Obama ISIS Inaction-Similar to Clinton & Rwanda

[Liminal]

Bill Clinton once said the biggest regret of his presidency was his inaction regarding Rwanda. After taking action to stop ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, Clinton (like other world leaders), sat back and did nothing while 800,000 Rwandans (mostly Tutsis) were slaughtered by their Hutu neighbors.

Fast foward to 2015. Now we have Obama sitting back and watching thousands of Iraqis and Syrians being slaughtered by ISIS. And all the while, Obama doesn't seem to care. He's more interested in appeasing his liberal American voter base, telling him to stay out of it.

Clinton at least expresses regret for his tragic inaction. Obama hasn't done that yet. It remains to be seen if he ever will.

The photos I could post of ISIS brutality, are ommitted only because of their exceedingly, horrifying nature.

Yes, actions usually have consequences. Take ISIS for example; if we hadn't invaded and occupied Iraq ISIS wouldn't even exist. Of course these things always become clear in hindsight, don't they.

 

[georgephillip]

The ISIS war might MAKE money, rather than cost it. Notice what ISIS has been doing ? Have their conquering cost them money ? No. They've been getting richer through it. And if the US would go over there in force and kick their asses, like we should be doing, all that hot ISIS wealth becomes ours

How did that plan turn out in Iraq? IS has been getting rich from the sale of black market oil which seems like a problem US elites could prevent if they really wanted to. As long as society incentivizes the mass murder/displacement of civilians, only the names of the criminals will change.

 

[georgephillip]

The Nation, huh ? HA HA HA. There about a objective as a bunch of fire ants.

"Can't spell CRISIS without ISIS. The military industrial complex isn't that complex at all. It's quite simple. Psychopaths don't care who dies in their timeless march for money and power."
Who s Paying the Pro-War Pundits The Nation
Can you explain why you believe Fox News has greater objectivity than The Nation?

 

[georgephillip]

What idiocy. You are actually trying to get away with saying that just because Keane get paid for his military advice, that this somehow makes a liar out of him. ? NO. YOU are the liar.

" Ramping up America’s military presence in Iraq and directly entering the war in Syria, along with greater military spending more broadly, is a debatable solution to a complex political and sectarian conflict.

"But those goals do unquestionably benefit one player in this saga: America’s defense industry.

"Keane is a great example of this phenomenon. His think tank, the Institute for the Study of War (ISW), which he oversees along with neoconservative partisans Liz Cheney and William Kristol, has provided the data on IS used for multiple stories by The New York Times, the BBC and other leading outlets."

Does the word "gullible" have any special meaning for you? Why would you believe war-whores who profit from ignorance?

Who s Paying the Pro-War Pundits The Nation

 

[protectionist]

NO. The mission is NOT accomplished. This is exactly what the US military should be doing now, except it shouldn't be 7 countries. It probably should be about 47 countries, including Nigeria, Chad, Somalia, Sudan, Ivory Coast, Iran, Phillipines, Indonesia, Chechnya, etc

Where you planning to get the money for all that war, Ike, tax the military/industrial complex? How about the Bush and Clinton families? Why don't you get a real job and stop polluting cyberspace?

The ISIS war might MAKE money, rather than cost it. Notice what ISIS has been doing ? Have their conquering cost them money ? No. They've been getting richer through it. And if the US would go over there, in force, and kick their asses, like we should be doing, all that ISIS wealth becomes ours. (much of which was ours to begin with) What happened Mohammed ? I thought you Muslims were smart.

PS - I support rising taxes on the rich. Always have.

 

[protectionist]

RWANDA!

It was Canada's turn to take the lead in saving the world! The General in charge was Canadian, Canada should of done something. Of course never mind that the Canadian General carried a pistol, and under his command he had rifles and machine guns, and lets not forget the Canadian General could of stopped the Belgium planes full of Belgium troops from pulling out of the mess the Belgium were in charge of before the UN stepped in.

Machine Guns and troops against machetes? It does not take a genius to figure out who would of won.

Waiting for help he was?

Not everything is our fault, certainly not RWANDA! As much as the Clinton's are guilty of, this is not one.

Canadian General, its Canada's turn.

Belgium created the problem, cut and run, I would of blown up there planes and said you stay and fight.

Machetes, so scary.

I bet the General was a drunk.

Clinton disagrees with you. He openly blamed himself for his non-intervention, and made no secret that this was his # 1 regret of his presidency. You stand corrected - BY BILL CLINTON.

