How Did The Wheels Come Off Obama's Foreign Policy?

josephryan1989

As soon as President Obama got into office he began the process of withdrawing US troops from Iraq. Scarcely able to believe their luck Sunni jihadists and Iran waited and then the Sunnis rebelled and took over the northwest while the Shia led government in Baghdad ran to Iran for help. Bush had warned Obama that this is precisely what would have happened if troops were withdrawn. The result was the rise of Islamic State while Shia Iraq is now a puppet state of Iran.

Emboldened by the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, as predicted jihadists returned to Libya and Syria where they plotted armed insurgencies while in Egypt the Muslim Brotherhood rose up in revolt. Obama and his wishful thinking leftist supporters were fooled into thinking this was an uprising by oppressed Muslims against US backed tyrants and allies.

Gaddaffi was a monster in rehab - he had given up his WMD programs after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and was lining up his westernized secular mafia style family to take over following his departure - when Obama with Cameron and Sarkozy decided he had to go.
The result was Libya fell to pieces, jihadists rule swathes of the country and arsenals of weaponry fell into their hands and Hollande who replaced Sarkozy was forced to intervene in Mali to preventing a jihadist conquest. Thousands of refugees flooded into Europe. At Benghazi the US Ambassador and his bodyguards were slaughtered. Instead of blaming jihadist terrorists Obama pinned the blame on a filmmaker who satirized the Prophet Muhammad.

Mubarak, a stalwart of the US and ally of Israel, was overthrown as Obama gave his backing to the Muslim Brotherhood convinced Morsi and co were progressive Muslims. When they turned out to be raving religious lunatics Obama reluctantly allowed Al-Sisi to seize power. Exasperated with Obama, Al-Sisi has become an ally of Putin's Russia. During the Bush era relations with Putin's Russia were rather good.

The Assad regime of Syria were allies of BOTH the West and Russia prior to the Arab Spring. Assad's father sent military forces who took part in the liberation of Kuwait from Saddam Hussein back in 1991. Obama blindly supported the opposition despite Islamic lunacy of Al-Nusra and other even more extreme jihadists who eventually became ISIS. Obama also gave his backing to the Islamist government of Erdogan in Turkey who are now more interested in bombing the Kurds than hitting ISIS.

Meanwhile Putin supported Assad much as he supported the Chechen government fighting jihadists on his own borders. As the Assad regime survives and ISIS runs rampant, Putin has been proven correct and Obama can only sulk as Russia builds up its forces and arms Assad to the teeth while strengthening his alliance with Iran who are consolidating their support for the Shia government of Iraq and the Kurds on the Turkish borders. US relations with Israel have cooled as Netanyahu fighting Sunni Palestinian terrorists in Gaza has allied with Al-Sisi, has made peace with Assad and has decided Putin is the top dog in the Middle East.

As geriatric Saudi kings replaces geriatric Saudi kings, Yemen has descended into disaster as a Sunni coalition of Gulf states have bombed the Shia Houthis. The recent crane collapse and last weeks disastrous stampede at Mecca have highlighted the callous dysfunctionality of the Saudi regime. A lower ranking Saudi prince has openly called for the current king to be overthrown. Frightened and bewildered by the rise of ISIS and contemplating arming themselves with nuclear weapons to see off the threat of Iran, the Saudis cannot depend on Obama who refuses to destroy Iran's nuclear industry or send in ground troops to topple Assad or destroy ISIS.

Meeting Putin in New York, Obama looks tired and defeated.
Putin is triumphant as he brings Europeans on board.
Terrified by the instability a flood of Syrian refugees will bring to Europe, Cameron now says Assad can stay in power while France has joined in NATO airstrikes on ISIS.
Having abandoned decades old allies and thrown in his lot with the Arab Spring, Obama has lost all his chips.

Zillah

I'm not sure why you think all of this is his responsibility.

josephryan1989

Zillah wrote: »

I'm not sure why you think all of this is his responsibility.

Obama was elected on an anti-war ticket. He promised to withdraw American troops from Iraq which has kicked off the Mid East instability during his administration. He has also withdrawn troops from Afghanistan which has led to a similar uprising in Afghanistan by the Taliban who have seized Kunduz.
Obama's foreign policy has been a litany of blind naivety, stupidity, denial and disaster.

Zillah

What should he have done when people rose against Mubarak?
Should he bomb Iran's nuclear facilities?
Should he launch a full invasion of Syria?
What's he supposed to do about geriatric Saudi kings?
What do you want him to do about Yemen?

Most of this seems to be
A) I don't like the state of the world and it's Obama's fault, or
Obama isn't a super-aggressive conservative hawk and that upsets me.

josephryan1989

Zillah wrote: »

What should he have done when people rose against Mubarak?

Supported Al-Sisi from the get go and opposed the MB.

Should he bomb Iran's nuclear facilities?

If Iran re-start their nuclear program, blow those facilities to kingdom come.

Should he launch a full invasion of Syria?

To overthrow Assad and crush ISIS and install a function government. Yes. 200,000 have already died. Millions of people are fleeing to Europe bringing instability with them.

How could you possibly advocate not intervening?

What's he supposed to do about geriatric Saudi kings?

Overthrow them and install a secular government of course.

What do you want him to do about Yemen?

Prevent Iran from installing their puppet government and stop the Gulf states from bombing the hell out of the Houthis. The war there has created a catastrophe as bad as the Syrian war.

A) I don't like the state of the world and it's Obama's fault, or

Obama is going to do nothing about Assad, is failing to defeat ISIS, has handed Iraq on a platter to them and is withdrawing from Afghanistan as the Afghan government is losing ground to the Taliban.

He is a disaster.

Obama isn't a super-aggressive conservative hawk and that upsets me.

So you want ISIS to spread, you want Assad left in power, you want the Saudis to continue to spread Whabbaism, you want Iran to continue to grow in power, you want millions of refugees to flow into Europe and Putin to strut the world stage? You want the United States to return to isolationism and pray that there is no future terrorist attack?

The war that began in 2001 happened because Al-Qaeda was allowed to use Afghanistan as a haven after America forgot about the country during the 1990s. Hoping for the best or living in denial and refusing to sacrifice American troops on foreign battlefields is not going to make America, the West and the world safe for our way of life.

Overheal

To overthrow Assad and crush ISIS and install a function government. Yes. 200,000 have already died. Millions of people are fleeing to Europe bringing instability with them.

How could you possibly advocate not intervening?

We took our big toys out of the pool and that caused some ripple effects. But how long do *I* have to foot the bill for a military force that is trying to fight 2 wars while still maintaining a global footprint? The water will eventually settle. Without us.

Zillah

Oh Lord.

You are laboring under a hawkish dream that US military power is unlimited, effective, and without consequences. Their national budget is already massively stretched, the US population is war-weary, and their national debt has never been higher - largely because of two invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan respectively. Now you want them to commit to a full invasion of Syria - a nation of 22 million people - where they would not be welcomed even by the most moderate of the rebels, nor by anyone else in the Middle East, and aggravate relations with every other world power? Every other US invasion in the last century has been a debacle that did more harm than good, save perhaps Gulf 1.

