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

[paulitician]

When did the US do regime change in Egypt? And Egypt has stabilized quite a bit since Al Sisi was ekected Presisent.

Yes Bush lied and tragically destabilized Iraq and the bloodshed to this day goes directly on his ignorant decision to ignore the work of UN inspectors and start a war and regime change in Iraq based on a lie.

The situation with IS in Iraq is horrible but perspective must be kept that their terror and bribery driven advance has worked only in Sunni areas of Iraq.

But lumping Afghanistan in with Iraq is irresponsible and flawed thinking. The US had the inherent right to self defence to remove the Taliban from power in 2002. That should not be forgotten. And anyone suggesting that Afghanistan could have been left as it was prior to September 11, 2001 has little understanding of what was a stake and still is. Three hundred thousand Afghan army and police have fought in the lead for over a year and are being tested everyday. The Iraqi army did not have the kind of test that we've seen the Afghan security forces go through that past few years.

No one currently in power in Egypt was elected. They're in power by way of an illegal military coup. And the U.S. Government is now funding and arming that illegal regime. Like i said, just follow the money. It leads to those countries. It's public record.

We orchestrated that military coup to remove an Islamist terrorist regime that was planning to kill the Christians in Egypt.

Nice convenient delusion, far from reality. Obama initially supported the Muslim Brotherhood. It's a real mess. And our Government played a big part in creating it.

 

[Moonglow]

Corruption and power abuse...is what Hosni did..

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Now I'm not giving Bush a pass but I would debate Iraq only in the sense that as far as an ME country goes (and I'm putting balanced in proportion to other crap going on there) it was fairly balanced UNTIL Obama wanting desperately to depose Assad turned a blind eye to ISIS who have become the wealthiest and the most powerful terror army on the planet.

Hence they invaded Iraq and have become billionaire jihadists.

Wanting to overthrow Assad has completely destabilized the region.

Do you recall when Obama was being criticized for not wanting to Arm the rebels in Syria? Or does your memory only go back far enough to suit the current attacks on Obama?

Obama will not arm Syrian rebels; Romney sees a 'lack of leadership'

By Amie Parnes and Jeremy Herb - 05/30/12 12:55 AM EDT

President Obama and Mitt Romney on Tuesday offered clashing views over whether to arm insurgents in Syria after a weekend massacre left more than 100 people dead and drew international condemnation.

Romney called for the United States and partner nations to “arm the opposition so they can defend themselves” against the government of Syrian President Bashar Assad, but White House press secretary Jay Carney warned that would lead to more “chaos and carnage” and was “not the right course.”

The deep divide highlighted the realpolitik approach in Syria favored by an Obama administration focused on convincing Syrian ally Russia to pressure Assad and concerned about where weapons intended for insurgents might end up.

It also offered an opening of sorts for Romney — who clinched the Republican nomination on Tuesday night — to hammer Obama on foreign policy, which has been one of the president’s biggest strengths during his time in office.

As violence in Syria has escalated, Romney has ramped up his attacks on Obama’s handling of the events.

“President Obama’s lack of leadership has resulted in a policy of paralysis that has watched Assad slaughter 10,000 individuals,” Romney said in a statement Tuesday on Syria, his second in three days.

Observers say the conflict in Syria provides “fertile ground” for Romney and other Republicans.

But on Tuesday, the White House — seemingly aware of a war-weary American public — didn’t appear to want to engage militarily in the conflict.

Instead, Carney said, the Obama administration would continue to give a peace plan by U.N.-Arab League envoy Kofi Annan support and “hope the pressure on Assad has an effect.”

At the same time, Carney added, “We will continue to work with both the Security Council and the broader coalition of friends of Syria to place pressure on the Assad regime.”

When it comes to arming the rebels, there are concerns in Congress in both parties about who the opposition is and whether al Qaeda is involved, although those concerns have dissipated somewhat as the violence has increased.


The administration still has some diplomatic levers it can pull, including further sanctions against Syria to try to stanch its cash flow. On Tuesday, the United States expelled the top Syrian envoy to Washington as part of a coordinated effort by countries around the world.

Observers say Obama will keep up the diplomatic approach as long as he is able.

Romney’s call for arming the rebels is just one step that could be taken to try to put pressure on Assad, and other, more hawkish Republicans have called for more action.

The Republican presidential nominee has not endorsed calls from Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), the party’s 2008 presidential nominee, to launch air strikes as part of an international campaign to give the opposition safe zones within Syria.

