Countries The U.S. "Regime Changed" - Iraq/Afghanistan/Libya/Syria Are Chaotic Messes

[kaz]

US wasn't involved in Ukraine, Syria or Egypt. And only minorly involved in Libya.

You're delusional:

Ukraine - I like how the economic sanctions are supposed to be so effective, even though they haven't worked, and at the same time we are not involved.

Syria - I like how Obama was supposed to have kicked Putins ass while Putin got everything he wanted, and at the same time we were not involved.

Egypt - So you admit Obama being a windbag is not relevant? LOL, I agree, but the Egyptian government doesn't.

Libya - Damn, militarily attacking and bombing a country and helping the rebels bring down the government is only "minor" involvement.

What a sheep

 

[kaz]

Countries The U.S. "Regime Changed" - Iraq/Afghanistan/Libya/Syria Are Chaotic Messe

Just like we were before we spent billions of dollars and thousands of lives to "fix" them. We spent trillions on the war on poverty and not dented poverty rates.

A government solution is an oxymoron.

 

[tinydancer]

Now this is not a rumor. This is the real deal right from the Capitol. You have to understand that Obama hates Maliki with a passion. Almost as much as he hates Assad,

I think he was hoping for a two for one situation. Knock out both with ISIS and/or Al Nusra and then make peace with a Sunni replacement as the head of Syria and Iraq.

He does love his Sunnis doesn't he now?


Breaking on Capitol Hill is the news that Iraqi officials began requesting almost a year ago for the US to carry out drone strikes against ISIS – but the requests were shot down by the White House. That stunning revelation came during a hearing on the situation in Iraq this morning.

The Hill reports:

During a hearing on the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, House Foreign Affairs Chairman Ed Royce (R-Calif.) said the administration knew six months ago that the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS or ISIL) had established armed camps, staging areas and training grounds in Iraq’s western desert and its leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was threatening to attack the U.S.

“However, what the Administration did not say was that the Iraqi government had been urgently requesting drone strikes against ISIS camps since August 2013,” Royce continued.

“These repeated requests, unfortunately, were turned down,” he said. “I added my voice for drone strikes as ISIS convoys raced across the desert.”

The New York Times previously reported that in May 2014 Prime Minister Maliki had “secretly asked the Obama administration to consider carrying out airstrikes against extremist staging areas” and that “Iraq’s appeals for a military response have so far been rebuffed by the White House, which has been reluctant to open a new chapter in a conflict that President Obama has insisted was over when the United States withdrew the last of its forces from Iraq in 2011.”

But the fact that Iraqis have been begging for nearly a year for the US to strike ISIS with drones – and that those requests were repeatedly denied by Obama – was not previously known.

Obama regularly authorizes drone strikes against terrorist targets in Pakistan, Yemen and the Horn of Africa. The White House even boasted that the president personally approves the “kill lists” himself.



Obama refused ?repeated requests? since August 2013 for drone strikes against ISIS | AEIdeas

You chose the IAE version of the House hearing in ISIS. The IAE version does not provide the Admininstration's response. If you read the Hill report you'd know that it says that Republicans and Democrats at the hearing accepted the White House response.

You have done that omissions thing again for the sole reason of attacking Obama.

Here's a clue. Obama repeatedly requested Maliki to reach an inclusive political settlement with Sunni Iraqis who've been shut out of the Shiite run government in Baghdad. Dropping missiles on ISIS camps by the US Air Force before the ISIS aggression in June could not be justified in light of the political neglect of Maliki.

And Capitol Hill has also bought in hook line and sinker into the Muslim Brotherhood being a secular organization and that Putin invaded Crimea and took it over

Oh and the politicians on Capitol Hill bought into "student demonstrators" wanting a duly elected President of the Ukraine thrown out instead of recognizing that Svoboda and the Right Sector were driving a violent coup.

Justifying your personal position by saying lawmakers buy into something is the last thing you should be doing.

They are truly an uninformed lot.

I'm going to run the dog but at one point I'll pop back in to push back on Obama's "there's no military solution" and this is "just a Sunni uprising" pantload.

What a joke! And you are a fool if you buy into "ISIS just feels disenfranchised" bullshit coming from the WH.

