2016 US Presidential Election Pt. II

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
ISIS is the blowback from the effective dismantling and privatisation of the Iraqi state in 2003-2006. This is what happens. Iraq is history. Past tense. There is now a proxy war in the region between shiite Iran and wahabbist Saudi Arabia for influence (although ISIS are definitely the enemy of Arabia in this instance, as they are, to borrow an old expression from the days of the Raj, 'more British than the British').

The Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld invasion of 2003 will surely go down as the crime of the century. It's our Sarajevo moment. That Bush or Cheney can appear in public without being pelted with rocks and rotten vegetables is astounding to me.
 
Last edited:
For what it's worth, there have been protests against the Iraqi government in recent days/weeks. There's an awful lot to happen yet.
 
I know, that's my point. Oregorpa is saying he wants a change from crony capitalism so he's supporting Trump. That is an insane line of thinking.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

He's funding his own campaign. Everybody is beholden to some donor except Trump. He's honest about the way the game is played.
 
But that doesn't mean his economic policies are going to be anything different. He doesn't seem interested in economic inequality, which is the number one issue in the United States. You know why? Because it doesn't impact rich people.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
In all fairness, what Democrat has any workable policy to reduce the wealth and income gap? No politician is significantly concerned with that at the moment aside from photo-ops with whatever people they have branded "middle class."
 
In all fairness, what Democrat has any workable policy to reduce the wealth and income gap? No politician is significantly concerned with that at the moment aside from photo-ops with whatever people they have branded "middle class."


Uhh, pretty sure taxing the wealthy (not just income, but capital gains as well), raising the minimum wage, promoting union membership, early childhood education, free community college is gonna help, considering there's tons of research that says that they do help alleviate inequality.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
He's funding his own campaign. Everybody is beholden to some donor except Trump. He's honest about the way the game is played.


He's beholden to his own corporations and all those that got him where he is; he's beholden to the top 3%, not you.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
In all fairness, what Democrat has any workable policy to reduce the wealth and income gap? No politician is significantly concerned with that at the moment aside from photo-ops with whatever people they have branded "middle class."
I wasn't talking Democrat vs. Republican, I was talking about crony-capitalism vs. "outsiders."
 
Many of the forum users think he jumped the shark on his Mexican comments. If that disqualifies him in your eyes so be it. But right now he has fed the red meat to the GOP voters who view this primary as a referendum on 'immigration'

His racist, offensive, idiotic comment about Mexicans doesn't disqualify him in my eyes.

That he's Donald Trump is what disqualifies him in my eyes.

The only good thing that's coming out of this is that he may just cause the Republican party to implode; and that would be a truly great thing for America; as a true moderate third party could emerge from the ashes of what has become a party controlled buy a backwards, zealous and frankly reprehensible few that seem stuck in the fucking stone age on most of the important social policies of the day.
 
You're cool with just letting ISIS fester like a cancer ?

Actually, that's probably the best way to deal with ISIS, IMO.

They need Western intervention in order to keep their numbers up. They as an organization have no genuine interest or capability to attack the US or other Western nations (our attacks here in Canada were committed by a couple of mentally ill "converts" who claimed to be acting on their behalf but had no ties at all to the organization - it's an issue for sure but no different than someone claiming that they did it in the name of Jesus Christ, the Devil or Beyonce, it's just a justification to latch onto) but the provocations, videos, atrocities, etc scare us into thinking that the barbarians are at the gates (or in Juarez, apparently) and demanding intervention from our leaders, who of course wouldn't dream of appearing "soft on terrorism". Them being constantly attacked by the West allows them to say "look Muslims, the West wants to destroy the Caliphate", which is an excellent recruiting pitch and ensures a steady supply of fresh troops. I'm sure most of us are aware that the vast majority of recruits are foreigners who travel there for jihad. Most ISIS fighters stay for a brief period of a few months before returning home. If we stop bombing them, they lose the vast majority of their leverage to recruit fighters to replace the returnees and eventually through attrition their military strength will dissolve to the point where they won't have any capability to defend their territory. ISIS's primary reason for existing is to occupy and hold territory (you can't have a legitimate Caliph or Caliphate without a certain amount of land, according to the Quran). They start losing territory and they become completely illegitimate, and bye bye to their support among Muslims. When that happens, it's game over.