Rubin, who supports more action in Syria, said that Romney’s stance on arming the rebels feels like a political move.

“Romney’s policy is simply probably going to be to do the opposite of whatever Obama is doing,” Rubin said. “This election isn’t about foreign policy, and Romney is going to be a foreign-policy opportunist — not leading, but sniping from behind.”

Even McCain and other hawks say that the United States should not be committing troops on the ground in Syria, and that allied countries like neighboring Turkey should proovide the forces if necessary.

Read more: Obama will not arm Syrian rebels; Romney sees a 'lack of leadership' | TheHill
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

 

[Moonglow]

No one currently in power in Egypt was elected. They're in power by way of an illegal military coup. And the U.S. Government is now funding and arming that illegal regime. Like i said, just follow the money. It leads to those countries. It's public record.

We orchestrated that military coup to remove an Islamist terrorist regime that was planning to kill the Christians in Egypt.

Nice convenient delusion, far from reality. Obama initially supported the Muslim Brotherhood. It's a real mess. And our Government played a big part in creating it.

The Muslim Brotherhood was elected to office by the people of Egypt..

 

[paulitician]

We orchestrated that military coup to remove an Islamist terrorist regime that was planning to kill the Christians in Egypt.

Nice convenient delusion, far from reality. Obama initially supported the Muslim Brotherhood. It's a real mess. And our Government played a big part in creating it.

The Muslim Brotherhood was elected to office by the people of Egypt..

Yes they were. And Obama supported them. They were removed by way of an illegal military coup. And now our Government is funding & arming them. It's a mess.

 

[paulitician]

Now I'm not giving Bush a pass but I would debate Iraq only in the sense that as far as an ME country goes (and I'm putting balanced in proportion to other crap going on there) it was fairly balanced UNTIL Obama wanting desperately to depose Assad turned a blind eye to ISIS who have become the wealthiest and the most powerful terror army on the planet.

Hence they invaded Iraq and have become billionaire jihadists.

Wanting to overthrow Assad has completely destabilized the region.

Do you recall when Obama was being criticized for not wanting to Arm the rebels in Syria? Or does your memory only go back far enough to suit the current attacks on Obama?

Obama will not arm Syrian rebels; Romney sees a 'lack of leadership'

By Amie Parnes and Jeremy Herb - 05/30/12 12:55 AM EDT

President Obama and Mitt Romney on Tuesday offered clashing views over whether to arm insurgents in Syria after a weekend massacre left more than 100 people dead and drew international condemnation.

Romney called for the United States and partner nations to “arm the opposition so they can defend themselves” against the government of Syrian President Bashar Assad, but White House press secretary Jay Carney warned that would lead to more “chaos and carnage” and was “not the right course.”

The deep divide highlighted the realpolitik approach in Syria favored by an Obama administration focused on convincing Syrian ally Russia to pressure Assad and concerned about where weapons intended for insurgents might end up.

It also offered an opening of sorts for Romney — who clinched the Republican nomination on Tuesday night — to hammer Obama on foreign policy, which has been one of the president’s biggest strengths during his time in office.

As violence in Syria has escalated, Romney has ramped up his attacks on Obama’s handling of the events.

“President Obama’s lack of leadership has resulted in a policy of paralysis that has watched Assad slaughter 10,000 individuals,” Romney said in a statement Tuesday on Syria, his second in three days.

Observers say the conflict in Syria provides “fertile ground” for Romney and other Republicans.

But on Tuesday, the White House — seemingly aware of a war-weary American public — didn’t appear to want to engage militarily in the conflict.

Instead, Carney said, the Obama administration would continue to give a peace plan by U.N.-Arab League envoy Kofi Annan support and “hope the pressure on Assad has an effect.”

At the same time, Carney added, “We will continue to work with both the Security Council and the broader coalition of friends of Syria to place pressure on the Assad regime.”

When it comes to arming the rebels, there are concerns in Congress in both parties about who the opposition is and whether al Qaeda is involved, although those concerns have dissipated somewhat as the violence has increased.


The administration still has some diplomatic levers it can pull, including further sanctions against Syria to try to stanch its cash flow. On Tuesday, the United States expelled the top Syrian envoy to Washington as part of a coordinated effort by countries around the world.

Observers say Obama will keep up the diplomatic approach as long as he is able.

