Yes, he would have attacked anyway. And even more so Syria if Putin hadn't ***** slapped him. McCain had nothing to do with it, it was Obama. Seriously, if liberals crap in your pants it was the fault of Republicans, you're responsible for nothing
I disagree.
Obama's policy has been one of withdrawing from the supposed "war on terror" that Bush started.
Possibly Obama went into Libya because of the whole Arab Spring thing, but it seems very telling that McCain was so vocal and so quick to be vocal on Libya, and Obama went into Libya, and so slow and so not caring on Syria, and Obama didn't go into Syria.
I'm not looking for whose fault it is, I'm not looking to play silly childish games here. I'm discussing WHAT HAPPENED, looking for THE TRUTH. I'm saying what I see. Not passing out blame. Obama was the one who bombed Libya, ultimately he is responsible for this.
The questions I am trying to answer is why. Also I'm looking at whether this was Obama slipping into politician mode and not following what seems to have been a fairly steady policy of reversing what Bush did.
But then all you see if some pathetic game that is destroying the US.
Of course you are playing the blame game, you are blaming McCain for Libya and Syria, which is ridiculous. Obama does nothing the Republicans want and doesn't have to because his lap dog media just blames Republicans for whatever happens.
And seroiusly, Obama is "withdrawing from the supposed 'war on terror'?" Are you serious? He maintained W's plan in Iraq, expanded Afghanistan, attacked Libya, wanted to attack Syria until Putin undercut his chance and meddled in Egypt. He's W, Holmes. And you're not a Democrat? With the endless slanting and excuse making for Obama and the Democrats? You need to take a closer look in the mirror
No, this is another you're reading badly into what I'm saying. Nowhere did I say that McCain did this. Just because you're decided that this is the case, doesn't make it so. You're debating with ME, not with anyone else, and you can't just use arguments you use against those other people again with me.
McCain played his part in Syria and Libya. Of course he did. Politics isn't just Obama making a decision out of the blue without anything else happening. At the same time he's the guy who gives the orders.
Do you understand these simple concepts?
Obama "does nothing the Republicans want" because if Obama does it, then the Republicans decide they're not going to fight for it. All you see is what Obama and the Republicans fight over, then make the silly assumption that nothing else happens.
Am I serious about "withdrawing from the supposed 'war on terror'?". Yes I am.
This doesn't mean Obama just pulled out. This doesn't mean Obama just stopped fighting this wars that Bush started.
This means Obama looked for a way out. He got out of both Iraq and Afghanistan. He's getting close to closing Guantanamo. He stopped using inflammatory language that Bush used, he tried to use dialogue with other countries rather than Bush's "You're either with us or against us" stuff.
Obama isn't going to just break everything up instantly. That doesn't mean he isn't pulling the US back from being anti-Muslim as much as possible.
If you said the sky is blue and I said you said the sky is blue you'd say no it isn't.
Obama looked for a way out of nothing. He finished W's timeline in Iraq, he EXPANDED Afghanistan and he got us into Libya, Syria and Egypt. You're delusional that you think he's getting us out of anything. He's W
Rubbish, don't give me that nonsense. It's no my fault you seem to be trying to simplify everything down to a level that's just too simple.
Obama didn't get anyone into Egypt. The US has stayed out of Egypt for the most part, interfering when it suits on a political level. Syria has been political too, with air bombing of ISIS. Both sides seem to think this is acceptable. However the right wanted troops on the ground. So.... I'd say this is being out. Obama stayed out of the Syrian civil war.
Afghanistan was going balls up under Bush. The first few years Bush had less violence because the Taliban were hit badly, but then they came back, the increase in popularity caused by Bush's warmongering helped their recruitment. But Bush had been steadily increasing troops in Afghanistan.
The problem was he didn't have enough there to stop the violence, to bring the stability that Afghanistan needed. The US was already in Afghanistan, Obama simply put in place a policy that was more likely to bring about a solution to the problem, without simply just leaving the Afghans to pick up the mess on their own.
Then again you can see the problem with this chart
As troop numbers dropped in Iraq, troop numbers in Afghanistan were increased. Basically the US can't fight on two fronts at the same time. Bush had decided to leave Iraq, and the withdrawal signed, so troops could go and try and stabilize Afghanistan.
But again, just because he put more troops in Afghanistan doesn't mean he escalated the war. The war was being escalated there by the resurgent Taliban, which was getting a massive recruitment drive from Bush's time in office.
Iraq had been the place to go fight the US, now it's Afghanistan where you can find more US troops.