Yes its going to suck to say the least for the people who live there for quite a while, but civilian danger and quality of life certainly doesn't seem to matter much in places like the east Congo, Myanmar, or Somalia. A precedent exists that it's not in and of itself a casus belli for intervention.

ISIS is not a cancer that will spread and consume the organism. It's more like a parasite - when the host is no longer available, it will wither and die.
 
Last edited:
Actually, that's probably the best way to deal with ISIS, IMO.

They need Western intervention in order to keep their numbers up. They as an organization have no genuine interest or capability to attack the US or other Western nations (our attacks here in Canada were committed by a couple of mentally ill "converts" who claimed to be acting on their behalf but had no ties at all to the organization - it's an issue for sure but no different than someone claiming that they did it in the name of Jesus Christ, the Devil or Beyonce, it's just a justification to latch onto) but the provocations, videos, atrocities, etc scare us into thinking that the barbarians are at the gates (or in Juarez, apparently) and demanding intervention from our leaders, who of course wouldn't dream of appearing "soft on terrorism". Them being constantly attacked by the West allows them to say "look Muslims, the West wants to destroy the Caliphate", which is an excellent recruiting pitch and ensures a steady supply of fresh troops. I'm sure most of us are aware that the vast majority of recruits are foreigners who travel there for jihad. Most ISIS fighters stay for a brief period of a few months before returning home. If we stop bombing them, they lose the vast majority of their leverage to recruit fighters to replace the returnees and eventually through attrition their military strength will dissolve to the point where they won't have any capability to defend their territory. ISIS's primary reason for existing is to occupy and hold territory (you can't have a legitimate Caliph or Caliphate without a certain amount of land, according to the Quran). They start losing territory and they become completely illegitimate, and bye bye to their support among Muslims. When that happens, it's game over.

Yes its going to suck to say the least for the people who live there for quite a while, but civilian danger and quality of life certainly doesn't seem to matter much in places like the east Congo, Myanmar, or Somalia. A precedent exists that it's not in and of itself a casus belli for intervention.

ISIS is not a cancer that will spread and consume the organism. It's more like a parasite - when the host is no longer available, it will wither and die.


Yeah, understanding the real facts behind these groups could save us so much in the long run, but this whole idea that we must wage war on anything we label "terrorists" will just give us a repeat of Iraq. If Bush had taken the time to investigate the true facts about Iraq, understood the makeup of the different groups we wouldn't have made the worst and most costly mistake of this country's recent history.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
Uhh, pretty sure taxing the wealthy (not just income, but capital gains as well), raising the minimum wage, promoting union membership, early childhood education, free community college is gonna help, considering there's tons of research that says that they do help alleviate inequality.

Well yes, these are all good ideas, but the workable part is important in terms of pushing such items through Congress and finding the money for things like community college vouchers or whatever. We've had 6.5 years of a Democratic administration and rising inequality during that stretch; I don't question Obama's desire to reduce the wealth gap, but rather the viability of getting meaningful action on a wide scale.
 
ISIS is the blowback from the effective dismantling and privatisation of the Iraqi state in 2003-2006. This is what happens. Iraq is history. Past tense. There is now a proxy war in the region between shiite Iran and wahabbist Saudi Arabia for influence (although ISIS are definitely the enemy of Arabia in this instance, as they are, to borrow an old expression from the days of the Raj, 'more British than the British').

The Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld invasion of 2003 will surely go down as the crime of the century. It's our Sarajevo moment. That Bush or Cheney can appear in public without being pelted with rocks and rotten vegetables is astounding to me.

"Crime Of the Century"? lol. Bush-cheney were re-elected 20 months after the invasion of Iraq. It was already U.S. policy started under Bill Clinton to find a way to remove Saddam and set up a new Iraqi government and that is what Bush/Cheney did.

Actually, that's probably the best way to deal with ISIS, IMO.