Romney’s call for arming the rebels is just one step that could be taken to try to put pressure on Assad, and other, more hawkish Republicans have called for more action.

The Republican presidential nominee has not endorsed calls from Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), the party’s 2008 presidential nominee, to launch air strikes as part of an international campaign to give the opposition safe zones within Syria.

Rubin, who supports more action in Syria, said that Romney’s stance on arming the rebels feels like a political move.

“Romney’s policy is simply probably going to be to do the opposite of whatever Obama is doing,” Rubin said. “This election isn’t about foreign policy, and Romney is going to be a foreign-policy opportunist — not leading, but sniping from behind.”

Even McCain and other hawks say that the United States should not be committing troops on the ground in Syria, and that allied countries like neighboring Turkey should proovide the forces if necessary.

Read more: Obama will not arm Syrian rebels; Romney sees a 'lack of leadership' | TheHill
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

Obama recently demanded $500 Million more in Tax Dollars for Syrian Rebels. It's fact. Look it up yourself.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Nice convenient delusion, far from reality. Obama initially supported the Muslim Brotherhood. It's a real mess. And our Government played a big part in creating it.

Obama supported whoever won Egypt's first free election as any head of state should do. Surely you are not questioning or faulting Obama for respecting the leader that the people of Egypt freely chose.

It was no fault of Obama that Morsi turned out to be such a colossal extremist un-democratic fuck up.

And Egypt is not a real mess, unless you have sympathies for the Muslim Brotherhood and theocratic thugs like them.

You have a simplistic and unrealistic way of looking at things. What is your objective?

 

[paulitician]

Nice convenient delusion, far from reality. Obama initially supported the Muslim Brotherhood. It's a real mess. And our Government played a big part in creating it.

Obama supported whoever won Egypt's first free election as any head of state should do. Surely you are not questioning or faulting Obama for respecting the leader that the people of Egypt freely chose.

It was no fault of Obama that Morsi turned out to be such a colossal extremist un-democratic fuck up.

And Egypt is not a real mess, unless you have sympathies for the Muslim Brotherhood and theocratic thugs like them.

You have a simplistic and unrealistic way of looking at things. What is your objective?

Uh huh, Obama and his sycophants now fully support illegal military coups. You people are a bleepin joke.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Obama recently demanded $500 Million more in Tax Dollars for Syrian Rebels. It's fact. Look it up yourself.

Yes. Key word is 'recently'. Try to follow the discussion please. I brought up Obama's original refusal to arm the rebels to refute tinydancer's reduculous notion that wanting Assad to go is what brought the IS terrorists into existence.

Do you subscribe to tinydancer's thoughts on this? If so why?

 

[paulitician]

Obama recently demanded $500 Million more in Tax Dollars for Syrian Rebels. It's fact. Look it up yourself.

Yes. Key word is 'recently'. Try to follow the discussion please. I brought up Obama's original refusal to arm the rebels to refute tinydancer's reduculous notion that wanting Assad to go is what brought the IS terrorists into existence.

Do you subscribe to tinydancer's thoughts on this? If so why?

He's been funding and arming Syrian Rebels for years. Only your delusional worship of him is preventing you from grasping that reality. Your guy helped create ISIS. And now they're wreaking havoc all across Syria and Iraq. 'Regime Change' is not always a good idea.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Uh huh, Obama and his sycophants now fully support illegal military coups. You people are a bleepin joke.

Illegal how? Morsi had never gained the 'power of force' to be the real leader of Egypt. The military weakened Egypt's constitution so much that it is difficult to see that what al Sisi did as unconstitutional. Morsi overreached and was not acting according to the constitution. So the military did the right thing and it matched the will of the people when they did it. Egypt is quite stable now so your message is unwarranted.

I support the stability in Egypt over the chaos caused by Morsi and the MB. I am not ashamed of that at all.

Who knows what you want? More chaos seems to satisfy your frame of mind because you see it where it has tapered off in Egypt.

 

[MaxGrit]

No one currently in power in Egypt was elected. They're in power by way of an illegal military coup. And the U.S. Government is now funding and arming that illegal regime. Like i said, just follow the money. It leads to those countries. It's public record.

We orchestrated that military coup to remove an Islamist terrorist regime that was planning to kill the Christians in Egypt.

Nice convenient delusion, far from reality. Obama initially supported the Muslim Brotherhood. It's a real mess. And our Government played a big part in creating it.

