jump to last post 1-4 of 4 discussions (15 posts)

Do you think Obama's approach to ISIS is effective? Is he being realistic about

  1. profile image0
    LoliHeyposted 2 years ago

    Do you think Obama's approach to ISIS is effective? Is he being realistic about this problem?

    What should Obama be doing, if you say no?

  2. tsadjatko profile image53
    tsadjatkoposted 2 years ago

    https://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/12952935_f260.jpg

    Not nearly as effective as it should be, ISIS should be history by now but they are spreading worldwide and just look at Brussels. All this and the genocide they are commiting even as we speak could have been avoided if he took decisive action when they were, as he called them, the JV!

    The best thing he could do for America and the innocents ISIS is murdering as we speak is resign and never be seen or heard from again.

    1. profile image0
      LoliHeyposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      But wait!  He said they were contained!!!  lol

    2. tsadjatko profile image53
      tsadjatkoposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      If Obama was a king in the 5th century&was told the Huns are coming he'd have said"Why,to give Pony rides?" Huns were expert horsemen,seeming to be one with their steeds;rarely seen dismounted,they even carried on negotiations from the back

    3. tsadjatko profile image53
      tsadjatkoposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      from the backs of their horses.

      He reasons like a child and never even thinks preemptively about a developing crisis but, like all politicians,waits until it's too late to prevent tragedies, the blood of all ISIS victims are on his hands.

    4. Misfit Chick profile image72
      Misfit Chickposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      This is a good question - but I should have known that it was just another opportunity to bash Obama. If someone else was President, they would be saying something similar. When does any US President ever tell us the truth about stuff like this?!

    5. bradmasterOCcal profile image43
      bradmasterOCcalposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      When does any  politician tell us the truth?

    6. tsadjatko profile image53
      tsadjatkoposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Misfit, instead of attacking the messenger, evidently the only think you know how to do, instead of offering nothing that makes any sense why don't you answer the question since you think it such a good question?

    7. bradmasterOCcal profile image43
      bradmasterOCcalposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      TSAD Would it be possible if you name your target.

    8. tsadjatko profile image53
      tsadjatkoposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      @Brad, What do you mean, I did. Look at her name Catherine Mostly (Misfit Chick) Did you think I called you a misfit? No way, that is what she calls herself, YOU my friend are a good fit.

  3. tamarawilhite profile image90
    tamarawilhiteposted 2 years ago

    Bill Maher recently had a discussion with a Democratic representative who kept calling groups like ISIS, Boko Haram, Al Shabab (and other Muslim fundamentalists around the world) "political extremists".
    Maher outright said, "If you cannot say the words Islamic terrorism, Muslim terrorist, you will lose the election." He then begged the man to say the words, and the Democrat kept saying political extremists.
    There are several reasons Democrats don't want to say Muslim / Islam in link to terrorism. This is covered in detail in my hub on “Still the Best Hope” by Dennis Prager. In summary:
    * Liberals pity the underdog, see Islam as the underdog, don't think or care about its historic spread nearly entirely by the sword, Indonesia being the exception of conversion entirely by missionaries/trade. Ignoring the religious component of ISIS and others lets them romanticize Islam as peaceful and wonderful and Muslims as victims of colonial oppression and every bad thing they want to hate the West for. 
    * Liberal secularists see Judeo-Christian American ethos as the enemy and fear it as a potential Taliban, ignoring the real Taliban/Saudi/Iranian/ISIS states where religion rules as law. The saying that tyranny will come wrapped in a flag and carrying a Bible is an example of this fear.
    * Muslims siding with liberal secularists against the Judeo-Christian American mindset lets them attack Christians and American nationalists while saying, "See, we don't hate all religion, these monotheists (Muslims) agree with us, ban X". They don't care that Islam has a death penalty for atheists and secularists, which ISIS carries out directly and Saudi Arabia does indirection (2000 lashes). So they want to keep the alliance with Islam for local political reasons.
    * Using the label "political extremist" in place of Islam lets them attack the Tea Party as a potential equivalent terrorist group to ISIS, all while saying you're fighting the extremism Islam reprsents.

    1. tsadjatko profile image53
      tsadjatkoposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Right on Tamara! I don't see your hub on “Still the Best Hope” by Dennis Prager you mentioned but I'm a fan of Dennis Prager's. Excellent points!

  4. profile image59
    peter565posted 2 years ago

    Well according to all the timeless war menu, Obama is making all the right move and it have proven to be more effective then George Bush
    (1) By making good with Middle Eastern nation, Obama, allow decreasing the distance of supply, by allowing US troops, to keep a lot of supply in nearby ally nation, thus make it cheaper to supply US troops. Both Sun Tuz and Napoleon speak of the importance of decreasing the traveling distance between supply and troops, to be cost effective.
    (2) George Bush's offensive strategy also have lots of problem.

    The policy of war, must be to keep ur nation in one piece, otherwise, even if u won the war, ur nation is still damage, thus no real winner, the best way, is to try defeat ur enemy without fighting, if u need to fight taking enemy soil by force, is hard. And we have seen it again and again in history, American revolution War is a best example. U should try avoid a long war, because it will cause the army tire. Bush open multiple battlefied at once, when not necessary, causing US resource to be divided and is one of the reason that cause the war to last for so long.

    When trying to take enemy soil, it is better to starve them out of the war via, economic sanction or have them surrounded. Not an all out assault. George Bushed used all out assault, and as a result, during his term in office, US force can't secure Iraq, insurgent was everywhere and soldiers can't tell the difference between civilian and enemy troops till too late. Obama, use the surrounding strategy, partnering with Middle Eastern and NATO allies, thus, everybody outside the surrounding circle is our, the ones inside are ISIS. It is more effective and till date, no US troops have died, under Obama's strategy, not to mention it is cheaper, to have a front line then having ur enemy everywhere, surrounding u and because ISIS can't get out of the surrounding circle, parts of Iraq outside the circle is recovering from the war.

    1. bradmasterOCcal profile image43
      bradmasterOCcalposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      ISIS didn't exist until Obama came into office. ISIS isn't the only terrorist organization in the region.

    2. tsadjatko profile image53
      tsadjatkoposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Obama's not trying to take enemy soil.The US could have wiped out ISIS in the bud in a few weeks before they became a threat.Instead we now suffered years of innocents being slaughtered all over the world because BO was thinking HS sports.

 
working