Due September 29, 2014 | hussibhoa

Skip to content

“Hunter Huss IB Readings”

September 23, 2014 Due September 29, 2014

The USA has just begun bombing ISIS targets within the nation of Syria. Read the following articles, cite them to answer the question: Should the US be doing this bombing? What are the risks?

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2014/09/obama_s_strategy_for_attacking_isis_it_s_a_good_plan_that_could_easily_fall.html

http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/11/opinion/kohn-isis-obama/

127 comments
Posted under Uncategorized

Write a new comment 127 comments

Permalink # lamexicana96 said

We kill people who kill people because killing people is wrong.

[I’ll do the post later, but that is the simplest reason for the bombing]

Reply
- Permalink # David Noblitt said
  
  LOL that pretty much sums it up
  
  Reply
  - Permalink # lamexicana96 said
    
    I almost cited the articles for that lol
- Permalink # lamexicana96 said
  
  quotes that suport that statement:
  
  – “air strikes will no longer be restricted to areas where ISIS poses a threat to U.S. personnel. Instead, they can strafe and bomb ISIS targets anywhere in Iraq, coordinating the strikes with assaults on the ground by Iraqi soldiers, militias, or Kurdish peshmerga.”
  – “these air strikes will take out ISIS jihadists not only in Iraq but also across the border in Syria.”
  – “U.S. air strikes in Syria will be clustered along the Iraqi border, to keep ISIS jihadists from moving back and forth between the countries or from seeking safe haven—in much the same way that drones were fired at northwest Pakistan to deny safe haven to Taliban who’d been fighting in Afghanistan.”
  http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2014/09/obama_s_strategy_for_attacking_isis_it_s_a_good_plan_that_could_easily_fall.html
  
  why we should help people instead of killing people:
  
  “1. U.S. intervention is what destabilized Iraq in the first place — and more bombing will likely make Iraq less stable.
  2. Airstrikes won’t destroy radical ideology, they’ll make it worse.
  3. There is no direct threat to the United States.”
  http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/11/opinion/kohn-isis-obama/
  
  and what we need to do to help:
  “1. Cut access to guns and money.
  2. Fix Iraq’s political rifts.
  3. Provide humanitarian assistance.
  4. Lead a truly international response.”
  http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/11/opinion/kohn-isis-obama/
  
  Reply
Permalink # joeldanae said

There is really no other way to handle a situation with other countries other than bombing them or going to war with them. This is all we know how to do and this is how we get other countries to cooperate with us and also our president and government. If anything could go wrong, then everything will. “So, the cause is just, and Obama’s plan sounds reasonable, even nuanced. What could go wrong? Well, as anyone who’s studied the region (and the cavalier predictions made, time and again, by Westerners who go to war there), everything.” If you are aiming to bomb one specific section, then most likely you will destroy everything around it, its by popular demand. “The plan has a chance of succeeding in Iraq because the new government, formed by Haider al-Abadi, seems inclusive, embraced by Sunnis and Shiites, for the moment—but it could fall apart with the bombing of a single mosque or a marketplace, and then what?” http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2014/09/obama_s_strategy_for_attacking_isis_it_s_a_good_plan_that_could_easily_fall.html Many countries are upset because President Obama has decided to take action and go to war with Syria. But if other people had to decide what to do with this country and how to handle a certain situation dealing with another country and also ours, they would easily give the job to someone else because they didn’t want anyone to blame them for the decision they have made either way it goes. “4. Lead a truly international response.” “Obama’s critics want him to act tough in the face of ISIS. But if acting tough by bombing ISIS doesn’t solve the problem — and makes the threat worse — then acting tough is stupid. Diplomacy may not have the same sexy veneer as aggressive military action, but if diplomacy could actually help the Syrian and Iraqi people and make the world safer, isn’t that what counts?”http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/11/opinion/kohn-isis-obama/ People talk about how the president doesn’t know what he’s doing and how horrible he is at presidency, but look at all the previous presidents. Barack Obama is doing his job just like everyone who was elected before him, they just look at the color of his skin and go off of stereotypes about his race but don’t look at him for the good and also the bad he’s doing. But congress and the government are the main people who approve or disapprove the decisions for Obama and consult with him about his decision. I believe that going to war is going tot solve conflicts between the two and if it doesn’t solve anything and “knock on wood” makes it worse, then we don’t have the president to blame, we have the government to blame.

Reply
- Permalink # James Johnson said
  
  Is it our place to become the moderator of the globe? According to the Monroe Doctrine, it’s not. Why must we be the ones to take action? Do you understand what happened in Afghanistan, Libya, and Iraq? We destroyed their infrastructure and created more chaos. This allowed for other militant groups to take over. The same thing will happen with ISIS. “The only thing we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history.” – Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel
  
  Reply
- Permalink # James Johnson said
  
  By the time Nobble Wobble is through with you, you will understand these concepts. Thus opening your mind.
  
  Reply
- Permalink # James Johnson said
  
  Also your comments on Obama is totally irrelevant, because he is doing what the conservatives want. The liberals do not agree with the decision, but they generally aren’t the type to make close minded comments about race.
  
  Reply
  - Permalink # David Noblitt said
    
    Actually bipartisan support, though most Democracts in Congress are not really “liberal” by the historical definition of the term and very few are progressive.
Permalink # brooksdeanna0530 said

Should the US be doing this bombing? What are the risks? The first thing that comes to mind before I even open any of these articles: COLLATERAL DAMAGE! ““We will not get dragged into another ground war in Iraq,” he insisted in his televised speech Wednesday night. Instead, this will be a war where others—mainly Iraqi soldiers—fight on the ground, while American advisers devise the battle plans and American pilots pummel the enemy with missiles and bombs.”
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2014/09/obama_s_strategy_for_attacking_isis_it_s_a_good_plan_that_could_easily_fall.html Correct me if I am wrong, but weren’t we (Americans) just suppose to be advisors of the Vietnam war? Could we ever just be advisors or won’t we always want to swoop in with our ‘big bad military.’ As I follow this issue it has also been said by the guy “who knows ISIS best” that we are underestimating the power of ISIS, and that ISIS brings in 6 million dollars a day. Also, ISIS directly said “We are coming for you Barack Obama.” “Obama, never prone to hype, made clear in his speech that the ISIS jihadists don’t yet pose as big a threat as al-Qaida did 13 years ago, on the eve of the World Trade Center attacks. But they are on a rampage, amassing fortunes, acquiring arsenals” http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2014/09/obama_s_strategy_for_attacking_isis_it_s_a_good_plan_that_could_easily_fall.html This shows how we can’t hold off that we need to take action before ISIS gains to much power, they have the ability to gain enormous amounts of power, and possibly destroy what we know as the world around us. In a group of about 400 people, you would only have about 10-12 survivors. “It should be noted that ISIS has access to weapons because U.S. and Saudi weapons have been flooding the region for over a decade. The United States can take steps to shut down the weapons supply routes that ISIS is relying on. This is the opposite of what Obama has outlined as a strategy in Syria and Iraq. The U.S. also needs to re-evaluate its broader arms policy” http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/11/opinion/kohn-isis-obama/
Should US be doing this bombing, right now, I think they have options they should be taking such as attempting to limit ISIS’s access to guns, but when an organization that big and determined doesn’t have what they need they won’t give up until they get it. They need to be looking for permanent solutions, even if it’s an occasional bombing, but they should also try to limit the collateral damage. I understand you can’t lose your chance to eliminate an organization such as ISIS, but I also believe that children and people around that area don’t deserve to die to capture the enemy. Yes, you will say they will continue to kill if you don’t get them, but I believe a rescue mission should be in play as well, especially when going as far as bombing a place.
The risks I believe: COLLATERAL DAMAGE, political issue, also the risk that is we don’t get ISIS, they made a threat against our leader, whether we like him or not, he is our leader, and we need for him to stay in office, it would cause more of an issue with him being killed or (whatever there plan for him might be), than the political problems, and the power they would have if they got into our government.

Reply
Permalink # James Johnson said

Does bombing actually help? Yes, it kills the alleged dangerous terrorists. I can agree with that. But due to these bombings, recruitment rates are at an all time high. How does one bomb another country and not be considered a terrorist? Are we the actual terrorists? We are creating mini-9/11’s all over their “country”. Of course that’s going to anger the residents of the state. It’s not hard to create propaganda about our country, because we give them the stories ourselves. When 9/11 happened, Christians were going crazy about how Muslims wanted to kill all the Christians. It’s the opposite way around with our bombings. Islamic citizens are under the impression that Christians want to end their religion. But can you blame them?

Reply
- Permalink # David Noblitt said
  
  I think religion is more of a component of this than most people want to admit, so good point made.
  
  Reply
Permalink # James Johnson said

I actually had to debate this in my government and politics class. The professor told everyone in favor to go to one side of the room, and everyone against to go to the other side. I was one of three on the arguing against side. It was basically me debating the entire class myself. I got nine people to swap sides. So if anyone want’s to try and give a good argument for it, I’ll provide the counterargument. Do it at your own risk though. In other words, I’m calling you out.

Reply
Permalink # chrisbonilla0430 said

Bombing ISIS should not be occurring for any reason. This will eventually lead to even more problems that will, at the end of the day, worsen the whole situation. “We will not get dragged into another ground war in Iraq,” says Obama. (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2014/09/obama_s_strategy_for_attacking_isis_it_s_a_good_plan_that_could_easily_fall.html) This is what is going to happen. Bombing Syria will only cause for hate from ISIS and increase their drive to create more troubles. Obama wants to the Turkish, the Saudis, and the Europeans to participate in the destruction of ISIS. If this happens, which it most likely will, more countries are going to get involved in the situation and eventually cause a war to outbreak. “1. Cut access to guns and money….2. Fix Iraq’s political rifts….3. Provide humanitarian assistance….4. Lead a truly international response.” (http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/11/opinion/kohn-isis-obama/) The writer of this article, Sally Kohn, points out other options that could be used instead of bombing. These are legitimate directions that could and need to be used. By shutting down the weapons supply that ISIS has available limits their amounts of weaponry. Using another country that is close to Syria can be used to influence them in a political way. United States needs to create refugee camps for does how have fled and need protection. Finally, as Kohn says, Obama essentially needs the cooperation of other countries to come up with a diplomatic solution. Bombing is not the best choice, Obama needs to do something else that does not involve violence.

Reply
- Permalink # ashtondrake32 said
  
  Bombing may not be the best choice but why wait and possibly find out the hard way that they won’t stop. When you can eliminate the problem now and it not be one latter??
  
  Reply
Permalink # christianfralick said

I don’t see why turning to military force against ISIS would be a rational solution. That being said, I’m not saying “hey guys, it’s none of our business. We aren’t the world police”. In this case I feel that intervention from the US is needed, but not in the form of bombings. I feel that people don’t see what the problem is exactly. It’s not as if it’s situation of eradicating a species, but rather an ideology. An ideology that exists based on a perception that we are now directly supporting by using more force. Now obviously there is a religious reason for what they do (through their own perception of how to conduct a religious duty), but a major influence for people being recruited is the fact that we have made it easy for them to see us as the bad guys. “In 2006, the classified National Intelligence Estimate found that the 2003 U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq helped create a new generation of terrorists and increased the overall terrorism threat against America.”
http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/11/opinion/kohn-isis-obama/
Obama insists that we need to understand that this will be different than the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan because the risk of losing American lives will be low. I can understand that, based on the fact that the role of Americans will not be in a direct fight with any radicals. But, none of this makes a difference to ISIS at all. The main point I am stressing is that ISIS and groups like it exist partially due to what we have done to people in the past. Conducting more bombings runs a serious risk because it will only convince more people that we are intolerant world powers looking for a reason to use our guns. Not only will in increase this radical hatred mentallity, but why do we need to do it? It’s not as if they are a direct threat to us as of this moment. Once again I do believe the time is now to intervene, but through peaceful resolves. Reduce access to weapons, and absolutely we need to help the refugees that have been ran out of their homes. Instead we choose to resort to military action, and train the FSA. “Once they’re trained and armed, the FSA will return to Syria and—with the help of U.S. air strikes—take back their own territory from ISIS.”
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2014/09/obama_s_strategy_for_attacking_isis_it_s_a_good_plan_that_could_easily_fall.html
Sounds simple enough. But it also sounds like a fantasy. Yes they do need to be able to take control of their own people, but I can’t see this being as easy as it is made out to be. I feel we run a huge risk doing this. I think this is going to be a very long effort and will continue even after we have elected a new president. With that in mind I feel that if we push, it will cause more of an outrage causing more danger. To the point where eventually this will result in a war resembling that of the ones in Iraq and Afghanistan. If not called on by Obama then his succeeder. The motives of these extremists are far greater than anything we can observe. We see this as taking out the bad guys, while they see us as wrongfully commiting genocide against them and their religion. You can’t really blame them for seeing it that way either. They were raised into a way of thinking that they see to be absolutley true and we are only fueling this to happen for many more generations of their people. Positive and peaceful acts of resolution is what we need as of now. There is no direct threat to US soil, so I don’t see the point in killing multiple civillians in an attempt to eradicate an ideological group of people. People backing this solution are unaware of the motives of ISIS and fail to realize that this only worsens the situation. ” Our invasion of Iraq and the installation of Nuri al-Malaki as prime minister reignited deep sectarian tensions and created a power vacuum into which ISIS stepped. You can’t save a country by destroying it. A bombing campaign that is perceived as taking the side of Shia Muslims while undoubtedly decimating communities and killing civilians will only worsen Iraq’s instability.”
http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/11/opinion/kohn-isis-obama/