]
Fucking Islamists were planning genocide on the Christians. US moved ASAP and helped planned that coup.

 

[Idadunno]

Those countries have been in chaos for centuries and will continue to be in chaos for centuries to come. The only thing that changes is the name of the oppressor--dictator, military, or terrorist group.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

He's been funding and arming Syrian Rebels for years. Only your delusional worship of him is preventing you from grasping that reality. Your guy helped create ISIS. And now they're wreaking havoc all across Syria and Iraq. 'Regime Change' is not always a good idea.

When did the arming of Syrian rebels begin?

Your guy helped create ISIS. And now they're wreaking havoc all across Syria and Iraq.

Bush is not my guy. ISIS came into existence during the chaos that Bush created in Iraq. But I would not say Bush had anything to do with helping to create ISIS. Bush directly created the conditions for ISIS to form and grow and develop a military capability. But that was not Bush intent when he decided to remove the government in Iraq.

If you can explain why you think Obama help create ISIS I'd sure love to read that too.

 

[rdean]

ALL OF THE COUNTRIES WHICH THE U.S. “REGIME CHANGED” – IRAQ, AFGHANISTAN. SYRIA, AND LIBYA – HAVE DESCENDED INTO BRUTAL CHAOS
Quantifying the Effects of Regime Change


Since 2001, the U.S. has undertaken regime change in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and Libya.

All 4 countries are now in chaos … and extremists are more in control than ever.

Iraq

In Iraq, hardcore Islamic jihadis known as ISIS have taken over much of the country – shown in red as the new “Islamic State” or self-described caliphate – using captured American weapons:

Christians are being rounded up and killed, and Christian leaders in Iraq say the end of Christianity in Iraq is “very near”. But as we documented in 2012, Saddam Hussein – for all his faults – was a secular leader who tolerated Christians.

Libya

Libya has also descended into absolute chaos. We reported in 2012:

Al Qaeda is now largely in control of Libya. Indeed, Al Qaeda flags were flown over the Benghazi courthouse once Gaddafi was toppled.
(This is – again – in contrast to toleration of Christians under Gadaffi.)

The Guardian noted in March:

According to Amnesty International, the “mounting curbs on freedom of expression are threatening the rights Libyans sought to gain“. A repressive Gaddafi-era law has been amended to criminalise any insults to officials or the general national congress (the interim parliament). One journalist, Amara al-Khattabi, was put on trial for alleging corruption among judges. Satellite television stations deemed critical of the authorities have been banned, one station has been attacked with rocket-propelled grenades, and journalists have been assassinated.

***

Ever since the fall of [Gadaffi's] dictatorship, there have been stories of black Libyans being treated en masse as Gaddafi loyalists and attacked. In a savage act of collective punishment, 35,000 people were driven out of Tawergha in retaliation for the brutal siege of the anti-Gaddafi stronghold of Misrata. The town was trashed and its inhabitants have been left in what human rights organisations are calling “deplorable conditions” in a Tripoli refugee camp. Such forced removals continue elsewhere. Thousands have been arbitrarily detained without any pretence of due process; and judges, prosecutors, lawyers and witnesses have been attacked or even killed. Libya’s first post-Gaddafi prosecutor general, Abdulaziz Al-Hassadi, was assassinated in the town of Derna last month.

When residents of Benghazi – the heartland of the revolution – protested against militia rule in June last year, 32 people were killed in what became known as “Black Saturday”. In another protest in Tripoli last November, 46 died and 500 were injured.

Under militia rule, Libya is beginning to disintegrate. Last summer forces under the command of the warlord Ibrahim Jadran took control of eastern oil terminals …. These forces which hijacked a oil tanker this month, prompting threats from Libya’s prime minister that it would be bombed until US forces captured it this weekend. Clashes have broken out in Jadran’s home town of Ajdabiya. In painful echoes of Iraq’s nightmare, a car bomb exploded at a Benghazi military base last week and killed at least eight soldiers, and Libya’s main airport was shut on Friday after a bomb exploded on its runway...

Read More:
» All of the Countries which the U.S. ?Regime Changed? ? Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya ? Have Descended into Brutal Chaos Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

It's a little late to bring up what's left of the Christians in Iraq. Bush and the Republicans did nothing to help them, nothing.

How the Iraq War Became a War on Christians | The American Conservative

In fact, the conflict in Syria and the American invasion of Iraq are linked by a common thread: the failure of the U.S. to consider the effect of its foreign policy on vulnerable religious communities, especially Middle Eastern Christians.

