Success of US foreign policy.

[frigidweirdo]

All speculation if U.S. troops had stayed its possible ISIS never goes into Iraq this to is speculation. It looks to me like they are doing a pretty good of winning with no U.S. troops on the ground.

What? I don't understand your writing. Try grammar and punctuation. Really, you need to re-write this so it's understandable.

I highly doubt your having any trouble understanding it your previous response was speculation. I pointed out it was possible that if U.S. troops had stayed in Iraq it's possible ISIS never would have gone in and acknowledged that was speculation on my part. Finally you stated ISIS could not win without American troops on the ground I pointed out they seem to be doing that anyway.

Oh God.

Let's try this: I highly doubt you're having any trouble understanding it. Your previous response was speculation. I pointed out it was possible that if U.S. troops had staying in Iraq that it was possible that ISIS would never have gone in. [I can't translate the next part, it makes no sense].

Also, a comma between ground and I would be great too.

Basically, your writing is so bad that I generally can't understand what you're actually saying. One thing is some simple mistakes, another is making it incomprehensible.

So, what I can kind of gather is, you're claiming ISIS wouldn't have gone into Iraq had the US been there.

This I find strange. The head of ISIS not only went into Afghanistan, but then when the US invaded Iraq he went into Iraq. ISIS want US troops on the ground because they find it easier to kill US troops in Iraq or in Syria than they do to shoot down planes or to bomb other countries. They can get a massive PR benefit from killing US troops.
Why are they beheading foreigners, it's great PR for themselves and demoralizes the west.

ISIS taking land is not winning necessarily. If the US don't go in now, they could always go in in the future. Perhaps if they defeat the US so much that they cause a humiliating withdrawal then they can get more stability for their goal.

 

[frigidweirdo]

In Iraq and Afghanistan the trail of destruction was already there. They were shit holes well before America intervened.

Really?

Both were stable countries. Iraq less so because of 1991, but still.

I'm not saying they were great, but the US put their development back 50 years.

 

[Meathead]

In Iraq and Afghanistan the trail of destruction was already there. They were shit holes well before America intervened.

Really?

Both were stable countries. Iraq less so because of 1991, but still.

I'm not saying they were great, but the US put their development back 50 years.

Weirdo, you have to go back and read. The histories of Iraq and Afghanistan did not start with the American invasions. Both were extremely unstable in fact, the primary difference between them being Afghanistan was not attacking and destabilizing a region.

"Both were stable countries" was an atrociously stupid and ill-informed thing to say.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Weirdo, you have to go back and read. The histories of Iraq and Afghanistan did not start with the American invasions. Both were extremely unstable in fact, the primary difference between them being Afghanistan was not attacking and destabilizing a region.

"Both were stable countries" was an atrociously stupid and ill-informed thing to say.

I do know the history of these countries you know. I'm not saying their history started with the Americans. However things have changed with US dominance and the Cold War era and the post Cold War era.

Iraq wasn't that unstable before. It was part of the Ottoman Empire. Then after the Ottoman Empire it was the British putting in a king, not a great move, but Ba'ath Party made Iraq more stable. Saddam did some wacky things, but it was far more stable than it is now.

Afghanstan was stable in a sense, the British came and the Afghans went back to what they had when they kicked then out then the Soviets, and again the US/UK.
Stability has been interrupted by various things, but it was never well developed.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Libya.

Libya near point of no return U.N. says as fighting toll rises - Yahoo News UK

"Libya near 'point of no return', U.N. says as fighting toll rises"

Iraq

ISIS militants still pressing forward in Iraq - CNN.com

"ISIS militants still pressing forward in Iraq"

Attacks pose challenge to new Afghan leader - Yahoo News UK

"Attacks pose challenge to new Afghan leader"

Everything the US govt touches, turns to feces.

Successful? The US govt goes in, they leave behind a trail of destruction that they cannot control.

You support obama this is what you want.

Yeah. Look at what he did in Japan, Korea, Vietnam.

 

[Meathead]

Weirdo, you have to go back and read. The histories of Iraq and Afghanistan did not start with the American invasions. Both were extremely unstable in fact, the primary difference between them being Afghanistan was not attacking and destabilizing a region.

"Both were stable countries" was an atrociously stupid and ill-informed thing to say.

I do know the history of these countries you know. I'm not saying their history started with the Americans. However things have changed with US dominance and the Cold War era and the post Cold War era.

Iraq wasn't that unstable before. It was part of the Ottoman Empire. Then after the Ottoman Empire it was the British putting in a king, not a great move, but Ba'ath Party made Iraq more stable. Saddam did some wacky things, but it was far more stable than it is now.

Afghanstan was stable in a sense, the British came and the Afghans went back to what they had when they kicked then out then the Soviets, and again the US/UK.
Stability has been interrupted by various things, but it was never well developed.

Stop backtracking and squirming. Calling Iraq and Afghanistan stable before US invasions was patently stupid by any standard,except possibly yours.

 

[Contumacious]

Libya.

Libya near point of no return U.N. says as fighting toll rises - Yahoo News UK

"Libya near 'point of no return', U.N. says as fighting toll rises"

Iraq

ISIS militants still pressing forward in Iraq - CNN.com

"ISIS militants still pressing forward in Iraq"

Attacks pose challenge to new Afghan leader - Yahoo News UK

"Attacks pose challenge to new Afghan leader"

Everything the US govt touches, turns to feces.

Successful? The US govt goes in, they leave behind a trail of destruction that they cannot control.

US foreign policy is completely UNconstitutional.

The federal government has no authority to meddle in the internal affairs of other nations, we are supposed to be NEUTRAL.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Stop backtracking and squirming. Calling Iraq and Afghanistan stable before US invasions was patently stupid by any standard,except possibly yours.

I'm not backtracking.

Iraq was stable. There wasn't much in the way of instability there, unless you would like to show it to me.
Afghanistan was also relatively stable.

Unless of course you're going to prove otherwise.

 

[Meathead]

Stop backtracking and squirming. Calling Iraq and Afghanistan stable before US invasions was patently stupid by any standard,except possibly yours.

I'm not backtracking.

Iraq was stable. There wasn't much in the way of instability there, unless you would like to show it to me.
Afghanistan was also relatively stable.

Unless of course you're going to prove otherwise.

Iraq was hugely unstable. Kurds in the north had virtually seceded after being gassed, the Shia in the Shatt-al-Arab were in revolt, there were UN sanctions afflicting the entire country, their own aircraft were not allowed to fly over half of their airspace and they had attacked two of their neighbors at the cost of about 1.5 million lives.

If that is stability, what do you think is unstable?!

All this is readily available, as is the information on your other "stable counyry. Afghanistan.

Please shut up. You're not doing yourself any favors by exposing your abject ignorance.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Iraq was hugely unstable. Kurds in the north had virtually seceded after being gassed, the Shia in the Shatt-al-Arab were in revolt, there were UN sanctions afflicting the entire country, their own aircraft were not allowed to fly over half of their airspace and they had attacked two of their neighbors at the cost of about 1.5 million lives.

If that is stability, what do you think is unstable?!

All this is readily available, as is the information on your other "stable counyry. Afghanistan.

Please shut up. You're not doing yourself any favors by exposing your abject ignorance.

Oh right, so you've moved on to insults. I was wondering when this would happen. If you have an argument to make, make it without the insults. It just makes you look like you don't know what you're talking about.]

What do I think is stability?

Saddam was leader from 1979 to 2003. (and was actually leading the country for longer than this). That's quite stable. In this time the US saw 5 president, plenty of fighting among parties etc.

Saddam saw attempts at independence from the Kurds and Shias, does that mean Iraq was unstable? They didn't succeed. Even after 1991's defeat, they still couldn't gain their independence. If it was so unstable as you're trying to make out, why could they not succeed against a defeated army?

Plenty of countries have people "in revolt" and I wouldn't say the country was unstable. China is a perfect example, they Uighurs are in revolt, but the Chinese govt has an iron fist over the country. Is China unstable? No.

Sanctions made life difficult. But did it lead to instability? Saddam's position was never in doubt. Type in Iraqi coup d'etat and see if you can find anything from 1979 to 2003 that was against Saddam. I can't.

Just because there were no fly zones and sanctions and certain groups didn't like Saddam, doesn't mean there was instability.

So next time before your start insulting, ask yourself why you need to. Maybe it's because, well, you haven't exactly provided much in the way of evidence for instability. You've provided evidence for things happening in Iraq, but this doesn't point to instability.

 

[Meathead]

Iraq was hugely unstable. Kurds in the north had virtually seceded after being gassed, the Shia in the Shatt-al-Arab were in revolt, there were UN sanctions afflicting the entire country, their own aircraft were not allowed to fly over half of their airspace and they had attacked two of their neighbors at the cost of about 1.5 million lives.

If that is stability, what do you think is unstable?!

All this is readily available, as is the information on your other "stable counyry. Afghanistan.

Please shut up. You're not doing yourself any favors by exposing your abject ignorance.

Oh right, so you've moved on to insults. I was wondering when this would happen. If you have an argument to make, make it without the insults. It just makes you look like you don't know what you're talking about.]

What do I think is stability?

Saddam was leader from 1979 to 2003. (and was actually leading the country for longer than this). That's quite stable. In this time the US saw 5 president, plenty of fighting among parties etc.

Saddam saw attempts at independence from the Kurds and Shias, does that mean Iraq was unstable? They didn't succeed. Even after 1991's defeat, they still couldn't gain their independence. If it was so unstable as you're trying to make out, why could they not succeed against a defeated army?

Plenty of countries have people "in revolt" and I wouldn't say the country was unstable. China is a perfect example, they Uighurs are in revolt, but the Chinese govt has an iron fist over the country. Is China unstable? No.

Sanctions made life difficult. But did it lead to instability? Saddam's position was never in doubt. Type in Iraqi coup d'etat and see if you can find anything from 1979 to 2003 that was against Saddam. I can't.

Just because there were no fly zones and sanctions and certain groups didn't like Saddam, doesn't mean there was instability.

So next time before your start insulting, ask yourself why you need to. Maybe it's because, well, you haven't exactly provided much in the way of evidence for instability. You've provided evidence for things happening in Iraq, but this doesn't point to instability.

Are you absolutely nuts? Are you honestly trying to say that Iraq and Afghanistan were stable countries when the US invaded? If so, I will repeat myself; you are painfully
misinformed or painfully stupid.

WTF is wrong with you?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Are you absolutely nuts? Are you honestly trying to say that Iraq and Afghanistan were stable countries when the US invaded? If so, I will repeat myself; you are painfully
misinformed or painfully stupid.

On the other hand you were talking about the issue being Romney and then insisting it was Grimes in Kentucky.

WTF is wrong with you?

So, I'm misinformed. Yet you can't provide any evidence to the contrary.

Eh? Romney and Grimes? I don't think I have ever spoken about anyone called Grimes in my life. Romney, well I haven't spoken about him for at least 1 year.

So what is wrong with me? Well, maybe because A) you're claiming I said things which was clearly someone else and B) Iraq wasn't that unstable before the US invaded. Afghanistan was at civil war, but the over a long period of time, if you take out the Soviet invasion, it's been quite stable in its own backwards way.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Of course it's successful. US foreign policy in the region has been running smoothly for decades.
Keep the oil rich, areas in constant turmoil; and never under any circumstances, let those nations unite, and consolidate power , and influence.

So are you saying that "Diversity is a strength" is a lie, that's it's really "Divide and Conquer" and if so then what on Earth are liberals doing to our own society?

Or you could what are conservatives doing in our society.

Ok..I'll bite. What are conservatives who by the way have only the US House under their watch, doing to the country?
GIve examples...
This oughtta be good.

 

[Meathead]

Are you absolutely nuts? Are you honestly trying to say that Iraq and Afghanistan were stable countries when the US invaded? If so, I will repeat myself; you are painfully
misinformed or painfully stupid.

On the other hand you were talking about the issue being Romney and then insisting it was Grimes in Kentucky.

WTF is wrong with you?

So, I'm misinformed. Yet you can't provide any evidence to the contrary.

Eh? Romney and Grimes? I don't think I have ever spoken about anyone called Grimes in my life. Romney, well I haven't spoken about him for at least 1 year.

So what is wrong with me? Well, maybe because A) you're claiming I said things which was clearly someone else and B) Iraq wasn't that unstable before the US invaded. Afghanistan was at civil war, but the over a long period of time, if you take out the Soviet invasion, it's been quite stable in its own backwards way.

I got you and another dingbat mixed up. Wrycatcher was carrying on about that.

Still, that's fine. Your views on the stability of Iraq and Afghanistan is certainly enough fodder for contesting your ignorance.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Of course it's successful. US foreign policy in the region has been running smoothly for decades.
Keep the oil rich, areas in constant turmoil; and never under any circumstances, let those nations unite, and consolidate power , and influence.

So are you saying that "Diversity is a strength" is a lie, that's it's really "Divide and Conquer" and if so then what on Earth are liberals doing to our own society?

Or you could what are conservatives doing in our society.

Ok..I'll bite. What are conservatives who by the way have only the US House under their watch, doing to the country?
GIve examples...
This oughtta be good.

What are they doing to the country? Well, quite a lot, along with the Democrats, they have control of the political system. They advertise to death, the both of them, they've taken away politics from the people (if the people ever had politics in the first place, of course) and turned it into a polarized beauty contest for president, turn Congress in to a corporation's wet dream, everything can be bought and sold.

And that's just for starters.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I got you and another dingbat mixed up. Wrycatcher was carrying on about that.

Still, that's fine. Your views on the stability of Iraq and Afghanistan is certainly enough fodder for contesting your ignorance.

Yeah, you keep repeating the same thing, keep insulting, keep doing the same things like there's a brick wall in front of your forehead, and yet you won't bother to actually back up with anything decent your view.

If Iraq was so unstable, why was Saddam still there?

If Afghanistan was so unstable, how did the Taliban manage to reduce poppy production so much?

 

[Rikurzhen]

Of course it's successful. US foreign policy in the region has been running smoothly for decades.
Keep the oil rich, areas in constant turmoil; and never under any circumstances, let those nations unite, and consolidate power , and influence.

So are you saying that "Diversity is a strength" is a lie, that's it's really "Divide and Conquer" and if so then what on Earth are liberals doing to our own society?

Or you could what are conservatives doing in our society.

Ok..I'll bite. What are conservatives who by the way have only the US House under their watch, doing to the country?
GIve examples...
This oughtta be good.

What are they doing to the country? Well, quite a lot, along with the Democrats, they have control of the political system. They advertise to death, the both of them, they've taken away politics from the people (if the people ever had politics in the first place, of course) and turned it into a polarized beauty contest for president, turn Congress in to a corporation's wet dream, everything can be bought and sold.

And that's just for starters.

"Advertise to death" means "speak about the issue you find important."

Taking away politics from the people is inevitable in a population of 320 million people. That many people can't exist with a Town Hall approach to politics.

The beauty contest aspect of politics is a natural outcome of expanding the franchise. When white property owners were the only ones who voted, politics was much more substantial and the politicians engaged in more substantive issues (yes, there were yahoos too.) and appeals to the voters. Heck yeah, bring that era back and let's put a stop to nonsense like "The War On Woman" and "Women are paid 77 cents per dollar of men doing the same job."

White men who own property = high caliber of political discussion.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Everything that is happening in the Middle East was predicated when we pulled all our forces out. This is what happens when foreign policy is dictated by political people.

This is arrogance. The Bush admin was arrogant in its belief in "nation building" and "spreading democracy".
The current admin believes the culture of these people can be changed with the winning of hearts and minds.
The Arab/South Asian world is made up of warring sectarian and tribal factions who all ascribe to a religion steeped in violence, misogyny and other base human indecencies.
But for the discovery of vast petroleum reserves in the region, most middle eastern countries would be Afghanistan on sand without the harsh winters These people would be nomadic desert dwelling tribes. Scratching out an even more primitive existence than their culture currently dictates.
The only glue that holds Saudi Arabia and the other oil producing nations together is the money form oil that allows the cultural elite to become educated. And allows them to build modern conveniences.
This is not what I think of the Arab/south Asian world. These are facts.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I got you and another dingbat mixed up. Wrycatcher was carrying on about that.

Still, that's fine. Your views on the stability of Iraq and Afghanistan is certainly enough fodder for contesting your ignorance.

Yeah, you keep repeating the same thing, keep insulting, keep doing the same things like there's a brick wall in front of your forehead, and yet you won't bother to actually back up with anything decent your view.

If Iraq was so unstable, why was Saddam still there?

If Afghanistan was so unstable, how did the Taliban manage to reduce poppy production so much?

Iraq's stability was at the barrel of a gun. Hussein was a nasty evil dictator. He was busily gassing the Kurds. He was issuing threats to other middle east nations.

 

[frigidweirdo]

"Advertise to death" means "speak about the issue you find important."

No, it doesn't. I guess if you were insulated in the US, you might think this. But the problem is that issues in the US are very different from issues in just about every other country on the planet. You realise that issues don't come from the people, the issues are "safe issues" for the ruling two main parties. Abortion, the death penalty, gay marriage etc, none of this comes close to actually putting the main parties on the spot. They choose a position based on who they're trying to attract, spend loads of money promoting themselves and wham.

Ever heard of Proportional Representation? Probably not, the main two parties don't want people having this as an issue, so it just isn't an issue.

People buy McDonalds, ie, rubbish burgers. People buy Coca Cola and Pepsi, rubbish drinks. Why? They get advertised to death. It's not what the people want, per se. They've just bought into the fact that they've been told they want this.
I knew a guy from Wisconsin (I seem to have a lot of people from Wisconsin stories) who could get coca cola free all day at work. He bought Pepsi because he said coca cola wasn't the drink of poor people. Perfect example of people being sold to.

Politics is no different.

Taking away politics from the people is inevitable in a population of 320 million people. That many people can't exist with a Town Hall approach to politics.

The beauty contest aspect of politics is a natural outcome of expanding the franchise. When white property owners were the only ones who voted, politics was much more substantial and the politicians engaged in more substantive issues (yes, there were yahoos too.) and appeals to the voters. Heck yeah, bring that era back and let's put a stop to nonsense like "The War On Woman" and "Women are paid 77 cents per dollar of men doing the same job."

White men who own property = high caliber of political discussion.

Yes, in some ways you're right. However in a country of 320 million more political parties are required in order to represent the people. I'm not talking 20 political parties each with the power to make a difference, but two is ridiculous. The way it works at the moment means that no one gets a real say.

If you look at Europe you won't find this in many countries.

The UK has UKIP fighting to be taken seriously, the Lib Dems on the way down and then the two main parties. In Germany you have the two main parties and three other 2nd level parties who often make coalition partners, and have major influence in politics.

It's far more about the people than in the US, which is just big business buying politics for big business.