Reply
Permalink # christopherdavis429 said

I believe that the US shouldn’t be bombing but instead, making a peaceful negotiation. I agree that President Obama can fight Isis without bombs. Instead they should shut down the weapon supply route that Isis is using.The airstrikes and bombings obviously wont work, because terrorist groups never really die out, instead over time they take on a new identity and rename themselves. “What we won’t hear enough of are the voices of the opposition — those who argue that military action will not get rid of ISIS but make the situation worse in Iraq and Syria.” which is completely true. One of the many risks are that hundreds or even thousands of innocent lives could be killed. The number of anti Americans/terrorists will increase. The bombing will also make Iraq more unstable than it already is. http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/11/opinion/kohn-isis-obama/

Reply
- Permalink # zhalenr said
  
  Should the US be doing this bombing? What are the risks?
  This question was sort of difficult for me to answer. I don’t really believe in taking anyone else’s life. We all have a purpose in life, that’s just what I believe. However, I understand that something should be done if other countries try to harm us. I would just say I’m not against war but I am not for it either. I like what another student said on their blog about making a “peaceful negotiation”. One of the articles said “What we won’t hear enough of are the voices of the opposition — those who argue that military action will not get rid of ISIS but make the situation worse in Iraq and Syria.” (http://WWW.CNN.COM/2014/09/11/OPINION/KOHN-ISIS-OBAMA/) Bombing another country will lead to other problems. In my opinion I think it will lead to “revenge”. We will get them, then they will get us, so on and so on. When will it ever end? Is bombing each other the answer? No, I don’t think so. If you bomb another country you have to think about all the children you are killing, all the innocent people that hasn’t done anything wrong. So the risk is killing innocent people and causes revenge to continue on and on. So many people say “I don’t support violence” but they agree with bombing another country. I don’t understand that. I don’t think it’s our job to punish another country, you all know who’s job I think that is (God). If we bomb ISIS imagine how many countries would be coming for us. Think about that! So peace is the answer for me, we don’t have to result into bombing other countries.
  
  Reply
Permalink # ramseybrooke said

Honestly I don’t feel I know enough about this subject to comment on whether it’s right or wrong.
“When we see Yazidi refugees being slaughtered and American journalists being beheaded, of course our humanity calls for action. But those beating the drums of war have made assertions that ISIS poses a direct threat to American soil. This is simply not true. Even while playing up potential future threats to the homeland to justify military actions — thus essentially embracing President George W. Bush’s pre-emption doctrine — the Obama administration reports ISIS currently poses no threat to the United States.”(http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/11/opinion/kohn-isis-obama/). From reading that on the blog, apparently there is no reason to be bombing ISIS. I understand like sending troops to fight if we need to but I don’t think bombing is the answer. I know I wouldn’t want a country to try to bomb us. But apparently Obama doesn’t want to be back at war in Iraq, which I guess is understandable. “We will not get dragged into another ground war in Iraq,” he insisted in his televised speech Wednesday night.(http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/11/opinion/kohn-isis-obama/)
Some risks include; innocent civilians getting and possible bombing on us. I wouldn’t want a country to be bombing us.

Reply
Permalink # zhalenr said

Should the US be doing this bombing? What are the risks?
This question was sort of difficult for me to answer. I don’t really believe in taking anyone else’s life. We all have a purpose in life, that’s just what I believe. However, I understand that something should be done if other countries try to harm us. I would just say I’m not against war but I am not for it either. I like what another student said on their blog about making a “peaceful negotiation”. One of the articles said “What we won’t hear enough of are the voices of the opposition — those who argue that military action will not get rid of ISIS but make the situation worse in Iraq and Syria.” (http://WWW.CNN.COM/2014/09/11/OPINION/KOHN-ISIS-OBAMA/) Bombing another country will lead to other problems. In my opinion I think it will lead to “revenge”. We will get them, then they will get us, so on and so on. When will it ever end? Is bombing each other the answer? No, I don’t think so. If you bomb another country you have to think about all the children you are killing, all the innocent people that hasn’t done anything wrong. So the risk is killing innocent people and causes revenge to continue on and on. So many people say “I don’t support violence” but they agree with bombing another country. I don’t understand that. I don’t think it’s our job to punish another country, you all know who’s job I think that is (God). If we bomb ISIS imagine how many countries would be coming for us. Think about that! So peace is the answer for me, we don’t have to result into bombing other countries.

Reply
- Permalink # James Johnson said
  
  If God takes life, does that make him an Indian giver?
  
  Reply
  - Permalink # noblitt said
    
    Haha score Wilhelm I
  - Permalink # zhalenr said
    
    @JAMESJOHNSON , No I’m not saying God is an “Indian Giver”. But He dose have the power to take a life. The bible says that God is a jealous god. It also not to put any other god before him. That is what ISIS have been doing. That is why said in my blog that he will take care of them. We don’t have to bomb them. Nothing goes unnoticed by God. .
Permalink # taylorwatkins said

I don’t think that the U.S. should be doing the bombing over Syria. I don’t believe that it is our place and we should not get involved in another war. “Now, in the cruelest irony, the gusts are pulling him back to the very land where he least wants to set foot again, the warzone that he spent most of his first term leaving: Iraq.” (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2014/09/obama_s_strategy_for_attacking_isis_it_s_a_good_plan_that_could_easily_fall.html)
I can understand Obama’s reasoning for not wanting to get into another war since he did spend almost four years trying to sort out the war in Iraq. But I can also understand that he has to do what he has to do to make politicians happy.
If we are in no direct threat from ISIS then I think that is even more of a reason not to start bombing Syria. “There is no direct threat to the United States” (http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/11/opinion/kohn-isis-obama/).
The United States should just mind there own business and not intrude within other people and cause more tensions and more anger between different countries.

Reply
Permalink # hopehayes said

should the us be bombing isis? this isnt really a question i feel certain about answering with yes or no. i think obama is doing what he thinks is best with out putting american solidars in another war on the ground. ” We will not get dragged into another ground war in Iraq” http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2014/09/obama_s_strategy_for_attacking_isis_it_s_a_good_plan_that_could_easily_fall.htm
Although i feel like it might cause more problems for america. if we are killing there people they will want to kill ours. another terriost attack is possible from this. “Most would-be terrorists don’t wake up one morning and suddenly decide to hate America. Often, there’s a reason.” http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/11/opinion/kohn-isis-obama/
i feel like their is other options we could do besides bombing.

Reply
Permalink # kiannamartin said

Should the US be doing this bombing? I personally do not believe that the US should be bombing in Iraq. I think they should get the Iraqis military to get the ISIS members in their custody and handle it themselves. There wasn’t any direct threat to the US anyway so why get involved. In the first article the author stated that President Obama said, “that this war will go on for a while; his advisers were recently quoted as saying at least three years.” We don’t need to continuously get involved in wars all the time. Its putting the US into more debt and killing more of our men. In the second article the author said, “What we won’t hear enough of are the voices of the opposition — those who argue that military action will not get rid of ISIS but make the situation worse in Iraq and Syria.” I believe in what the author is saying because i do think it will make things worse in Iraq. The risks of these bombings are that its killing several bystanders and most likely our American men.
(http://WWW.SLATE.COM/ARTICLES/NEWS_AND_POLITICS/WAR_STORIES/2014/09/OBAMA_S_STRATEGY_FOR_ATTACKING_ISIS_IT_S_A_GOOD_PLAN_THAT_COULD_EASILY_FALL.HTML)

(http://WWW.CNN.COM/2014/09/11/OPINION/KOHN-ISIS-OBAMA/)

Reply
Permalink # erindmcmanus said

Should the US be doing this bombing? I’m kind of on the fence about whether or not I support Obamas decision to bomb ISIS. Personally I really don’t see the point in it because it doesn’t fully put a halt to ISIS however it does slow ISIS down and limit their ability to spread although it does kill innocent people but how many other innocent people have died because of something like this… Kind of like what we’ve said in class a million times… Wrong place wrong time or vice versa. I completely agree with the statement that “lamexicana96” made that says “we kill people who kill people because killing people is wrong”. It really is just a full explanation of the entire situation itself. Personally I really don’t think “peace negotiation” always solves the problems. I feel that America should help but then again, why even get involved… I’m indecisive.
“Obama is well aware that air strikes alone don’t produce victory. They need to be synchronized with ground assaults. And for now, there are no ground forces in Syria that can beat back ISIS.” Obama isn’t expecting to get a victory out of just bombing them. This should just be taken a step at a time. If Syria ultimately cannot control ISIS we cannot sit back and let ISIS to continue to spread.
( http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/wars_stories/2014/09/obama_s_stradegy_for_attacking_isis_it_s_a_good_plan_that_could_easily_fall.html )

Reply
Permalink # geraldinmartinez015 said

“Should the US be doing this bombing? What are the risks?” The first thing that comes to mind as I hear obama’s decision about bombing ISIS is if America feel threatened then we should take action right away because another attack like 9/11 we should prevent that from happening again. Honestly I really don’t know what’s going on because I haven’t been in class for 2 weeks now and I really don’t watch the news. But from the article I read and the video I watched about this theat that the USA has received a part of me agree with obama’s decision and another part of me disagree. I agree because I believe we should take all action to protect the Americans and this innocent people that have nothing to do with it. And I disagree because I also believe that killing is wrong and a “sin”. However violence is always going to be around and people now days don’t do nothing about it,it’s really sad but true. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2014/09/obama_s_strategy_for_attacking_isis_it_s_a_good_plan_that_could_easily_fall.html
The risk about bombing another country is mainly what we call the ” payback” because as others would do they would bomb us back as a response to us. They are not going to keep there hands cross on something like this just like we wouldn’t. So I think that’s the main risk that America has to take as if to bomb another fellow country.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/11/opinion/kohn-isis-obama/

Reply
Permalink # geraldinmartinez015 said

I miss you mr.noblitt (: can’t wait to be back. I hope I’m not missing anything! I hope you miss having me in class as well! See you(:

Reply
- Permalink # noblitt said
  
  Of course I miss you in class. I’m keeping up with you, glad the baby is doing well too. You are missing some stuff but do the reading assignments and it will be easy to catch up
  
  Reply
Permalink # fransiscovera said

I don’t believe in the bombing of U.S. in Syria due to “A bombing campaign that is perceived as taking the side of Shia Muslims while undoubtedly decimating communities and killing civilians will only worsen Iraq’s instability.” http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/11/opinion/kohn-isis-obama/ and I truly stand with it. For real, are actions are only making things worse for the people in Iraq and Syria. “Most would-be terrorists don’t wake up one morning and suddenly decide to hate America. Often, there’s a reason. In 2006, the classified National Intelligence Estimate found that the 2003 U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq helped create a new generation of terrorists and increased the overall terrorism threat against America. More American military action in the Middle East will just inflame more anti-American terrorists — which perversely only strengthens the ideology that fuels ISIS and other terrorist groups.” http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/11/opinion/kohn-isis-obama/ This quote really does prove that our actions are having a bad outcome unlike what we predicted. Really, in my opinion, my pride is something I can throw away if necessary if its for a good cause, “Obama’s critics want him to act tough in the face of ISIS. But if acting tough by bombing ISIS doesn’t solve the problem — and makes the threat worse — then acting tough is stupid. Diplomacy may not have the same sexy veneer as aggressive military action, but if diplomacy could actually help the Syrian and Iraqi people and make the world safer, isn’t that what counts?” http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/11/opinion/kohn-isis-obama/ . Some may think that bombing is good since it crumbles the ISIS organization but that only fuels the propaganda for ISIS to use to recruit new members and then they make up the people we killed from our bombing. Others may think that diplomatic approaches are no good either since we don’t and never will compromise with terrorist’s, but we don’t have to reason with them but to the people that ISIS is branching off too. If we reason with the people to justify their rights and there needs instead of ours really, then they’ll support us and be able to resist the ISIS. By doing so I believe we can cut off the resources of ISIS and let it crumble from the inside out instead of the outside in. “We don’t need a coalition of the willing or a coalition of the killing. We need a coalition of nations that will help put Iraq on firm political and cultural footing and restart real negotiations in Syria involving all parties in the crisis there. The United States should work through the United Nations and seek diplomatic solutions through a broad coalition of nations.” http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/11/opinion/kohn-isis-obama/

Reply
Permalink # jaybyrd40 said

Honestly this is one of the harder statements I have had to make on a blog post specifically because I just can’t decide how I feel. I don’t know if bombing is what we should do or if we should do something else or if we shouldn’t do anything at all. I feel like there is no better option than the other and no logical way to decide other than a blind guess so to speak. I do like the quote that Noblitt said in class and what Meli said in the first comment, “We kill people who kill people because killing people is wrong.” because of the irony in it. But I still don’t know if it should be taken as a sarcastic statement supporting nonviolence or if it should actually be taken seriously and ultimately support bombing. I do think that if I had to decide on what to do I would have to either use an alternate option to bombing or simply just be patient with our actions. I wouldn’t want to wait too long to where we are forced to react after something bad happens to us and ISIS becomes a threat but as the second article states, “There is no direct threat to the United States” and goes into further detail about in the paragraph. I feel that there is no reason to step in and get ourselves involved without necessary reason. Although we are the world power I don’t feel like we should be held responsible to instill our power on every worldly situation. I feel that in some instances for the better of our own country it is better to be selfish and simply focus on our own problems. Although we could break up a fight in an act of good cause we could ultimately instigate something larger. The second article talks about how our actions could create more instability and a larger problem than the one to begin with. In conclusion, I am torn to say that we should watch silently and possibly worsen our reputation as these horrifying acts of violence go on in hope they will dissolve as we defend and protect our own people but be ready to step in once an obvious line is crossed forcing our hand so to speak. I really just don’t know which is why I am a high school student and not in politics hopefully our leaders can make the best decision, whatever it may be, that we won’t regret as a country and just as mankind.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/11/opinion/kohn-isis-obama/

Reply
- Permalink # noblitt said
  
  Wow, you’ve turned into a serious intellect, here and in class.
  