In March 2003, on the eve of war in Iraq, Pope John Paul II dispatched Cardinal Pio Laghi, a senior Vatican diplomat, to Washington to make a final plea to Bush not to invade. Laghi, chosen for his close ties to the Bush family, outlined “clearly and forcefully” the Vatican’s fears of what would follow an invasion: protracted war, significant casualties, violence between ethnic and religious groups, regional destabilization, “and a new gulf between Christianity and Islam.” The warning was not heeded.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/iraq/368042-us-invasion-started-the-christian-holocaust-in-iraq.html

 

[paulitician]

Uh huh, Obama and his sycophants now fully support illegal military coups. You people are a bleepin joke.

Illegal how? Morsi had never gained the 'power of force' to be the real leader of Egypt. The military weakened Egypt's constitution so much that it is difficult to see that what al Sisi did as unconstitutional. Morsi overreached and was not acting according to the constitution. So the military did the right thing and it matched the will of the people when they did it. Egypt is quite stable now so your message is unwarranted.

I support the stability in Egypt over the chaos caused by Morsi and the MB. I am not ashamed of that at all.

Who knows what you want? More chaos seems to satisfy your frame of mind because you see it where it has tapered off in Egypt.

Yes first you supported the Muslim Brotherhood, then you supported an illegal Military Coup. You sound just like your dipshit Dear Leader. You both make no sense. And Egypt is anything but 'stable.' It was stable before our meddling though.

 

[tinydancer]

When did the US do regime change in Egypt? And Egypt has stabilized quite a bit since Al Sisi was ekected Presisent.

Yes Bush lied and tragically destabilized Iraq and the bloodshed to this day goes directly on his ignorant decision to ignore the work of UN inspectors and start a war and regime change in Iraq based on a lie.

The situation with IS in Iraq is horrible but perspective must be kept that their terror and bribery driven advance has worked only in Sunni areas of Iraq.

But lumping Afghanistan in with Iraq is irresponsible and flawed thinking. The US had the inherent right to self defence to remove the Taliban from power in 2002. That should not be forgotten. And anyone suggesting that Afghanistan could have been left as it was prior to September 11, 2001 has little understanding of what was a stake and still is. Three hundred thousand Afghan army and police have fought in the lead for over a year and are being tested everyday. The Iraqi army did not have the kind of test that we've seen the Afghan security forces go through that past few years.

No one currently in power in Egypt was elected. They're in power by way of an illegal military coup. And the U.S. Government is now funding and arming that illegal regime. Like i said, just follow the money. It leads to those countries. It's public record.

We orchestrated that military coup to remove an Islamist terrorist regime that was planning to kill the Christians in Egypt.

You didn't support the second military action. Obama completely and utterly supports the Muslim Brotherhood and was devastated when the coup took place for the military and the people to seize power back from those whack jobs.

The MB were the ones terrorizing the Coptics. But again, the west supported the MB. Christians be damned.

The tipping point came when Morsi the hand picked puppet of Obama and this is not conspiracy but fact Morsi the son of a bitch was going to make a certain terrorist a governor of a province in Egypt.

That province just happened to be Luxor. And that man just happened to be the mastermind of the Luxor Massacre.

You bet Egyptians freaked and started the second rebellion.

FYI. And remember Morsi was going to appoint this monster.

The Luxor Massacre was the killing of 62 people, mostly tourists, on 17 November 1997, at Deir el-Bahri, an archaeological site and major tourist attraction across the Nile River from Luxor in Egypt.

Luxor massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[paulitician]

ALL OF THE COUNTRIES WHICH THE U.S. “REGIME CHANGED” – IRAQ, AFGHANISTAN. SYRIA, AND LIBYA – HAVE DESCENDED INTO BRUTAL CHAOS
Quantifying the Effects of Regime Change


Since 2001, the U.S. has undertaken regime change in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and Libya.

All 4 countries are now in chaos … and extremists are more in control than ever.

Iraq

In Iraq, hardcore Islamic jihadis known as ISIS have taken over much of the country – shown in red as the new “Islamic State” or self-described caliphate – using captured American weapons:

Christians are being rounded up and killed, and Christian leaders in Iraq say the end of Christianity in Iraq is “very near”. But as we documented in 2012, Saddam Hussein – for all his faults – was a secular leader who tolerated Christians.

