Expand The US War In Syria Or Get Out: What Say You?...

[irosie91]

No one is "OUT" ------Russia is IN, Iran is IN, Turkey is to the North, Assad is IN, Baathism is IN, Caliphatism is IN. The
AXIS
is IN

Russia and Iran have always been in Syria. And the US/West is everywhere else. The US/West has been installing Puppet Regimes all over the Middle East for many years. So Russia and Iran have Syria? That's all they have. The US/West has the rest.

That's the big problem with Empire. Nothing's ever enough. We need to scale things back and adopt a humble foreign policy again. This Empire-building Agenda is gonna be the end of us. All Empires fall. Our Founding Fathers fully understood that. They defeated one and created our country. It's time to disengage from the Middle East. Time to come home.

try to make sense

Russia and Iran have always been in Syria. It's nothing new. Assad is a Shiite. So naturally, Syria has had close ties to Shiite Iran. But regardless, the US/West controls the rest of the Middle East. Russia and Iran being in one Middle East country, isn't the end of the world. It certainly doesn't justify 'Regime Change' and all this killing.

nope-------Russia and Iran have no ALWAYS been in Syria-------Long ago---
ANTIOCHUS was in Syria. Assad is an ALAWITE----not precisely a Shiite.
Russia and Iran's expansion to Syria is an ATROCITY

They have one country in the Middle East. How many does the US/West have? You wanna talk about 'Imperialism', how many innocent people has the US/West killed over there in order to install their Puppet Regimes? Think on that some.

who is "they" --? Learn some history

 

[sealybobo]

Looks like Trump just announced a new massive bombing campaign in Syria. Do you agree or disagree with his decision?

One person agrees with trump. Lol

 

[jc456]

get out of Syria.

 

[Dschrute3]

Russia and Iran have always been in Syria. And the US/West is everywhere else. The US/West has been installing Puppet Regimes all over the Middle East for many years. So Russia and Iran have Syria? That's all they have. The US/West has the rest.

That's the big problem with Empire. Nothing's ever enough. We need to scale things back and adopt a humble foreign policy again. This Empire-building Agenda is gonna be the end of us. All Empires fall. Our Founding Fathers fully understood that. They defeated one and created our country. It's time to disengage from the Middle East. Time to come home.

try to make sense

Russia and Iran have always been in Syria. It's nothing new. Assad is a Shiite. So naturally, Syria has had close ties to Shiite Iran. But regardless, the US/West controls the rest of the Middle East. Russia and Iran being in one Middle East country, isn't the end of the world. It certainly doesn't justify 'Regime Change' and all this killing.

nope-------Russia and Iran have no ALWAYS been in Syria-------Long ago---
ANTIOCHUS was in Syria. Assad is an ALAWITE----not precisely a Shiite.
Russia and Iran's expansion to Syria is an ATROCITY

They have one country in the Middle East. How many does the US/West have? You wanna talk about 'Imperialism', how many innocent people has the US/West killed over there in order to install their Puppet Regimes? Think on that some.

who is "they" --? Learn some history

Again, Russia and Iran in one Middle East country, isn't the end of the world. It certainly doesn't justify funding and arming brutal Jihadi orgs to kill a foreign leader. There's gonna be a big price to pay for the US/West doing that in Syria. Many Jihadis have fled to Europe, disguised as innocent 'Refugees.' How many will eventually make it the US? We've created a horrific problem for the future. Should have stayed out of the Syrian Civil War.

 

[Dschrute3]

Looks like Trump just announced a new massive bombing campaign in Syria. Do you agree or disagree with his decision?

One person agrees with trump. Lol

Yeah, he had it right last week when he was talkin withdrawal. But then suddenly, a 'Chemical Attack' happens. Pretty interesting timing, huh? Looks like he's trapped. The 'Regime Change' folks score another win.