  Reply
Permalink # slademoss said

Should the US be doing the bombing? Sure we should. A terrorist organization threatening the safety of our American people should be stopped. I think it is kind of funny that our president didn’t really care about the ISIS organization until they threatened him, but hey that’s none of my business. However, the idea of working with the Iraqian government when it comes to the airstrikes isn’t a bad idea. This lets the government take back their land and their people, but I disagree with the idea about training their people to fight ISIS on the ground. “Another part of Obama’s strategy (and he did outline this in his speech) is to train and equip the Free Syrian Army, the more moderate militiamen currently being squeezed both by ISIS and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. (They’ll be trained by special forces on a base in Saudi Arabia.) Once they’re trained and armed, the FSA will return to Syria and—with the help of U.S. air strikes—take back their own territory from ISIS.”

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2014/09/obama_s_strategy_for_attacking_isis_it_s_a_good_plan_that_could_easily_fall.html

Whats the risk? The risk with bombing is that we could just stir the problems we had in the middle east right back up along with some new ones. Also, the risk in training these people is simply that we did the same thing around the 1970s. We trained people in Iraq called the Mujahideen to help them hold their ground against Russia. Years later these same people we trained became the group know as the Taliban or Al-Qaeda. Then they took their superior training and funding provided by us and took over their own people. Then we ended up with in a war with these people we trained for over ten years. Do you see the problem with this?

http://WWW.CNN.COM/2014/09/11/OPINION/KOHN-ISIS-OBAMA/

Reply
- Permalink # noblitt said
  
  Afghanistan in 79 to 86 ussr invasion. Iraq was preoccupied in war with Iran, which we funded both sides. But good point about training bin laden to fight the soviets. Watch Charlie Wilson’s war, Tom hanks always good.
  
  Reply
Permalink # hcbumgardner9 said

Just like Sally Kohn says in article two, “You can’t save a country by destroying it.” The bombing of Syria to destroy ISIS is not an effective solution the problem. Bombing another country brings about many more threats towards the US which isn’t what America needs.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2014/09/obama_s_strategy_for_attacking_isis_it_s_a_good_plan_that_could_easily_fall.html

http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/11/opinion/kohn-isis-obama/

Reply
Permalink # yaboyjulio said

The good ole middle east. They love weapons, and so do we. They like blowing up things, and apparently we do too. I think Obama is doing the right thing. If there was an easier solution then we would have solved this already, and by the looks of things there isn’t. Killing the enemy is the main focus right now. Obama is bombing ISIS sites because they have killed some of our people, and they have killed many of their people. Obama is sending threats. If all goes well, and he destroys ISIS then I think everything will be fine. If he doesn’t come out successful there will be problems. ISIS could grow more powerful and possibly threaten our nation even more. This terror is slowly growing and learning. This is why we are bombing them so we dont have to deal with them later at a bigger scale.

Obama in his speech said; “…ISIS jihadists don’t yet pose as big a threat as al-Qaida did 13 years ago, on the eve of the World Trade Center attacks. But they are on a rampage, amassing fortunes, acquiring arsenals, led by competent commanders…” This means we should stop them now before they become more powerful. This group could become the next al-Qaida, and I’m pretty sure we don’t want that.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2014/09/obama_s_strategy_for_attacking_isis_it_s_a_good_plan_that_could_easily_fall.html

Overall I think Obama’s plan will work. We will beat this small terror group and bring some peace to the middle east.

Reply
- Permalink # James Johnson said
  
  Killing them isn’t the answer. The more you kill, the more people they recruit. For example if we kill 20, they will be able to recruit 40 more people. Thus the group’s numbers will continue being stable. We are digging ourselves into a deeper hole. Even if we were able to wipe them out in one drone strike, there will always be a group ready to take over. An example of this would be the people we are currently funding. Were actually funding Syrian opposition. The Syrian opposition are for overturning the current government of Syria. We have been funding this “terrorist” group so that they can over throw the Syrian government. After they are successful, what happens next? The killing of more innocent people, and another oppressive government. Another thing I don’t see people talking about is how other Countries are going to react to us funding/getting involved. Everything is going to connect like a spider’s web. If my sources are correct, it looks as if Russia is also joining the coalition against ISIS. The complications of this is that they are funding the current Syrian government. Are they willing to help the Syrian rebels? All in all, they are trying to protect interest; helping against ISIS does protect those interests. This will give them leverage when it comes to their invasion on Crimea. Thus they gain more influence (because they already have a ton influence in Iraq and Syria) in these regions. I don’t think this will help the US’s relations with Russia. I’m making this argument because once the US gets involved, there is a domino effect leading to all the major powers getting involved. Of course that came out as “The US is the Global Leaders of the World”. But it’s not like that. Countries will see that we are making a move, and they will want to make a move as well. This is insurance to protect interests.
  
  http://hotair.com/archives/2014/09/26/russia-to-join-coalition-against-isis-in-iraq/
  
  http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/14/world/meast/isis-coalition-nations/
  
  http://www.economist.com/blogs/pomegranate/2013/09/syria-s-civil-war
  
  Reply
  - Permalink # James Johnson said
    
    Also I would like to mention that overall Russia does not agree with military involvement in Syria without the consent of the Syrian government. This violates the sovereignty of the nation. That will not stop them from protecting interests though. And this is also support for my claim that our involvement will lead to worse relations with Russia. We fund their enemies.
Permalink # daddyfolyfe said

Should the U.S. be doing this bombing? What are the risks? I believe we shouldn’t, but then again this country is all about war. We either cause it or end it. That’s how we get our “liberty” and “justice”. “We kill people who kill people because killing people is wrong.”, this statement goes deep. We do what we do because we believe it’s the right thing to do and it makes us a better country because we’re the U.S., so we do these things so other countries understand and cooperate with us. I also believe there are no risks. Like Mr. Noblitt said, “They got nothing”, ISIS has nothing they can use against us, except hostages. All we can do is bomb them and bon voyage, ISIS. BUT, it could be a hazard because ISIS emerged after al-Qaeda went down, so there’s a probability that ISIS could have a threatening organization before them that we’re oblivious about.

Reply
- Permalink # daddyfolyfe said
  
  As a conclusion I state that we should bomb Syria, despite that I don’t believe it’s right. Obama should just be straight up and stop being a lil’ whimp. I think he’s doing things that he believes will help the U.S. instead of doing things that will actually help this country.
  
  Reply
  - Permalink # James Johnson said
    
    Al-Qaeda hasn’t gone down. I would argue that we are actually funding them. We are helping the Free Syrian Army, and they are allies with Al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda may not be getting a lot of attention at the moment, but they are still a group out there.
  - Permalink # James Johnson said
    
    http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/25/world/meast/us-syria-rebel-agreement/
Permalink # James Johnson said

Can the next blog post be about “Money in Politics”? I’ll write it up if need be. Also I’m visiting your class during my Fall break. I’m excited to talk to all the upcoming college students, as well as speak with you in German.

Reply
- Permalink # noblitt said
  
  Sure, find a couple of articles. Looking forward to seeing you
  
  Reply
Permalink # shatonia4398 said

I don’t thin hat the U.S. should be doing this bombing. “What could go wrong? Well, as anyone who’s studied the region, everything.”http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2014/09/obama_s_strategy_for_attacking_isis_it_s_a_good_plan_that_could_easily_fall.html
The risk is that “Obama could step back from the terrain and focus again on Iraq.”http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2014/09/obama_s_strategy_for_attacking_isis_it_s_a_good_plan_that_could_easily_fall.html

Reply
- Permalink # James Johnson said
  
  Weak post
  
  Reply
Permalink # HARNOL URIBE said

I think Obama is doing the right thing. I don’t really think there would be another way to solve this. Obama is bombing ISIS because they have killed some of our people. If everything goes well, I really think everything is going to be fine. If he doesn’t succeed, then there will be some big problems. ISIS could become more powerful and threaten the nation even more. “…ISIS jihadists don’t yet pose as big a threat as al-Qaida did 13 years ago, on the eve of the World Trade Center attacks. But they are on a rampage, amassing fortunes, acquiring arsenals, led by competent commanders…” http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2014/09/obama_s_strategy_for_attacking_isis_it_s_a_good_plan_that_could_easily_fall.html

I think Obama’s plan will work. We need to stop terrorism. I think Obama has planned something that will work and bring peace.

Reply
- Permalink # James Johnson said
  
  I don’t understand where you guys are coming from. They are dangerous, but not to us. They are dangerous to our allies, and interests. The real reason we are attacking them is so that we make money. War is profit.
  
  Reply
Permalink # isabelchaparro said

For the past years the United States has been trying to stabilize the country of Iraq. By doing so the U.S military have been bombing the entire country to diminish the terrorist that put a threat to their people and to the United States. As we all recall one of the biggest terrorist groups that the U.S had to come across was the Al- Qaeda run by Osama-bin-Laden who in fact took refuge with the Taliban. Another political terrorist group who the United States went into war with . As the U.S government was trying their best to solve the problem of these dangerous groups they didn’t react until the September 11 attack in 2001. After this horrible and shocking event US military forces decided to kill and bomb the terrorist group.” In September, 2001, the U.S. placed significant pressure on the Taliban to turn over bin Laden and al-Qaeda in response to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks”
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/taliban.html#ixzz3EdEDmKQE
So yes, I do believe that the US should be bombing ISIS. ISIS has already been gaining power. “But they are on a rampage, amassing fortunes, acquiring arsenals, led by competent commanders (many of them Saddam Hussein’s former generals), playing on anti-Shiite (and anti-Western) sentiment among Sunni radicals. If they are allowed to take over Iraq and Syria, it’s fair to ask if Jordan and Saudi Arabia might be next. They are also recruiting European jihadists, who have passports that let them travel across the continent and into the United States. Clearly, they do pose a threat.” http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2014/09/obama_s_strategy_for_attacking_isis_it_s_a_good_plan_that_could_easily_fall.html.And its time to put a stop to it. The people in Iraq as much as in America want these groups to stop. They as much as us are tired of having people killed. Many people in Iraq want these terrorist groups to stop killing their family.
The only risk that the bombing may have an outcome of is that the country will once again have some destabilization but if the United Nations come together and try to help it will gain stabilization. “ 1. U.S. intervention is what destabilized Iraq in the first place — and more bombing will likely make Iraq less stable.
Our invasion of Iraq and the installation of Nuri al-Malaki as prime minister reignited deep sectarian tensions and created a power vacuum into which ISIS stepped. You can’t save a country by destroying it. A bombing campaign that is perceived as taking the side of Shia Muslims while undoubtedly decimating communities and killing civilians will only worsen Iraq’s instability.” http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/11/opinion/kohn-isis-obama/

Reply
Permalink # manningrebekah said

Should the US be doing this bombing? What are the risks?
I don’t think that violence is ever really answer or a solution. The bombing will only fuel the fire and make terrorists hate us more, like it says in the second article “Airstrikes won’t destroy radical ideology, they’ll make it worse” (CNN). The retaliation will be far beyond our imaginations.
I think the US should use the money and for lack of a better term “brain power” that would be used to do the bombing and use it to help people like it says in Kohn’s article “ Cut access to guns and money; Fix Iraq’s political rifts. Provide humanitarian assistance, Lead a truly international response.”
There’s no way a bombing can “end terrorism”. I think bombings will only increase recruitment; and eventually the terrorist group will just grow bigger and “better” and take new shape. Thus creating a problem far bigger than what we started with
http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/11/opinion/kohn-isis-obama/
(Sorry this is super short, I have tonnnnnsssss of other work)

Reply
Permalink # liza10297 said

I think that the US should not be bombing.I think the US should come in peace with them. I don’t think that bombing ISIS is going to solve the problem. “But if acting tough by bombing ISIS doesn’t solve the problem — and makes the threat worse — then acting tough is stupid. But if diplomacy could actually help the Syrian and Iraqi people and make the world safer, isn’t that what counts?” I believe that the president should stop solving problems with violence. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2014/09/obama_s_strategy_for_attacking_isis_it_s_a_good_plan_that_could_easily_fall.html
“Instead, they can strafe and bomb ISIS targets anywhere in Iraq, coordinating the strikes with assaults on the ground by Iraqi soldiers, militias, or Kurdish peshmerga.”we will have a lot of risks if we do bomb them. This will just cause more problems and a lot more Conflicts. And also how will the US look , we would look bad in other peoples eyes. We we’ll not be setting an example.This is just a bad idea and leave it as it is. http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/11/opinion/kohn-isis-obama/

Reply
- Permalink # ethanbullard said
  
  How do you suggest we make peace with ISIS?
  
