Jump to content
THE BROWNS BOARD

Why don't libs label Obamao a "warmonger" ?


calfoxwc

Recommended Posts

Russia is makiing moves while Obamao is pres, and his defense

secretary is talkiing like he works under George Bush.

 

Obamao can only let the world fall apart so much. And

he's frustrated that he isn't a dicktater.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/pentagon-chief-push-u-allies-ditch-cold-war-110452788.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He has not started a war(Iraq Invasion) had a war start during his presidency(War on Terror\Afghanistan) and "threaten" 2 other countries by calling them Axis of Evil(Iran and North Korea).

 

Obama has not handled the wars in Iraq\Afghanistan well and it seems Russia is posturing for a confrontation , but he has not been anywhere near as aggressive as Bush was in foreign affairs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He has not started a war(Iraq Invasion) had a war start during his presidency(War on Terror\Afghanistan) and "threaten" 2 other countries by calling them Axis of Evil(Iran and North Korea).

 

Obama has not handled the wars in Iraq\Afghanistan well and it seems Russia is posturing for a confrontation , but he has not been anywhere near as aggressive as Bush was in foreign affairs.

He is in fact actively avoiding going to war in the middle east again, for which he's also criticised, because THANKS OBAMA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the lesson in Iraq was we should have not invaded and left Hussein in power than why didn't this administration learn that lesson and instead helped topple Qaddafi in Libya which now has pretty much devolved into terrorism chaos?

 

In Iraq we toppled a dictator and tried to nation build while in Libya we just toppled a dictator and left a total mess behind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the lesson in Iraq was we should have not invaded and left Hussein in power than why didn't this administration learn that lesson and instead helped topple Qaddafi in Libya which now has pretty much devolved into terrorism chaos?

 

In Iraq we toppled a dictator and tried to nation build while in Libya we just toppled a dictator and left a total mess behind.

 

agreed here on all counts. It was a vast mistake. I think he caved to the old hawks that still had an axe to grind with Qaddafi. It's also possible mass destabilization of the region is the Pentagons plan, for whatever reason who knows. But it seems like the admin's of the past 2-3 presidency's are basically following along.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Libya, Obamao did nothing, and it grew into a giant problem.

 

Keeps happening in history. The cost of finally going to stop

a movement that MUST be stopped, just keeps going up the

longer cowardly ...presidents and countries, try to "mind their own business".

 

And there you have it - isil. Out of control and a larger thread all the time, like the nazis

in early WWII.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ISIS is a cancer that has spread fast. it would have been easier to eliminate them when they just started forming in Syria but nobody did and they grew and took over and now control a good part of Syria and Iraq and going into other countries across the world. Before I even heard the name ISIS I remember reading of reports in Syria of a Muslim extremist group that was so evil that even the terrorists wanted nothing to do with them. That was ISIS.

 

If we have a 60 nation coalition to fight ISIS they certainly seem to be flying under the radar. I believe we do need to fight ISIS but these other countries need to pitch in and this should not all fall on the US to take care of the ISIS problem. It will take the US leadership and taking the lead on this and Obama has shown no desire to do this. I don't understand why our plan seems to be arming the Iraqi army who has shown no willingness to fight ISIS and in fact has armed ISIS to the teeth with all the US weapons they leave behind when they flee from battle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and, btw, refusing til just recently, to arm the Kurds, who DO have the will to

defeat isil.

 

unfreakinbelievable, this cowardly, indecisive jerkface in our WH is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and, btw, refusing til just recently, to arm the Kurds, who DO have the will to

defeat isil.

 

unfreakinbelievable, this cowardly, indecisive jerkface in our WH is.

 

Here is a fact for you....in the history of our modern country, roughly 60 or so times, only ONCE has arming a faction such as the kurds worked out for us. And that one time was in Afghanistan. And do you know what happened to those Afghans we armed in the 80's? They became the Taliban. So in reality it's never worked. And this info was per a study done by the pentagon themselves.

 

So what's the take home from that sobering lesson Cal? I'm not saying we should never ever ever arm people....but let's hear some well thought through analysis from you on what you just read.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Here is a fact for you....in the history of our modern country, roughly 60 or so times, only ONCE has arming a faction such as the kurds worked out for us. And that one time was in Afghanistan. And do you know what happened to those Afghans we armed in the 80's? They became the Taliban. So in reality it's never worked. And this info was per a study done by the pentagon themselves.

 

So what's the take home from that sobering lesson Cal? I'm not saying we should never ever ever arm people....but let's hear some well thought through analysis from you on what you just read.

 

The point I took from what Cal was saying is that instead of arming the Iraqi army which we are doing now and they have shown no willingness to fight ISIS and leave lots of US weaponry behind when they flee ISIS why not arm the Kurds who have shown they are able and willing to fight ISIS?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So just to clarify - he's a cowardly wuss that won't do what needs to be done, but at the same time he's a war-mongerer? Got it.

Good.

We used the exact Bush strategy for exiting Iraq except for not leaving a small force behind which would have been useful. in Afghanistan he escalated the War to what purpose Chris?

In Libya what did we get in for our actions?

 

So yes he's both.

 

WSS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good.

We used the exact Bush strategy for exiting Iraq except for not leaving a small force behind which would have been useful. in Afghanistan he escalated the War to what purpose Chris?

In Libya what did we get in for our actions?

 

So yes he's both.

 

WSS

 

 

Steve this does not make him a warmonger, if it did any US president post WW2 would be considered a warmonger. He didn't start the war in Afghanistan(remember we got attacked by people living there in 2001), and trying to take an advantage of a regional indecent(Arab Spring) to steer it in our favor is not also going to war, granted I can't argue he made the right choices but it does not make him a warmonger. Ask yourself one question Steve do you feel if the US was going to go to war tomorrow with some country would it have been directly started by the US or by a foreign country?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree in principle, we just ship an awful lot of arms around to people who seemingly have the best of intentions. It just really hasn't worked out at all for us.

 

The point I took from what Cal was saying is that instead of arming the Iraqi army which we are doing now and they have shown no willingness to fight ISIS and leave lots of US weaponry behind when they flee ISIS why not arm the Kurds who have shown they are able and willing to fight ISIS?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We'd have to say fuck off to 2 things...

 

1) Oil

 

2) Jews

 

 

you think either of those is gonna happen?

Didn't Obama and pals have a huge chub about wanting to go into Syria with boots on the ground?

We should let the Middle East do what it does best. If the desert dwellers can't get their shit together enough to fight ISIS then they only have themselves to blame.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And that one time was in Afghanistan. And do you know what happened to those Afghans we armed in the 80's?. Clevebatsinhisbelfry

*************************************************************

You blab too much, indignant one.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurds

 

Read this entire article, and tell me if you see any mention of Afghanistan.

 

I said the KURDS. They are in Afghanistan, surely, but they are a very small minority.

 

Now, read:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban

 

Is a movement that started in 1980's, trained by Pakistan and they became a political entity in 1994.

 

Quick, indignant one, who was pres in 94?

 

bill clinton. who cowardly only launched some missiles into the desert as a "response"

to them attacking us.

 

Bush came into the WH in 08. That's 11-12 years after the taliban became a national political entity

in afganistan. Idiot.

 

What, you think W. Bush was the president of pakistan in the 80's?

 

How does somebody like you, Cleve, graduate from hs with little understanding of history?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cal are you too stupid to have a conversation with? You own wiki link talks about their origins in the 80's fighting the USSR. We armed them in the 80's and that brought them to power in the 90's. I don't care who was president, Clinton would probably have been eviscerated by conservatives for opposing Reagans little puppets anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And that one time was in Afghanistan. And do you know what happened to those Afghans we armed in the 80's?. Clevebatsinhisbelfry

*************************************************************

You blab too much, indignant one.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurds

 

Read this entire article, and tell me if you see any mention of Afghanistan.

 

I said the KURDS. They are in Afghanistan, surely, but they are a very small minority.

 

Now, read:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban

 

Is a movement that started in 1980's, trained by Pakistan and they became a political entity in 1994.

 

Quick, indignant one, who was pres in 94?

 

bill clinton. who cowardly only launched some missiles into the desert as a "response"

to them attacking us.

 

Bush came into the WH in 08. That's 11-12 years after the taliban became a national political entity

in afganistan. Idiot.

 

What, you think W. Bush was the president of pakistan in the 80's?

 

How does somebody like you, Cleve, graduate from hs with little understanding of history?

 

Cleve is likely referring to the Mujagideen we funded\supported in Afghanistan that would later form the basis of Al-Qaeda- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Unity_of_Afghanistan_Mujahideen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did Al quada not spring forth from the Taliban?

 

Not that I have read\seen, they could easily have some ties but they are 2 separate things. But do note that the Taliban was very al-Qaeda friendly, since the late 90's.

 

This is a decent read on the rise of both and how they differ- http://www.e-ir.info/2012/11/17/the-differences-between-the-taliban-and-al-qaeda/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i'll have to read up on that. It was always my impression that quada was the talibans militant foreign terror wing.

 

You can always argue the US basically abandoning Afghanistan after the Soviet Union left caused the government to collapse and give rise to the Taliban(late 80's early 90's)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...