You also want them to topple the rulers of Saudi Arabia - a nation of 30 million people - by, what, yet another full scale invasion? You do realise that Saudi Arabia has been their strongest, closest ally for decades, and literally has US military technology, bought directly from the US?

Iran: so he's actually doing fine so far then?

Feck it, let's topple Russia and China too while we're at it? And France. Feck the French. *flicks piece off chess board* Just like that.

It might sound incredibly obvious but the US does not have unlimited power, nor does dropping bombs on people, burning their homes, and killing their families often solve problems.

josephryan1989

Overheal wrote: »

We took our big toys out of the pool and that caused some ripple effects.

200,000 dead and millions of refugees is not what I would called a "ripple effect."

But how long do *I* have to foot the bill for a military force that is trying to fight 2 wars while still maintaining a global footprint?

You want victory or not? How do you expect to win wars without spending money and without losing soldiers? The enemy shoot back and they have to be killed before you can consider withdrawal and claim the war is won.

The water will eventually settle.

How will the situation settle? By magic?

Without us.

The entire Middle East is going up in flames and the disaster is spilling over into Europe.

How can the United States hope to have any credibility in the region?

Overheal

josephryan1989 wrote: »

200,000 dead and millions of refugees is not what I would called a "ripple effect."

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_in_the_war_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%93present)

You want victory or not? How do you expect to win wars without spending money and without losing soldiers? The enemy shoot back and they have to be killed before you can consider withdrawal and claim the war is won.



How will the situation settle? By magic?



The entire Middle East is going up in flames and the disaster is spilling over into Europe.



How can the United States hope to have any credibility in the region?

What credibility do I need in the Middle East? How are you going to sit their and bitch about 200,000 dead and simultaneously say "You want victory or not? Lose some soldiers" :rolleyes:

josephryan1989

Overheal wrote: »

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_in_the_war_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%93present)

The majority of the deaths in both Iraq and Afghanistan were caused by marauding Islamist extremists. The continuation of those wars are caused by the continued presence and the continued activities of those extremists

What credibility do I need in the Middle East? How are you going to sit their and bitch about 200,000 dead and simultaneously say "You want victory or not? Lose some soldiers" :rolleyes:

The savagery of dictators like the Saddams, Qaddaffis and Assads and future tyrants in their mold in the Middle East and of terrorists like Al-Qaeda, ISIS and whatever future mutation of Islamic extremism will emerge in the years ahead have to defeated.

rain_soaked

josephryan1989 wrote: »

The majority of the deaths in both Iraq and Afghanistan were caused by marauding Islamist extremists. The continuation of those wars are caused by the continued presence and the continued activities of those extremists



The savagery of dictators like the Saddams, Qaddaffis and Assads and future tyrants in their mold in the Middle East and of terrorists like Al-Qaeda, ISIS and whatever future mutation of Islamic extremism will emerge in the years ahead have to defeated.

what gave rise to those islamists becoming a major political force was the removal of sadamn hussein , this in turn led to a spill over of refugees ( and islamists ) from iraq into syria which in turn led to the syrian civil war , this problem was created by the bush administration , where obama has gone wrong is by insisting that assad step down , america wants assad gone as he is an ally of russia , russia is europes friend in this as its the only nation strong enough millitarily capable of stopping ISIS ( america doesnt want to stop them as their is no chance of refugees invading america on mass or ISIS for that matter )

obama has been pretty poor but the roots of this disaster lie with the bush administration

josephryan1989

rain_soaked wrote: »

what gave rise to those islamists becoming a major political force was the removal of sadamn hussein

Islamic extremism was not a major political force before 2003?

I think you need to go to the library and start reading about Islam and the Middle East.

, this in turn led to a spill over of refugees ( and islamists ) from iraq into syria which in turn led to the syrian civil war

Obama withdrew US troops allowing Islamic insurgents to regroup.

this problem was created by the bush administration

Obama was elected promising to bring the troops home. He did just that and the disastrous consequences are all too apparent. He has also withdrawn the troops from Afghanistan and the Taliban is on the march once again.

where obama has gone wrong is by insisting that assad step down

Obama demonized Bush for the war in Iraq and now even if he wanted to intervene with troops on the ground in Syria he can't because he dug himself into an anti-war hole.

america wants assad gone as he is an ally of russia , russia is europes friend in this as its the only nation strong enough millitarily capable of stopping ISIS ( america doesnt want to stop them as their is no chance of refugees invading america on mass or ISIS for that matter )

Russia is not militarily stronger than Europe or America.
Rather Putin is not afraid to fight in the war in Syria as he doesn't have to care about public opinion while Obama and political leaders in Europe were elected by a majority who are opposed to putting boots on the ground.

obama has been pretty poor but the roots of this disaster lie with the bush administration

Actually the Democrats turned against the wars in Iran and Afghanistan and were elected promising to bring the wars to an end by bringing the troops home.
As predicted the troop withdrawal did not end the wars.
Rather Islamic extremists could not believe their luck and now both Iraq and Afghanistan are in danger of being overrun.
Islamic extremists emboldened by the West's unwillingness to commit ground forces have spread their insurgences across the Middle East and look set to spread to Europe too.

rain_soaked

josephryan1989 wrote: »

Islamic extremism was not a major political force before 2003?

I think you need to go to the library and start reading about Islam and the Middle East.



Obama withdrew US troops allowing Islamic insurgents to regroup.



Obama was elected promising to bring the troops home. He did just that and the disastrous consequences are all too apparent. He has also withdrawn the troops from Afghanistan and the Taliban is on the march once again.



Obama demonized Bush for the war in Iraq and now even if he wanted to intervene with troops on the ground in Syria he can't because he dug himself into an anti-war hole.



Russia is not militarily stronger than Europe or America.
Rather Putin is not afraid to fight in the war in Syria as he doesn't have to care about public opinion while Obama and political leaders in Europe were elected by a majority who are opposed to putting boots on the ground.



Actually the Democrats turned against the wars in Iran and Afghanistan and were elected promising to bring the wars to an end by bringing the troops home.
As predicted the troop withdrawal did not end the wars.
Rather Islamic extremists could not believe their luck and now both Iraq and Afghanistan are in danger of being overrun.
Islamic extremists emboldened by the West's unwillingness to commit ground forces have spread their insurgences across the Middle East and look set to spread to Europe too.

you talk plenty about how obama promised to withdraw the troops from iraq and how this led to the rise of ISIS

my point is that the invasion of iraq ( by bush in 2003 ) is what destabalised the region in the first place , you seem to have amnesia about everything which happened prior to the election of obama

josephryan1989

rain_soaked wrote: »

you talk plenty about how obama promised to withdraw the troops from iraq and how this led to the rise of ISIS

my point is that the invasion of iraq ( by bush in 2003 ) is what destabalised the region in the first place , you seem to have amnesia about everything which happened prior to the election of obama

Saddam Hussein who ruled Iraq with psychopathic brutality, gassed and machine gunned his own people, invaded Kuwait, funded terrorism and had used WMD did nothing to distablize the region?
Hafez and his son Bashar Al Assad and his brutal tyranny and murderous military machine in Syria did nothing to distablize the region?
The Saudis and other Gulf states who funded Islamic extremism and extremists such as Bin Laden in the past and today ISIS do nothing to destabalize the region?
The Iranian government who have a huge ballistic missile stockpile and are seeking nuclear weapons and arm Hezbollah and Shia extremists in Iraq and Syria are doing nothing to distablize the region?
Arab regimes and Palestinian fanatics who want to destroy Israel and refuse to even recognize its existence or negotiate are not distablizing the region?
The region should be cleansed of both Sunni and Shia extremism and dictators need to go.
If the Arab refuse to join the modern civilized world they will have to be forced to.
If that means war then so be it.