  Reply
  - Permalink # James Johnson said
    
    This isn’t something that is simple enough to negotiate. Great post Ethan.
  - Permalink # ethanbullard said
    
    Thanks
Permalink # seth said

Ummm terrorism can’t be stopped and it will never be stopped. I think Obama is doing the right thing by taking action. He should just destroy the whole country while he is at it. Syria is nothing but problems to the world. In the future this terrorist group can become stronger which is why they need to be wiped out as quickly as possible. For the people that are saying that peace will come from this, there is no such thing as peace in the world we live in. The world will never be peaceful unless the human population is wiped out. What we are doing here is the correct thing to do.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2014/09/obama_s_strategy_for_attacking_isis_it_s_a_good_plan_that_could_easily_fall.html

Reply
Permalink # yleiva22 said

There is irony in what Obama plans to do: Americans bomb the ISIS terrorists, but in turn, Americans become the terrorists by bombing another country. However, there seems to be no other option. If we wait, perhaps we would be the ones attacked first. As any logical tactic, no one should act on defense, but should act on offense. People start blaming Obama for this, but as one article states he “now, in the cruelest irony, the gusts are pulling him back to the very land where he least wants to set foot again, the warzone that he spent most of his first term leaving: Iraq” (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2014/09/obama_s_strategy_for_attacking_isis_it_s_a_good_plan_that_could_easily_fall.html). Obama does not want to go back, but he knows that it is the only way the country of the United States can be ensured of safety, rather than waiting to be attacked. Some people wonder why in the world does America have to involve themselves in other people’s business. It’s true that getting in the middle of another country’s war can lead to bad problems. However, what if we don’t? ISIS will continue to exist and become powerful everyday, killing people and mistreating them. Some people say that bombing Syria will cause collateral damage, causing death for many civilians. But aren’t civilians dying already?If ISIS continues to exist for years to come, there will be more deaths than bombing Syria right now. There is no doubt that bombing will actually end terrorism; as Seth said, terrorism will continue to sprout like weeds in a bed of daffodils. But we can’t just stand and watch. We have morals, or at least we should, and not trying to fight for the right thing would deteriorate any hope for humanity. It’s like seeing a bully making fun of a smaller kid and not doing anything about it. Most people should have the input to try and help the small kid and confront the bullying. There will be death either way whether America goes through with the bombing or not. As human beings with the sense of right and wrong we should try to fight for idea of bringing peace, even if it seems impossible. The only hope for humanity is that idea, and if we efface that and try to argue that we should stay put and not stand up for other people’s freedom, there will be no humanity at all.

Reply
Permalink # daltonkjenkins60 said

I do not think the U.S should be bombing Isis. What are they doing to us? They are in their own little country and not bothering the United States. The journalist that went over there weren’t forced to go by the government. That was their own stupidity. If they know what is going own then they are just asking for something to happen by going over there. I think by bombing Isis they will just become stronger and get more supporters. Then they will have the U.S on their hit list. If they don’t come and mess with us we shouldn’t bother them. Why should we spend our money on fighting for another nation. Even though we aren’t sending ground troops we are still using pilots and lots of expensive ammunition. ““We will not get dragged into another ground war in Iraq,” he insisted in his televised speech Wednesday night. Instead, this will be a war where others—mainly Iraqi soldiers—fight on the ground, while American advisers devise the battle plans and American pilots pummel the enemy with missiles and bombs.” (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2014/09/obama_s_strategy_for_attacking_isis_it_s_a_good_plan_that_could_easily_fall.html)
I agree with cutting their access to weapons. This would help more than bombing them I think. Killing people to stop the killing of people? What kind of sense does that make! If we helped build their government and military we could stop Isis without using or troops or resources. “It should be noted that ISIS has access to weapons because U.S. and Saudi weapons have been flooding the region for over a decade. The United States can take steps to shut down the weapons supply routes that ISIS is relying on. This is the opposite of what Obama has outlined as a strategy in Syria and Iraq. The U.S. also needs to re-evaluate its broader arms policy.” (http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/11/opinion/kohn-isis-obama/)

Reply
Permalink # alexandrashines said

I mean there’s innocent people in Syria, not all of them are apart of Isis buuuut I say we did what we did with Osama bin laden & just jump them. ✊

Reply
Permalink # ashtondrake32 said

Yes, I believe ISIS needs to be bombed. This isn’t mediocre to the US it could turn into something big. Bombing is something to end it quick. Before the situation get out of hand! Stated in >>>
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2014/09/obama_s_strategy_for_attacking_isis_it_s_a_good_plan_that_could_easily_fall.html It says….. “Meanwhile, Obama is doing as close to the right thing as the mess of the Middle East allows. And maybe he’ll pull it off.” “It’s worth a try.” So why not? ISIS HAS ALREADY. Delivered a direct threat to the US, Obama, and the two gentlemen lives they took by beheading them. Is this not enough evidence to take action?

I believe it is!

Reply
- Permalink # James Johnson said
  
  Read my posts. Also North Korea threats us, but how many of those threats are backed up by actual actions? Those journalist knew what was happening within that country. One was actually already released by a terrorist group, but was returned. They took it upon themselves to document that civil war. Bravery gets you into rough situations. It’s not so much of evidence as it is a threat. Here is a solution for that. Don’t let journalists go to Syria. It’s playing with fire.
  
  Reply
Permalink # suarez05j said

“The Obama administration reports ISIS currently poses no threat to the United States.”
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2014/09/obama_s_strategy_for_attacking_isis_it_s_a_good_plan_that_could_easily_fall.html

The US should not be doing these bombings. As stated in the article cited above, Isis currently does not pose a threat to the US. Military action will only make situations worse, as it was in the past. United States doesn’t have to get involved bombing Isis. Killing people doesn’t solve anything. When has it ever solve anything? United States basically has shown that when someone bothers you or you don’t like the way someone acts you should just kill to get rid of them and prove who is boss, and they wonder why there is so much violence in the world.

” It will take massive political effort, delicate diplomacy, and enormous luck to ward off tragedy. ”
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2014/09/obama_s_strategy_for_attacking_isis_it_s_a_good_plan_that_could_easily_fall.html

I think instead of military action, Obama should be taking political action and cut access to their weapons. It has been 13 years since 9/11 and since then, America has done alot to protect its country however, ISIS still has access to weapons and money to get those weapons.

“The United States can take steps to shut down the weapons supply routes that ISIS is relying on”
http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/11/opinion/kohn-isis-obama/

ISIS’s finance is gained through sales of oil under their control. If The United States block the processing and sale of this oil, They can cut access to money and weapons, and less people die.

Reply
- Permalink # suarez05j said
  
  solved*
  
  Reply
Permalink # jerrygarcia7thperiod said

United States bombing to Isis is something that we say it would have risks and should we do it or not?
Before starting I hate politics and government and we all do because they only think about nation and never about the people. anyway the risks the united states will have is the disadvantage an economy also another era or generation of war. they may think that this will help us or middle east but this will cause more threats of terrorism.as a CNN article mention the only way we could have a solution to the Isis conflict is political agreement however not military strength.because of the bombing this will do more cost for military expenses.if we made an agreement what’s the United Nations this may help genocide in the Middle East…

Reply
Permalink # jerrygarcia7thperiod said

I think that not even Obama is well decided of his desition to the bombing of Isis.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NuX6LTVNh-4

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=y7NQjqL0UrY

Mr Noblitt I know it way off topic but funny related to this ….

Reply
Permalink # ethanbullard said

I’m torn on whether or not the US should be bombing ISIS. At first, I thought it was a good approach but now, reading more into these articles and the effects that military operations in the Middle East have had on US soil, I would have to say that there’s a better approach to this situation. Instead of bombing the hell out of ISIS and innocent civilians, diplomatic steps should be taken. Some that were out lined in the provided articles include,”1. Cut access to guns and money.2. Fix Iraq’s political rifts.3. Provide humanitarian assistance.4. Lead a truly international response.” (http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/11/opinion/kohn-isis-obama/)
These four ideas can help prevent another 9/11. If we were to go Obama’s route (no I’m not about to go on a rant about how I think he is the worst president in the world) this means that we will go as follows, “Another part of Obama’s strategy (and he did outline this in his speech) is to train and equip the Free Syrian Army, the more moderate militiamen currently being squeezed both by ISIS and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.” (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2014/09/obama_s_strategy_for_attacking_isis_it_s_a_good_plan_that_could_easily_fall.html)
What if, and I’m just throwing this out here, what if this could turn into another OPERATION CYCLONE? It’s a scary thought but whose to say that the US doesn’t equip and train this army just to have them turn on us ten-twenty years later? These bombings will cause instability in Syria with the killing of innocent civilians. By bombing and training in Syria, there is always that risk of our assistance blowing up in our face. I do agree that something has to be done but military action may not be the most viable approach.
Instead of blowing up many innocent civilians, wasting money on tons of shelling, and causing instability by destroying structures around Syria, the US and its allies can surround ISIS and cut off it’s means of expansion. The best thing to do would be to cut their access to weapons that flood into the country for decades. The question would then lead to “How can we do this?”. Yes, I understand military action must be involved but we don’t necessarily have to blow Syria to smithereens in order to wipe out ISIS. You can kill something by suffocating it just was well as you could shoving dynamite down it’s throat \. So, my thought on dealing with ISIS is not to shell Syria or train troops but to work with other countries to cut off much needed supply routes to ISIS.

Reply
Permalink # thomasanderson2016 said

Should the US be doing this bombing? What are the risks? These are extremely difficult questions to answer because it can go either way. If we bomb it could make things worse, but at the same time, not taking action could be just as bad. I have couple different views. First is I hate to think that our tax money is going to millions of dollars on air strikes and bombings that could possibly not work out. To think that we could spend so much money on something that the chance of it working is not high. But if we don’t take action and ISIS grows stronger than who knows what they could do with there power. They have so many things going for them to take power! Countries with no leaders, weak governments, people who are mad at basically the world, and religiously misguided. I like that Obama brought up how ISIS are not a Muslim group and has nothing to do with all Muslims. Even though it does have to do with religion and their beliefs, that is a tiny amount of people. I don’t like that we (the US) are doing these things for the most part alone and with out support of other countries. “We need a coalition of nations” – (http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/11/opinion/kohn-isis-obama/) So is this the best way for us to help defeat ISIS, I’m not sure, I don’t want us to end up in a pointless war and get in to even more debt. But at the same time I don’t want ISIS to gain power and become a threat to the US. It’s kind of a “shot in the dark” that we’re taking and won’t really know if it was worth it for 5 to 10 years. As for the risk go, that’s like “what ifs” we can go on and on about what could happen.

Reply
- Permalink # James Johnson said
  
  Good post. The “shot in the dark” is a statement I can agree on. But I don’t agree with your statements about them growing too strong, and attacking the US. There are many directorships that have been threats to us that haven’t made a move. You realize how much money we spend on defense? Even with the threats, there aren’t an immediate threat.
  
