knowledge I don't except anything from this kind of army and solders ...

ISOF perform well with the 3 months of training they get, the regular soldiers should go through a similar training program then they'll do well.

------------

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/23/w...ys-military-action-possible-against-isis.html

The Obama administration is debating a more robust intervention in Syria, including possible American airstrikes, in a significant escalation of its weeks-long military assault on the Islamic extremist group that has destabilized neighboring Iraq and killed an American journalist, officials said Friday.
 
I wouldn't care and the President has no allegiance to "his" people because of his skin color or religion. Easier said than done until you realize the consequences of getting involved with one group trying to wipe out another. For example Shiites killing Sunnis at a mosque today in Iraq. Maybe you should give Bill Clinton an interview why he didn't intervene in Rwanda and why he pulled out of Somalia.

Total non-sequitur. Really having a time of it. Do you believe that the US should be in a treaty that obliges us to stop genocide? Don't care about what happened before. Do you believe we should have that treaty or not? If you have conditions on it, fine, state them. But you aren't even answering the basic question on whether such a treaty should exist. Or your implying that it should exist but only be enforced in Haiti, or Mississippi, or something. Or that it might be hard, or presidents might feel closer to one group than another. Whatever. Should we have the treaty?

Bill Clinton pulled out and didn't intervene because he was terrified of shades of Vietnam. He knew he was vulnerable politically if he sent troops anywhere and people died, so he avoided it at all costs. And cost it did.
 
Total non-sequitur. Really having a time of it. Do you believe that the US should be in a treaty that obliges us to stop genocide? Don't care about what happened before. Do you believe we should have that treaty or not? If you have conditions on it, fine, state them. But you aren't even answering the basic question on whether such a treaty should exist. Or your implying that it should exist but only be enforced in Haiti, or Mississippi, or something. Or that it might be hard, or presidents might feel closer to one group than another. Whatever. Should we have the treaty?

Bill Clinton pulled out and didn't intervene because he was terrified of shades of Vietnam. He knew he was vulnerable politically if he sent troops anywhere and people died, so he avoided it at all costs. And cost it did.

No, we don't need to be in that treaty. There have been many genocides going on and U.S. has not intervened in many of those events. And just as you pointed out and backed up my claim that Clinton didn't want to intervene because of the political cost.

Let me ask you this, would you intervene even if the U.S. was not in the treaty? Men, women, children being murdered in the millions in a civil war between two groups or more but Americans don't want to intervene because of this...
Body-of-dead-US-soldier-dragged-through-streets-of-Mogadishu-Somalia.jpg


And remember, Obama said to the American public he sent bombers to protect American personnel as if it was a higher priority than a large group of people.
 
Let me ask you this, would you intervene even if the U.S. was not in the treaty?.

I think the best you can do, inside or outside the treaty is the best you can do. I don't like ignoring problems, but some are totally intractable without Europe (at least) cooperating. I think if you can get Europe on board, you have a chance at any problem, due to the economic weight of the US and Europe being irresistible.

So, you announce clearly when you believe genocide is happening or about to happen. If able, you intervene yourself, if not, you call for the world to intervene. You lambast European countries in their own countries, in their own languages when they don't get in line (Italy for Somalia, France for Rwanda, etc) and at least stop supplying financial services to the genocidal faction(s).

The treaty is only a formalization of doing the right thing. It should be used to beat up countries that refuse to do their part - by pointing out that the US doesn't have to be in the treaty, or honor other treaties if, say Germany, can't be bothered to cut off banking access to killers.
 
Back
Top Bottom