What did Bush do wrong exactly? Overthrow a brutal tyrant and create a multi-party democratic system in Iraq and defend it from Islamic extremists?

Surely what Syria needs post-conflict is the end of the Assad regime and the introduction of democratic government there too?

That is going to require boots on the ground and hard fighting.

Obama and the politics he espouses represents a complete failure of will in the West which both the Islamists and Assad are capitalizing on.

Manic Moran

Did the invasion destabilize the region, or just Iraq?

I mean, I guess you could make the argument that the advent of reasonably free elections in Iraq emboldened the folks in Morocco, Libya, Egypt and Syria to rise up and overthrow the strongmen in charge, but even if you accepted that, are they really bad things?

Further, I might submit that there is a good argument that even the Iraq invasion merely hastened the inevitable. I mean, where in recent European history have we seen a strong central figure holding together a relatively fractured country, only to see that country descend into civil war once that strongman died of old age? And I would suggest that Tito was far less ruthless in holding together that country than Iraq.

That said, I don't think one can really blame Obama for the Iraq withdrawal, which was agreed upon by Bush.

josephryan1989

Manic Moran wrote: »

Did the invasion destabilize the region, or just Iraq?

I mean, I guess you could make the argument that the advent of reasonably free elections in Iraq emboldened the folks in Morocco, Libya, Egypt and Syria to rise up and overthrow the strongmen in charge, but even if you accepted that, are they really bad things?

In Morocco a more enlightened power elite reacted to the Arab Spring by establishing a constitutional monarchy and cracking down on the Islamists.
In Tunisia, one of the more progressive countries in the region, there was a relatively smooth transition from an autocrat to an open democracy.
In Libya and Syria it was Islamists v brutal tyrants with moderates disorganized and crushed in the sandwich.
Certainly ISIS who called themselves Al-Qaeda in Iraq during the Iraq War and were at the forefront of the Sunni insurgency against Iraqi democracy were emboldened by the departure of US troops and their allies.
Syrian, Tunisian, Libyan, Egyptian, Chechens, Palestinians, Saudis, Yemenis and other Sunnis who fought in Iraq where they were tied down by US troops returned to their home countries bringing their know how with them to spread insurgencies to the rest of the Mid East.

Further, I might submit that there is a good argument that even the Iraq invasion merely hastened the inevitable. I mean, where in recent European history have we seen a strong central figure holding together a relatively fractured country, only to see that country descend into civil war once that strongman died of old age? And I would suggest that Tito was far less ruthless in holding together that country than Iraq.

The tyranny of Milosevic led to NATO intervention and boots on the ground. Thankfully the Serbs were not dumb enough to fight on and Western boots on the ground put an end to ethnic cleansing.

That said, I don't think one can really blame Obama for the Iraq withdrawal, which was agreed upon by Bush.

A residual force of US troops was to be left behind to act as advisers to maintain standards and as a fire brigade to rush into battle assist and stiffen the Iraqi forces.
Obama withdrew that too.
Democrats were screeching since 2003-2004 when the insurgency started that it was a new Vietnam purely because they saw their chance to grab the White House because they were still sore that Gore had not won in 2000.
Kerry went up against Bush in 2004 on an anti-war platform but no credible analyst seriously believed he was going to withdraw US troops.
Hillary Clinton who supported the overthrow of Saddam and backed Bush also played to the pacifist gallery but was never going to withdraw US troops
However Obama the most radical of the anti-war Democrats wanted troops out immediately.
By the time Obama came into power in 2009 the Iraq war had actually been won by the US thanks to General Petraeus. US troop numbers were being reduced and Iraqi forces were patrolling and keeping the peace. The Iraqi insurgents who later became ISIS had been defeated. A sullen Obama who voted against the overthrow of Saddam in the first place pulled out all US troops at the first opportunity. The insurgents couldn't believe their luck and regrouped while the Iraqi Army was allowed to rot.
When the Arab Spring broke out the Obama administration directed the CIA to support Islamists movements such as the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, the Islamists in Syria and in Libya and abandoned Mubarak.
Now Assad in Syria, Al-Sisi in Egypt and even Netanyahu in Israel have turned to Putin for help.
Obama has a Nobel peace prize but has no willingness to send in American troops and therefore has given up the stage to Putin in the Mid East.
Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states are looking at arming themselves with nukes because the US is not going to bomb Iran's nuke sites.
Obama's withdrawal from Iraq emboldened the enemies of the United States.
Europeans who hero worshiped Obama are now saddled with refugees flooding into their continent.

rain_soaked

josephryan1989 wrote: »

Saddam Hussein who ruled Iraq with psychopathic brutality, gassed and machine gunned his own people, invaded Kuwait, funded terrorism and had used WMD did nothing to distablize the region?
Hafez and his son Bashar Al Assad and his brutal tyranny and murderous military machine in Syria did nothing to distablize the region?
The Saudis and other Gulf states who funded Islamic extremism and extremists such as Bin Laden in the past and today ISIS do nothing to destabalize the region?
The Iranian government who have a huge ballistic missile stockpile and are seeking nuclear weapons and arm Hezbollah and Shia extremists in Iraq and Syria are doing nothing to distablize the region?
Arab regimes and Palestinian fanatics who want to destroy Israel and refuse to even recognize its existence or negotiate are not distablizing the region?
The region should be cleansed of both Sunni and Shia extremism and dictators need to go.
If the Arab refuse to join the modern civilized world they will have to be forced to.
If that means war then so be it.

What did Bush do wrong exactly? Overthrow a brutal tyrant and create a multi-party democratic system in Iraq and defend it from Islamic extremists?

Surely what Syria needs post-conflict is the end of the Assad regime and the introduction of democratic government there too?

That is going to require boots on the ground and hard fighting.

Obama and the politics he espouses represents a complete failure of will in the West which both the Islamists and Assad are capitalizing on.

sadamn was no more cruel than the kim jong ill dynasty in north korea or many other dictatorships around the world , its not america or any other countries job to remove leaders who mistreat their people , the burma millitary dictatorship hardly ever makes the news and its insanely cruel towards the burmeese population

the usa didnt go into iraq to save iraqi,s ( not that i think they should have )

josephryan1989

rain_soaked wrote: »

sadamn was no more cruel than the kim jong ill dynasty in north korea or many other dictatorships around the world

And your point is what exactly?

its not america or any other countries job to remove leaders who mistreat their people

Who's job is it then? I don't see any other country stepping up to the plate.

the burma millitary dictatorship hardly ever makes the news and its insanely cruel towards the burmeese population

And I hope they are overthrown.

the usa didnt go into iraq to save iraqi,s

The USA didn't really fight the Nazis because of freedom and democracy or the Jews either. They moved to fill the world power void caused by a "civil war" between the European colonial powers.