Libya

Libya has also descended into absolute chaos. We reported in 2012:

Al Qaeda is now largely in control of Libya. Indeed, Al Qaeda flags were flown over the Benghazi courthouse once Gaddafi was toppled.
(This is – again – in contrast to toleration of Christians under Gadaffi.)

The Guardian noted in March:

According to Amnesty International, the “mounting curbs on freedom of expression are threatening the rights Libyans sought to gain“. A repressive Gaddafi-era law has been amended to criminalise any insults to officials or the general national congress (the interim parliament). One journalist, Amara al-Khattabi, was put on trial for alleging corruption among judges. Satellite television stations deemed critical of the authorities have been banned, one station has been attacked with rocket-propelled grenades, and journalists have been assassinated.

***

Ever since the fall of [Gadaffi's] dictatorship, there have been stories of black Libyans being treated en masse as Gaddafi loyalists and attacked. In a savage act of collective punishment, 35,000 people were driven out of Tawergha in retaliation for the brutal siege of the anti-Gaddafi stronghold of Misrata. The town was trashed and its inhabitants have been left in what human rights organisations are calling “deplorable conditions” in a Tripoli refugee camp. Such forced removals continue elsewhere. Thousands have been arbitrarily detained without any pretence of due process; and judges, prosecutors, lawyers and witnesses have been attacked or even killed. Libya’s first post-Gaddafi prosecutor general, Abdulaziz Al-Hassadi, was assassinated in the town of Derna last month.

When residents of Benghazi – the heartland of the revolution – protested against militia rule in June last year, 32 people were killed in what became known as “Black Saturday”. In another protest in Tripoli last November, 46 died and 500 were injured.

Under militia rule, Libya is beginning to disintegrate. Last summer forces under the command of the warlord Ibrahim Jadran took control of eastern oil terminals …. These forces which hijacked a oil tanker this month, prompting threats from Libya’s prime minister that it would be bombed until US forces captured it this weekend. Clashes have broken out in Jadran’s home town of Ajdabiya. In painful echoes of Iraq’s nightmare, a car bomb exploded at a Benghazi military base last week and killed at least eight soldiers, and Libya’s main airport was shut on Friday after a bomb exploded on its runway...

Read More:
» All of the Countries which the U.S. ?Regime Changed? ? Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya ? Have Descended into Brutal Chaos Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

It's a little late to bring up what's left of the Christians in Iraq. Bush and the Republicans did nothing to help them, nothing.

How the Iraq War Became a War on Christians | The American Conservative

In fact, the conflict in Syria and the American invasion of Iraq are linked by a common thread: the failure of the U.S. to consider the effect of its foreign policy on vulnerable religious communities, especially Middle Eastern Christians.

In March 2003, on the eve of war in Iraq, Pope John Paul II dispatched Cardinal Pio Laghi, a senior Vatican diplomat, to Washington to make a final plea to Bush not to invade. Laghi, chosen for his close ties to the Bush family, outlined “clearly and forcefully” the Vatican’s fears of what would follow an invasion: protracted war, significant casualties, violence between ethnic and religious groups, regional destabilization, “and a new gulf between Christianity and Islam.” The warning was not heeded.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/iraq/368042-us-invasion-started-the-christian-holocaust-in-iraq.html

Yes, our Government's constant meddling has caused a Christian Genocide in Africa and the Middle East. Too few Americans seem to care about it though. It's all miserable Blow Back. History continuing to repeat itself.

 

[tinydancer]

Now I'm not giving Bush a pass but I would debate Iraq only in the sense that as far as an ME country goes (and I'm putting balanced in proportion to other crap going on there) it was fairly balanced UNTIL Obama wanting desperately to depose Assad turned a blind eye to ISIS who have become the wealthiest and the most powerful terror army on the planet.

Hence they invaded Iraq and have become billionaire jihadists.

Wanting to overthrow Assad has completely destabilized the region.

Do you recall when Obama was being criticized for not wanting to Arm the rebels in Syria? Or does your memory only go back far enough to suit the current attacks on Obama?

Obama will not arm Syrian rebels; Romney sees a 'lack of leadership'

By Amie Parnes and Jeremy Herb - 05/30/12 12:55 AM EDT

President Obama and Mitt Romney on Tuesday offered clashing views over whether to arm insurgents in Syria after a weekend massacre left more than 100 people dead and drew international condemnation.

Romney called for the United States and partner nations to “arm the opposition so they can defend themselves” against the government of Syrian President Bashar Assad, but White House press secretary Jay Carney warned that would lead to more “chaos and carnage” and was “not the right course.”

The deep divide highlighted the realpolitik approach in Syria favored by an Obama administration focused on convincing Syrian ally Russia to pressure Assad and concerned about where weapons intended for insurgents might end up.

It also offered an opening of sorts for Romney — who clinched the Republican nomination on Tuesday night — to hammer Obama on foreign policy, which has been one of the president’s biggest strengths during his time in office.

As violence in Syria has escalated, Romney has ramped up his attacks on Obama’s handling of the events.

“President Obama’s lack of leadership has resulted in a policy of paralysis that has watched Assad slaughter 10,000 individuals,” Romney said in a statement Tuesday on Syria, his second in three days.

Observers say the conflict in Syria provides “fertile ground” for Romney and other Republicans.

But on Tuesday, the White House — seemingly aware of a war-weary American public — didn’t appear to want to engage militarily in the conflict.

Instead, Carney said, the Obama administration would continue to give a peace plan by U.N.-Arab League envoy Kofi Annan support and “hope the pressure on Assad has an effect.”

At the same time, Carney added, “We will continue to work with both the Security Council and the broader coalition of friends of Syria to place pressure on the Assad regime.”

When it comes to arming the rebels, there are concerns in Congress in both parties about who the opposition is and whether al Qaeda is involved, although those concerns have dissipated somewhat as the violence has increased.


The administration still has some diplomatic levers it can pull, including further sanctions against Syria to try to stanch its cash flow. On Tuesday, the United States expelled the top Syrian envoy to Washington as part of a coordinated effort by countries around the world.

Observers say Obama will keep up the diplomatic approach as long as he is able.

Romney’s call for arming the rebels is just one step that could be taken to try to put pressure on Assad, and other, more hawkish Republicans have called for more action.

The Republican presidential nominee has not endorsed calls from Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), the party’s 2008 presidential nominee, to launch air strikes as part of an international campaign to give the opposition safe zones within Syria.

Rubin, who supports more action in Syria, said that Romney’s stance on arming the rebels feels like a political move.

“Romney’s policy is simply probably going to be to do the opposite of whatever Obama is doing,” Rubin said. “This election isn’t about foreign policy, and Romney is going to be a foreign-policy opportunist — not leading, but sniping from behind.”

Even McCain and other hawks say that the United States should not be committing troops on the ground in Syria, and that allied countries like neighboring Turkey should proovide the forces if necessary.

Read more: Obama will not arm Syrian rebels; Romney sees a 'lack of leadership' | TheHill
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

You obviously have never read any of my threads or posts regarding Syria over the past few years. I was ripping my own politicians over backing these fake rebels in Syria.

And yours. And Britains. It was only excellent journalism overseas that uncovered that these so called rebels were fake.

There was no Arab Spring. It was all bullshit and I've been completely against supporting these paid mercenaries in any way shape or form.

Now as to not wanting to arm the rebels I can go toe to toe with you if you wish to prove that Obama and Kerry back in 2013 were ready to wave anti terrorism provisions to arm these fake rebels. It's out there.

I was freaking over it. I'd already found out about al Nusra and ISIS.

There are a myriad of reasons on why Qatar/Saudi Arabia/US and others wanted and needed to depose of Assad.

Too many for this thread tonight. It's layer on layer like peeling an onion.

 

[paulitician]

He's been funding and arming Syrian Rebels for years. Only your delusional worship of him is preventing you from grasping that reality. Your guy helped create ISIS. And now they're wreaking havoc all across Syria and Iraq. 'Regime Change' is not always a good idea.

When did the arming of Syrian rebels begin?

Your guy helped create ISIS. And now they're wreaking havoc all across Syria and Iraq.

Bush is not my guy. ISIS came into existence during the chaos that Bush created in Iraq. But I would not say Bush had anything to do with helping to create ISIS. Bush directly created the conditions for ISIS to form and grow and develop a military capability. But that was not Bush intent when he decided to remove the government in Iraq.

If you can explain why you think Obama help create ISIS I'd sure love to read that too.

Clearly, you're ill-informed. ISIS was assisted by your Dear Leader's funding & arming. He just had to get his Assad Boogeyman. Just like Bush had to get his Hussein Boogeyman.