I came across this video yesterday which for me was very telling, a CNN news reporter asks during a press conference at the G-20 Summit in Antalya, Turkey, a very legitimate question as to why the USA, with all their military powers will not use the armoury at their disposal to wipe ISIS of the face of the planet?
ISIS is said to only be an army of 30,000 strong, so it really would not take much effort or man power for the US to drop some targeted bombs on their strongholds, which would at least disrupt their operations especially in light of the recent Paris Attacks?
I find his response to be somewhat confusing and defensive, Obama replied,
“When we send troops in, those troops get injured, they get killed, they’re away from their families. Our country spends hundreds of billions of dollars. And so given the fact that there are enormous sacrifices involved in any military action, it’s best that we don’t, you know, shoot first and aim later. It’s important for us to get the strategy right and the strategy that we are pursuing is the right one.”
It does make you question Obamas role in all this? Some interesting comments on Youtube could reveal the answer as to why Obama is hesitant to bring the fight to ISIS…
The U.S needs to use the Jihadists as the vehicle of choice to achieve a political goal: Topple Assad, who for years stood in the way of an essential Qatari natural gas pipe line and destroy Syria’s economic infraestructure (oil reserves) to undermine Russian and Chinese economic interests
Isn’t Obama known for shooting first with the drone program ? But he won’t take out huge convoys ? He should be able to decimate them in a week with the gizmos you guys have
Answer: You don’t get rid of the people you’re funding and giving weapons to do your twisted dirty work for you. Playing both sides of a conflict has done nothing but create problems for this country and collateral damage.
Are you satisfied with Obamas response? or has it left you feeling confused as well… Leave your comments below