( not that i think they should have )

Why shouldn't Iraqis and everyone else in the world enjoy the freedoms that you and I enjoy in the West?

asherbassad

josephryan1989 wrote: »

Obama was elected on an anti-war ticket. He promised to withdraw American troops from Iraq which has kicked off the Mid East instability during his administration. He has also withdrawn troops from Afghanistan which has led to a similar uprising in Afghanistan by the Taliban who have seized Kunduz.
Obama's foreign policy has been a litany of blind naivety, stupidity, denial and disaster.

The troops weren't withdrawn from Iraq under Obama's watch they were kicked out under Bush's. For years Washington and the Pentagon were paying the Sunni Awakening billions of dollars if they'd just stop killing American soldiers. This bought Bush and his idiots enough time to fashion some kind of retreat that didn't look like Saigon 1973.
Sure, Obama made a bunch of promises in order to get elected.....did you honestly think he was going to honour those promises?

asherbassad

josephryan1989 wrote: »

200,000 dead and millions of refugees is not what I would called a "ripple effect."



You want victory or not? How do you expect to win wars without spending money and without losing soldiers? The enemy shoot back and they have to be killed before you can consider withdrawal and claim the war is won.



How will the situation settle? By magic?



The entire Middle East is going up in flames and the disaster is spilling over into Europe.

How can the United States hope to have any credibility in the region?

What bullshit are you on about?
The US attacked two innocent countries. 3 if you count Libya. They have been beating the war drums to attack Syria and Iran as well as conducting continuous bombing missions over Yemen and Pakistan and you're crying about how the poor US is alway the one to be the peacemaker. Always the righteous one whose trying to stabilise the world and bring peace and prosperity to everyone. Don't make me sick.

josephryan1989

asherbassad wrote: »

The troops weren't withdrawn from Iraq under Obama's watch they were kicked out under Bush's. For years Washington and the Pentagon were paying the Sunni Awakening billions of dollars if they'd just stop killing American soldiers. This bought Bush and his idiots enough time to fashion some kind of retreat that didn't look like Saigon 1973.
Sure, Obama made a bunch of promises in order to get elected.....did you honestly think he was going to honour those promises?

Obama opposed the overthrow of Saddam from the start and then when Saddam was overthrown screeched about failure although US troops were defeating the Iraqi insurgents in battle after battle after battle. After General Petrueus won by the war with the troop surge and most of the country was pacified Obama sullenly praised the victory in Iraq. Then he grabbed defeat out of the jaws of victory by withdrawing the troops and allowed the Iraqi insurgents to regroup as ISIS and removed not just combat troops but even the residual force needed to stiffen the resistance of the Iraqi forces and act as a fire brigade for just such an eventuality.

josephryan1989

What bull**** are you on about?
The US attacked two innocent countries.

Two innocent countries?
The Taliban in Afghanistan introduced a brutal Islamist tyranny and Saddam Hussein was a fascist tyrant who murdered hundreds of thousands of his own people.

3 if you count Libya.

Libya was ruled by a tyrant who funded and armed terrorism and was behind the Lockerbie bombing.

They have been beating the war drums to attack Syria

Syria is ruled by a tyrant who is massacring his own people while ISIS in Syria have murdered hostages and massacred thousands.

and Iran

Iran is ruled by a theocracy who fund Hezbollah, possess a huge arsenal of ballistic missiles and are seeking nuclear weapons to destroy Israel and threaten the rest of the world.

as well as conducting continuous bombing missions over Yemen and Pakistan

The US has been bombing terrorists in both Yemen and Pakistan.

and you're crying about how the poor US is alway the one to be the peacemaker.

The US fought the Kaiser, fought Hitler and stood up to the Soviet Union during the Cold War and today are the only hope we have against Islamic extremism.

Always the righteous one whose trying to stabilise the world and bring peace and prosperity to everyone. Don't make me sick.

Defeating colonialism and imperialism in Europe, defeating Nazism and Communism and fighting Islamic terrorism makes you sick?

asherbassad

josephryan1989 wrote: »

Two innocent countries?
The Taliban in Afghanistan introduced a brutal Islamist tyranny and Saddam Hussein was a fascist tyrant who murdered hundreds of thousands of his own people.



Libya was ruled by a tyrant who funded and armed terrorism and was behind the Lockerbie bombing.



Syria is ruled by a tyrant who is massacring his own people while ISIS in Syria have murdered hostages and massacred thousands.



Iran is ruled by a theocracy who fund Hezbollah, possess a huge arsenal of ballistic missiles and are seeking nuclear weapons to destroy Israel and threaten the rest of the world.



The US has been bombing terrorists in both Yemen and Pakistan.



The US fought the Kaiser, fought Hitler and stood up to the Soviet Union during the Cold War and today are the only hope we have against Islamic extremism.



Defeating colonialism and imperialism in Europe, defeating Nazism and Communism and fighting Islamic terrorism makes you sick?

Yes. Innocent countries. Say what you want about the regimes there but none of them attacked anyone. The excuses were that Afghanistan was somehow responsible for 9/11 and that Saddam Hussein was about to attack the US with chemical and biological weapons. Anyone with half a brain knew this to be utter bullsh1t but you seem now to be moving the goalposts and saying these countries had awful leaders. Using that as an excuse to attack countries is still a war crime. If you are so bent on pointing out the crimes against humanity of Hussein and Ghadaffi then you might want to have look at the ones your "guys" have so willfully committed or are you going to ignore that because it doesn't sit well with your appallingly naive worldview.

Are you aware that US/NATO are responsible for imperialist expansion in the Middle East and Africa? What do you call overthrowing foreign leaders, invading their countries and handing over their resources to Western corporations? You call that spreading freedom or some other cliche that would make a 6 year old laugh?

I'd like some source for your claim that Hussein killed hundreds of thousands of his own people, I really would.

Are you aware that Libya, under Ghaddafi was the richest and most stable country in Africa. People had free education, medical, dental, free electricity and practically free petrol. Newlyweds were given thousands in government gifts (not loans) to buy their first home. Libya is now a nightmare. Kids can't leave the house, women too are prisoners in their own home for fear of the marauding gangs of killers that NATO has funded to wreck the place. But if you see that as a massive improvement then that's your prerogative.
As for Lockerbie, Libya had nothing to do with it anymore than Iraq or Afghanistan had anything to do with 9/11, Madrid or 7/7. Parrotting the propaganda campaign is the easy way out....but again if that's the route you want to take then that's up to you.

Here's an article for your to read, source and digest. It might help crack those rose-tinted specs you see the world through:

http://www.newstatesman.com/international-politics/2009/09/pilger-megrahi-justice

As for the rest of your assertions.....they're equally farcical but at this point it's probably best not to overload you with uncomfortable truths. It has a tendency to make people mentally shut down.

josephryan1989

asherbassad wrote: »

Yes. Innocent countries. Say what you want about the regimes there but none of them attacked anyone.