  Reply
  - Permalink # thomasanderson2016 said
    
    Well I don’t mean a huge threat or anything like that but strong enough to pull off a tragedy such as 9/11 or something similar.
  - Permalink # James Johnson said
    
    Then what should we do? There are a lot of other threats towards us. What do we do about them? Attack every country / group that threatens us?
  - Permalink # James Johnson said
    
    Read my other posts. We are doing mini 9/11’s to them.
Permalink # adamnesnow782 said

Should the U.S. be bombing ISIS? Not half-heartedly. If your enemy can only hold off 200 soldiers at a time then you don’t need to send 150 at them each time and let them regroup. We seemed to do that in the Vietnam war and others since. That was the difference between both world wars, which we won, and the Vietnam war that we we either lost or ‘tied’, with horrifying casualties. War involves death and killing and is horrifying, but necessary sometimes. The worst thing we can do is endure and cause all the casualties and not reach the objective, which is to stop a threat and/or win power/territory. There is a lot of opposition to bombing ISIS, and also many who support stopping them. A lot people say that we shouldn’t than we should because we’ve grown up where killing is terrible and not only frowned upon but say that we shouldn’t kill anybody under any circumstances. We don’t want to kill anybody…it goes against our nature and ideals. As Golda Mier famously said “We can forgive the Arabs for killing our children, but we can never forgive them for forcing us to kill their children.” Being put in a position to have to kill others to end a threat is awful, but sometimes needed.
“Obama, never prone to hype, made clear in his speech that the ISIS jihadists don’t yet pose as big a threat as al-Qaida did 13 years ago” http://WWW.SLATE.COM/ARTICLES/NEWS_AND_POLITICS/WAR_STORIES/2. I believe this is true, but they are only this big of an issue because we didn’t stay on top of it. This particular organization has to be treated like a bully. They are dangerous, but nothing we can’t handle if we treat them like they treat us. How do you deal with a bully? You do something that makes them fear you, whether that be retaliating yourself or telling someone that they fear. From that point on they will not bother you again, until another bully comes along. Our first was Al-Qaida, so we killed Bin Ladin, now it’s ISIS. This is why you can’t throw some troops and missiles at it or you end up like the Vietnam War. The enemy has to be hit them fast and hard. If we keep doing this any other organization will back off, and if they don’t you do the same thing until they understand we will see a threat destroyed or reduced until it’s no longer a threat. They have to fear you and they won’t if you don’t give it your all.
Now a lot of people have been worrying about the casualties of Iraqi and Syrian people. “While airstrikes won’t help the Syrian and Iraqi people” http://WWW.CNN.COM/2014/09/11/OPINION/KOHN-ISIS-OBAMA/. War has casualties and that’s the plain, ugly, nasty truth of it; and the fact that more people care about foreign people more than they do our safety and/or our troops who are dying for them is sickening to me. It’s sad that these counties allowed the nasty people to take over and become a threat to our country and Europe. Once that happens, then getting the nasty people killed will also kill some civilians, which is exactly what they intend to do to us. If these counties don’t want us bombing, then they should make sure that ISIS doesn’t rise up to power in their land.

Reply
Permalink # Morgan said

Should the U.S. be bombing isis? I think we absolutely should. Isis is a huge threat to our country and there are probably already members of Isis on our soil getting ready to attack the U.S., just nobody is okay admitting it.
“They need to be synchronized with ground assaults. And for now, there are no ground forces in Syria that can beat back ISIS.” http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2014/09/obama_s_strategy_for_attacking_isis_it_s_a_good_plan_that_could_easily_fall.html
It’s a good thing we are bombing Isis, but we won’t be able to fully destroy them until we get troops on the ground. So until then, bombing them is not doing much good. Also, when we are bombing them, we are bombing them at night. We are destroying their office buildings but nobody is in there when we’re doing it. What’s the point?
“For one thing, the United States can pursue diplomatic and political solutions instead.”
http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/11/opinion/kohn-isis-obama/
How are we going to pursue diplomatic solutions instead of bombing them? Isis is a terrorist organization, not a country.
In my opinion, we should bomb the Isis headquarters in Syria.
“There is no direct threat to the U.S.”
http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/11/opinion/kohn-isis-obama/
How does anybody know this for sure? I’m not going to sit here and say that there is going to be a terrorist attack on the U.S. from Isis, but I’m also not going to say there’s no possible chance they will. Our borders are wide open and there is plenty of opportunity for people in our country to be terrorists.

Reply
Permalink # kylethompson98 said

Is bombing the ISIS military group good or bad? I’m more or less walking on that thin line between yes and no. I would like to believe that America doesn’t need another outside terrorist group getting us involved in another war that requires boots on the ground. But on the same note, I don’t like knowing that this terrorist group is beheading Americans and slaughtering others. Will the bombings against the borders to get ISIS from spreading help or hurt us?
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2014/09/obama_s_strategy_for_attacking_isis_it_s_a_good_plan_that_could_easily_fall.html
By not taking any action, (military wise) put more confidence in the terrorist group to go out and try far worst things in the future? Then again, on the other side of the story, will bombing them infuriate them even more and add fuel to the fire? Would it also lead to a much bigger act to get back at the U.S. for revenge later on down the line. I believe this is an important risk that may not happen soon, but later if we do not address it. Next comes the issue of what we should do instead of bombing them. “Cut access to guns and money”
http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/11/opinion/kohn-isis-obama/
I like this option a lot better than bombing honestly. Instead of externally bombing the ISIS and wasting money, why not try something internally and a bit less costly and deadly. We are in the territory and are basically giving the guns to the enemy, if we just stepped back for a while, they’ll eventual need some form of ammunition. The main thing would be that the Americans will not be supplying it to them anymore. Now the other option I turned towards, was “Provide humanitarian assistance.”
http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/11/opinion/kohn-isis-obama/
This would a far better cause than just killing, and it would also be far less costly. Now it has its issues too, but it is a reasonable idea. The cost of aiding the lives in need would be about 48 million dollars. http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/11/opinion/kohn-isis-obama/ Forty eight million dollars is a good amount of money. Knowing that the air strikes we are conducting could cost double or triple that, is crazy. If the air strikes are deemed unsuccessful, then that’s a lot of money thrown right down the drain. At least we get some reassurance that our money isn’t completely wasted, and it will actually go towards helping people, not hurting them. But you never really know what the final outcome of the situation will be until you actually doing it. So after reading both these articles I am still walking on that same line, but at least now I know some alternatives to the bombings, and how certain options can be helpful, and others hurtful.

Reply
- Permalink # kylethompson98 said
  
  This would be**
  Until your** actually doing it.
  Sorry about the mistakes, the letters were small before I posted my comment…
  
  Reply
Permalink # matthewmerrington said

To pick a side on where to agree or disagree you must understand human nature. From what I have seen there will always be an opposite opinion even if there is just one person with that idea. when you try to suppress the idea it will only rebel because its our nature to be curious and adventurous. With that I disagree with the bombings there will be more rebellion than its forth just like 911 for them. Another great example is,”Our invasion of Iraq and the installation of Nuri al-Malaki as prime minister reignited deep sectarian tensions and created a power vacuum into which ISIS stepped (http://www.cnn.com/). The risks are extreme repercussions from ISIS, including bombing on our homeland. However, as we are the United states of America it is our duty to protect those who cannot protect themselves. Obama agrees with this,”Meanwhile, Obama is doing as close to the right thing as the mess of the Middle East allows.”(http://www.slate.com) With that we will continue to be the worlds police man, doing what we can only assume is the right thing for them and for the world.

Reply
Permalink # gerardrosenthal said

I’m gonna start this with something non-related to the questions, then get right on topic. “Now, in the cruelest irony, the gusts are pulling him back to the very land where he least wants to set foot again, the warzone that he spent most of his first term leaving: Iraq.”
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2014/09/obama_s_strategy_for_attacking_isis_it_s_a_good_plan_that_could_easily_fall.html
BOOM! CALLED IT! *Victory dance ensues* Moving on.

ALRIGHT! So, the U.S is bombing people again; all’s right with the world. Sarcasm aside the question “Should the U.S be doing the bombing?” needs to be answered. Honestly, no, the U.S shouldn’t. I’m not going to say the whole, “We need to be peaceful, and help people” spiel or the whole civilians are dying thing. Terrible as that may be, it’s happened hundreds of times in the past, it isn’t going to change. The U.S shouldn’t be doing the bombing, because it isn’t our place, and even more so it’s like a metaphor of last weeks post on a much grander, and metaphorical scale. Violence, creates violence, or in this case, ” Airstrikes won’t destroy radical ideology, they’ll make it worse.” https://hussibhoa.wordpress.com/2014/09/23/due-september-29-2014/
It’s like the whole spanking thing, if you respond with violence, it’ll just lead to violence in the end. To help some people see the point, imagine this. It’s a peaceful day in your home, all’s well. Things are a bit weird in the streets, poverty, the occasional extremist protesting a funeral stuff like that. Suddenly a foreign power “peacefully occupies” America. Stuff start’s going crazy, new laws passed that go against your long standing beliefs because these foreigners see that as taboo. You join a militia in an effort to push these foreigners out by any means necessary. The media plasters you as a terrorist, but in the end you feel as if your a freedom fighter, fighting for a just cause. It’s all perspective. Now the risks of being involved, well the word public backlash comes to mind, but I think this country’s too dumb to notice irony anyway. All this’ll create is another generation of people who hate america, and more terrorist/freedom fighters/extremist/WHAT EVER YOU WANNA’ CALL EM’ will show up. That’s just the way it is. Throughout history there’s only been a total of roughly 270 years of recorded peace. “Of the past 3,400 years, humans have been entirely at peace for 268 of them, or just 8 percent of recorded history.” http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/06/books/chapters/0713-1st-hedges.html
And that’s just how it is, and will probably always be. The end.

Reply
- Permalink # gerardrosenthal said
  
  On a note, I just realized one of the links busted, middle one’s suppose to be http://WWW.CNN.COM/2014/09/11/OPINION/KOHN-ISIS-OBAMA/
  
  Reply
Permalink # dylpicklee said

I do not support these bombing in any way. I say, the United States should not being going to this as a solution what so ever. Anytime we have an issue with another country I feel like we result to the same solution and is the world any better? No it is not. We should live together as one world. I know it sounds chessy and nearly impossible, but we should have goals, dreams, whatever.
Anyway, “We will not get dragged into another ground war in Iraq,” -Obama. If we keep launching bombs, one thing will lead to another, something we might know about, and start a war that was never intended. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2014/09/obama_s_strategy_for_attacking_isis_it_s_a_good_plan_that_could_easily_fall.html
We are at the risk of planting a small seed to eventually grow a big harvest.
“Most would-be terrorists don’t wake up one morning and suddenly decide to hate America. Often, there’s a reason.”
http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/11/opinion/kohn-isis-obama/
People don’t just hate America because they want to, they have to have a foundation for the grudge they have against us. If we bomb them, i’m pretty sure they will get ticked off. If someone is brave enough to kill someone they never met (who also has a purpose and hope for their own life and country),why cant they be brave enough to go and talk face to face?
The US Should not result to bombing any longer. They are risking something greater than the seed they plant.

Reply
Permalink # shannah97 said

After 9/11, I think everyone, including the president, is sensitive to anything that has to with terrorism against the united states. However, I think the are positives and negatives in bombing Iraq. Negatives being, that the attack wold influence and create ore terrorists groups. “More American military action in the Middle East will just inflame more anti-American terrorists — which perversely only strengthens the ideology that fuels ISIS and other terrorist groups” (http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/11/opinion/kohn-isis-obama/). The plus side of the attack would be that they will keep the ISIS from traveling and finding places to hide, that way they cant continue to make progress against the U.S. “So, at least initially, U.S. air strikes in Syria will be clustered along the Iraqi border, to keep ISIS jihadists from moving back and forth between the countries or from seeking safe haven…” (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2014/09/obama_s_strategy_for_attacking_isis_it_s_a_good_plan_that_could_easily_fall.html) Either way however, war is never a good thing, which has been proven with history. Innocent people always get killed, and new problems always arise. With that being said America has to do what is has to do in order to keep the nation safe.

Reply
Permalink # robertadams97 said

I think that Obama shouldn’t bomb ISIS. What good do we have doing that? There are other ways to settle the dispute than just to bomb them. This will just be another problem just like Iraq was. Obama should just sit down with the leader of ISIS and compromise on something because this could be 9/11 all over again. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2014/09/obama_s_strategy_for_attacking_isis_it_s_a_good_plan_that_could_easily_fall.html

Reply
Permalink # renasha123 said

no we should not be bombing Syria because it could start a war between us like the man said in the article.the USA does not need to be in the word cuz was very expensive.and I really don’t think nobody wants to be in a war.but I see you why Obama had bombed he has a pretty good reason to bomb them.if we keep on going there will be a big fight between us. Obama plays very reasonable. Even though Obama did really want to he did.

Reply
Permalink # jedwebb said

“Should the US be doing this bombing?”

Yes, the US is doing the right thing by taking preemptive action against the ISIS threat at hand. There are many risks in this plan such as civilian casualties as a result of the bombings, the chance that the US will be forced to deploy troops in mass back into Iraq. Another possible risk/outcome is that these efforts to expel the ISIS movement will only enrage and fuel the recruitment of more ISIS members and greatly add to the already existent hate that ISIS feels for the US. However as President Obama stated, as American’s it is our duty to correct injustice in the world and I believe there is no other way around this problem. We must take a stand.