Clinton is a politician, does not matter what he said, Crocodile tears. Yes, its great to compare Obama to another failure, but Rwanda never was our failure. So what, Clinton cries a tear, says he wished he could of done something, acts as if he had no idea what was happening, but its all a show. A great leader taking the blame, ha, ha. Attention getting at best. The result is you have no understanding of what happened and who had the ability to stop the Genocide.

I would say you are now corrected, but its obvious you have no knowledge of Rwanda, you have much to learn before we can state your educated and corrected.

Romeo Dallaire Canadian General, correct

Belgium, was in control of Belgium, it was there baby, period, correct.

Belgian Colonization

Belgians did much to create the enmity between Hutu and Tutsi through their policies of indirect rule. As mentioned above, Hutus and Tutsis lived together as neighbors before the colonial period. However, Belgian rule solidified the racial divide [that was already firmly planted in the Rwandan mindset]. The Belgians [also] gave political power to the Tutsis. Due to the eugenics movement in Europe and the United States, the colonial government became concerned with the differences between Hutu and Tutsi. Scientists arrived to measure skull - and thus, they believed brain - size. Tutsi's skulls were bigger, they were taller, and their skin was lighter. As a result of this, Europeans came to believe that Tutsis had caucasian ancestry, and were thus 'superior' to Hutus. Each citizen was issued a racial identification card, which defined one as legally Hutu or Tutsi. The Belgians gave the majority of political control to the Tutsis. [As a result of all of this,] Tutsis began to believe the myth of their superior racial status, and exploited their power over the Hutu majority. Current academic thought is that the European emphasis on racial division led to many of the difficulties between Hutu and Tutsi in the latter part of the 20th century", such as the Rwandan genocide. (History of Rwanda)

Nice display of stupidity. NO. Bill Clinton is NOT a politician. He hasn't been one for 15 years. He's a private citizen, and his remarks about Rwanda were made well AFTER the time of his being a politician.

You were wrong to begin with. I corrected you. And instead of fessing up to your mistake, you have now compounded it, and made it worse. I would say more, but this is NOT MY PROBLEM.

 

[protectionist]

Clinton disagrees with you. He openly blamed himself for his non-intervention, and made no secret that this was his # 1 regret of his presidency. You stand corrected - BY BILL CLINTON.

Clinton was convicted of Lying, perjury, you take a convicted perjurer's word without question? A very sloppy post. Clinton lies or he don't, which is it?
Clinton disagreed with Monica Lewinsky as well, right?
correct yourself!

I have done the correcting. I corrected you. And YOU KNOW it. If someone lies once, twice, or even 10 times, that doesn't mean they're lying all the time. When Clinton said he regretted not helping the people of Rwanda, he was no longer president. He had nothing to gain or lose by what he said, when he said it. You are just talking to cover your ass, for making a stupid post in this thread, and you're just making things worse for yourself, every time you speak.

 

[protectionist]

Confine the question to a more concise time period and I might acknowledge.

How do the number of refugees from Iraq and Syria today compare with the numbers between 1991 and 2003? What role did US aggression play in how those numbers differ?

Why don't you spend the time and effort required to look these things up yourself, Mr, Question Mark ? Are you going to pay me for the considerable time/research to post the specific names, places, and other proper information. ? You think I have nothing else to do but give up my time for you ?

 

[georgephillip]

Why don't you spend the time and effort required to look these things up yourself, Mr, Question Mark ? Are you going to pay me for the considerable time/research to post the specific names, places, and other proper information. ? You think I have nothing else to do but give up my time for you ?

I think you find it hard to admit the role the US government has played in facilitating the rise of radical Islam in Iraq and Syria. Otherwise you would not pretend ignorance concerning why there are far more refugees in those countries today compared with twenty years ago.

 

[protectionist]

NO. The mission is NOT accomplished. This is exactly what the US military should be doing now, except it shouldn't be 7 countries. It probably should be about 47 countries, including Nigeria, Chad, Somalia, Sudan, Ivory Coast, Iran, Phillipines, Indonesia, Chechnya, etc

^^^ Stupidest post of the day.

And with YOU saying that, that makes it the SMARTEST post of the day.

Silly one, we are not going to have a world war with Islam.

Silly one. We already are in one. Hadn't you noticed ?

Does Anyone Not Know We re in World War III US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

No, we are not, despite what you neo-cons so desperately hope for.

You are not going to get to throw thousands of American lives any time soon.