To describe Afghanistan and Iraq as innocent requires willfully ignorance.

The Taliban established a savage theocracy in Afghanistan that harbored Al-Qaeda. The 9/11 hijackers trained in Afghanistan where they met with and received their orders from Bin Laden himself.

Saddam Hussein murdered his way to power and stayed in power through murder while he invaded or fire rockets at his neighbors.
Millions of Iraqis lived under a regime of mind numbing sadism and tyranny.

The excuses were that Afghanistan was somehow responsible for 9/11

Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda were based in Afghanistan under their protection.

and that Saddam Hussein was about to attack the US with chemical and biological weapons.

Saddam Hussein had WMD programs. The only reason we now know he had no stockpiles is because of the invasion. I don't frankly care less if he did or didn't have WMD or whether he was capable of attacking the US.
He was an evil tyrant and for me that was reason enough to overthrow him.

Anyone with half a brain knew this to be utter bullsh1t but you seem now to be moving the goalposts and saying these countries had awful leaders.

For me awful leaders is enough of an excuse to overthrow their governments.

Using that as an excuse to attack countries is still a war crime.

Now its a war crime to overthrow terrorists savages like the Taliban or to overthrow a psychopathic butcher like Saddam Hussein?

If you are so bent on pointing out the crimes against humanity of Hussein and Ghadaffi then you might want to have look at the ones your "guys" have so willfully committed or are you going to ignore that because it doesn't sit well with your appallingly naive worldview.

There is no comparison whatsoever between overthrowing fascist tyrants and killing Islamic terrorist savages and the crimes of those terrorists and tyrants.

There is no comparison between the use of force by democratically elected leaders who consulted their own people before going to war and whose actions are governed by the rule of law and scrutinized by a free media and tyrants and terrorists who murder and destroy and kill indiscriminately.

Are you aware that US/NATO are responsible for imperialist expansion in the Middle East and Africa?

What imperial expansions in the Middle East and Africa?

What do you call overthrowing foreign leaders, invading their countries and handing over their resources to Western corporations?

After the Iraq invasion, political parties formed and participated in democratic elections at local and national level, there was a democratic parliament, democratically approved constitution, a democratically elected Prime Minister, democratically elected President and independent courts and a free press. Millions of Iraqis voted in these elections and the UN and the international community has endorsed the legitimacy of the Iraqi government.

You would prefer if Saddam was still in power? You would prefer if the Iraqis were still living in tyranny?

I'd like some source for your claim that Hussein killed hundreds of thousands of his own people, I really would.

Refugees, human rights organisations, the United Nations, media organizations, historians and many others have documented the crimes of Saddam Hussein's regime. If you want sources you can use google, read the report of organizations and individuals or visit a library and read about his savage regime.

Are you aware that Libya, under Ghaddafi was the richest and most stable country in Africa. People had free education, medical, dental, free electricity and practically free petrol. Newlyweds were given thousands in government gifts (not loans) to buy their first home.

And ruled by a tyrant who met even the mildest criticism of his rule with hideous torture, violence and execution.

Libya is now a nightmare.Kids can't leave the house, women too are prisoners in their own home for fear of the marauding gangs of killers that NATO has funded to wreck the place.

Obama funded Islamists to rise up against Gaddaffi instead of sending in ground troops to do the job instead and foster the creation of democratic state. He did so because he was ideologically opposed to American boots on the ground and chose the Islamists as an alternative with disastrous results.

But if you see that as a massive improvement then that's your prerogative.

Western troops should have been sent in to stop the descent of Libya into disaster.

As for Lockerbie, Libya had nothing to do with it anymore than Iraq or Afghanistan had anything to do with 9/11, Madrid or 7/7. Parrotting the propaganda campaign is the easy way out....but again if that's the route you want to take then that's up to you.

No sane person denies the central role of the Libyan government in the bombing of the Panam flight over Lockerbie.

No sane person denies the role the Taliban played in harboring al-Qaeda in Afghanistan before 9/11.

As for the rest of your assertions.....they're equally farcical but at this point it's probably best not to overload you with uncomfortable truths. It has a tendency to make people mentally shut down.

You defended the Taliban and Saddam as innocent, you have denied the crimes committed by their regimes and you have accused the West of war crimes for intervening to overthrow them?

You have zero credibility.

Good day.

AbusesToilets

The failures in Iraqi can be traced a number of areas. For one, the secular, representative government instead became Shia dominated and actively discriminated against the Sunni populace. This played right into the hands of the extremist elements, who had not been effectively dealt with. In tandem with this, the Iraqi military consistently failed to fight effectively, despite billions spent on training and equipment. The sight of divisions worth of Iraqi soldiers fleeing from a paltry number of ISIS fighters speaks volumes.

The US's failure to secure a Status of Forces agreement with the Iraqi government could be seen as a failure on their part. To be honest, I'm not sorry that the US is disengaging itself from Iraq and Afghanistan. Whatever the reasoning behind the initial invasions, both countries have had the better part of 14 years to sort themselves out, yet both have consistently failed to confront and address many of the social and governmental issues that plague them, such as widespread corruption, which serve to stoke the embers of opposition.

josephryan1989

AbusesToilets wrote: »

The failures in Iraqi can be traced a number of areas. For one, the secular, representative government instead became Shia dominated and actively discriminated against the Sunni populace.

You can blame two key factors for that.
The withdrawal of American forces who could keep the Iraqi government in check and the infiltration of Iraq by Iran.

This played right into the hands of the extremist elements, who had not been effectively dealt with.

They could not be effectively dealt with because the troops were withdrawn.

In tandem with this, the Iraqi military consistently failed to fight effectively, despite billions spent on training and equipment.

American advisers and a residual American force to act as a fire brigade to assist the Iraqis were withdrawn.

The sight of divisions worth of Iraqi soldiers fleeing from a paltry number of ISIS fighters speaks volumes.

This would not have happened if an American presence remained.

The US's failure to secure a Status of Forces agreement with the Iraqi government could be seen as a failure on their part.

The political wind led by Obama led to an full American military withdrawal.

To be honest, I'm not sorry that the US is disengaging itself from Iraq and Afghanistan.

So you can't complain about the rise of ISIS and the return of the Taliban then can you?

the reasoning behind the initial invasions

Overthrowing religious wackos who were giving sanctuary to terrorists?
Overthrowing a fascist tyrant who murdered hundreds of thousands?

, both countries have had the better part of 14 years to sort themselves out,

The only way to solve Afghanistan and Iraq was a decades long commitment.

yet both have consistently failed to confront and address many of the social and governmental issues that plague them, such as widespread corruption, which serve to stoke the embers of opposition.

So the obvious thing to do was to pull out all American troops and allow the Islamic extremists to fill the vacuum and go back to square one?

asherbassad

josephryan1989 wrote: »

To describe Afghanistan and Iraq as innocent requires willfully ignorance.

The Taliban established a savage theocracy in Afghanistan that harbored Al-Qaeda. The 9/11 hijackers trained in Afghanistan where they met with and received their orders from Bin Laden himself.