 

[irosie91]

try to make sense

Russia and Iran have always been in Syria. It's nothing new. Assad is a Shiite. So naturally, Syria has had close ties to Shiite Iran. But regardless, the US/West controls the rest of the Middle East. Russia and Iran being in one Middle East country, isn't the end of the world. It certainly doesn't justify 'Regime Change' and all this killing.

nope-------Russia and Iran have no ALWAYS been in Syria-------Long ago---
ANTIOCHUS was in Syria. Assad is an ALAWITE----not precisely a Shiite.
Russia and Iran's expansion to Syria is an ATROCITY

They have one country in the Middle East. How many does the US/West have? You wanna talk about 'Imperialism', how many innocent people has the US/West killed over there in order to install their Puppet Regimes? Think on that some.

who is "they" --? Learn some history

Again, Russia and Iran in one Middle East country, isn't the end of the world. It certainly doesn't justify funding and arming brutal Jihadi orgs to kill a foreign leader. There's gonna be a big price to pay for the US/West doing that in Syria. Many Jihadis have fled to Europe, disguised as innocent 'Refugees.' How many will eventually make it the US? We've created a horrific problem for the future. Should have stayed out of the Syrian Civil War.

Russia has been IN the middle east for more than 60 years----not just in Syria.
Right now Russia is into CONTROL OF THE RED SEA AND THE
MEDITERANEAN (hooked to the black sea and WHERE DA CAVIAR
LIVES) Russia is into crimea and Ukraine and into Syria ----and its
Iranian alliance brings it into the red sea. The situation regarding
TRANPORTS ON THE SEA is in a CRITICAL SITUATION. You need glasses

 

[irosie91]

Looks like Trump just announced a new massive bombing campaign in Syria. Do you agree or disagree with his decision?

One person agrees with trump. Lol

Yeah, he had it right last week when he was talkin withdrawal. But then suddenly, a 'Chemical Attack' happens. Pretty interesting timing, huh? Looks like he's trapped. The 'Regime Change' folks score another win.

you are scraping the bottom of the barrel

 

[Dschrute3]

Russia and Iran have always been in Syria. It's nothing new. Assad is a Shiite. So naturally, Syria has had close ties to Shiite Iran. But regardless, the US/West controls the rest of the Middle East. Russia and Iran being in one Middle East country, isn't the end of the world. It certainly doesn't justify 'Regime Change' and all this killing.

nope-------Russia and Iran have no ALWAYS been in Syria-------Long ago---
ANTIOCHUS was in Syria. Assad is an ALAWITE----not precisely a Shiite.
Russia and Iran's expansion to Syria is an ATROCITY

They have one country in the Middle East. How many does the US/West have? You wanna talk about 'Imperialism', how many innocent people has the US/West killed over there in order to install their Puppet Regimes? Think on that some.

who is "they" --? Learn some history

Again, Russia and Iran in one Middle East country, isn't the end of the world. It certainly doesn't justify funding and arming brutal Jihadi orgs to kill a foreign leader. There's gonna be a big price to pay for the US/West doing that in Syria. Many Jihadis have fled to Europe, disguised as innocent 'Refugees.' How many will eventually make it the US? We've created a horrific problem for the future. Should have stayed out of the Syrian Civil War.

Russia has been IN the middle east for more than 60 years----not just in Syria.
Right now Russia is into CONTROL OF THE RED SEA AND THE
MEDITERANEAN (hooked to the black sea and WHERE DA CAVIAR
LIVES) Russia is into crimea and Ukraine and into Syria ----and its
Iranian alliance brings it into the red sea. The situation regarding
TRANPORTS ON THE SEA is in a CRITICAL SITUATION. You need glasses

Sadly, you're just reliving old Cold War fantasies. Russia and Iran being in one Middle East country, is no threat to the US/West. The US/West controls most of the countries in the Middle East. They have numerous Puppets in place. You really are exaggerating the 'threat.'

 

[sealybobo]

Looks like Trump just announced a new massive bombing campaign in Syria. Do you agree or disagree with his decision?

One person agrees with trump. Lol

Yeah, he had it right last week when he was talkin withdrawal. But then suddenly, a 'Chemical Attack' happens. Pretty interesting timing, huh? Looks like he's trapped. The 'Regime Change' folks score another win.

So what candidate Trump said was right but the thing that bugs me is that he shouldn't have been armchair qb'ing Obama. Now we see his talk before he became president was bullshit.

One thing he got right though is

Donald J. Trump‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump
Leadership: Whatever happens, you're responsible. If it doesn't happen, you're responsible.