 

[paulitician]

The 'Regime Change' mentality contributes heavily to this permanent state of war we're stuck in. But permanent war is what some want i guess. When will the People tire of war? I just don't know.

 

[BillyP]

US wasn't involved in Ukraine, Syria or Egypt. And only minorly involved in Libya.

You're delusional:

Ukraine - I like how the economic sanctions are supposed to be so effective, even though they haven't worked, and at the same time we are not involved.

Syria - I like how Obama was supposed to have kicked Putins ass while Putin got everything he wanted, and at the same time we were not involved.

Egypt - So you admit Obama being a windbag is not relevant? LOL, I agree, but the Egyptian government doesn't.

Libya - Damn, militarily attacking and bombing a country and helping the rebels bring down the government is only "minor" involvement.

What a sheep

Ukraine, we're talking militarily. Not involved.
Syria, Obummer, and Putin aren't relevant in the same sentence. But not involved, aside from maybe a few small arms... to make sure arabs are kept busy killing arabs, which is all good.
Egypt has always been a terrorist hotbed masquerading as a tourist destination. Mubarak was our "Shah of Iraq" guy, but that wasn't going to last forever.
Libya, no real boots on the ground, we helped what was already going on. A little CIA action probably, but overall, a minor involvement.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Get ready for a smack down little one.

I've already been down this road and blew this idiocy wide open.

And even though I'm on my first coffee I double checked BBC They have not backed off their research and their story.

Punditfact vs BBC?

Guess who I'm running with?


BBC News - Profile: Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi

Your BBC report does not refute Politifact's findings. They don't attempt to address Politifact's findings.

What are you talking about from the BBC?

When do you think Baghdadi was released from prison?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

And you are a fool if you buy into "ISIS just feels disenfranchised" bullshit coming from the WH.

I am not a fool because I never said ISIS is disenfranchized. If you are not able to respond to what I actually wrote it is apparently that you have no argument against it. Please go back and read what I wrote about disenfranchized Sumnis. Then try again with an argument.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

The 'Regime Change' mentality contributes heavily to this permanent state of war we're stuck in. But permanent war is what some want i guess. When will the People tire of war? I just don't know.

Its IS terrorists and the Taliban that contributes to the permanent war going on right now. Should the world surrender to them to make you feel better?

 

[paulitician]

The 'Regime Change' mentality contributes heavily to this permanent state of war we're stuck in. But permanent war is what some want i guess. When will the People tire of war? I just don't know.

Its IS terrorists and the Taliban that contributes to the permanent war going on right now. Should the world surrender to them to make you feel better?

Your own Government contributes far more to war and instability, than possibly any other group or nation on this Earth. But I know you don't want to acknowledge that. Most Americans don't, and never will. They've become All-In on permanent war. It's all they know now. If there isn't a 'Boogeyman' to fear and hate, you can bet ole Big Brother will invent one. Death and chaos is good business for the Globalist Elites who control the Military Industrial Complex.

 

[paulitician]

'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.'

That should be our Foreign Policy. 'Regime Change' is a flawed unjust policy. Americans certainly wouldn't accept other nations demanding 'Regime Change' in the U.S.

 

[BillyP]

The 'Regime Change' mentality contributes heavily to this permanent state of war we're stuck in. But permanent war is what some want i guess. When will the People tire of war? I just don't know.

Its IS terrorists and the Taliban that contributes to the permanent war going on right now. Should the world surrender to them to make you feel better?

Seriously though, who gives a fuck what the Taliban do? And ISIS killing Arabs? Who cares?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Your own Government contributes far more to war and instability, than possibly any other group or nation on this Earth

Did you think this way on September 12, 2001?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Seriously though, who gives a fuck what the Taliban do? And ISIS killing Arabs? Who cares?

Arabs are human beings. Do you approve of killing human beings as long as it has not reached your doorstep as of yet?

 

[rdean]

Bush had the right idea. When Russia invaded Georgia, Bush sent a planeload of "bandages" to Georgia. Now that's a "leader" Republicans can admire.

 

[rdean]

Seriously though, who gives a fuck what the Taliban do? And ISIS killing Arabs? Who cares?

Arabs are human beings. Do you approve of killing human beings as long as it has not reached your doorstep as of yet?

Republicans do.