Reply
- Permalink # jedwebb said
  
  EDIT:
  
  CITE MY SOURCES
  
  http://WWW.SLATE.COM/ARTICLES/NEWS_AND_POLITICS/WAR_STORIES/2014/09/OBAMA_S_STRATEGY_FOR_ATTACKING_ISIS_IT_S_A_GOOD_PLAN_THAT_COULD_EASILY_FALL.HTML
  
  http://WWW.CNN.COM/2014/09/11/OPINION/KOHN-ISIS-OBAMA/
  
  Reply
Permalink # gingerrrmaddie722 said

The CNN article states, “the Obama administration reports ISIS currently poses no threat to the United States.” (http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/11/opinion/kohn-isis-obama/). The first thing that came to mind when I read this was our discussion about WWI. We were so quick to blame Germany for starting that war because they stuck their nose somewhere it didn’t belong due to alliances, but are we or are we not basically doing the same thing? Alliances are good to an extent, but when you have loyalties to a bunch of different people/countries/things it gets a bit messy and turns something really small into something really big. I feel that we are pretty much repeating history because of the statement in the first article, “Obama’s plan also calls for a wide coalition of European, Arab, and Muslim countries to join the fight.”(http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2014/09/obama_s_strategy_for_attacking_isis_it_s_a_good_plan_that_could_easily_fall.html). I would agree with bombing if, and only if, there was a direct threat to our country. However, since we are bombing due to money interests, all the while spending money to bomb these people that already do not like us, I feel that it is unnecessary. I understand bombing to get rid of the terrorists, but there will probably always be potential terrorists, so are we supposed to kill like half the planet in anticipation? I recognize that many innocent people are dying but really that should be chalked up with being at the wrong place at the wrong time because with the way the bombing strategy is laid out, their deaths are inevitable… and technically avoidable if we would mind our own business.

I hope this makes sense and is correct, I haven’t had as much time as I would like to be able to research and fully understand what is going on. If not, wellll I at least tried to sound educated and draw comparisons to past mistakes.

Reply
Permalink # carolinestyers said

Should the US be doing this bombing? What are the risks?
This is not an easy question and there is no simple solution to this problem. I believe that killing people is morally wrong. Before resorting to bombing and death I believe the US should try some of the ideas outlines in the cnn news article.
“1. Cut access to guns and money.
2. Fix Iraq’s political rifts.
3. Provide humanitarian assistance.
4. Lead a truly international response”
(http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/11/opinion/kohn-isis-obama/)
I think Obama should exhaust all options and efforts before deciding to bomb ISIS. There are many risks involved with bombing them. Bombing would increase their hatred for Americans and could possibly lead to attacks on American soil.

Reply
Permalink # nataesia said

I don’t think that the U.S. should be doing the bombing over Syria. I don’t believe that it is our place and we should not get involved in another war. “Now, in the cruelest irony, the gusts are pulling him back to the very land where he least wants to set foot again, the warzone that he spent most of his first term leaving: Iraq.” (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2014/09/obama_s_strategy_for_attacking_isis_it_s_a_good_plan_that_could_easily_fall.html)
But, I understand the reasoning that Obama is bombing because he spent his whole time in the white house trying to sort out the one we got out with Iraq. Obama is doing what he thinks he has to do, what he thinks is right so he can keep the politicians happy. He is bombing because that is what America as well as all the other countries know how to do, when America want things and certain way they bomb or go war with other peoples to make those things happen. There is No threat to the United States so I don’t feel that it is right for them to bomb Syria. “There is no direct threat to the United States” (http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/11/opinion/kohn-isis-obama/).
The United States should just mind there own business and not interfere within other people and cause more tensions and more anger between different countries to make them turn on America.

Reply
Permalink # hazen666 said

Make love not war. I just feel like war can be prevented if we just learn to replace it with love. If we can all just say “let’s all just make sweet tender affectionate love to ISIS” then I feel like they would have no choice but to feel ultimately flattered by our request. Plus, all this love making very well may relieve all other radical groups of their mischief.
No, but seriously I think it is a bad idea to be bombing ISIS. I just feel like no good can come of it on our end. We seem to have nothing to gain. Sure, we’ll be “good guys” if we pursue this organization, but they don’t even have anti-aircraft missiles (according to noblitt) so bombing just seems like overkill.
We are putting more and more Americans’ lives on the line (although, they may be voluntary) just to try and settle down some organization that thinks we are too rich and realizes they are too poor. Many more people could die before this is over, and that’s a pretty big risk.

Reply
Permalink # marionwhitely said

Obama stated: “We can’t erase every trace of evil from the world and small groups of killers have the capacity to do great harm, that’s why we must remain vigilant as threats emerge.”
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2014/09/obama_s_strategy_for_attacking_isis_it_s_a_good_plan_that_could_easily_fall.html. I don’t agree with war and the devastation it often brings, but when the safety of any nation is threaten, war is necessary. I agree with US taking the lead in the ISIS bombings to ensure safety for all. Terrorism is not our fight alone, but if we don’t stand for peace, who will? Unfortuntaley, the risk of war comes with consequences of death of our service men, death of civilians and economic devastation. “There are two big new elements in this policy: First, air strikes will no longer be restricted to areas where ISIS poses a threat to U.S. personnel. Instead, they can strafe and bomb ISIS targets anywhere in Iraq, coordinating the strikes with assaults on the ground by Iraqi soldiers, militias, or Kurdish peshmerga. Second, these air strikes will take out ISIS jihadists not only in Iraq but also across the border in Syria.” ISIS jihadists are on a rampage, amassing fortunes, acquiring arsenals, led by competent commanders (many of them Saddam Hussein’s former generals), playing on anti-Shiite (and anti-Western) sentiment among Sunni radicals. They are also recruiting European jihadists, who have passports that let them travel across the continent and into the United States. Clearly, they do pose a threat. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2014/09/obama_s_strategy_for_attacking_isis_it_s_a_good_plan_that_could_easily_fall.html
I hear and read in the news of how normal citizens have become a part of extreme terrorist organization. That frightens me to know that this is happening around me. America taking a stand or even the lead in the war for peace makes me proud of my country. I have friends that have lost a loved one because of war, but they never regret them losing their life to save ours. America is always the first in humanitarian efforts, why shouldn’t we continue being the first to lead in peace.
Analysis’s like Phyllis Bennis and advocates like Win Without War feel we can win the war through less bombing, by cutting access to guns and money, and truly leading the international response. They feel the solution to destroying ISIS – and mitigating Iraq’s problems in general — isn’t military but political. Sally Kohn states that “Obama’s critics want him to act tough in the face of ISIS. But if acting tough by bombing ISIS doesn’t solve the problem — and makes the threat worse — then acting tough is stupid. Diplomacy may not have the same sexy veneer as aggressive military action, but if diplomacy could actually help the Syrian and Iraqi people and make the world safer, isn’t that what counts? http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/11/opinion/kohn-isis-obama/ . If war can be avoided I agree, but ISIS has no fear of others and definitely no regards for another’s life. If we allow them to continue their reign of terror, how soon before they invade our own shores. “This cannot and should not be principally America’s fight; but the fact is, America is the only country that can coordinate the coalition—provide the intelligence, logistics, and accurate air strikes—needed to win.” http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2014/09/obama_s_strategy_for_attacking_isis_it_s_a_good_plan_that_could_easily_fall.html

Reply
Permalink # clintonreel16 said

Should the US be doing this bombing? What are the risks?
Whether or not you think the US should be doing it, is entirely up to your view points. Though, I personally believe that it is both good and bad. I think it could be both because the US wants to help get rid of the ISIS threat the best way the US really knows how. (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2014/09/obama_s_strategy_for_attacking_isis_it_s_a_good_plan_that_could_easily_fall.html)
But, the best way you know may not be the best way overall. Are the bombings the easiest way to deal with this threat? Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t, it’s too early to really tell which way would work better, because this engagement could be as quick as what our generals and government says, or it may be quicker, or, just as likely, slower. It’s too early to tell. The risks, however, are still something you need to take in to consideration. Because the bombings can, and most likely will, cause a severe amount of innocent deaths. There’s really know way around innocent deaths in a war or engagement. But with any decision(Militaristic or not) there will always be some sort of risk that can’t really be avoided.

Reply
Permalink # kiejaphillips said

Should the US be doing this bombing? What are the risks?

I honestly feel that we should nope bomb Syria. There are other alternatives instead of bombing them such as “1. U.S. intervention is what destabilized Iraq in the first place — and more bombing will likely make Iraq less stable.
2. Airstrikes won’t destroy radical ideology, they’ll make it worse.
3. There is no direct threat to the United States.” (http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/11/opinion/kohn-isis-obama/)

I understand the entire thought of collateral damage but it is really unnecessary to take and innocent individual’s life. We will not get dragged into another ground war in Iraq,” says Obama. (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2014/09/obama_s_strategy_for_attacking_isis_it_s_a_good_plan_that_could_easily_fall.html) but that is exactly what’s going to happen if we continue the route that we are taking. There are a lot of things that need to change within this country and this is one of them. By bombing in Syria we risk entering into another war.

Reply
Permalink # bethebestlikeben said

Yes! Hopefully it will stop them! That’s the point. Kohn: Obama can fight ISIS without bombs
http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/11/opinion/kohn-isis-obama/

Reply
Permalink # maddiehaas said

If you know me you should know that I’m all about peace so of course my answer is no. In my personal opinion bombing Isis is like fighting fire with fire. It’s not going to get us anywhere. “2. Airstrikes won’t destroy radical ideology, they’ll make it worse.” (http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/11/opinion/kohn-isis-obama/) Of course it’ll slow them down, but so many innocent people are going to get hurt. Its a big contradiction. They should find a better way to solve the problems rather than violence. Violence will lead to more violence and more hatred toward the United States. In the article they mentioned a few ways that are actually great ideas.
“1. Cut access to guns and money.
2. Fix Iraq’s political rifts.
3. Provide humanitarian assistance.” (http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/11/opinion/kohn-isis-obama/)
If we could all focus on these standpoints we wouldn’t need war. Our country is constantly thinking war is the only answer. Isn’t it time to change that?

Reply
Permalink # ameliaculbertson164 said

I think it’s funny that as a child growing up, most of us are disciplined not to inflict or encourage violence in our lives. Yet we can all turn on the television and watch government officials destroy land on the other side of the world. What happened to violence is never the answer? Oh, I’m sorry. I didn’t realize bombs aren’t a sub-category of violence, but are in fact a way of dealing with problems in the most humane way possible. Yea I’m aware that your system, or whatever, up there in that governmental party of yours has a couple…several flaws, most of which involve other countries. But if you have the ability to keep it a growing problem for so many years, then maybe it’s time for a change. Not to mention the other half of those problems are a directly about Americans. Let’s focus on our country for a bit shall we? “This battle will take massive political effort, delicate diplomacy, and enormous luck to ward off tragedy.” (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2014/09/obama_s_strategy_for_attacking_isis_it_s_a_good_plan_that_could_easily_fall.html) Isn’t that interesting? It’s risky, and hard to pull off successfully. I’m beginning to think that half the decisions you “officials” make is a bunch of impulsive crap you pulled out of your toilet after reading the morning paper. Maybe, just maybe, if you focused a little more on the country you live in, along with the problems you have the power, but not the common sense, to fix, and focus a little less on making foreign land go BOOM BOOM, then we might actually have a chance at being a little more successful as a whole. I’m sixteen years old. You complain about how my generation is stupid and going to lead us down a different path. Well look at the generation that raised us… Hmm… I’m still a minor, your problems aren’t mine to worry about just yet. But by the time I do have to watch my back and act like a responsible adult, I’ll be walking in knee-deep waste water full of the crap you left behind for the next generation to clean up because your impulsive actions ended up backfiring on the rest of the country, resulting in screwing us over that badly. Here’s a good topic question to think about; Why is war necessary? People are going to kill people regardless of whether or not the law says otherwise. Rules are meant to be broken, right? Now if a big bad organization of foreign killers is threatening someone personally, all I can say is good luck. It’s the whole wide world, do what you have to do to survive. And say they continue to threaten our country. Don’t threaten them back! You’re just sinking down to their level. You can’t win a fight against stupid. Well in this case, I think we’re dealing with two sides of stupid. Too late now. Try putting a peace-loving hippy in charge, or an average Joe. They’ll handle situations like this with a much less complicated solution. Simplicity. I like that. Doesn’t that make sense to any of you? Oh right. “Up here where we have all the control, there’s no such thing as common sense”.

