Today at exactly 9:15 Paris Time, the French President, Francois Hollande are opening the Paris Conference regarding the situation of Iraq and the terrorist group, ISIS. President Hollande clearly stated that "there was no time to lose" Both President Masum of Iraq and President Hollande of France were giving their thanks to the people who made it to the conference and they hoped that the conference would achieve a coalition that can combat the ongoing crisis of ISIS. Right now, Secretary of State John Kerry is currently in the conference to create an anti-ISIS coalition to combat ISIS.
Last Saturday, ISIS has released a recent video of the beheading of David Haines, a British aid worker. Prime Minister David Cameron has called ISIS' actions "an act of pure evil" according to NPR. According to CNN, these videos strike similarities with each other for they display the same type of video with an orange clothed victim and an executioner who most people people claim is the same executioner that both killed American journalists, James Foley and Steven Sotloff. The executioner may have been claimed to be a British citizen who works under ISIS according to some sources.
Most of these videos have been directed toward America who had been calling airstrikes on most key cities in Iraq. In this issue, I would say that the American government should involve themselves more in the issue. Although the U.S. is trying to prevent themselves from entering the fray, they should create a solution that could bring the rest of the hostages that ISIS hold home. I hope that this conference could bring forth a solution that could counter and ultimately destroy ISIS.
What should the U.S. do to combat the threats that ISIS made with regards to the execution of three people?
How could the Peace Conference achieve a coalition against ISIS?
Any more comments are gladly accepted. Please comment Below!
2 comments:
In my honest opinion, I think it would be best to cut our losses and leave the area. The widespread use of drones to eliminate targets, while a militarily sound strategy, is largely detrimental to our purported cause.What we are fighting (or at least trying to) is an idea. For every terrorist we kill with these impersonal methods 3 more will rally to the cause. For every "collateral" death, 100. Even if we cripple the groups ability to fight, the IS would simply split into smaller more radical splinter cells.I suppose it could be considered a tad cruel to abandon the human rights violations in the area, but the US needs to stop being the world's policeman. All it is doing is building resentment and unrest in a critical region of the world. Besides, there are plenty of domestic issues that could use the billions we fire at dirt huts in the mountains.
I somewhat agree with Antony. The counter-terrorism campaigns, we are already engaged in are prolonged and fairly ineffective. ISIS, however, is a horrible organization that acts brutally to religious minorities, women, and moderates. It seems that there should be some response as to not let them gain control of all of Iraq and Syria, but I am unsure if airstrikes and military force is the most effective way.
Post a Comment