Right, we'll try and treat this for the rubbish that it is. First off, I called Iraq and Afghanistan innocent countries. If your reasoning behind invading and occupying Afghanistan is that 9/11 hijackers trained there, then why wasn't Germany attacked and bombed? They trained there too. Why didn't the Pentagon bomb Florida? They apparently got their flight training there. Are you aware that a war of aggression is the supreme crime against humanity according to the Geneva Protocol? You bomb and kill hundreds of thousands of Afghan civilians because allegedly Al-Qaeda trained in their country? IS that your rationale?
So you in essence are also guilty thereof since you support such war crimes.
The Taliban agreed to hand over Bin Laden if Washington could provide proof of his involvement. They couldn't and didn't because they wanted to invade and occupy Afghanistan and just needed an excuse no matter how flimsy.

Saddam Hussein murdered his way to power and stayed in power through murder while he invaded or fire rockets at his neighbors.
Millions of Iraqis lived under a regime of mind numbing sadism and tyranny.

And who was Hussein's principal protector and funder during this period? That's right, the US. The US provided him with the gas to conduct the Halabja massacre and with aerial photos of Iran's infrastructure so he could target civilian areas in the Iran-Iraq war. Convenient how you ignore that, isn't it?

Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda were based in Afghanistan under their protection.

So what?

Saddam Hussein had WMD programs. The only reason we now know he had no stockpiles is because of the invasion. I don't frankly care less if he did or didn't have WMD or whether he was capable of attacking the US.
He was an evil tyrant and for me that was reason enough to overthrow him.

So the death of 1.5 million Iraqi civilians, 5 million maimed, crippled, disfigured and terrorised, 4 million refugees having fled the country and 6 million internally displaced is just fine by you because according to your cretinous logic it confirmed that Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction?

This has to be one of the stupidest, most immature statements I have ever heard. "We slaughtered a million people but at least it proved that Iraq didn't have the weapons we though they did!" The mind well and truly boggles.

For me awful leaders is enough of an excuse to overthrow their governments.

So what about the leaders of Morocco, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan that are brutal tyrants that subjugate their people relentlessly? Why are they US allies if they are so cruel?

Now its a war crime to overthrow terrorists savages like the Taliban or to overthrow a psychopathic butcher like Saddam Hussein?

Yes it is. Read the UN Charter.

There is no comparison whatsoever between overthrowing fascist tyrants and killing Islamic terrorist savages and the crimes of those terrorists and tyrants.

There is no comparison between the use of force by democratically elected leaders who consulted their own people before going to war and whose actions are governed by the rule of law and scrutinized by a free media and tyrants and terrorists who murder and destroy and kill indiscriminately.

I have absolutely no idea why you are trying to draw comparisons or whether you're accusing me of so doing. You can stamp your feet all you want and say that you're right. But you're not. You're wrong and nothing you can say will change that. A war of aggression is a crime against humanity. A war crime. Regime change is a war crime. Preemptive war is a crime. And nothing you say will change that.

What imperial expansions in the Middle East and Africa?

Are you aware of any western invasions and occupations anywhere in the region or are you feigning ignorance?

After the Iraq invasion, political parties formed and participated in democratic elections at local and national level, there was a democratic parliament, democratically approved constitution, a democratically elected Prime Minister, democratically elected President and independent courts and a free press. Millions of Iraqis voted in these elections and the UN and the international community has endorsed the legitimacy of the Iraqi government.

You would prefer if Saddam was still in power? You would prefer if the Iraqis were still living in tyranny?

This is utter nonsense. If you knew anything about the situation you wouldn't be talking like some first-year history student who thinks he knows about cultures beyond his own blinkered and skewed notions. Iraq is destroyed. Bombs going off in marketplaces and filling the air with blood and body parts are a daily occurrence in Baghdad, Mosul, Ramadi. You bleat about the pathetic notion of elections. There is NO democracy or freedom or ANYTHING in Iraq. There is barely electricity.
As for would I prefer if Saddam Hussein was still in power? I don't know. But I can guarantee that the relatives of the 1.5 million dead and millions more displaced would prefer they had their loved ones back. If you think that they are now so much better off just because you want to win an argument is quiet frankly nauseating. These are real people who have and are continuing to suffer indescribable horrors and hardships. Iraqi women used to be the most liberated Arab women in the Middle East. They were most represented in Universities. Iraqi women were the envy of University Science and Medical faculties across the region because of their academic prowess and access to state of the art research and facilities. Now they are nothing. Iraqi women are terrified to even have children now because of the horrific birth defects brought on by the spreading of radiation from depleted uranium munitions dropped all over the country thanks to your "humanitarian" invasion. Children born without eyes, without anuses. Here, take a look for yourself. You should have the stomach for it if you're so fond of war and its aftermath:

http://www.mintpressnews.com/depleted-uranium-iraq-wars-legacy-cancer/193338/

Refugees, human rights organisations, the United Nations, media organizations, historians and many others have documented the crimes of Saddam Hussein's regime. If you want sources you can use google, read the report of organizations and individuals or visit a library and read about his savage regime.




And ruled by a tyrant who met even the mildest criticism of his rule with hideous torture, violence and execution.

Have you spoken to a single Iraqi who has lived under the rule of Saddam Hussein? Have you met a single Iraqi who claims he or she is now so much happier and better off. You keep bleating on that Hussein was a monster or whatever you read in the propaganda pages of whatever comic it is you read to get your political and geopolitical worldview. It doesn't matter what Hussein was. I'd like to see you trying to justify the nightmare that you have visited upon Iraq as opposed to how things were in 2002. And please don't insult my intelligence with these farcical claims that people are skipping off to the pools every so often to merrily vote for their local councillor or assemblyman. That's a crock and quite frankly Iraqis couldn't give a flying fuck about your so-called elections and democracy. They're too busy trying to stay alive in the chaos and anarchy that their once beautiful country has been reduced to.

Obama funded Islamists to rise up against Gaddaffi instead of sending in ground troops to do the job instead and foster the creation of democratic state. He did so because he was ideologically opposed to American boots on the ground and chose the Islamists as an alternative with disastrous results.



Western troops should have been sent in to stop the descent of Libya into disaster.

So let me get this straight. Libya was peaceful, prosperous and stable before US/NATO unleashed gangs of ISIS thugs on the place to destabilise it. And you're saying that Western troops should have been sent in to stop the descent into chaos that Western governments created? Are you completely deranged? Have you completely taken leave of any semblance of sense?

No sane person denies the central role of the Libyan government in the bombing of the Panam flight over Lockerbie.

No sane person denies the role the Taliban played in harboring al-Qaeda in Afghanistan before 9/11.



You defended the Taliban and Saddam as innocent, you have denied the crimes committed by their regimes and you have accused the West of war crimes for intervening to overthrow them?

Libya had NOTHING to do with Lockerbie. The Pan-Am flight was blown up by Lebanese operatives who were most likely operating for the Iranians in revenge for the Iranian Airliner shot down by the US. It was politically expedient to blame Ghaddafi for it as part of a smear campaign. Did you even read the article I provided for you?

