NYcarbineer
Diamond Member
Maybe he's caved to conservative pressure.
Isis: In Iraq Because Of Obama
- Thread starter PoliticalChic
- Start date
Maybe he's caved to conservative pressure.
1776
Anti-Liberal
Let's see.....AQI was pushed out of Iraq by the US military and the Iraqi military during Bush's time.
AQI reformed in Syria as ISIL and grew in numbers and powers under Obama's nose.
ISIL decided to move back to Iraq as ISIS right under Obama's nose and he did nothing until a couple beheadings, slaughter of innocents around Iraq, etc....
Yeah, it must be Bush's fault according to the fucked up liberals.
AQI reformed in Syria as ISIL and grew in numbers and powers under Obama's nose.
ISIL decided to move back to Iraq as ISIS right under Obama's nose and he did nothing until a couple beheadings, slaughter of innocents around Iraq, etc....
Yeah, it must be Bush's fault according to the fucked up liberals.
healthmyths
Diamond Member
- Sep 19, 2011
- 30,375
- 11,938
- 1,400
I am know now you suffer from ADD. Is that short enough for you?
healthmyths
Diamond Member
- Sep 19, 2011
- 30,375
- 11,938
- 1,400
And if Saddam lovers like you had your way Saddam would have starved another 1,265,000 children because he wouldn't CERTIFY he had destroyed his WMDs!
Although Iraq earned billions in revenue under the Oil-for-Food program in 2000,
only about 33 percent was spent on food and 2 percent on medical supplies.
In five years 576,000 children starved BECAUSE SADDAM refused to certify WMD destruction!
Iraq Sanctions Kill Children U.N. Reports - New York Times
- Thread starter
- #25
NYcarbineer
Diamond Member
You're the guy who put 100 threads about the 46 million uninsured. Do you know what disorder that represents.
healthmyths
Diamond Member
- Sep 19, 2011
- 30,375
- 11,938
- 1,400
Doesn't alter the FACTS that ignorant people like you ignore!
Doesn't alter the FACT idiots like you can't do simple math i.e.
1) Census says 10 million of the 46 million counted as "uninsured" are NOT CITIZENS.. leaves 36 million.
2) Census says they undercounted 14 million qualified for SCHIP/Medicaid..leaves 22 million.
3) 18 million of uninsured DON"T want or NEED insurance... leaves 4 million!
Simple math yet the majority of idiots like you can't seem to grasp the fact of this gigantic gross distortion.
Obviously if you can't subtract 42 million from 46 million how can you grasp more complicated issues?
If Bush doesn't attack Iraq for no reason, saddam mops the floor with ISIS, Al-Q, ISIS, ...
US had nothing to do with Syria destabilizing itself. Please try again.
healthmyths
Diamond Member
- Sep 19, 2011
- 30,375
- 11,938
- 1,400
Right and if Saddam were still in power 1.2 million more kids would have starved all because Saddam would NOT CERTIFY HE HAD DESTROYED WMDs!
Why would a sane man allow 500,000 children to starve if he didn't have WMDs?
In five years 576,000 children starved BECAUSE SADDAM refused to certify WMD destruction!
Iraq Sanctions Kill Children U.N. Reports - New York Times
But of course NONE of these REALITIES are mentioned by you Saddam lovers..you people that
would love to have SADDAM's sons using pliers and power drills cutting out tongues, severing genitals.
The 28 million people remember what Saddam did.
I don't care how many iraqi children starve to death from UN sanctions. The UN just had to lift the sanctions, so it's not even saddam's fault. He didn't have any WMD, and had UN inspectors there for a decade or so before the war, and they found exactly nothing.
Last edited:
dilloduck
Diamond Member
You don't think training forces that are rebelling against Assad is destabilizing ? How about YOU try again
The Arab spring was probably helped along by the CIA, but nothing major in Syria, in fact the Syrian rebels were begging us for weapons.
dilloduck
Diamond Member
"(Reuters) - Jordan, where the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency has been covertly training Syrian rebels for more than a year, is reluctant to host an expanded rebel instruction program, U.S. officials said."
Exclusive Jordan reluctant to host U.S.-led Syria rebel training - officials Reuters
- Thread starter
- #37
And working out the details of supplying weapons by way of Turkey was the mission of Ambassador Stevens the night he was killed.
"MILITARY & DEFENSEMore: Military Defense Syria Turkey
How US Ambassador Chris Stevens May Have Been Linked To Jihadist Rebels In Syria
The official position is that the U.S. has refused to allow heavy weapons into Syria.
But there's growing evidence that U.S. agents — particularly murdered ambassador Chris Stevens — were at least aware of heavy weapons moving from Libya to jihadist Syrian rebels.
In March 2011 Stevens became the official U.S. liaison to the al-Qaeda-linked Libyan opposition, working directly with Abdelhakim Belhadj of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group — a group that has now disbanded, with some fighters reportedly participating in the attack that took Stevens' life.
...head of the Tripoli Military Council, "met with Free Syrian Army [FSA] leaders in Istanbul and on the border with Turkey" in an effort by the new Libyan government to provide money and weapons to the growing insurgency in Syria.
Last month The Times of London reported that a Libyan ship "carrying the largest consignment of weapons for Syria … has docked in Turkey."
Read more:How US Ambassador Chris Stevens May Have Been Linked To Jihadist Rebels In Syria - Business Insider
M.D. Rawlings
Classical Liberal
Wonderful. Lefty always the champion of strong-man totalitarianism. The hell with justice.