Reply
Permalink # itaylor068 said

I disagree with the decision to bomb ISIS. There is a possibility that it could make things worse. “A bombing campaign that is perceived as taking the side of Shia Muslims while undoubtedly decimating communities and killing civilians will only worsen Iraq’s instability.” http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/11/opinion/kohn-isis-obama/ On the other hand, not doing anything about it is just as bad. Using the bombing strategy to end terrorism is kind of hypocritical. There are different options to solve the problem. “America is the only country that can coordinate the coalition—provide the intelligence, logistics, and accurate air strikes—needed to win.” http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2014/09/obama_s_strategy_for_attacking_isis_it_s_a_good_plan_that_could_easily_fall.html According to this, America has what it takes to win. With all this intelligence, I would think that there would be a better strategy other than bombing.

Reply
Permalink # tatorhater said

Should the US be doing this bombing? What are the risks? I don’t think that this is an easy question because there is not really an answer to it. I think that killing anyone is very wrong. Some things that I found if bombing was not the solution:
1)Cut access to guns and money.
2) Fix Iraq’s political rifts.
3)Provide humanitarian assistance.
4)Lead a truly international response.
I personally think that Obama needs to go over all the options first before just going into something that he is not sure about.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/11/opinion/kohn-isis-obama/

Reply
Permalink # thenatecrackerprince said

Personally, I don’t think the bombing is serving as much of a purpose as it is intended to. I can’t say that I can support the continuation of these bombings because I have the civilians in mind. Obama said “…air strikes will no longer be restricted to areas where ISIS poses a threat to U.S. personnel. Instead, they can strafe and bomb ISIS targets anywhere in Iraq…” (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2014/09/obama_s_strategy_for_attacking_isis_it_s_a_good_plan_that_could_easily_fall.html) If this is the case, then there will SURELY be collateral damage to any civilians who have the unfortunate luck to be in the same area as an ISIS supporter.

One article said “What we won’t hear enough of are the voices of the opposition — those who argue that military action will not get rid of ISIS but make the situation worse in Iraq and Syria.” (http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/11/opinion/kohn-isis-obama/). I wholeheartedly agree with this. ISIS can be considered similar to a bear. Is it going to attack you if you run across? Probably, that’s a given. However, is it DEFINITELY going to attack if you throw rocks at it? Of course. I say we leave ISIS be until Obama can think of a PEACEFUL way to negotiate with them or take them down.

Reply
Permalink # kiapressley17 said

I do not think that United States should participate in the bombing although President Obama said “We will not get dragged into another ground war in Iraq,” he insisted in his televised speech Wednesday night. Instead, this will be a war where others—mainly Iraqi soldiers—fight on the ground, while American advisers devise the battle plans and American pilots pummel the enemy with missiles and bombs”(http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2014/09/Obama_s_strategy_for_attacking_isis_it_s_a_good_plan_that_could_easily_fall.html). I don’t believe we should go play Mr. Fix when one starts to fall apart. Yes maybe let them borrow our tools but completely do it for them I don’t agree with. We are killing people in the process of killing the enemy and Yes there are Pro`s to bombing like catching terrace and many other things.

Reply
Permalink # michaeldarden said

I think that the U.S. is very wrong for bombing ISIS. There are many other effective ways to handle the situation. “We will not get dragged into another ground war in Iraq,” http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2014/09/obama_s_strategy_for_attacking_isis_it_s_a_good_plan_that_could_easily_fall.html Obama says that we will not get into another ground war but he is not certain of it. He does not not how ISIS is going to retaliate. As children we were always told to settle our disputes by anyway other than violence. Two wrongs do not make a right. I just feel like the US could have handled the situation without resulting to violence.

Reply
Permalink # augustjones said

Should the US be doing this bombing?
What are the risks?

I think that the US should do this bombing. I say this because the ISIS beheaded an American Journalist, which is not right at all. At the same time, I do not think we should bomb them. That would cause a war and it would be very chaotic. The bombing could go either way. If bombing was not the solution then here are some:
1)Cut access to guns and money.
2) Fix Iraq’s political rifts.
3)Provide humanitarian assistance.
4)Lead a truly international response.
I personally thing that Obama should take the time and figure something out quickly. I think that Obama is doing the right thing by taking over and taking action. I think killing is wrong no matter what the situation is, but since the ISIS beheaded am American Journalist, then we should get them back.

http://WWW.CNN.COM/2014/09/11/OPINION/KOHN-ISIS-OBAMA/

Reply
- Permalink # James Johnson said
  
  So 100’s of lives for 2? That seems logical.
  
  Reply
Permalink # Dean the Machine said

Should the US be doing this bombing? Yes the US should be bombing ISIS. President Obama is being proactive in the bombing of ISIS. He them as a future threat and is preventing the future attack(s) on the US. Many ISIS members were former generals in Saddam Hussain’s Army. Yes it is true that the US is protecting their personal interests like our trade for oil in the Middle East. ISIS does not pose an immediate threat to the US we are preventing a later threat. “America is the only country that can coordinate the coalition—provide the intelligence, logistics, and accurate air strikes—needed to win.” http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2014/09/obama_s_strategy_for_attacking_isis_it_s_a_good_plan_that_could_easily_fall.html
All the quote says is that the US has the Military force to I think that the US should eliminate the members of ISIS. What are the risks? The risks are the pilots that are piloting these planes that do the bombing may lose American lives and kill innocent civilians. The US involvement of other countries like Iraq ended in the US having to deploy ground forces. . I think that the US should get rid of the members if ISIS but the let the people of Syria sort out who will control the county.

Reply
Permalink # ndaquioag98 said

“We will not get dragged into another ground war in Iraq,” he insisted in his televised speech Wednesday night. (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2014/09/obama_s_strategy_for_attacking_isis_it_s_a_good_plan_that_could_easily_fall.html)

“2. Airstrikes won’t destroy radical ideology, they’ll make it worse.” (http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/11/OPINION/KOHN-ISIS-OBAMA/)

As Jacob said, this is a hard decision to make. Its hard to decide which side is wrong when you both agree and disagree with both. We must do what is right for the sake of the safety of our Country, but if we can avoid conflict or another war along the way, why not do that too? To me, the argument can go both ways.

Reply
Permalink # calliehatley said

There is no easy answer for this question. While I do believe we can’t just sit and watch others die, I feel as if bombing them is just as bad so I do not agree with the bombing.ISIS obviously has no problem taking lives and they believe that if its for a “good cause” they will die for it. They will not be as scared as we hope for by the bombings. It vould just anger them and make things worse. There are no direct threats to the United States but I do believe we should take some sort of action. The article mentioned cutting access to their source of weapons which I believe would help. There are many options out there and Obama needs to look into those before jumping to bombing. Killing people isn’t right no matter what they have done. The bombing needs to stop and different actions should take place. “Never pay back evil for evil to anyone. Do things in such a way that every one can see you are honorable.” Romans 12:17
http://WWW.CNN.COM/2014/09/11/OPINION/KOHN-ISIA-OBAMA/

Reply
Permalink # starlawood0234 said

I had to do an assignment last year in English that was called “War is….” (Fill in the blank). My answer is War is Ironic. War is ironic because when a country goes to war with another country, both of the countries objectives is to win. How do you win a war? You win by the other side surrendering or being completely obliterated. So why do people go to war in the first place? Well many reasons, could be for protection, and could be because of disagreement. Well either way, bombing another country isn’t going to fix any of our problems; it’s defiantly not going to solve the fight for world peace. So why do it? Maybe I’m uneducated and ignorant about the whole thing, but the way I’m seeing it is that we’re killing to stop all the killing. Makes a whole lot of sense right? Wrong, it makes no sense. Bottom line is there will never be peace in this world because the people who think they are doing well for their country are killing other human beings. I don’t know why humanity can’t see how messed up this all is. I understand that bombing Isis is a tactic and they are bad people who want to hurt us, but that’s the small picture of this all. Looking at the big picture this is all just ironic. Of course we need do all that we can to protect ourselves and look out for our best interest as a nation, and I completely respect the people who put their lives on the line for us. But all of this is just going to progress out of control eventually, sooner or later.

Reply
Permalink # carleybyrum25 said

I don’t believe that the US should be bombing the ISIS. It’s great that we want to help the Syrian and Iraqi people, but bombing isn’t the answer by any means. How can we expect to stop terrorism if we plan on bombing them, it contradicts itself. The second article mentioned that bombing them would only fuel more reasons for attacks on the US; “terrorists don’t wake up one morning and suddenly decide to hate America” (http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/11/opinion/kohn-isis-obama/). This statement is very true, and is a great reason as to why the US military should not be involved with this.
If the US is going to help the Syrian and Iraqi people, it needs to be in a more- well developed plan that will have long term effects. Bombing the ISIS will only have short term effects, and will lead to more terrorism problems later on down the road. I believe we should do as mentioned in the second article and approach better solutions for resolving these problems; cut access to guns and money, fix Iraq’s political rifts, provide humanitarian assistance, and lead a truly international response (http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/11/opinion/kohn-isis-obama/). Not only will bombing them have a short term effect, but it could turn into an American war due to the possibility that Saudi might not fight, and the lack of ground forces in Syria (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2014/09/obama_s_strategy_for_attacking_isis_it_s_a_good_plan_that_could_easily_fall).
If the US wants to get involved that’s great, but I don’t think it should be such drastic measures.

Reply
Permalink # nicolejknox said

I don’t believe that the US should be bombing Syria, and mainly for one reason. The fact that “air strikes will no longer be restricted to areas where ISIS poses a threat to U.S. personnel,” probably means that innocents will die. And while that will happen anyway, I don’t think it’s up to the US to decide who will be a sacrifice. ( http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2014/09/obama_s_strategy_for_attacking_isis_it_s_a_good_plan_that_could_easily_fall.html )
I think the CNN article provided a few good alternatives. The fact that the US provides weapons gives us an advatage over them.
I don’t think there is a true right answer to this crisis. Either way, people are going to die. I just don’t think that bombs are the way to solve problems.

Reply
Permalink # kaitlynwindham212 said

Should the US be bombing the ISIS? That’s not such a easy question to answer. But in my case, no I don’t think we should, because we do not need to be in another war. I know we cant just stand here and watch our fellow Americans die but there are other ways to compromise with them. By bombing them its only going to make them mad and angry. Also it kills a lot of innocent people, which makes America look bad. There’s no need for revenge on the ISIS.

Reply
Permalink # chegueleslie said

I honestly don’t think we should be bombing other countries , they are putting our country in a lot of danger by doing this because the people in that country might feel the need to get revenge on us and it might lead to other worst problems. Bombing is not the solution to the ISIS to solve this problem it would take a lot of time, we can help the people that live there. “It would be nice if American politicians cheering on expensive and deadly bombing campaigns would be at least as enthusiastic, if not more so, about spending money on food and water and shelter for those in desperate need.”(http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/11/opinion/kohn-isis-obama/). Helping those people out in Iraqi and Syrian would be a big step to peace , and maybe they see that we are trying to make peace with them.

Reply
Permalink # Bj Grisson said

I believe that the bombing of Syria should have happened but u think to less the mortality rate they could have chosen another way. For example the way of solution now is causing more “collateral damage” (where as Anything around the specific target to get harmed just to make sure target was eliminated). This way has not only been chosen as the correct way but also as the stronget way to remind the world we are more powerful for example the quote the president said form the described article “Obama made very clear that this battle requires active participation by the Saudis, Turks, and Europeans. But the roles and missions haven’t yet been outlined; the commitments aren’t quite carved in concrete. The plan has a chance of succeeding in Iraq because the new government, formed by Haider al-Abadi,” In stating this war is not the typical mission we wiah to make our self to believe it is but an all out war with death waiting to happen

Reply
Permalink # ryanhunterwilson said

My automatic human response to knowing and seeing that Christians and other people are being murdered because they refuse to conform to the religion of Islam is to agree and say “Bomb ISIS! How dare they do such a thing!” As always, this class pushes me to question everything and I honestly do not know which side I stand on for the topic of bombing ISIS. I see how bombing ISIS will not really help us or the country in the long run. “What we won’t hear enough of are the voices of the opposition — those who argue that military action will not get rid of ISIS but make the situation worse in Iraq and Syria.”… “Airstrikes won’t destroy radical ideology, they’ll make it worse.” http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/11/opinion/kohn-isis-obama/ There’s people creating violence, we destroy that violence with violence, and before we know it another group will be creating more violence. So does the author of this article really have it right when he states, “his strategy to “degrade and ultimately destroy” the terrorist group known as ISIS—is as reasonable, and has as much chance of succeeding, as any that might be conceived.”? http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2014/09/obama_s_strategy_for_attacking_isis_it_s_a_good_plan_that_could_easily_fall.html Yes and no. We demolish one group saving few, and wait for a new group to come along and kill them to. Although, I do not want to forget that killing is different from murder. We kill people that murder other people because murdering people is wrong. ISIS beheads the defenseless, we defend the defenseless. ISIS murders because of religion, we are a country that accepts any religion. In this class we are all about loving people and protecting people’s rights, but we don’t give a crap when others are murdered because of their choice of religion. Humanitarian aid was provided and didn’t help squat, so there goes one point of solution that was offered. Though maybe we should just sit back and be the selfish Americans we are and send a few food packs while thousands die and we take a few years to handle anything. They’re not affecting our country anyways right? Let’s just be like we were years ago while we knew Jews were being mass-murdered and just sat back saying, “It doesn’t bring harm to our country.” I don’t believe that restricting gun routes will stop ISIS either. It’s like gun control! If you stop the market of guns, all the good people who stay legal won’t have any…all the criminals will stay illegal and have guns and get them anyways, because they’re criminals. The option of a bunch of countries joining together to help Iraq and stop ISIS doesn’t seem that strong of a hold. Why would any of them be any more willing to end it when it is not bringing harm to their countries? Bombing doesn’t seem like the best way to handle this situation; although, none of the other options seem that great either. Maybe bombing is a neutral option that we will take and will have to regret or deal with just because it is a part of history and warfare.