And I never defended the Taliban and Saddam as innocent. These are your words and they are lies. I said that Afghanistan and Iraq were two innocent countries attacked, invaded and occupied by the US. Both wars are illegal and while you can try and twist it with your moral justifications for the slaughter nothing you can say or do will change it. These are war-crimes and you support them.

As for my credibility.....my credibility and my integrity are intact. You are the one who has no credibility. Not only that but you don't even seem to have much sense.

josephryan1989

asherbassad wrote: »

Right, we'll try and treat this for the rubbish that it is. First off, I called Iraq and Afghanistan innocent countries. If your reasoning behind invading and occupying Afghanistan is that 9/11 hijackers trained there, then why wasn't Germany attacked and bombed?

The Taliban were the government of Afghanistan and shared the same violent Islamic supremacist ideology as Al-Qaeda and harbored them allowing them to operate terrorist training camps where jihadists from around the world came to learn their deadly trained.

The German government did not have a policy of harboring terrorists and the terrorists who lived in Hamburg who went on to travel to America and commit the 9/11 attacks did not do so with their knowledge.

So the argument is mute.

They trained there too. Why didn't the Pentagon bomb Florida?

For the same reasons as above.

They apparently got their flight training there.

The flight instructors did not know the 9/11 hijackers were planning a terrorist attack obviously.

Are you aware that a war of aggression is the supreme crime against humanity according to the Geneva Protocol?

How cannot for the life of me understand how anybody could describe overthrowing a fascist dictator in Iraq and trying replace his regime with a functioning democracy or overthrowing a theocratic government harboring terrorists who killed thousands of innocents as crimes against humanity.

You bomb and kill hundreds of thousands of Afghan civilians because allegedly Al-Qaeda trained in their country? IS that your rationale?

In war the enemy hold territory - cities, towns and countryside - and to seize them back you need to go send in ground forces to take them back. When aerial bombs, artillery, tanks and infantry battle it out with armed opponents there are going to be civilians deaths.

So you in essence are also guilty thereof since you support such war crimes.

It is not possible to avoid unintentional civilian casualties in war.

The Taliban agreed to hand over Bin Laden if Washington could provide proof of his involvement.They couldn't and didn't because they wanted to invade and occupy Afghanistan and just needed an excuse no matter how flimsy.

Are you a 9/11 truther? That sounds like a typical truther argument.

And who was Hussein's principal protector and funder during this period?That's right, the US. The US provided him with the gas to conduct the Halabja massacre and with aerial photos of Iran's infrastructure so he could target civilian areas in the Iran-Iraq war. Convenient how you ignore that, isn't it?

Iraq was a client state of the US, the Soviet Union, France and a range of other industrialized countries who sold him arms and weaponry and WMD.
They helped him into power and it was their responsibility to remove him.

So the death of 1.5 million Iraqi civilians, 5 million maimed, crippled, disfigured and terrorised, 4 million refugees having fled the country and 6 million internally displaced is just fine by you because according to your cretinous logic it confirmed that Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction?

The disastrous history of Iraq since 2003 was clearly caused by internal sectarian warfare between Sunnis and Shias supported by Saudi Arabia and Iran respectively. The same has occurred in Syria and Yemen where millions more have been displaced.

This has to be one of the stupidest, most immature statements I have ever heard. "We slaughtered a million people but at least it proved that Iraq didn't have the weapons we though they did!" The mind well and truly boggles.

The hundreds of thousands of dead in Iraq were killed by Sunni and Shia terrorists.

So what about the leaders of Morocco, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan that are brutal tyrants that subjugate their people relentlessly? Why are they US allies if they are so cruel?

I want them ALL overthrown and I want democracy and freedom to spread to the Middle East.

Yes it is. Read the UN Charter.

If so then the charter should be thrown on the dustbin. Tyrants and terrorists deserve no protection.

I have absolutely no idea why you are trying to draw comparisons or whether you're accusing me of so doing. You can stamp your feet all you want and say that you're right. But you're not. You're wrong and nothing you can say will change that. A war of aggression is a crime against humanity. A war crime. Regime change is a war crime. Preemptive war is a crime. And nothing you say will change that.

Saying I'm wrong because I am wrong because I am wrong is not an argument.

Are you aware of any western invasions and occupations anywhere in the region or are you feigning ignorance?

You said Western interventions were imperial. The invasion of Iraq and the creation of democratic government however brief it survived was not imperial. Overthrowing the Taliban and creating a democratic government was not imperial. French intervention in Mali to stop an Islamist take over was not imperial. American and international intervention in Somalia to defeat local warlords and try and save millions from starvation was not imperial.

This is utter nonsense. If you knew anything about the situation you wouldn't be talking like some first-year history student who thinks he knows about cultures beyond his own blinkered and skewed notions. Iraq is destroyed. Bombs going off in marketplaces and filling the air with blood and body parts are a daily occurrence in Baghdad, Mosul, Ramadi. You bleat about the pathetic notion of elections. There is NO democracy or freedom or ANYTHING in Iraq. There is barely electricity.

Caused firstly by the brutal regime of Saddam Hussein and subsequent to his overthrow by Sunni and Shia terrorists who aimed to destroy the emerging democracy and made worse again by the withdrawal of Western troops who were keeping the country together.

As for would I prefer if Saddam Hussein was still in power? I don't know.

If you don't know if Saddam Hussein should or shouldn't be in power knowing how radically evil and psychopathic his regime was you have zero credibility.

But I can guarantee that the relatives of the 1.5 million dead and millions more displaced would prefer they had their loved ones back.

The dead and the displaced were the victims of Sunni v Shia violence.

If you think that they are now so much better off just because you want to win an argument is quiet frankly nauseating.

If Obama had not pulled out the troops and abandoned Iraq and now Syria to their fate they would be better off.

These are real people who have and are continuing to suffer indescribable horrors and hardships. Iraqi women used to be the most liberated Arab women in the Middle East. They were most represented in Universities. Iraqi women were the envy of University Science and Medical faculties across the region because of their academic prowess and access to state of the art research and facilities.

Any woman who spoke out against the Saddam Hussein regime could expect to brutally tortured and killed.

Now they are nothing.

Thanks to Sunni and Shia extremists and Western governments who have washed their hands of them.

Have you spoken to a single Iraqi who has lived under the rule of Saddam Hussein?

Yes I have.

Have you met a single Iraqi who claims he or she is now so much happier and better off.

I have met Iraqis who celebrated the overthrow of Saddam and who now feel betrayed by the Americans for abandoning them with their troops withdrawal.

You keep bleating on that Hussein was a monster or whatever you read in the propaganda pages of whatever comic it is you read to get your political and geopolitical worldview.

Go to your library and read history books and historical studies and journals detailing the brutality of the Saddam Hussein regime. Consult human rights reports from international bodies that describe the crimes of Saddam Hussein.

It doesn't matter what Hussein was.

Obviously not to you.

I'd like to see you trying to justify the nightmare that you have visited upon Iraq as opposed to how things were in 2002.

Iraq post 2003 had democratic elections, a democratic constitution, a democratically elected parliament, elected prime minister and President and is US troops continued to fight Islamic extremists would be a better place today. Instead American troops were withdrawn and the all too predictable rise of Islamic State came about.