They need Western intervention in order to keep their numbers up. They as an organization have no genuine interest or capability to attack the US or other Western nations (our attacks here in Canada were committed by a couple of mentally ill "converts" who claimed to be acting on their behalf but had no ties at all to the organization - it's an issue for sure but no different than someone claiming that they did it in the name of Jesus Christ, the Devil or Beyonce, it's just a justification to latch onto) but the provocations, videos, atrocities, etc scare us into thinking that the barbarians are at the gates (or in Juarez, apparently) and demanding intervention from our leaders, who of course wouldn't dream of appearing "soft on terrorism". Them being constantly attacked by the West allows them to say "look Muslims, the West wants to destroy the Caliphate", which is an excellent recruiting pitch and ensures a steady supply of fresh troops. I'm sure most of us are aware that the vast majority of recruits are foreigners who travel there for jihad. Most ISIS fighters stay for a brief period of a few months before returning home. If we stop bombing them, they lose the vast majority of their leverage to recruit fighters to replace the returnees and eventually through attrition their military strength will dissolve to the point where they won't have any capability to defend their territory. ISIS's primary reason for existing is to occupy and hold territory (you can't have a legitimate Caliph or Caliphate without a certain amount of land, according to the Quran). They start losing territory and they become completely illegitimate, and bye bye to their support among Muslims. When that happens, it's game over.

Yes its going to suck to say the least for the people who live there for quite a while, but civilian danger and quality of life certainly doesn't seem to matter much in places like the east Congo, Myanmar, or Somalia. A precedent exists that it's not in and of itself a casus belli for intervention.

ISIS is not a cancer that will spread and consume the organism. It's more like a parasite - when the host is no longer available, it will wither and die.

Western intervention is not what keeps ISIS numbers up. Its LACK of western intervention which boosted ISIS from a backyard sandlot to a caliphate. In 2011, with U.S. troops still in Iraq, and the civil war in Syria in its infancy, the acronym ISIS did not exist. U.S. troops withdrew from Iraq at the end of 2011 and the Syrian civil war escalated after 2011. During 2012 and 2013, lack of U.S. involvement in both Syria and Iraq saw the situation in both countries worsen. ISIS grew in Syria during that time. Then in early 2014 they took Falluja and half of Ramadi. Then during the week of June 9 to June 13, large numbers of ISIS forces moved in from Eastern Syria into North West Iraq and defeated Iraqi forces in Mosul and Tikrit that had been weakened partly because of U.S. neglect caused by the U.S. withdrawal in 2011.

Unlike Al Quada, ISIS has successfully taken provincial capitals in both Syria and Iraq and held them. These unparalleled success's and the use of social media on the internet to spread word of these success's is what is driving recruitment. The Western Air campaign against ISIS has been relatively weak although ISIS's largest advances seem to have been stopped. The group continues though to control a vast amount of territory, and has access to black market oil sales which continues to feed their machine.
Until a responsible political/military policy is put in place, ISIS will remain a threat in the region as well as a worldwide threat. ISIS has numbers and money that dwarf the capabilities of prior terrorist groups. Keep in mind of course, that it does not take vast numbers of people and money to do severe damage on the other side of the world. Just look at what 19 men armed with box cutters were able to do on 9/11.

Obama's response to ISIS has been weak and ineffective. Hopefully that will change before he leaves office, but I doubt it. There will be a much stronger response to ISIS once Hillary or one of the Republicans comes into office in January 2017.

Yeah, understanding the real facts behind these groups could save us so much in the long run, but this whole idea that we must wage war on anything we label "terrorists" will just give us a repeat of Iraq. If Bush had taken the time to investigate the true facts about Iraq, understood the makeup of the different groups we wouldn't have made the worst and most costly mistake of this country's recent history.

Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

Bush did a far better job with Iraq than Obama has done. Had Obama not abandoned Iraq at the end of 2011, ISIS would still be a largely unknown rebel group primarily based in Syria.
 
Last edited:
Bush did a far better job with Iraq than Obama has done. Had Obama not abandoned Iraq at the end of 2011, ISIS would still be a largely unknown rebel group primarily based in Syria.


Had Bush not gone in in the first place imagine where we'd be.

When you have Fox News and the radio talking heads now saying "who would of thought we'd be longing for the days of Saddam?" you know you fucked up royally.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
^ Wow yes. I was gung ho for removing Saddam back in the day. But damn if we don't miss him now, knowing what we now know. Most of you were correct way back then. We've been looking for the next Saddam ever since we took out the original. Pretty sad when most everyone agrees now that Iraq under Saddam was...better...for pretty much everyone compared to where we stand now. Damn.
 
Oh you're sending the Wolf? Sheeet, that's all you had to say

Nicely done Wolf.

rSmq3VI.gif
 
ISIS is not just contained in Iraq and the Levant. They have franchises popping up in Libya, Egypt, and Afghanistan.

Granted Egypt has the ability to deal with it internally. But it is like a spreading cancer. And we hear crickets from the UN, they're too busy scolding Israel.
 