NO. The mission is NOT accomplished. This is exactly what the US military should be doing now, except it shouldn't be 7 countries. It probably should be about 47 countries, including Nigeria, Chad, Somalia, Sudan, Ivory Coast, Iran, Phillipines, Indonesia, Chechnya, etc

^^^ Stupidest post of the day.

And with YOU saying that, that makes it the SMARTEST post of the day.

Silly one, we are not going to have a world war with Islam.

Silly one. We already are in one. Hadn't you noticed ?

Does Anyone Not Know We re in World War III US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

No, we are not, despite what you neo-cons so desperately hope for.

You are not going to get to throw thousands of American lives any time soon.

NO. The mission is NOT accomplished. This is exactly what the US military should be doing now, except it shouldn't be 7 countries. It probably should be about 47 countries, including Nigeria, Chad, Somalia, Sudan, Ivory Coast, Iran, Phillipines, Indonesia, Chechnya, etc

^^^ Stupidest post of the day.

And with YOU saying that, that makes it the SMARTEST post of the day.

Silly one, we are not going to have a world war with Islam.

Silly one. We already are in one. Hadn't you noticed ?

Does Anyone Not Know We re in World War III US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

No, we are not, despite what you neo-cons so desperately hope for.

You are not going to get to throw thousands of American lives any time soon.

Well, that answers that question. Yup. You're one of the ones who doesn't know we're in World War III. Or pretends to not know it. ISIS has spread from Syria and Iraq to now the Sinai Peninsula in Egypt and Libya. Boko Harum is in Nigeria et al countries. Al Shabbab is in Somalia and Sudan. Hamas is in Gaza , and closely affiliated with CAIR et al Muslim Brotherhood fronts in the USA. There are also al Qaeda/ISIS inspired jihad killers in America, who have already struck (9/11, Alten Nolen, Ali Muhammad Brown, Nidal Hasan) , AQAP in Yemen, Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan, etc

Here is a list of more al Qaeda and ISIS affiliated groups in different areas of the world >>

Tanzim Qaedat al-Jihad or the Al-Qaeda Organization in the Malay Archipelago - Brunei, Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippine

• South Asia
  • Laskar-e-Toiba (LeT)
  • Harakat-ul-Mujahideen
  • Jaish-e-Muhammad
  • Sipah-i-Sahaba Pakistan (SSP)
  • Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (LeJ)
  • Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP)
  • Indian Mujahideen (IM)
  • Harkatul-Ul-Jihad-I-Islami - Bangladesh (HuJI-B)
• The Caucasus and Central Asia
  • The Islamic International Brigade (IIB) or the Islamic International Peacekeeping Brigade (IIPB)
  • The Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU)
  • Islamic Jihad Union (IJU)
  • The East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM)
• Southeast Asia
  • Jemaah Islamiyah (JI) / Jemaah Islamia
  • The Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG)
  • The Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF)
  • Kumpulan Mujahideen Malaysia (KMM)

In addition there are thousands of fighters with ISIS, who are nationals of The USA, Canada, South America, Australia, and European countries who will return to those countries to fight their jihad there, such as the recent atttacks in the USA, Paris, France, Australia, and Canada. WORLD war. Plain and simple.

• 
  
  
• 
  

 

[protectionist]

Bill Clinton once said the biggest regret of his presidency was his inaction regarding Rwanda. After taking action to stop ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, Clinton (like other world leaders), sat back and did nothing while 800,000 Rwandans (mostly Tutsis) were slaughtered by their Hutu neighbors.

Fast foward to 2015. Now we have Obama sitting back and watching thousands of Iraqis and Syrians being slaughtered by ISIS. And all the while, Obama doesn't seem to care. He's more interested in appeasing his liberal American voter base, telling him to stay out of it.

Clinton at least expresses regret for his tragic inaction. Obama hasn't done that yet. It remains to be seen if he ever will.

The photos I could post of ISIS brutality, are ommitted only because of their exceedingly, horrifying nature.

Yes, actions usually have consequences. Take ISIS for example; if we hadn't invaded and occupied Iraq ISIS wouldn't even exist. Of course these things always become clear in hindsight, don't they.

ISIS is simply part of the overall jihad. It has existed for 1400 years. During that time, it has killed 270 million people around the globe, in hundreds of individual conquests. Never seen the list ? Liberal news doesn't report it. Neither do liberal books. Time for you to come out of the cocoon.

