President Obama said that he authorized airstrikes on an a group of Islamic Militants in Iraq on Thursday. He also arranged airdrops of food and water to the Yazidis, a small religious group who left their homes to escape the militants, but who are trapped on a mountain by the militants. The U.S. will not, however, be putting troops in Iraq, added President Obama. President Obama also said that there would only be airstrikes if U.S. personnel were directly in danger from the Iraqi militants. John Kirby, spokesman for Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, denied that there had been previous airstrikes on the Iraqi militants before these, although Kurdish sources reported strikes as early as Thursday. Christian Yazidis fled Mosul under threats of having to convert to Islam or die, but the militants seized the Mosul dam, which gives them the possibility to flood a big territory if needed. The militants a,re also trying to take control of the Haditha Dam which would give the militants the ability to control the water flow south of the Tigris and the Euphrates. The Peshmerga, who are fighting against the militants, have been pushed back by the militants to the Kurdish border which makes it difficult for the Kurds to focus their defense of other cities in Iraq. This story is just beginning with lots of room to grow into something that effects the whole world.
Article: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/08/07/iraq-christian-villages-flee/13710265/
Questions:
1. Do you agree with President Obama's decision to launch the airstrikes? Why or why not?
2. What are the Pros and Cons of this decision?
3. Is there anything President Obama could have done different?
A pro of launching these attacks on Islamic militants is that it stops these troops from attacking and destroying more villages, which leads to more deaths of innocent civilians. Also, bombing these bands of soldiers would allow us to have more time to go in and send aid to the Yazidis, who are currently trapped on a mountaintop. A con of this is that it will anger these Islamic militants and may lead to them sending attacks towards us. After reading through this article I have decided that I do agree with Obama's decision to launch these airstrikes. This action will help reduce the strength of the Islamic militants and can be a step forward to ending these conflicts in the Middle East, even though it would be a small one. Sending in these airstrikes can do a lot of good for the civilians dealing with these militants and it’s an easy task for us to handle, so we might as well do it. Obama said the United States “cannot turn a blind eye” while these innocent families face the prospect of “genocide.” This is another reason as to why we should go through with the airstrikes. It would just be wrong to not help them. The good that could come out of sending in these airstrikes overpowers the cons and is why I agree with Obama's decision. On another point, I do not think Obama could be doing anything differently. I think this is the best decision because it means we don’t have to send troops in on ground and we can send in these airstrikes very quickly and handle these problems efficiently, with little chance of our citizens getting harmed.
ReplyDeleteI do agree with President Obama’s decision to launch the airstrike in Iraq. America has been present in Iraq for a very long time now and though their efforts are aiding Iraq in some ways, no actions have been taken to greatly impact Iraq or significantly change the state in which Iraq currently is. This decision to launch an airstrike to prevent genocide in Iraq will hopefully result in a turning point of the turmoil. The pros of this decision include quick and effective results and a prevention of more innocent Iraqis being killed. Some cons of launching the airstrike could be a failure in the attack resulting in America to face even more anger and violence from the Islamic militants. Also, this attack may unintentionally kill Iraqi civilians. If this were to occur, then the airstrike would make things worse for Iraq and be a waste overall. Of course there are alternatives to launching an airstrike because there is always another option to every decision ever made, but no alternative would compare to the effects Iraq will face if the airstrike goes well. This decision comes with a lot of risk but also a large reward. President Obama wants to start seeing change in Iraq so we can get our troops back home and leave Iraq in a much better state. I look forward to staying updated with the decisions made in regards to aiding Iraq and hope America can assist Iraq in becoming a more peaceful, prosperous country.
ReplyDeleteI must admit, I do not like Obama's decision to use airstrikes in Iraq, however, at the same time it was a good choice to make. I feel like the US should deal with our own problems before we get involved with conflicts that are not in our country. However, the US by using these airstrikes against Iraq will hopefully prevent a massive genocide, help preserve the freedom of religion and protect the US soldiers in Iraq. These terrorists are very dangerous and hopefully these airstrikes might prevent them from committing genocide which makes Obama's decision a good decision. Although these airstrikes are good, they will cost the US a lot of currency. There really wasn't any other option that Obama could have chosen in this situation as long as we are not going into another war. Obama today gave a speech about the airstrikes and how our allies are supporting us and how this will take some time to end. Here is a link to the article: http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/09/world/meast/iraq-crisis/index.html
ReplyDeleteI agree with president Obama's decision to launch the airstrikes in Iraq. Although it may have been a risky decision by the president, the choice to do nothing would have resulted in something worst for the citizens in Iraq. One pro for launching the airstrikes is it delays the islamic militants to prepare another attack against innocent citizens and already damaged villages. Another pro is the US attacks helped prove to the Islamic militants that we are prepared to defend and support the helpless families stuck on the mountain side due to the destruction of their homes. A con of these airstrikes is the US bombs could have resulted in deaths for several innocent people as well from Islamic militants seeking coverage in small villages. Another con is the bombs could have led Islamic militants to now target US places in vengeances. I don't think President Obama could have done anything differently. This was a very efficient way to handle the situation without leading our own troops in, on ground, to do the work. This brought a safe and simple plan for the problem.
