Discussion in 'Politics' started by Windparadox, Jan 3, 2018.
Yes. ISIS was mainly funded, armed, and trained by the US/West and Saudi Arabia. It was part of their 'Regime Change' agenda. ISIS couldn't have risen to such prominence without massive funding.
Most Americans don't realize it, but their Government has been funding & arming Islamic Terrorists for decades. The US, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia are the chief financiers of Islamic Terrorism around the world. I know most Americans won't accept that, but it is the ugly reality. It's time for big changes in our foreign policy.
No other President financed, supplied, armed, protected, defended, and Un-Constitutionally dragged the US into war to help terrorists - like Al Qaeda who slaughtered 3,000 Americans on 9/11/01 like Barry did. Bush got authorization from Congress to go to war in Afghanistan and Iraq, something the Nobel Peace Prize winner did not do before dragging the US to war in Libya to help Al Qaeda and before Invading Syria to help ISIS. Educate yourself...
and that's the reason i keep falling back to. we need to look at the policy overall and not try to pin a long standing policy on one person cause we don't like them.[/QUOTE]
One man entered the WH and immediately shut down Obama's policy / program of arming terrorists. He then reviewed the highly failed wartime policies and Rules of Engagement choke collars that benefitted out enemy, cut our military loose, and the successes since then have all but eliminated the enemy in many locations.
Sometimes it takes One man elected President to review failed policy and change that policy for the better.
but is he taking apart the policy in general or attacking obama?
there are many sides to this i won't narrow to 1 out of convenience. should we be arming the middle east? if not then we've been doing it since before reagan. we arm who can help us beat "the other side" and in time the side we support becomes the other side and we're just flat out being stupid.
THEN - when we leave a warzone and call it a day, what do we do with the old equipment? this isn't the same as directly arming terrorism because we do it all the time. THAT policy needs an enema and we need to look at this in its entirety - not just how to attack the other side.[/QUOTE]
Ceasing the arming of terrorists and changing seriously FAILED Rules of Engagement are changes to failed policy / leadership, not an attack on the failure who imposed those policies.
Were we not discussing why arms were left behind?
Does the President (no matter which one) select a Secretary and let them run loose? Which would be a Secretary of Defense in this matter. Does the Secretary of Defense oversee the Pentagon (Generals)? While I agree the buck should stop at the President it does not in a good percentage of cases. I doubt the any Secretary call the President every minute of the day to suggest or tell him hey I've made this decision or is it Ok if I? You want to hang Obama so bad I bet you have multiple orgasms daily just thinking about it. Get the fuck over it, happens with every President.
You seem to be someone with their head up their ass, true? You think obama called the terrorists up and said, Hey Ahab you want to buy some guns I have have a few extra. Get the fuck out of here you and your ilk are ridiculous.
Arms were not 'left behind' in Benghazi / Libya - they were being 'run' to terrorists through the CIA.
Arms were not 'left behind' in SYRIA.
Arms were not 'Left Behind' in Mexico - they were DELIVERED by the Obama administration. Obama signed off on that....
Viet Nam invaded Cambodia with what we left behind. The French built an entire trucking industry on the thousands of trucks we left behind after WW I, and of course we left behind literally trillions in today's dollars all over Europe after WW II, and are still 'leaving stuff' behind there to this day. Not much point in the expense of bringing it all home after shipping it over in the first place.
As for whether or not the results are good or bad, that is hard to make claims on, since in most cases re foreign policy all the outcomes are going to be bad; it's a matter of determining the least bad option. The option Bush I chose was the best, and the option Bush II chose to finish off Saddam was the best, too; it's how the aftermath was handled that is in doubt. I personally seriously doubt anyone can turn Islamic countries into liberal democracies, and expecting to is certainly clueless, but in the end it's the denizens of the ME that make the place a shithole full of dead bodies, not the Bushes, not the Israelis, not anybody else but themselves, and Obama did indeed do his level best to keep the body counts high, on purpose, and that wasn't even close to his best options, he was just a piece of shit who wanted to do as much harm as he could inflict, unlike either of the Bushes.
So yes, it is indeed fine to bash Obama, even when you don't like the piece of shit or not. The piece of shit was corrupt and completely incompetent, and a traitor to his own country, as is the leadership of the Democratic Party and most of its core base of scumbag voters.
Separate names with a comma.