 

[GHook93]

I guess you can throw Egypt and Ukraine in there too. Both are now tragic violent messes as well.

I agree in part with the premise. Afghanistan was a mess long before we went in and they attacked us. We should have attacked them like the Russians did to Georgia. Go in fast, hard, reduce the country to rubble and then get out and let them clean up the mess. Nevertheless, we had to attack.

We didn't invade or do anything meaningful in Syria or Egypt, but you have a point with Libya and Iraq.

 

[dblack]

When it comes to US foreign policy, re: regime change, I'm reminded of an old joke.

Crabby the clown was doing yet another children's party...

Crabby: "Ok kids, who wants to see a magic trick?!"

Kids: (enthusiastic cheers)

Crabby: "Alright, I need an assistant. Billy, come up here and sit on my lap."

(Billy reluctantly agrees)

Crabby: "Ok Billy, now... does it feel my thumb is up your ass?"

Billy (worried): Uh.. yeah?

Crabby: (triumphantly waving both thumbs in the air); TA-DA!!!!!!

That's what I think of when I consider countries that have been 'regime changed' by the US. TA-DA!!!

 

[NotfooledbyW]

We didn't invade or do anything meaningful in Syria or Egypt, but you have a point with Libya and Iraq.

Libya was authorized by the UN and the US did not instigate the violence or the rebellion in Libya.

Iraq is the only country where the US actually instigated the violence in defiance of the UNSC that was in the peaceful process of verifying that Iraq was disarmed of WMD.

That is a major point that should not be forgotten.

 

[tinydancer]

Get ready for a smack down little one.

I've already been down this road and blew this idiocy wide open.

And even though I'm on my first coffee I double checked BBC They have not backed off their research and their story.

Punditfact vs BBC?

Guess who I'm running with?


BBC News - Profile: Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi

Your BBC report does not refute Politifact's findings. They don't attempt to address Politifact's findings.

What are you talking about from the BBC?

When do you think Baghdadi was released from prison?

Why on earth would the BBC lower itself to even address this bullshit put out initially by Punditfact?

Good grief. You're kidding correct? You don't really think BBC would worry about a no namer blog do you?

Look at this bullshit that PUNDITFACT put out there. You keep saying it's Politifact. It's not. And the Tampa Bay Times couldn't compete with the BBC if it's life depended on it either.

It's not only an anonymous source at the Defense Department we are supposed to believe over the Colonel but PUNDITFACT goes on to say....

even if the Colonel is right....

Give me a freaking break here on this bullshit. Now to the agreement they are claiming that released all the detainees.

That was bullshit too. I've already been thru all this crap and researched it thoroughly. And my links are more solid than a lying hit piece put out by PUNDITFACT.

They are a two bit operation financed by a mega backer of Obama and Kerry.

Our ruling

Pirro said that Obama released the current head of ISIS from government custody in 2009.

The Defense Department said that the man now known as Baghdadi was released in 2004.

The evidence that Baghdadi was still in custody in 2009 appears to be the recollection of an Army colonel who said Baghdadi’s "face is very familiar."

Even if the colonel is right, Baghdadi was not set free; he was handed over to the Iraqis who released him some time later.

But more important, the legal contract between the United States and Iraq that guaranteed that the United States would give up custody of virtually every detainee was signed during the Bush administration.

It would have required an extraordinary effort to have held on to Baghdadi and there is no evidence that he was on anyone’s radar screen, assuming that he was in custody at all in 2009.

The U.S.-Iraq agreement drove the release of thousands of detainees in 2009, but Obama had nothing to do with that.

We rate the claim False.

Idiots.

Fox's Pirro: Obama set ISIS leader free in 2009 | PunditFact

 

[tinydancer]

From the Washington Post. Go ahead. Argue with WP. Make my day. I know. Maybe you can email both the BBC and the Washington Post and tell them they are wrong, wrong, wrong.

But the narrative solidifies in 2005, when he was captured by American forces and spent the next four years a prisoner in the Bucca Camp in southern Iraq.

It was from his time there that the first known picture of Baghdadi emerged. And it’s also there, reports Al-Monitor, that he possibly met and trained with key al-Qaeda fighters.

How ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi became the world?s most powerful jihadist leader - The Washington Post