11:01 AM - 8 Nov 2013

 

[DOTR]

Trump Vows ‘Big Price’ for Syria Attack, Raising Prospect of Missile Strike

President Trump on Sunday promised a “big price” to be paid for what he said was a chemical weapons attack that choked dozens of Syrians to death the day before, and a top White House official said the administration would not rule out a missile strike to retaliate against the government of President Bashar al-Assad...

Trump Vows ‘Big Price’ for Syria Attack, Raising Prospect of Missile Strike

True but at this point, you can’t really take Trump seriously about anything that he says.

Well, in his defense, he was looking to get us out of Syria. Last week he was talking withdrawal. But then a 'Chemical Attack' happens. He's basically forced to stay and expand the war now.

Personally, i'm very skeptical of these reports. The timing of the attack was so convenient for the Interventionists. It happened right after Trump spoke of withdrawal. I tend to think False Flag. What's Trump supposed to do now? Our foreign policy is such a bloody quagmire.

Funny how convenient that attack was.

 

[basquebromance]

"America needs to stop getting involved in Middle East conflicts. It's not up to us to solve their problems. It's up to the Syrians to get their own house in order."

 

[Tehon]

 

[basquebromance]

"i wanted to live in Syria always because it is a special place. it is a very, very old country. my family has lived there forever. Grandpa Malek says that it is important to understand where you come from because that makes you who you are. he says we should be proud to be Syrians, because Syrians are kind and honest. you can leave a million dollars in your house and no one will steal it" - 7 year old Syrian refugee Bana Alabed

 

[toomuchtime_]

Cram it. I'm well aware of what happened.

Your post seemed to show you weren't.

Who did the Bush administration promote to PM of Iraq in the new government?

Maliki, who was a relative moderate but a weak man who was well managed by the Bush administration and given a crash course in democracy, but who became paranoid after Obama withdrew US troops and support for his government and for the Sunni militias who had been fighting al Qaeda.

On 16 July 1979, al-Maliki fled Iraq after he was discovered to be a member of the outlawed Islamic Dawa Party. According to a brief biography on the Islamic Dawa Party's website, he left Iraq via Jordan in October, and soon moved to Syria, adopting the pseudonym "Jawad". He left Syria for Iran in 1982, where he lived in Tehran until 1990, before returning to Damascus where he remained until U.S. coalition forces invaded Iraq and toppled Saddam's regime in 2003.[9] While living in Syria, he worked as a political officer for Dawa, developing close ties with Hezbollah and particularly with Iran, supporting that country's effort to topple Saddam's regime.[10]

Let me guess, you are starting to think that I may indeed understand what happened.

A moderate huh? Do you understand...... the US destabilized the region. Not Obama.......the USG. Fully supported by morons like yourself who now wish to destroy Syria.

Need more proof?

King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia was described in a leaked March 2009 diplomatic cable:

The King said he had "no confidence whatsoever in (Iraqi PM) Maliki, and the Ambassador (Fraker) is well aware of my views." The King affirmed that he had refused former President Bush's entreaties that he meet with al-Maliki. The King said he had met al-Maliki early in al-Maliki's term of office, and the Iraqi had given him a written list of commitments for reconciliation in Iraq, but had failed to follow through on any of them. For this reason, the King said, al-Maliki had little credibility. "I don't trust this man," the King stated, "He's an Iranian agent." The King said he had told both Bush and former Vice president Cheney "how can I meet with someone I don't trust?" Al-Maliki has "opened the door for Iranian influence in Iraq" since taking power, the King said, and he was "not hopeful at all" for al-Maliki, "or I would have met with him."[44]