ReplyDeleteI think it's about time that Obama reacts because these other countries don't want to talk so we had to use our military. I do agree with his decision to not put troops back on the ground ther also. Let's see if he lives up to his promise. A pro to this plan is that the Iraqi militants will stop threatening and killing innocent people. A con to this plan depends on how long it takes for us to make them stop. If they defuse to stop are we going to keep bombing them? I'm interested to see how long it will take and if this is going to become a bigger problem.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what Obama did when he released the air strikes. The Islamic's were warned previously to this happening that if they didn't change their behavior, this was going to happen. A pro to this is that it will show the militants that they cannot be doing what they are doing. It is not only affecting the people in their own country, but other countries now have to step in to control it. A con to the bombing is that now this could probably lead to other problems that Obama will have to face because he got us involved. Do you guys think this will help the Iraqi's stop or just make the situation worse?
ReplyDeleteYes, I do agree with President Obama's decision to launch air strikes against Islamic Militants as well as the air drop of vital supplies to refugees in the mountains. This was a good decision because, although a risky task, the airstrikes and humanitarian air drops produced more pros than cons. A pro of the airstrikes is that if the ISIS members in certain areas are taken out by our actions, this would result in increased safety for innocent civilians trying to protect themselves from the Islamic militants. Another positive outcome is that the airstrikes (designed to rid the area of the ISIS groups) would mean easier access and more time to carry out humanitarian air drops of much needed supplies to helpless civilians. If the airstrikes are successful in removing the militants from their stations around areas where civilians are taking homage, then it would be more safe to commit the air drops. Increased safety for the U.S. is definitely a pro. Also, the air drops of supplies are very important to help satisfy the needs of the civilians trying to take refuge whom are in risk of starvation and dehydration. However, these risks do have negative sides. U.S. military involvement in the airstrikes and air drops are very dangerous and any number of things could go wrong. Obama specifically addressed that in no way is the U.S. going to become involved in another Middle Eastern war. Overall, Obama made the right choice and hopefully will continue to stay on the right track with his decisions on this matter as conflict continues to escalate.
ReplyDeleteI do agree with the action taken by Obama and his administration in regards to launching the airstrikes. Iraq is very important because the us occupation lasted 8 years and to work for 8 years repelling terrorism and sacrificing lives to let iraq fall into the hands of ISIS isn't an option. The pros include preventing Iraq falling into terrorist hands, saving lives of many Iraqi citizens who don't wish to live under ISIS, and preventing genocides of those who aren't Islam in Iraq. However the cons include, US re occupation of Iraq, accidental loss of life due to airstrikes, conflict escalating and causing more strife in Iraq. In regards to if Obama could have done anything differently, i think he could have but this is the correct move for the time being. Airstrikes mean no US occupation so far and help without further endangerment to the US. Do you guys see this escalating conflict or is this a safe move?
ReplyDeleteBased on the information given to me on several articles on this topic, I must say, I do agree with President Obama's actions on authorizing airstrikes on Islamic militants. I do believe that to some point the U.S. should involve themselves in serious conflicts outside of our country especially if innocent people's lives are in danger. One benefit from this action by President Obama is keeping the lives of innocent citizens in Iraq out of harms way. Additionally, it keeps the militants from controlling large parts of Iraq and letting its citizens keep their freedom and peace of mind. On the contrary, one negative aspect of this action is involving the U.S. into predicaments that it has no need to be in. This could create tensions between the U.S. and the Islamic militants in the future. I do not think Obama could have done anything differently in this situation. His actions effectively solved this problem without putting U.S. troops on the ground in Iraq and keeping innocent people safe.
ReplyDelete