And please don't insult my intelligence with these farcical claims that people are skipping off to the pools every so often to merrily vote for their local councillor or assemblyman. That's a crock and quite frankly Iraqis couldn't give a flying fuck about your so-called elections and democracy. They're too busy trying to stay alive in the chaos and anarchy that their once beautiful country has been reduced to.

You cannot dispute the facts that millions of Iraqis voted in local and national elections.

So let me get this straight. Libya was peaceful, prosperous and stable before US/NATO unleashed gangs of ISIS thugs on the place to destabilise it. And you're saying that Western troops should have been sent in to stop the descent into chaos that Western governments created? Are you completely deranged? Have you completely taken leave of any semblance of sense?

What I am saying is that Obama was ideologically opposed to any ground intervention and instead armed and encouraged the Islamists to rise up against Gaddaffi. The chaos in Libya could have been avoided if Western troops had been sent in just as they had been sent into Yugoslavia to foster the transition to democracy and the end of war.

Libya had NOTHING to do with Lockerbie. The Pan-Am flight was blown up by Lebanese operatives who were most likely operating for the Iranians in revenge for the Iranian Airliner shot down by the US. It was politically expedient to blame Ghaddafi for it as part of a smear campaign. Did you even read the article I provided for you?

Your argument is utterly bogus.

And I never defended the Taliban and Saddam as innocent.

You have denied the brutality of Saddam Hussein and the Taliban in your previous posts and else downplayed their brutality.

I said that Afghanistan and Iraq were two innocent countries attacked, invaded and occupied by the US.

You have just contradicted yourself.

Both wars are illegal and while you can try and twist it with your moral justifications for the slaughter nothing you can say or do will change it. These are war-crimes and you support them.

You have zero credibility if you argue that overthrowing a fascist dictator or killing terrorists are war crimes.

As for my credibility.....my credibility and my integrity are intact. You are the one who has no credibility. Not only that but you don't even seem to have much sense.

I have read your arguments closely and debunked you repeatedly point for point.

We have nothing left to discuss.

AbusesToilets

josephryan1989 wrote: »

You can blame two key factors for that.
The withdrawal of American forces who could keep the Iraqi government in check and the infiltration of Iraq by Iran.



They could not be effectively dealt with because the troops were withdrawn.



American advisers and a residual American force to act as a fire brigade to assist the Iraqis were withdrawn.



This would not have happened if an American presence remained.



The political wind led by Obama led to an full American military withdrawal.



So you can't complain about the rise of ISIS and the return of the Taliban then can you?



Overthrowing religious wackos who were giving sanctuary to terrorists?
Overthrowing a fascist tyrant who murdered hundreds of thousands?



The only way to solve Afghanistan and Iraq was a decades long commitment.



So the obvious thing to do was to pull out all American troops and allow the Islamic extremists to fill the vacuum and go back to square one?

Not entirely sure what you're arguing about. The US left Iraq because they wouldn't agree to the Status of Forces agreement stipulations that the US wanted, immunity from local prosecution being a big one. That's on the Iraqis, as much as it is the US administration.

Both Afghanistan and Iraq have over a decade of money and resources dedicated to them with limited results. Sustainable change would require a significant cultural shift, likely predicated on successive generations being educated along more western ideals and an increase in secularism. Difficult undertakings in a stable society, let alone ones that regular convulse with sectarian violence.

With respect to maintaining an enduring presence in those countries to bolster their security, to what benefit the US? Afghanistan provides no resources and is of limited geopolitical value. It is mainly significant now due to the instability in Pakistan and the danger of a government collapse there. Iraq has more value in terms of the balance of power in the region, and the US's ability to dominate that sphere. Even there, I would question the worth of investing more resources into the country versus bolstering the other nations that they maintain strong ties with. ISIS is something of a wildcard in a region that is torn between the Saudi Sunni axis and the Iranian Shia one. Let those countries sort out the issue themselves. The US can intervene in a fashion that best benefits itself. Let Russia further stretch themselves by getting sucked into Syria, likewise Iran.

josephryan1989

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Not entirely sure what you're arguing about. The US left Iraq because they wouldn't agree to the Status of Forces agreement stipulations that the US wanted, immunity from local prosecution being a big one. That's on the Iraqis, as much as it is the US administration.

Both Afghanistan and Iraq have over a decade of money and resources dedicated to them with limited results. Sustainable change would require a significant cultural shift, likely predicated on successive generations being educated along more western ideals and an increase in secularism. Difficult undertakings in a stable society, let alone ones that regular convulse with sectarian violence.

What other choice is there?
Leaving Afghanistan to rot following the Soviet pullout led to the rise of the Taliban and an American pull out will give fresh air to rise again.
If you want Afghanistan to change then you stay and you don't leave.
The same with Iraq.
Pulling out has been a total disaster and Islamists moved in to destroy what limited progress had been achieved.

World War 2 was 70 years ago and there are still American troops in Germany and Japan.

With respect to maintaining an enduring presence in those countries to bolster their security, to what benefit the US? Afghanistan provides no resources and is of limited geopolitical value.

Afghanistan is at the junction of Pakistan, China, Iran and central Asia.

It is mainly significant now due to the instability in Pakistan and the danger of a government collapse there.

Pakistan has nukes. Iran wants nukes. China has nukes. That's important isn't it?

Iraq has more value in terms of the balance of power in the region, and the US's ability to dominate that sphere. Even there, I would question the worth of investing more resources into the country versus bolstering the other nations that they maintain strong ties with. ISIS is something of a wildcard in a region that is torn between the Saudi Sunni axis and the Iranian Shia one. Let those countries sort out the issue themselves.

Saudi Arabia and Iran sit astride two of the most important sea routes in the entire world. Saudi Arabia sits on a lake of oil. Iran wants nukes and so will Saudi Arabia is they believe the US do not have their back.
Left unchecked there could be a global cataclysm.

The US can intervene in a fashion that best benefits itself.

That's what it was doing until Obama showed up.

Let Russia further stretch themselves by getting sucked into Syria, likewise Iran.

Russian is shoring up the regime of Assad and is in league with Iran.
Saudi Arabian clerics are already rowing in behind ISIS.
The house of Saud could fall along with the rest of the Gulf states.
Western oil supplies cut be severed if those countries are plunged into war.
If you want to return to a pre-industrial age do it on your own time.

AbusesToilets

The problem with wanting to change these countries is that they need to want it too, and make an effort to accomplish those goals. That commitment has been sorely lacking in Afghanistan and Iraq to varying degrees, with an over reliance on American intervention playing a large part in that. They've been given the tools and shown how to use them, at this point it should be up to them to make it succeed or not. Comparisons to post war Europe and Japan are false equivalencies, due to the more developed nature of the societies and the demands placed upon the Allies by the geopolitical realities of the time.

The Middle East in in the the grip of a Cold War-esque between Saudi Arabia and Iran that's been going on for decades. Additionally, you have the current economic battle being waged by the Saudis against the US and Russia in the oil production market, which helps to explain Russia's friendliness towards Iran and their intervention in Syria. Global powers have been meddling since the get go to influence events to their favor. The emergence of ISIS is simply a new flavor to that.