Read Post # 90. The jihad is all over the world. Jihadists aren't attacking Christians in south Sudan (and enslaving them), in Australia, in Indonesia, in the Phillipines, etc, etc, because of what "we" did in Iraq. The whole global jihad is merely a continuum of the 1400 years of it. Time to stop being brainwashed by MSNBC, media matters, the New York Times, etc.

 

[protectionist]

The ISIS war might MAKE money, rather than cost it. Notice what ISIS has been doing ? Have their conquering cost them money ? No. They've been getting richer through it. And if the US would go over there in force and kick their asses, like we should be doing, all that hot ISIS wealth becomes ours

How did that plan turn out in Iraq? IS has been getting rich from the sale of black market oil which seems like a problem US elites could prevent if they really wanted to. As long as society incentivizes the mass murder/displacement of civilians, only the names of the criminals will change.

You must realize that not everyone has been immersed in the liberal indocrination that you have. So when you speak in this forum, you need to be more broad that just that confined mindset, which means nothing to objective readers. You need to specify what you;re talking about. Your assumptions are clearly the result of leftist propaganda, which I wouldn't give 2 cents for. You need more facts, more informations. Nobody is going to accept your brainwash talk at face value. I brush this stuff off like a fly.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Protectionist is not a strategist or a policy wonk.

He is a neo-con wanting America to take a path that We the People will not allow the fear mongers to take. Bush the Younger put an end to that shit for us.

Protectionist does not speak for the more objective members of this forum. He operates from confirmation bias that prevents him from objectively weighing all of the deceive.

He is a far right wing reactionary, and no one with a working brain will accept his desire to march American legions across the world. He is still living in 1945 and totally unaware the levers of power have changed.

 

[protectionist]

The Nation, huh ? HA HA HA. There about a objective as a bunch of fire ants.

"Can't spell CRISIS without ISIS. The military industrial complex isn't that complex at all. It's quite simple. Psychopaths don't care who dies in their timeless march for money and power."
Who s Paying the Pro-War Pundits The Nation
Can you explain why you believe Fox News has greater objectivity than The Nation?

Your payoff conspiracy notion is OLD, dude. It goes back to the Vietnam War day, when Honeywell, Boeing, General dynamics, Lockheed, were heavily involved. And that was a bad war, with no good reason for fighting it.

And today there are US companies who stand to profit from war material manufacturing as well. The top 3 ar Lockheed, Boeing, and BAE Systems. And there were some who did very well manufacturing for World War II also. SO WHAT ?

Does any of this mean the ludicrous notion you are trying to present, that all this war is all just because some manufacturers of war materials are trying to enrich themselves ?

EARTH TO MOHAMMED: ALL businesses are trying to increase their profits. ALL the time. Just because Lockheed, Boeing, BAE Systems, General Dynamics and Raytheon are doing that, that doesn't mean one iota that this war TO DEFEND AGAINST NUCLEAR ANNIHILATION OF THE US ET AL, is unjust or improper.

Defense contractors were hard at work, and made lots of money in World War II, also. You want to call that war just the result of "Psychopaths don't care who dies in their timeless march for money and power", too ? Want to throw in stopping the Nazi war machine, and the Japs in the Pacific, while you're at it ?

I hate to disillusion you, Mo, but your military-industrial complex line as applied to today's global jihad, has about as much strength as a rock in the bottom of a pond. Sheeeeesh!!

 

[HenryBHough]

Obama and Clinton not at all similar in this respect.

Clinton was oblivious.

Obama, malicious.

 

[protectionist]

What idiocy. You are actually trying to get away with saying that just because Keane get paid for his military advice, that this somehow makes a liar out of him. ? NO. YOU are the liar.

" Ramping up America’s military presence in Iraq and directly entering the war in Syria, along with greater military spending more broadly, is a debatable solution to a complex political and sectarian conflict.

"But those goals do unquestionably benefit one player in this saga: America’s defense industry.

"Keane is a great example of this phenomenon. His think tank, the Institute for the Study of War (ISW), which he oversees along with neoconservative partisans Liz Cheney and William Kristol, has provided the data on IS used for multiple stories by The New York Times, the BBC and other leading outlets."

Does the word "gullible" have any special meaning for you? Why would you believe war-whores who profit from ignorance?

Who s Paying the Pro-War Pundits The Nation

NO. Gullible does NOT have any special meaning for me at all. Because there isn't any gullibility, except that which you and your fanatical anti-war-at-any-cost, ultra-liberal nutjobs have devised, as a ruse to try to snow the American people, into agreeing with your preposterous idea that the gobal jihad is not that, but merely some sectarian conflict somewhere.