The majority of Iraqis are Shi'ite and so it is no surprise that Sunni consider Shi'ites who rebelled against the Sunni to be radicals, but when it came time to choose a leader for Iraq, Maliki was moderate compared to the other choices. I understand you are a big fan of the stable ME in which Saddam was executing 1,000 people a week, gassing the Kurds and locking them up in concentration camps, driving Shi'ites out of their villages by destroying the water supple and holding public executions of Shi'ite village leaders to further terrorize his enemies and that you rue the fact the US destabilized this "peace" you so admire. The war was very costly but the fact is that by the time Obama came to office, a democratic government was in place that was in the process of guaranteeing protections to minorities and there was less violence between Sunni and Shi'ite than there had been in a thousand years. Obama destroyed this structure which the Bush administration had built up and abandoned all the people in Iraq who had allied themselves with the US despite the fact all the diplomats and military who had been involved there told him if he withdrew the troops Iraq would go up in flames because he didn't want to go into the 2012 election not having kept his main promise from 2008.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Some coalition of Sunni groups since the Sunni make up the majority of the population and have been oppressed by both this Assad and his father. If you recall, ISIS was at war with the other Sunni groups as well as the Alawites who support Assad. So it would probably have been a moderate coalition of Sunni groups as well as some of the minorities like Kurds, Assyrians and Christians.

Probably a moderate group? I'm sure. It would probably be a big mess and you have no reason to believe it wouldn't be. Aren't ISIS Sunni?

Moderate in terms of religion. ISIS and the other radical Sunni groups would continue to be under siege by the US and the rebel groups it supported, so the final coalition would tend to be moderate and inclusive.

Because Afghanistan and Iraq worked out so well. You are a special kind of stupid...

I'll take that as evidence you have given up.

It is evidence you have no clue. Every time we get involved it gets worse.

Every time we don't get involved it gets worse.

 

[Tehon]

Your post seemed to show you weren't.

Who did the Bush administration promote to PM of Iraq in the new government?

Maliki, who was a relative moderate but a weak man who was well managed by the Bush administration and given a crash course in democracy, but who became paranoid after Obama withdrew US troops and support for his government and for the Sunni militias who had been fighting al Qaeda.

On 16 July 1979, al-Maliki fled Iraq after he was discovered to be a member of the outlawed Islamic Dawa Party. According to a brief biography on the Islamic Dawa Party's website, he left Iraq via Jordan in October, and soon moved to Syria, adopting the pseudonym "Jawad". He left Syria for Iran in 1982, where he lived in Tehran until 1990, before returning to Damascus where he remained until U.S. coalition forces invaded Iraq and toppled Saddam's regime in 2003.[9] While living in Syria, he worked as a political officer for Dawa, developing close ties with Hezbollah and particularly with Iran, supporting that country's effort to topple Saddam's regime.[10]

Let me guess, you are starting to think that I may indeed understand what happened.

A moderate huh? Do you understand...... the US destabilized the region. Not Obama.......the USG. Fully supported by morons like yourself who now wish to destroy Syria.

Need more proof?

King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia was described in a leaked March 2009 diplomatic cable:

The King said he had "no confidence whatsoever in (Iraqi PM) Maliki, and the Ambassador (Fraker) is well aware of my views." The King affirmed that he had refused former President Bush's entreaties that he meet with al-Maliki. The King said he had met al-Maliki early in al-Maliki's term of office, and the Iraqi had given him a written list of commitments for reconciliation in Iraq, but had failed to follow through on any of them. For this reason, the King said, al-Maliki had little credibility. "I don't trust this man," the King stated, "He's an Iranian agent." The King said he had told both Bush and former Vice president Cheney "how can I meet with someone I don't trust?" Al-Maliki has "opened the door for Iranian influence in Iraq" since taking power, the King said, and he was "not hopeful at all" for al-Maliki, "or I would have met with him."[44]

The majority of Iraqis are Shi'ite and so it is no surprise that Sunni consider Shi'ites who rebelled against the Sunni to be radicals, but when it came time to choose a leader for Iraq, Maliki was moderate compared to the other choices. I understand you are a big fan of the stable ME in which Saddam was executing 1,000 people a week, gassing the Kurds and locking them up in concentration camps, driving Shi'ites out of their villages by destroying the water supple and holding public executions of Shi'ite village leaders to further terrorize his enemies and that you rue the fact the US destabilized this "peace" you so admire. The war was very costly but the fact is that by the time Obama came to office, a democratic government was in place that was in the process of guaranteeing protections to minorities and there was less violence between Sunni and Shi'ite than there had been in a thousand years. Obama destroyed this structure which the Bush administration had built up and abandoned all the people in Iraq who had allied themselves with the US despite the fact all the diplomats and military who had been involved there told him if he withdrew the troops Iraq would go up in flames because he didn't want to go into the 2012 election not having kept his main promise from 2008.