Reply
Permalink # ashleyjones020 said

Now the Administration has realized this is not some JV team we are dealing with here as in there earlier comments . We should go after these terrorist for the killing of Christians, Muslims and the beheading of those innocent journalist. Isis continues to grow in numbers and weapons and territory and they have said they will kill who ever stands in their way. Have we all forgotten about 911 when Al Qaeda attacked the US so what makes us think that Isis will not do the same thing. There are Isis members with passports that have access to come into this country and carry out attacks. So yes I think President Obama has done the right thing to defend this country and to incorporate other countries to help us in the War on Terror. I also believe other Countries will have to put boots on the ground since the President has said he will not commit to boots on the ground to fight Isis and that means casualties. I hope we can limit the casualties and to stop Isis from murdering many more innocent people. And I know the President is going to receive a lot of criticism like (no blood for oil) and (murderer) but I hope he stays the course and finishes the job and not be persuaded by the polls to back out and I think all countries will benefit from a unified effort.

Reply
Permalink # zantrum17 said

I don’t think bombing ISIS is necessary. While it was wrong for the group to behead the journalist this drastic action isn’t needed. I think that the bombing will just be a waste of time.

““We will not get dragged into another ground war in Iraq,” he insisted in his televised speech Wednesday night.”
The fact that he even had to mention another war in Iraq should be a red flag because there is always a possibility that US troops will have to return and fight on land.

Even though ISIS isn’t a huge threat for the country they are getting stronger and a bombing would make them become even more adamant about getting enough members to take action against the US in revenge.
“they are on a rampage, amassing fortunes, acquiring arsenals, led by competent commanders (many of them Saddam Hussein’s former generals”

“They are also recruiting European jihadists, who have passports that let them travel across the continent and into the United States.”
This is another big reason why it’s a bad idea to go through with the bombing. The fact that they’re recruiting people that have easy access into the US makes them even more of a danger when it comes to retaliation.

There are plenty of other ways to solve this problem

“The United States should work through the United Nations and seek diplomatic solutions through a broad coalition of nations.” I think this is the best alternative. While I think some action is necessary I don’t see why the US is the only country to take such a large stand. Why not work together with more countries and end the problem together.
Another big alternative I support is staying out of other countries affairs. Why do we need to be the problem solvers for everyone else when we have our own country to worry about?

http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/11/opinion/kohn-isis-obama/

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2014/09/obama_s_strategy_for_attacking_isis_it_s_a_good_plan_that_could_easily_fall.html

Reply
Permalink # ryanhunterwilson said

Whatever we do, may we do it for the love of the persecuted, not for the hate of ISIS.

Reply
Permalink # vintagesoul12 said

Should the U.S be doing these bombings? Well it’s really hard for to answer this question. One because I know this sounds bad But It’s not really and interesting enough topic for me to get into. I don’t really agree with the idea of war, and killing so I distance myself from things like this. But for the sake of my grade I’ll give my opinion. I don’t believe the U.S should be doing these bombings. One because we don’t know how effective, or accurate our actions will be. What if this doesn’t solve anything? What if it just causes more unnecessary problems. “Obama is well aware that air strikes alone don’t produce victory. “( http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2014/09/obama_s_strategy_for_attacking_isis_it_s_a_good_plan_that_could_easily_fall.html) Well if he knows that why must still insist on doing it. This is just another one of those situations, where America wants to come across as the more powerful country. “This cannot and should not be principally America’s fight” ( http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2014/09) I feel if this isn’t really our fight, or a real threat we shouldn’t have to get involved. The article even says that ISIS isn’t as near of a threat as al-Qaida was. I’ll admit something should be done before, they get a chance to grow and become a big threat. But bombing and possibly killing off innocent people, along side ISIS is not it.

Reply
Permalink # destinysanders235 said

I feel as if the US should not do the bombing because if it was to occur there also needs to be other attacks more than just bombing. ” Second, these air strikes will take out ISIS jihadists not only in Iraq but also across the border in Syria. A senior official stressed that this part of the policy is not as open-ended as the speech makes it seem. Obama is well aware that air strikes alone don’t produce victory. They need to be synchronized with ground assaults. And for now, there are no ground forces in Syria that can beat back ISIS.” I agree with this statement, if Obama plans to bomb by air strike than there needs to be ground action too because a war can be won with both rather than just one. If ISIS is clever enough they could possibly take out the US with two times more than just bombing. The bombing will make ISIS even madder & will cause for longer term conflict & ongoing wars. The US has to think outside of the box. I believe Obama is trying his best but he may need to step it up a little. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2014/09/obama_s_strategy_for_attacking_isis_it_s_a_good_plan_that_could_easily_fall.html
What are the risks?
“Sally Kohn1. U.S. intervention is what destabilized Iraq in the first place –and more bombing will likely make Iraq less stable.” Iraq is already facing instability. The bombing will take out civilians & put Iraq in a worse predicament than they are already in.
” 2. Airstrikes won’t destroy radical ideology, they’ll make it worse.”
This statement is true, war will be continuous & ruin the near surroundings. It will only cause more anger & hate. Therefore, I believe it is best to just avoid it rather than allow it to happen.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/11/opinion/kohn-isis-obama/

Reply
Permalink # khadijahwatson said

I don’t think we should have resulted to violence so quickly. It will only cause more problems, before or even if there is a solution. Problems such as “causing Iraq to become more unstable by killing civilians” (http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/11/opinion/kohn-isis-obama/). America should have tired a more diplomatic approach and hit Isis money source.

Reply
Permalink # queenbree7 said

Bombing ISIS is probably not the right thing to do at this very moment. I can understand what the President is trying to do. It’s sort of like when President Harry S. Truman made the decision to drop the Atomic Bomb on Japan. It is known as one of the most controversial decisions in history. The bomb killed many, but their goal was to keep the casualties on either side to a minimum. Finally the Japanese surrendered which prevented even more deaths on both sides of the war. (http://www.prageruniversity.com/History/Was-it-Wrong-to-Drop-the-Atom-Bomb-on-Japan.html#.VCpsFfldVU4) Unfortunately like many others have said in their comments, terrorism can’t just be bombed away. There are probably some more groups out there that we just don’t know about and in the future we’ll probably try bombing them as well. I really believe that we should have taken a more diplomatic approach just like Sally Kohn said in the article. (http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/11/opinion/kohn-isis-obama/)
Cutting off their access to guns and money, Fixing Iraq’s political rifts (which yes, involves working together with our long time enemy, Iran), providing Humanitarian assistance, and leading an international response. I believe we should have tried these four concepts before we took the initiation to go ahead and bomb. But, the deed has been done. However, I don’t think its too late to take diplomatic action. We should try each of these solutions as well, and see how it all plays out.

Reply
Permalink # James Johnson said

“And so I hope that I hurt more people than I get hurt by.
Because I don’t want to die.” $$$

Reply
Permalink # sarahpickert15 said

“What we won’t hear enough of are the voices of the opposition — those who argue that military action will not get rid of ISIS but make the situation worse in Iraq and Syria” (http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/11/opinion/kohn-isis-obama/). I know I’m late (had trouble posting) but I still want to get some kind of credit. In my opinion, I don’t think we should be bombing ISIS. Like Meli said, “We kill people who kill people because killing people is wrong.” I personally do not understand killing many people, especially when the fight didn’t directly involve us in the first place, just to make a point. “There are two big new elements in this policy: First, air strikes will no longer be restricted to areas where ISIS poses a threat to U.S. personnel. Instead, they can strafe and bomb ISIS targets anywhere in Iraq, coordinating the strikes with assaults on the ground by Iraqi soldiers, militias, or Kurdish peshmerga” (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2014). This is going to put so many casualties in danger, but for what? Obama may think he’s doing the right thing, and he may be, but it’s also dangerous and threatening.

Reply
Permalink # cdanielles said

The bombing of the ISIS targets is a very difficult situation to label “right” or “wrong. Personally, I do not agree with war so bombing people for killing is an absolutely ludicrous and hypocritical idea to me. BUT, I do understand why the US would go for this. “This cannot and should not be principally America’s fight; but the fact is, America is the only country that can coordinate the coalition—provide the intelligence, logistics, and accurate air strikes—needed to win” (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2014/09/obama_s_strategy_for_attacking_isis_it_s_a_good_plan_that_could_easily_fall.html). America feels partially obligated to help in this crisis. They’re the best option to stopping ISIS. Although they want to “help” out, is bombing really the best method? Innocents will die because of this. I’m sure there would’ve still been a great deal of casualties regardless of the way this panned out, but bombing will eliminate the likelihood of the safety of the innocent. This could, potentially, make the entire situation worse. “In 2006, the classified National Intelligence Estimate found that the 2003 U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq helped create a new generation of terrorists and increased the overall terrorism threat against America” (http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/11/opinion/kohn-isis-obama/). So how would starting violence because of violence solve a problem that could potentially lead to MORE violence? Why would the best solution be to resolve this now and worry about the effects of the outcome later? I believe the US did not think ahead on this one.

Reply
Permalink # zacht27 said

Why did I forget to do this.

Although the President has outlined a “reasonable strategy”, further described in the first article (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2014/09/obama_s_strategy_for_attacking_isis_it_s_a_good_plan_that_could_easily_fall.html), I am more inclined to agree with the writer of the second. I, too, am concerned with the effect of US bombardment on our political ties with other countries. I am also concerned with the possible intensity of retaliation from this terrorist group when confronted in this manner when there are other possible alternatives to improving the situation (http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/11/opinion/kohn-isis-obama/). Thus, I am inclined to disagree with our current course of action regarding US bombardment.

Reply
Permalink # luvlikwoe said

I believe that the US should not be doing bombing in Syria. simply because there is no direct threat to the U.S. “This is simply not true. Even while playing up potential future threats to the homeland to justify military actions — thus essentially embracing President George W. Bush’s pre-emption doctrine — the Obama administration reports ISIS currently poses no threat to the United States.” (http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/11/opinion/kohn-isis-obama/). Also, so many things could go wrong and backfire in our faces. If the Americans were to bomb a mosque, then everything would fall apart. “but it could fall apart with the bombing of a single mosque or a marketplace, and then what? Will it look like the Americans are advising and bombing on behalf of a Shiite regime? Will the other Sunni nations back away, fearing the association?” (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2014/09/obama_s_strategy_for_attacking_isis_it_s_a_good_plan_that_could_easily_fall.html) Violence is never the answer, so many things have gone wrong and so many innocent people have died in the past due to unneeded war.

Reply
Permalink # crystabyers said

To be honest killing does go against the bible and killing somebody is very wrong. A life is worth living not to be ended. So no We shouldn’t bomb in Syria because there was no threat really made towards the U.S.A.

Reply
Permalink # jhenninger78 said

I do agree with the fact that the USA started bombing Isis. I think it had to be done for the security of the US. Us is no front runner in military spending . I think without bombing Isis it shows America’s week and would almost be supporting terrorism. There are some disadvantages to this though. One of those would be how much money that we spend on our military to be able to fight Isis. Another reason is it could start another war that the US not ready to fight right now. All in all it was a great decision but with too much force bad things can happen.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2014/09/obama_s_strategy_for_attacking_isis_it_s_a_good_plan_that_could_easily_fall.html

http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/11/opinion/kohn-isis-obama/

Reply
Permalink # Aislinn Nantz said

I personally don’t care bout it. The way I look at it, it doesn’t matter how we feel or what we think cause the US is gonna do whatever, just like a rebellious child.

Reply
Permalink # jhenninger78 said

I think that the US should do this bombing. I say this because the ISIS beheaded an American Journalist which shows the lack of respect. at the same time i understand that we do not need to be in another war but we can’t be bullied. If we don’t do something about ISIS now it could get bad.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2014/09/obama_s_strategy_for_attacking_isis_it_s_a_good_plan_that_could_easily_fall.html

Reply

Leave a reply to ethanbullard Cancel reply