This is the dumbest bunch of unbelievable these conners have come up with yet. But the propaganda won't succeed (or even come close). It's just TOO EVIDENT what is taking place in the world, right now. The jihadists make their goals of world conquest and Islamic domination, no secret at all. And they're fighting for it all over the world, and gaining in wealth and strength in many places.

And the NUCLEAR aspect of it is the core of the threat. Everyone knows that with Pakistan in possession of 100+ nukes, many more available for sale on the black market as a result of poorly secured storage of these in former Soviet satellite countries, as well as corrupt officials in nuclear nations (that could include the US), that we are all living in a dangerous situation, the jihad being the spark.

So all your laughably old, and worn out, pundit talking points, aren't going to even make a dent in the actual events. This month, the Pew Research Center released a poll showing terrorism (you can bet this means Islamic) now being the # 1 (76%) top priority concern of Americans, replacing the economy which was formerly the # 1 issue.

If you want to buck this clear perception of the Americn people, you're going to have to do a lot better than your "America’s defense industry" rap, which lost its luster decades ago.

 

[protectionist]

Why don't you spend the time and effort required to look these things up yourself, Mr, Question Mark ? Are you going to pay me for the considerable time/research to post the specific names, places, and other proper information. ? You think I have nothing else to do but give up my time for you ?

I think you find it hard to admit the role the US government has played in facilitating the rise of radical Islam in Iraq and Syria. Otherwise you would not pretend ignorance concerning why there are far more refugees in those countries today compared with twenty years ago.

20 years is a drop in the bucket of the time frame is Islamic jihad. It has showed its insanity since 622 AD. To even mention 20 years in this discussion is absurd.

 

[protectionist]

Protectionist is not a strategist or a policy wonk.

He is a neo-con wanting America to take a path that We the People will not allow the fear mongers to take. Bush the Younger put an end to that shit for us.

Protectionist does not speak for the more objective members of this forum. He operates from confirmation bias that prevents him from objectively weighing all of the deceive.

He is a far right wing reactionary, and no one with a working brain will accept his desire to march American legions across the world. He is still living in 1945 and totally unaware the levers of power have changed.

WRONG on every count.

1. I am NOT a far right wing reactionary. For your edification, I am a registerd Independent, and some of my economic positions (PS-I'm a former college economics teacher) are far more liberal than most liberals on this board. I'm in favor of raising taxes on the top rich to pre-Reagan levels (70-92%), I'm fo rraising the minimum wage to$15/hour, I support various business regulation, and I even support affirmative action (if based on economic CLASS). And I don't throw American workers under the bus, by supporting immigration as many hypocritical liberals do.

2. I am not a NEO-Con. Those are RINOS who support immigration. I am an OLD-Con, like Eisenhower, who had a 91-92% tax on the rich, the entire 8 years of his administration.

3. As I stated in Post # 96, "This month, the Pew Research Center released a poll showing terrorism (you can bet this means Islamic) now being the # 1 (76%) top priority concern of Americans, replacing the economy which was formerly the # 1 issue." So the American people, are smart enough to discern the difference between the REAL "fear-mongering" that george phillip tries to pass off, about defense co. profiteers, and the REAL threat to America from the global Muslim jihad, in a highly, dangerous NUCLEAR age. This 76% of the American people (and like that % of this forum) is who I speak for. The sane, objective ones who, like me, view ALL media, right left and center, unlike brainwashed ultra-libs who only view their liberal cocoon reporting.

4. Yes, the "levers of power" have changed since 1945, all right. We now live in a much more dangerous nuclear age, combined with a global jihadist network hell-bent on getting their hands on the nuclear weapon levers, to use against us.

5. And since Jake Starkey (or whatever his real Muslim name is) wants to talk about WHO posters are in this forum, let him show us who HE is, complete with what mosque he goes to.

 

[georgephillip]

You must realize that not everyone has been immersed in the liberal indocrination that you have. So when you speak in this forum, you need to be more broad that just that confined mindset, which means nothing to objective readers

What do you imagine you have in common with objective readers? I haven't found anyone else on this board as subjective in their interpretations as you are. You really believe American Exceptionalism is objectively good?

 

[georgephillip]

20 years is a drop in the bucket of the time frame is Islamic jihad. It has showed its insanity since 622 AD. To even mention 20 years in this discussion is absurd.

What role did the US invasion of Iraq play in the current level of jihad in the Middle East?