Bush fucked it up so bad that everyone in the region gave up on his government. Obama intentionally blew up the region to counter Bush's Shiite expansion. No one in our government ever really gave a shit about Iraqi's. The only thing Bush had to do was keep Iraq from falling into the hands of Iran and he failed.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Who did the Bush administration promote to PM of Iraq in the new government?

Maliki, who was a relative moderate but a weak man who was well managed by the Bush administration and given a crash course in democracy, but who became paranoid after Obama withdrew US troops and support for his government and for the Sunni militias who had been fighting al Qaeda.

On 16 July 1979, al-Maliki fled Iraq after he was discovered to be a member of the outlawed Islamic Dawa Party. According to a brief biography on the Islamic Dawa Party's website, he left Iraq via Jordan in October, and soon moved to Syria, adopting the pseudonym "Jawad". He left Syria for Iran in 1982, where he lived in Tehran until 1990, before returning to Damascus where he remained until U.S. coalition forces invaded Iraq and toppled Saddam's regime in 2003.[9] While living in Syria, he worked as a political officer for Dawa, developing close ties with Hezbollah and particularly with Iran, supporting that country's effort to topple Saddam's regime.[10]

Let me guess, you are starting to think that I may indeed understand what happened.

A moderate huh? Do you understand...... the US destabilized the region. Not Obama.......the USG. Fully supported by morons like yourself who now wish to destroy Syria.

Need more proof?

King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia was described in a leaked March 2009 diplomatic cable:

The King said he had "no confidence whatsoever in (Iraqi PM) Maliki, and the Ambassador (Fraker) is well aware of my views." The King affirmed that he had refused former President Bush's entreaties that he meet with al-Maliki. The King said he had met al-Maliki early in al-Maliki's term of office, and the Iraqi had given him a written list of commitments for reconciliation in Iraq, but had failed to follow through on any of them. For this reason, the King said, al-Maliki had little credibility. "I don't trust this man," the King stated, "He's an Iranian agent." The King said he had told both Bush and former Vice president Cheney "how can I meet with someone I don't trust?" Al-Maliki has "opened the door for Iranian influence in Iraq" since taking power, the King said, and he was "not hopeful at all" for al-Maliki, "or I would have met with him."[44]

The majority of Iraqis are Shi'ite and so it is no surprise that Sunni consider Shi'ites who rebelled against the Sunni to be radicals, but when it came time to choose a leader for Iraq, Maliki was moderate compared to the other choices. I understand you are a big fan of the stable ME in which Saddam was executing 1,000 people a week, gassing the Kurds and locking them up in concentration camps, driving Shi'ites out of their villages by destroying the water supple and holding public executions of Shi'ite village leaders to further terrorize his enemies and that you rue the fact the US destabilized this "peace" you so admire. The war was very costly but the fact is that by the time Obama came to office, a democratic government was in place that was in the process of guaranteeing protections to minorities and there was less violence between Sunni and Shi'ite than there had been in a thousand years. Obama destroyed this structure which the Bush administration had built up and abandoned all the people in Iraq who had allied themselves with the US despite the fact all the diplomats and military who had been involved there told him if he withdrew the troops Iraq would go up in flames because he didn't want to go into the 2012 election not having kept his main promise from 2008.

Bush fucked it up so bad that everyone in the region gave up on his government. Obama intentionally blew up the region to counter Bush's Shiite expansion. No one in our government ever really gave a shit about Iraqi's. The only thing Bush had to do was keep Iraq from falling into the hands of Iran and he failed.

Nonsense, by the time Bush left office, Iraq was a functioning democracy trying to hammer out laws about civil liberties, al Qaeda had been reduced to no more than a nuisance and there was less violence between the Sunni and Shia in Iraq than there have been in a thousand years. Obama blew it up despite being told by everyone involved in Iraq that if he did the country would go up in flames because he was never anything more than an ambitious politician and he was willing to allow hundreds of thousands of people die to enhance his chances of a second term.

 

[Tehon]

Maliki, who was a relative moderate but a weak man who was well managed by the Bush administration and given a crash course in democracy, but who became paranoid after Obama withdrew US troops and support for his government and for the Sunni militias who had been fighting al Qaeda.

On 16 July 1979, al-Maliki fled Iraq after he was discovered to be a member of the outlawed Islamic Dawa Party. According to a brief biography on the Islamic Dawa Party's website, he left Iraq via Jordan in October, and soon moved to Syria, adopting the pseudonym "Jawad". He left Syria for Iran in 1982, where he lived in Tehran until 1990, before returning to Damascus where he remained until U.S. coalition forces invaded Iraq and toppled Saddam's regime in 2003.[9] While living in Syria, he worked as a political officer for Dawa, developing close ties with Hezbollah and particularly with Iran, supporting that country's effort to topple Saddam's regime.[10]

Let me guess, you are starting to think that I may indeed understand what happened.

A moderate huh? Do you understand...... the US destabilized the region. Not Obama.......the USG. Fully supported by morons like yourself who now wish to destroy Syria.

Need more proof?

King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia was described in a leaked March 2009 diplomatic cable:

The King said he had "no confidence whatsoever in (Iraqi PM) Maliki, and the Ambassador (Fraker) is well aware of my views." The King affirmed that he had refused former President Bush's entreaties that he meet with al-Maliki. The King said he had met al-Maliki early in al-Maliki's term of office, and the Iraqi had given him a written list of commitments for reconciliation in Iraq, but had failed to follow through on any of them. For this reason, the King said, al-Maliki had little credibility. "I don't trust this man," the King stated, "He's an Iranian agent." The King said he had told both Bush and former Vice president Cheney "how can I meet with someone I don't trust?" Al-Maliki has "opened the door for Iranian influence in Iraq" since taking power, the King said, and he was "not hopeful at all" for al-Maliki, "or I would have met with him."[44]

The majority of Iraqis are Shi'ite and so it is no surprise that Sunni consider Shi'ites who rebelled against the Sunni to be radicals, but when it came time to choose a leader for Iraq, Maliki was moderate compared to the other choices. I understand you are a big fan of the stable ME in which Saddam was executing 1,000 people a week, gassing the Kurds and locking them up in concentration camps, driving Shi'ites out of their villages by destroying the water supple and holding public executions of Shi'ite village leaders to further terrorize his enemies and that you rue the fact the US destabilized this "peace" you so admire. The war was very costly but the fact is that by the time Obama came to office, a democratic government was in place that was in the process of guaranteeing protections to minorities and there was less violence between Sunni and Shi'ite than there had been in a thousand years. Obama destroyed this structure which the Bush administration had built up and abandoned all the people in Iraq who had allied themselves with the US despite the fact all the diplomats and military who had been involved there told him if he withdrew the troops Iraq would go up in flames because he didn't want to go into the 2012 election not having kept his main promise from 2008.

Bush fucked it up so bad that everyone in the region gave up on his government. Obama intentionally blew up the region to counter Bush's Shiite expansion. No one in our government ever really gave a shit about Iraqi's. The only thing Bush had to do was keep Iraq from falling into the hands of Iran and he failed.

Nonsense, by the time Bush left office, Iraq was a functioning democracy trying to hammer out laws about civil liberties, al Qaeda had been reduced to no more than a nuisance and there was less violence between the Sunni and Shia in Iraq than there have been in a thousand years. Obama blew it up despite being told by everyone involved in Iraq that if he did the country would go up in flames because he was never anything more than an ambitious politician and he was willing to allow hundreds of thousands of people die to enhance his chances of a second term.

Dude, declassified documents from Brennan's visit with the Saudi Monarchy (Obama era) expose your fraudulent claim.

3. (S) U.S. CREDIBILITY IS CRITICAL: The Bush Administration is now in the past, the King said. Both President Bushes were his friends, but the recent President Bush didn,t take his advice on dealing with issues in the region, and they found their problems "compounded." The King said, "we are ready to consult, provide guidance and to do whatever is necessary. We are people of the region and we know it well." Brennan responded that President Obama wants to listen, and asked what advice the King would offer to President Obama. Abdullah said his one piece of advice was that restoring U.S. credibility in the world was critically important. Brennan responded that this was an important issue for President Obama as well. Brennan said that under President Obama we will restore our credibility. He said the U.S. is a great country and we know what we have to do.
Cable: 09RIYADH447_a

 

[toomuchtime_]

On 16 July 1979, al-Maliki fled Iraq after he was discovered to be a member of the outlawed Islamic Dawa Party. According to a brief biography on the Islamic Dawa Party's website, he left Iraq via Jordan in October, and soon moved to Syria, adopting the pseudonym "Jawad". He left Syria for Iran in 1982, where he lived in Tehran until 1990, before returning to Damascus where he remained until U.S. coalition forces invaded Iraq and toppled Saddam's regime in 2003.[9] While living in Syria, he worked as a political officer for Dawa, developing close ties with Hezbollah and particularly with Iran, supporting that country's effort to topple Saddam's regime.[10]

Let me guess, you are starting to think that I may indeed understand what happened.

A moderate huh? Do you understand...... the US destabilized the region. Not Obama.......the USG. Fully supported by morons like yourself who now wish to destroy Syria.

Need more proof?

King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia was described in a leaked March 2009 diplomatic cable:

The King said he had "no confidence whatsoever in (Iraqi PM) Maliki, and the Ambassador (Fraker) is well aware of my views." The King affirmed that he had refused former President Bush's entreaties that he meet with al-Maliki. The King said he had met al-Maliki early in al-Maliki's term of office, and the Iraqi had given him a written list of commitments for reconciliation in Iraq, but had failed to follow through on any of them. For this reason, the King said, al-Maliki had little credibility. "I don't trust this man," the King stated, "He's an Iranian agent." The King said he had told both Bush and former Vice president Cheney "how can I meet with someone I don't trust?" Al-Maliki has "opened the door for Iranian influence in Iraq" since taking power, the King said, and he was "not hopeful at all" for al-Maliki, "or I would have met with him."[44]

The majority of Iraqis are Shi'ite and so it is no surprise that Sunni consider Shi'ites who rebelled against the Sunni to be radicals, but when it came time to choose a leader for Iraq, Maliki was moderate compared to the other choices. I understand you are a big fan of the stable ME in which Saddam was executing 1,000 people a week, gassing the Kurds and locking them up in concentration camps, driving Shi'ites out of their villages by destroying the water supple and holding public executions of Shi'ite village leaders to further terrorize his enemies and that you rue the fact the US destabilized this "peace" you so admire. The war was very costly but the fact is that by the time Obama came to office, a democratic government was in place that was in the process of guaranteeing protections to minorities and there was less violence between Sunni and Shi'ite than there had been in a thousand years. Obama destroyed this structure which the Bush administration had built up and abandoned all the people in Iraq who had allied themselves with the US despite the fact all the diplomats and military who had been involved there told him if he withdrew the troops Iraq would go up in flames because he didn't want to go into the 2012 election not having kept his main promise from 2008.

Bush fucked it up so bad that everyone in the region gave up on his government. Obama intentionally blew up the region to counter Bush's Shiite expansion. No one in our government ever really gave a shit about Iraqi's. The only thing Bush had to do was keep Iraq from falling into the hands of Iran and he failed.

Nonsense, by the time Bush left office, Iraq was a functioning democracy trying to hammer out laws about civil liberties, al Qaeda had been reduced to no more than a nuisance and there was less violence between the Sunni and Shia in Iraq than there have been in a thousand years. Obama blew it up despite being told by everyone involved in Iraq that if he did the country would go up in flames because he was never anything more than an ambitious politician and he was willing to allow hundreds of thousands of people die to enhance his chances of a second term.

Dude, declassified documents from Brennan's visit with the Saudi Monarchy (Obama era) expose your fraudulent claim.

3. (S) U.S. CREDIBILITY IS CRITICAL: The Bush Administration is now in the past, the King said. Both President Bushes were his friends, but the recent President Bush didn,t take his advice on dealing with issues in the region, and they found their problems "compounded." The King said, "we are ready to consult, provide guidance and to do whatever is necessary. We are people of the region and we know it well." Brennan responded that President Obama wants to listen, and asked what advice the King would offer to President Obama. Abdullah said his one piece of advice was that restoring U.S. credibility in the world was critically important. Brennan responded that this was an important issue for President Obama as well. Brennan said that under President Obama we will restore our credibility. He said the U.S. is a great country and we know what we have to do.
Cable: 09RIYADH447_a

lol You obviously didn't understand what you read.

 

[Tehon]

Let me guess, you are starting to think that I may indeed understand what happened.

A moderate huh? Do you understand...... the US destabilized the region. Not Obama.......the USG. Fully supported by morons like yourself who now wish to destroy Syria.

Need more proof?

King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia was described in a leaked March 2009 diplomatic cable:

The King said he had "no confidence whatsoever in (Iraqi PM) Maliki, and the Ambassador (Fraker) is well aware of my views." The King affirmed that he had refused former President Bush's entreaties that he meet with al-Maliki. The King said he had met al-Maliki early in al-Maliki's term of office, and the Iraqi had given him a written list of commitments for reconciliation in Iraq, but had failed to follow through on any of them. For this reason, the King said, al-Maliki had little credibility. "I don't trust this man," the King stated, "He's an Iranian agent." The King said he had told both Bush and former Vice president Cheney "how can I meet with someone I don't trust?" Al-Maliki has "opened the door for Iranian influence in Iraq" since taking power, the King said, and he was "not hopeful at all" for al-Maliki, "or I would have met with him."[44]

The majority of Iraqis are Shi'ite and so it is no surprise that Sunni consider Shi'ites who rebelled against the Sunni to be radicals, but when it came time to choose a leader for Iraq, Maliki was moderate compared to the other choices. I understand you are a big fan of the stable ME in which Saddam was executing 1,000 people a week, gassing the Kurds and locking them up in concentration camps, driving Shi'ites out of their villages by destroying the water supple and holding public executions of Shi'ite village leaders to further terrorize his enemies and that you rue the fact the US destabilized this "peace" you so admire. The war was very costly but the fact is that by the time Obama came to office, a democratic government was in place that was in the process of guaranteeing protections to minorities and there was less violence between Sunni and Shi'ite than there had been in a thousand years. Obama destroyed this structure which the Bush administration had built up and abandoned all the people in Iraq who had allied themselves with the US despite the fact all the diplomats and military who had been involved there told him if he withdrew the troops Iraq would go up in flames because he didn't want to go into the 2012 election not having kept his main promise from 2008.

Bush fucked it up so bad that everyone in the region gave up on his government. Obama intentionally blew up the region to counter Bush's Shiite expansion. No one in our government ever really gave a shit about Iraqi's. The only thing Bush had to do was keep Iraq from falling into the hands of Iran and he failed.

Nonsense, by the time Bush left office, Iraq was a functioning democracy trying to hammer out laws about civil liberties, al Qaeda had been reduced to no more than a nuisance and there was less violence between the Sunni and Shia in Iraq than there have been in a thousand years. Obama blew it up despite being told by everyone involved in Iraq that if he did the country would go up in flames because he was never anything more than an ambitious politician and he was willing to allow hundreds of thousands of people die to enhance his chances of a second term.

Dude, declassified documents from Brennan's visit with the Saudi Monarchy (Obama era) expose your fraudulent claim.

3. (S) U.S. CREDIBILITY IS CRITICAL: The Bush Administration is now in the past, the King said. Both President Bushes were his friends, but the recent President Bush didn,t take his advice on dealing with issues in the region, and they found their problems "compounded." The King said, "we are ready to consult, provide guidance and to do whatever is necessary. We are people of the region and we know it well." Brennan responded that President Obama wants to listen, and asked what advice the King would offer to President Obama. Abdullah said his one piece of advice was that restoring U.S. credibility in the world was critically important. Brennan responded that this was an important issue for President Obama as well. Brennan said that under President Obama we will restore our credibility. He said the U.S. is a great country and we know what we have to do.
Cable: 09RIYADH447_a

lol You obviously didn't understand what you read.

Explain it smart guy.