"Crime Of the Century"? lol. Bush-cheney were re-elected 20 months after the invasion of Iraq. It was already U.S. policy started under Bill Clinton to find a way to remove Saddam and set up a new Iraqi government and that is what Bush/Cheney did.



Western intervention is not what keeps ISIS numbers up. Its LACK of western intervention which boosted ISIS from a backyard sandlot to a caliphate. In 2011, with U.S. troops still in Iraq, and the civil war in Syria in its infancy, the acronym ISIS did not exist. U.S. troops withdrew from Iraq at the end of 2011 and the Syrian civil war escalated after 2011. During 2012 and 2013, lack of U.S. involvement in both Syria and Iraq saw the situation in both countries worsen. ISIS grew in Syria during that time. Then in early 2014 they took Falluja and half of Ramadi. Then during the week of June 9 to June 13, large numbers of ISIS forces moved in from Eastern Syria into North West Iraq and defeated Iraqi forces in Mosul and Tikrit that had been weakened partly because of U.S. neglect caused by the U.S. withdrawal in 2011.

Unlike Al Quada, ISIS has successfully taken provincial capitals in both Syria and Iraq and held them. These unparalleled success's and the use of social media on the internet to spread word of these success's is what is driving recruitment. The Western Air campaign against ISIS has been relatively weak although ISIS's largest advances seem to have been stopped. The group continues though to control a vast amount of territory, and has access to black market oil sales which continues to feed their machine.
Until a responsible political/military policy is put in place, ISIS will remain a threat in the region as well as a worldwide threat. ISIS has numbers and money that dwarf the capabilities of prior terrorist groups. Keep in mind of course, that it does not take vast numbers of people and money to do severe damage on the other side of the world. Just look at what 19 men armed with box cutters were able to do on 9/11.

Obama's response to ISIS has been weak and ineffective. Hopefully that will change before he leaves office, but I doubt it. There will be a much stronger response to ISIS once Hillary or one of the Republicans comes into office in January 2017.



Bush did a far better job with Iraq than Obama has done. Had Obama not abandoned Iraq at the end of 2011, ISIS would still be a largely unknown rebel group primarily based in Syria.


:up:


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
And a post like that gets hoo-rah'd in a manner that suggests they read it and thought "Oh thank God that's what happened, I was getting worried people who criticized me were right."
 
And a post like that gets hoo-rah'd in a manner that suggests they read it and thought "Oh thank God that's what happened, I was getting worried people who criticized me were right."


And a post like this is what you say when you realize you're wrong and have no counter argument.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
Western intervention is not what keeps ISIS numbers up. Its LACK of western intervention which boosted ISIS from a backyard sandlot to a caliphate. In 2011, with U.S. troops still in Iraq, and the civil war in Syria in its infancy, the acronym ISIS did not exist. U.S. troops withdrew from Iraq at the end of 2011 and the Syrian civil war escalated after 2011. During 2012 and 2013, lack of U.S. involvement in both Syria and Iraq saw the situation in both countries worsen. ISIS grew in Syria during that time. Then in early 2014 they took Falluja and half of Ramadi. Then during the week of June 9 to June 13, large numbers of ISIS forces moved in from Eastern Syria into North West Iraq and defeated Iraqi forces in Mosul and Tikrit that had been weakened partly because of U.S. neglect caused by the U.S. withdrawal in 2011.

Well, sure. I'm not sure what your point is here with the history lesson, my post was exclusively referring to the present situation.

Unlike Al Quada, ISIS has successfully taken provincial capitals in both Syria and Iraq and held them. These unparalleled success's and the use of social media on the internet to spread word of these success's is what is driving recruitment.

Of course Al Qaeda never took any provincial capitals, because expanding and holding a territory was never a goal. Al Qaeda never intended to be the government of anything, that's what the Taliban was there for.

ISIS, on the other hand, as I said earlier, absolutely must conquer and expand, because without it they have no theological legitimacy.

The Western Air campaign against ISIS has been relatively weak although ISIS's largest advances seem to have been stopped. The group continues though to control a vast amount of territory, and has access to black market oil sales which continues to feed their machine.
Until a responsible political/military policy is put in place, ISIS will remain a threat in the region as well as a worldwide threat. ISIS has numbers and money that dwarf the capabilities of prior terrorist groups. Keep in mind of course, that it does not take vast numbers of people and money to do severe damage on the other side of the world. Just look at what 19 men armed with box cutters were able to do on 9/11.

