Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Trading blame between Obama and Bush for the rise of ISIS in Syria and Iraq is useless. It is the US invasion of Iraq that brought Islamic fundamentalist terrorists from all over the world into Iraq. Saddam did plenty to crush them when he was in power, they only became relevant once the US found itself in and chaos ensued. They started this problem, so it was only right they end it, yes? The US stayed for years to defeat al-Qaeda, only to fail at that, destroy the Iraqi state, and directly/indirectly cause the death of a million Iraqis along the way (and 3,000 US troops, since that seems to be all we care about). Al-Qaeda has since reemerged. Good job Bush.
In Syria, the US - and that's both Republican and Democrat warhawks - spent three years saying Assad must go, completely ignoring the will of the Syrian people, a majority of whom are believed to still support him (and I'm not talking about the recent "election") and the secular state he leads. The US armed "rebels," insisting they were moderates, ignoring their targeting of Syrian Christian and Syrian Alawite communities, their beheadings of civilians and Syrian troops, and their imposing of harsh Sharia law in areas they rule. The US insisted there were moderates among these rebels, but could not name a single faction. Nor did the US seem to care that groups like ISIS were welcomed with open arms by the rebels. Clashes between ISIS and other rebels started when ISIS dumped them, not when they dumped ISIS. ISIS found the other rebels to be not extreme enough - even though they were plenty extreme. Actually, ISIS' biggest enemy in Syria is the Nusra Front, which is al-Qaeda's main affiliate in Syria. Time to end the myth that moderate rebels exist. Good job Obama.
Is this a US policy of divide and conquer or are we just stupid? Does anybody care that among the Syrian rebel jihadists are thousands of Americans and Europeans who will come home one day and destabilize our country?
According to the CIA there were more foreign insurgents from Saudi Arabia in Iraq than all other countries combined. In Libya Saudi were everywhere & now in Syria they're all over the place. The CIA also says that Saudis are almost exclusively funding Al Queda. Bin Laden was Saudi. Almost all of the hijackers on 9/11 were Saudis. It's legal to stone women to death for reading in Saudi Arabia. They're still actively beheading people in Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is out closest ally in the Middle East. You can't make this stuff up.
Again, our foreign policy has been a disaster since the end of WW2. 6 years. LMAO...yeah, right.
More like 60 plus years.
Exactly! Obama & Democrats in general are absolutely no different than Republicans. What was it 'The Who' said "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss"?
Trading blame between Obama and Bush for the rise of ISIS in Syria and Iraq is useless. It is the US invasion of Iraq that brought Islamic fundamentalist terrorists from all over the world into Iraq. Saddam did plenty to crush them when he was in power, they only became relevant once the US found itself in and chaos ensued. They started this problem, so it was only right they end it, yes? The US stayed for years to defeat al-Qaeda, only to fail at that, destroy the Iraqi state, and directly/indirectly cause the death of a million Iraqis along the way (and 3,000 US troops, since that seems to be all we care about). Al-Qaeda has since reemerged. Good job Bush.
In Syria, the US - and that's both Republican and Democrat warhawks - spent three years saying Assad must go, completely ignoring the will of the Syrian people, a majority of whom are believed to still support him (and I'm not talking about the recent "election") and the secular state he leads. The US armed "rebels," insisting they were moderates, ignoring their targeting of Syrian Christian and Syrian Alawite communities, their beheadings of civilians and Syrian troops, and their imposing of harsh Sharia law in areas they rule. The US insisted there were moderates among these rebels, but could not name a single faction. Nor did the US seem to care that groups like ISIS were welcomed with open arms by the rebels. Clashes between ISIS and other rebels started when ISIS dumped them, not when they dumped ISIS. ISIS found the other rebels to be not extreme enough - even though they were plenty extreme. Actually, ISIS' biggest enemy in Syria is the Nusra Front, which is al-Qaeda's main affiliate in Syria. Time to end the myth that moderate rebels exist. Good job Obama.
Is this a US policy of divide and conquer or are we just stupid? Does anybody care that among the Syrian rebel jihadists are thousands of Americans and Europeans who will come home one day and destabilize our country?
We need to drill and frack in this nation and stop sending billions to the anus of the world.
To hell with what happens in this area of the world, dont get involved , not ever to save Israel. They can sink or swim.
One of my favorite Foreign Policy comments was during a GOP debate in 2012 when Ron Paul said (Paraphrasing)
"Why am I the only one on a stage full of Conservatives who thinks it nuts that we're giving Pakistan Billions in Foreign Aid & bombing them simultaneously?"
Again, our foreign policy has been a disaster since the end of WW2. 6 years. LMAO...yeah, right.
More like 60 plus years.
You are being far too generous, America's foreign policy has been a disaster since the late 1890s when they went to war against Spain. WWII seems to be the only real foreign policy accomplishment for America during the period after the Spanish-American War.
Bush is the President who invaded Iraq then laid out current withdrawl schedule. Please, tell us how Bush would have handled the last 6 years in Iraq differently.
The implication being if you can't tell how he would have handled it differently, then he would not have. That is false. Since Bush was not in office there is no way to tell how he would have reacted and altered plans in the last 6 years. It's a question that has no answer. Even Bush himself could not answer the question, since he has not been privy to all the classified information for the last 6 years, nor is there any way to tell what the effects would have been of a different decision after 1 year on the next 5 years, or after 2 years on the following 4 years, etc.
There is one thing, though - President Obama has fired more generals than any other president in modern history and he refused to take the advice of nearly every commanding general in the Middle East. It does say something when a man with zero military experience in his lifetime fires or countermands over a dozen career professional general level officers, each of whom has decades of military experience. And what it says is not good.
Bush is the President who invaded Iraq then laid out current withdrawl schedule. Please, tell us how Bush would have handled the last 6 years in Iraq differently.
Disastrously.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
