President Obama's fault?

That area of the world has known conflict before there even was such a thing as "The West".

It' a region that has been in endless turmoil not just for decades, but long before that.

And it seems that never does it end, nor will it ever end.

Sometimes I think that this image below is the only solution:



but then I think that's most likely the easy way.

I really have no answer. Any action by us (and I mean the western world) never seems to solve anything, and as the OP stated: makes people hate you even more.

a reply to: eriktheawful

Yeah, but back then they were fighting amongst themselves for territorial control.

Now they all have a common enemy.... us.

a reply to: anon72

You make it sound so easy!


What you're implying, at least what I think you're implying, is that Obama could make ISIS disappear with a click of his fingers, but chooses not to.

That's BS, and you know it, the occupation of Iraq barely worked, in fact it can be argued that it didn't work at all, hence why we're here! It took a decade to wrest control from poorly equipped, trained and led insurgents.

How easy do you really think it will be against ISIS?

They have over $2 billion behind them, along with a strong revenue stream, are better equipped and better led.

Obama is saving lives by not just diving in with armed forces.

No doubt something needs to happen, and it will.

And things are happening, saying he's done nothing is a lie. We just don't know what they're doing...mostly, there would be small platoons on the ground already gathering intel..how do you think they knew where to hit the targets with airstrikes?

There would be moves already in play to cut their revenue stream too.

a reply to: AlphaHawk

$2 billion shared among 7000 guys.

If it's true, the math is amazing.

a reply to: anon72

"When one of the most powerful men in the world stands by an does nothing while American citizens get their heads cut off.... "

The obvious question is what should Obama do?

Please tell me.

a reply to: beezzer

Hello beezzer,

I don't believe that you finished your post.

Certainly Obama is responsible, but what should he do?

a reply to: beezzer

"That's why the job pays so well and has such a tough interview process.
If it were easy, an idiot coul-. . . . . never mind."

In this case it is hard to argue with "never mind."

originally posted by: Yeahkeepwatchingme
He's not doing anything for a reason. I think something big is about to happen and they know it.

And that is the monster in the closet. We don't know what is actually in the closet, but we do know we are afraid of it.

Obama used Isis/ISIL in Syria to attempt to hasten the fall of the Assad regime, because he was unwilling to directly intervene in the civil war that had turned into brutal genocide, his red lines moved back and faded away.. There is some twisted irony in how his administration seems to have created an even worse monster in Syria, and his same reluctance to get directly involved allowed them to rise in power, and become what they are now... So in many ways yes, he is responsible.

Problem is, it may be way too big of a problem to contain now. But that doesn't mean you sit back and do as little as possible... That has been proven here.

If he can't lead, then he should step down now.

imo

a reply to: ausername

Assad used ISIS to weaken the FSA and Al Nusra in Syria...

See it can be spun both ways...

a reply to: AlphaHawk

You can spin it however you like. In the end, the spin is irrelevant.

Perhaps the true masterminds behind Isis, and other Islamic terrorist groups is that they were able to exploit all sides in this, including the USA, and Obama's administration.... Too hard to believe they could be that clever?

I'm certain they have much greater plans beyond this latest incarnation.

imo