And once again as stated previously, despite the bluster they (as an organization) have no desire whatsoever to attack Americans in America. That's not to say that some follower who returns home won't carry out an attack on their own and say that it's in the name of ISIS, but ISIS as a group does not want to attack America. They want to attack Syria and Iraq (once again, territory is key for a Caliphate) and don't want to divert money, men, and resources into any kind of large-scale attack on the US because it doesn't really help them. Westerners are scared enough of the threat of an attack (because who in the US above the age of 25 doesn't immediately think of 9/11 when a group of guys in ski masks with AK-47s speaking Arabic make terrorist threats). They have no need to actually attack, once again, as a group-sanctioned and financed mission, outside Syria and Iraq.

Yes, 19 men with box cutters obviously did a lot of damage, but keep in mind that 9/11 took years and cost a fortune to eventually get those 19 guys on the planes. ISIS hasn't been around long enough, nor does it care enough. A video threatening to cut off the infidels' heads in the streets of America is enough to make Mr and Mrs Baker in Idaho demand action.

Obama's response to ISIS has been weak and ineffective. Hopefully that will change before he leaves office, but I doubt it. There will be a much stronger response to ISIS once Hillary or one of the Republicans comes into office in January 2017.

Bush did a far better job with Iraq than Obama has done. Had Obama not abandoned Iraq at the end of 2011, ISIS would still be a largely unknown rebel group primarily based in Syria.

This kind of thinking is along the lines of a "What if the Nazis had won on D-Day" blog post. It's just empty speculation and guessing. If the Spartans hadn't won at Thermopylae, maybe we'd all be speaking Persian right now. But we don't.
 
Wow. What a massive misrepresentation of what actually happened.

I think this is what Wolf was getting at. Signed by Bill Clinton in 1998. Declaration of violations by Saddam and support for regime change. The law was cited in the lead-up to the 2002-2003 Congressional votes.

He wasn't trying to say that Clinton had invasion on his mind.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act
 
Had Bush not gone in in the first place imagine where we'd be.

When you have Fox News and the radio talking heads now saying "who would of thought we'd be longing for the days of Saddam?" you know you fucked up royally.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

Anyone longing for Saddam is ignorant of who Saddam actually was and did.
 
^ Wow yes. I was gung ho for removing Saddam back in the day. But damn if we don't miss him now, knowing what we now know. Most of you were correct way back then. We've been looking for the next Saddam ever since we took out the original. Pretty sad when most everyone agrees now that Iraq under Saddam was...better...for pretty much everyone compared to where we stand now. Damn.

Yep, the invasion of Kuwait and its annexation several days after was a real "cool" event. So was the invasion of Iran. Or how about the launching of ballistic missiles against Israel, dozens of them. Saudi Arabia was also invaded and had a hail of ballistic missiles launched against it. Yep, lets resurrect Saddam so the world can experience these uniquely "cool" events again. Or how about the March 16, 1988 Chemical attack on Halabja that murdered 5,000 people and injured over 10,000. Do you want to repeat that again? Its one thing when northwest Iraq and half of Syria are in trouble, its quite another when Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Israel are in trouble.

Its a great thing that Saddam is gone, but I guess I should not be surprised there are those that wish for his return. There are people out there that wish Hitler would return.
 
Well, sure. I'm not sure what your point is here with the history lesson, my post was exclusively referring to the present situation.



Of course Al Qaeda never took any provincial capitals, because expanding and holding a territory was never a goal. Al Qaeda never intended to be the government of anything, that's what the Taliban was there for.

ISIS, on the other hand, as I said earlier, absolutely must conquer and expand, because without it they have no theological legitimacy.



And once again as stated previously, despite the bluster they (as an organization) have no desire whatsoever to attack Americans in America. That's not to say that some follower who returns home won't carry out an attack on their own and say that it's in the name of ISIS, but ISIS as a group does not want to attack America. They want to attack Syria and Iraq (once again, territory is key for a Caliphate) and don't want to divert money, men, and resources into any kind of large-scale attack on the US because it doesn't really help them. Westerners are scared enough of the threat of an attack (because who in the US above the age of 25 doesn't immediately think of 9/11 when a group of guys in ski masks with AK-47s speaking Arabic make terrorist threats). They have no need to actually attack, once again, as a group-sanctioned and financed mission, outside Syria and Iraq.