Excerpt:
Both you and eagle are seriously wrong about this. The artificial unification of three incompatible sectarian factions in a single-state Iraq cannot be maintained without a totalitarian strong man. That's the stability you're talking about, and nothing else but that! That's not a just or sustainable solution, and certainly the Kurds are not going to allow that to be imposed on them ever again and rightly so! Further, the current chaos is precisely due to the fact that a single-state solution is a balkanized monstrosity exacerbated by the rampage of ISIS/ISIL. Obama should have never armed the factious Syrian rebels. As for the Iraqi Shias and Sunnis let them kill each other if that's the best they can do with this historic opportunity. I say we back a western-friendly, independent Kurdistan and let the Iraqi Shias and Sunnis, who will never be reliable friends or allies, fend for themselves.
Also:
. . . what I do know is that the neocons and—come on, Gary!—the leftist establishment as well are wrong about imposing a single-state solution on the Iraqi people. Clearly, the Obama Administration is aggressively advocating the very same single-state doctrine as that of the Bush Administration. It's an unjust relic of post-WWI colonialism. It simply will not work without strong-man totalitarianism.
As for the Iraqi Shiites and Sunnis, it would be wonderful if they could work out their differences in a peaceful fashion with regard to their respective regional concerns, including an equitable division of oil reserves, but frankly Islam is a disease. I wish them well. Truly. But I don't know what we can possibly do for them if they cannot get past their sectarian differences and realize an accord that serves their mutual interests. Of course, the biggest hurdle is that the major oil deposits are in the Kurdish and Shiite regions of Iraq.
As for the Iraqi Shiites and Sunnis, it would be wonderful if they could work out their differences in a peaceful fashion with regard to their respective regional concerns, including an equitable division of oil reserves, but frankly Islam is a disease. I wish them well. Truly. But I don't know what we can possibly do for them if they cannot get past their sectarian differences and realize an accord that serves their mutual interests. Of course, the biggest hurdle is that the major oil deposits are in the Kurdish and Shiite regions of Iraq.
So why did Obama arm Syrian rebels? Among other things, he wants to impose a single-state solution.
- Thread starter
- #39
Wonderful. Lefty always the champion of strong-man totalitarianism. The hell with justice.
Excerpt:
Both you and eagle are seriously wrong about this. The artificial unification of three incompatible sectarian factions in a single-state Iraq cannot be maintained without a totalitarian strong man. That's the stability you're talking about, and nothing else but that! That's not a just or sustainable solution, and certainly the Kurds are not going to allow that to be imposed on them ever again and rightly so! Further, the current chaos is precisely due to the fact that a single-state solution is a balkanized monstrosity exacerbated by the rampage of ISIS/ISIL. Obama should have never armed the factious Syrian rebels. As for the Iraqi Shias and Sunnis let them kill each other if that's the best they can do with this historic opportunity. I say we back a western-friendly, independent Kurdistan and let the Iraqi Shias and Sunnis, who will never be reliable friends or allies, fend for themselves.
Also:
. . . what I do know is that the neocons and—come on, Gary!—the leftist establishment as well are wrong about imposing a single-state solution on the Iraqi people. Clearly, the Obama Administration is aggressively advocating the very same single-state doctrine as that of the Bush Administration. It's an unjust relic of post-WWI colonialism. It simply will not work without strong-man totalitarianism.
As for the Iraqi Shiites and Sunnis, it would be wonderful if they could work out their differences in a peaceful fashion with regard to their respective regional concerns, including an equitable division of oil reserves, but frankly Islam is a disease. I wish them well. Truly. But I don't know what we can possibly do for them if they cannot get past their sectarian differences and realize an accord that serves their mutual interests. Of course, the biggest hurdle is that the major oil deposits are in the Kurdish and Shiite regions of Iraq.
So why did Obama arm Syrian rebels? Among other things, he wants to impose a single-state solution.
"...he wants to impose a single-state solution."
His two most significant foreign policy achievements will be a nuclear Iran, and the restoration of the Islamic caliphate.
kiwiman127
Comfortably Moderate
It's amusing that the right got so pissed off when Obama wrongfully took the credit for the troops being completely out of Iraq.
Iraq War ends on Bush’s schedule, not Obama’s
Iraq War ends on Bush s schedule not Obama s RedState
Funny how history is now being re-written by ideologues.
Moving on:
The OP intentionally ignores the entire picture because the OP is 100% an ideologue.
GWB was warned prior to the invasion by two intelligence agencies that displacing Saddam could lead to a civil war between the Shiites and Sunni.
Once Malaki took the reins of the Iraqi government the Sunni became marginalized and were basically persecuted. Malaki's action certainly swelled the ISIS with disenchanted Iraqi Sunni. That is not just the US government's opinion, it is also the Iranian government's opinion, who happens to also be a huge ally of the Malaki government. Malaki erred so much that Iran thought Iraq was better off without their ally.
I also think Obama ignored the growing problem with Maliki's actions of alienation the Sunni, which simply strengthened the ISIS.
The above is what is called looking at the entire picture, not just a portion of the picture that enhances one's ideology position why ignoring the real ******* world.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
California Sheriff Seizes Half Million Ballots in Voter Fraud Investigation- Started by excalibur
- Replies: 0
-
Husband and wife experience Delores park in San Francisco... wow- Started by Robert W
- Replies: 0
-
The Crew That Melted Over Wearing Masks Is Asking You To Pay More For Patriotism- Started by citygator
- Replies: 2
-
AOC’s Campaign Spent Nearly $19K on Psychiatrist Known for Hallucinogenic Drug Therapy- Started by Captain Creeper
- Replies: 1