Yes, 19 men with box cutters obviously did a lot of damage, but keep in mind that 9/11 took years and cost a fortune to eventually get those 19 guys on the planes. ISIS hasn't been around long enough, nor does it care enough. A video threatening to cut off the infidels' heads in the streets of America is enough to make Mr and Mrs Baker in Idaho demand action.



This kind of thinking is along the lines of a "What if the Nazis had won on D-Day" blog post. It's just empty speculation and guessing. If the Spartans hadn't won at Thermopylae, maybe we'd all be speaking Persian right now. But we don't.

So where is your source that ISIS has no desire to attack anyone or anything outside of Iraq and Syria? I must of missed the speech from Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi that North America is off limits for any future ISIS operations. Kind of like in the 1990s when Al Qauda was no threat to people living in North America, right?
 
So where is your source that ISIS has no desire to attack anyone or anything outside of Iraq and Syria? I must of missed the speech from Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi that North America is off limits for any future ISIS operations. Kind of like in the 1990s when Al Qauda was no threat to people living in North America, right?

They must be drinking Alex Jones Infowars Kool-Aid. All terrorist attacks on the western world are false flag operations carried out by the NWO.
 
"Crime Of the Century"? lol. Bush-cheney were re-elected 20 months after the invasion of Iraq. It was already U.S. policy started under Bill Clinton to find a way to remove Saddam and set up a new Iraqi government and that is what Bush/Cheney did.



Western intervention is not what keeps ISIS numbers up. Its LACK of western intervention which boosted ISIS from a backyard sandlot to a caliphate. In 2011, with U.S. troops still in Iraq, and the civil war in Syria in its infancy, the acronym ISIS did not exist. U.S. troops withdrew from Iraq at the end of 2011 and the Syrian civil war escalated after 2011. During 2012 and 2013, lack of U.S. involvement in both Syria and Iraq saw the situation in both countries worsen. ISIS grew in Syria during that time. Then in early 2014 they took Falluja and half of Ramadi. Then during the week of June 9 to June 13, large numbers of ISIS forces moved in from Eastern Syria into North West Iraq and defeated Iraqi forces in Mosul and Tikrit that had been weakened partly because of U.S. neglect caused by the U.S. withdrawal in 2011.

Unlike Al Quada, ISIS has successfully taken provincial capitals in both Syria and Iraq and held them. These unparalleled success's and the use of social media on the internet to spread word of these success's is what is driving recruitment. The Western Air campaign against ISIS has been relatively weak although ISIS's largest advances seem to have been stopped. The group continues though to control a vast amount of territory, and has access to black market oil sales which continues to feed their machine.
Until a responsible political/military policy is put in place, ISIS will remain a threat in the region as well as a worldwide threat. ISIS has numbers and money that dwarf the capabilities of prior terrorist groups. Keep in mind of course, that it does not take vast numbers of people and money to do severe damage on the other side of the world. Just look at what 19 men armed with box cutters were able to do on 9/11.

Obama's response to ISIS has been weak and ineffective. Hopefully that will change before he leaves office, but I doubt it. There will be a much stronger response to ISIS once Hillary or one of the Republicans comes into office in January 2017.



Bush did a far better job with Iraq than Obama has done. Had Obama not abandoned Iraq at the end of 2011, ISIS would still be a largely unknown rebel group primarily based in Syria.




Indefinite occupation is not a policy.

I have no desire to live in Israel.

You were given endless blood and treasure to build a functioning state and army in Iraq and you've failed to do so. Western intervention has only made the Middle East worse. We cannot solve problems for other nations -- in fact, they are not even nations.
 
Yep, the invasion of Kuwait and its annexation several days after was a real "cool" event. So was the invasion of Iran. Or how about the launching of ballistic missiles against Israel, dozens of them. Saudi Arabia was also invaded and had a hail of ballistic missiles launched against it. Yep, lets resurrect Saddam so the world can experience these uniquely "cool" events again. Or how about the March 16, 1988 Chemical attack on Halabja that murdered 5,000 people and injured over 10,000. Do you want to repeat that again? Its one thing when northwest Iraq and half of Syria are in trouble, its quite another when Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Israel are in trouble.

Its a great thing that Saddam is gone, but I guess I should not be surprised there are those that wish for his return. There are people out there that wish Hitler would return.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War

100,000 civilians were killed during the Iraq War. Do you want to repeat that again?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom