• We are looking for you!
    Always wanted to join our Supporting Team? We are looking for enthusiastic moderators!
    Take a look at our recruitement page for more information and how you can apply:
    Apply

Lybia, Obama, Al Qaeda.. Toughts?

DeletedUser3

Before Bush Jr, Al Qaeda consisted of a small group of sheepherders practicing to be warriors in the deserts of the Middle East. It consisted of probably less than three thousand. Bush's reactions to 9/11, and his acting on plans created and presented to him by his neocon cohorts before 9/11, resulted in adding the Taliban (Afghanistan's ex-government, ex-police, and ex-military) to the list of combatants and then, later, adding the ex-government, ex-police and ex-military of Iraq. In total, this far exceeds a million extra people who joined the ranks of Al Qaeda, or at least put them on the same side of the conflict. So, from a few thousand sheepherders to millions of well-armed, well-trained combatants. That --- you can squarely place on Bush Jr's head.

As to what happened to birth Al Qaeda, I already addressed that, and it falls on Bush Sr's head. As to the hostilities in the Middle East against the U.S. that has existed for decades, you can blame decades of U.S., British, and French military intervention (meddling), and our support and participation in resettling American/Italian/German/Polish/Russian Jews to a strip of British-occupied Middle East land off the Mediterranean sea.

So, historically, we've been in the wrong and we continue to be in the wrong. Had Bush Jr. provided aid instead of aim, the money posed would have gained us the praise of the people of these nations, instead of their ire. Can it be reversed? Absolutely, but not over a 4 year, or even an 8 year period. Obama was handed a mess and he's tasked to clean up the mess, but instead of being recognized for what he's succeeded in doing, unscrupulous politicians exploit the scene and blame him for the aftermath of Bush's irresponsible actions.
 

DeletedUser34

But it still doesn't answer my question of, his policies (Obama's) haven't decreased in the antagonism towards the US. SO that being said, no matter the cause, or the time, or the who or the how,etc etc etc.....Is it possible to calm things down? Is it possible for those who are bred to hate us, and breed their youth to hate us, to go back. I am sure it is in the long term. Actually I believe it is inevitable. BUT, is the answer to be prissing around their idealistic extremes and turning a blind eye? I personally don't think it does.
 

Liberty

Active Member
Obama was left with the chore of extricating ourselves from unsavory activities initiated during the Bush administration. In many cases he's moved too slow, in others just slow enough to ensure extrication doesn't create new problems. When you enter into a country and essentially replace their military/police, you cannot readily extricate yourself on a dime. It takes time, and training of local replacements. Obama has effectively removed the U.S. from Iraq and is doing so with Afghanistan. But to think our leaving the scene removes the hostilities, I'm sorry but damage is done and the children of the noncombatant victims we killed and wrote off as "collateral damage" during the Bush administration are growing up, armed and pissed.

Uh huh, and more are being created as Obama runs around spreading "peace" with bombs and drones.

You also may want to check out the size of our embassy in Iraq and the thousands of military contractors we are paying for to defend and supply that place. We haven't left there at all.
 
Last edited:

Liberty

Active Member
But it still doesn't answer my question of, his policies (Obama's) haven't decreased in the antagonism towards the US. SO that being said, no matter the cause, or the time, or the who or the how,etc etc etc.....Is it possible to calm things down? Is it possible for those who are bred to hate us, and breed their youth to hate us, to go back. I am sure it is in the long term. Actually I believe it is inevitable. BUT, is the answer to be prissing around their idealistic extremes and turning a blind eye? I personally don't think it does.

Yes. Stop bombing, occupying and overthrowing their countries. Stop it right now! Bring our troops home to defend our own country. Nowhere in our Constitution does it say we are supposed to use our military to be globo-cop. We used to know that.

You don't fix a problem by making it worse. We are making it worse by continuing the action that caused the problem in the first place.

Bring our troops home. Have a very strong defense, but stop this meddling. Get our own house in order. Our government has bankrupted our country. They are borrowing money from China to pay the interest on the national debt. Did you hear that? They cannot even pay the INTEREST! We are heading down a hole that will change us forever and these jokers in the 2 major parties are arguing who can bomb more countries than the other.

The answers are in the Constitution. We used to know that. It is the principles embodied within that document that once made America the beacon of liberty to people around the world. We gave them hope and they wanted to emulate us. Not anymore. We have lost our way and we'd better figure that out pronto.
 

DeletedUser34

Yes. Stop bombing, occupying and overthrowing their countries. Stop it right now! Bring our troops home to defend our own country. Nowhere in our Constitution does it say we are supposed to use our military to be globo-cop. We used to know that.

You don't fix a problem by making it worse. We are making it worse by continuing the action that caused the problem in the first place.

Bring our troops home. Have a very strong defense, but stop this meddling. Get our own house in order. Our government has bankrupted our country. They are borrowing money from China to pay the interest on the national debt. Did you hear that? They cannot even pay the INTEREST! We are heading down a hole that will change us forever and these jokers in the 2 major parties are arguing who can bomb more countries than the other.

The answers are in the Constitution. We used to know that. It is the principles embodied within that document that once made America the beacon of liberty to people around the world. We gave them hope and they wanted to emulate us. Not anymore. We have lost our way and we'd better figure that out pronto.

Ok, I am extremely confused then. People are all up in arms, screaming about us not helping the Syrians, they were not overly thrilled with how we handled the other various rebellions in the region, and screamed that Obama didn't do enough. Most currently we will just stick to Syria. So according to your logic, we are doing the right thing here then yes? Then why is everyone crying foul? My point is, you are wrong. It doesn't matter what we do, and who we do it with, we will never be on the good list of the middle east.

I did forget to add, we shot missiles at Libya with the blessings of the Arab League. So, your logic doesn't apply there, and as near as I can tell other than Libya, we have Iraq and Afghanistan. Hardly a case of bullying in the Middle East.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

who do you think is the chess player? looking forward with patience and making decisive moves. should we just go in guns ablazing dictating what these countries should do or abide by? or should we sit back a minute and let them (hopefully) make a right decision? I don't think we should sit too far back though, but i don't think we should go in and just play ok corral on them.

- - - Updated - - -

Before Bush Jr, Al Qaeda consisted of a small group of sheepherders practicing to be warriors in the deserts of the Middle East. It consisted of probably less than three thousand. Bush's reactions to 9/11, and his acting on plans created and presented to him by his neocon cohorts before 9/11, resulted in adding the Taliban (Afghanistan's ex-government, ex-police, and ex-military) to the list of combatants and then, later, adding the ex-government, ex-police and ex-military of Iraq. In total, this far exceeds a million extra people who joined the ranks of Al Qaeda, or at least put them on the same side of the conflict. So, from a few thousand sheepherders to millions of well-armed, well-trained combatants. That --- you can squarely place on Bush Jr's head.

As to what happened to birth Al Qaeda, I already addressed that, and it falls on Bush Sr's head. As to the hostilities in the Middle East against the U.S. that has existed for decades, you can blame decades of U.S., British, and French military intervention (meddling), and our support and participation in resettling American/Italian/German/Polish/Russian Jews to a strip of British-occupied Middle East land off the Mediterranean sea.

So, historically, we've been in the wrong and we continue to be in the wrong. Had Bush Jr. provided aid instead of aim, the money posed would have gained us the praise of the people of these nations, instead of their ire. Can it be reversed? Absolutely, but not over a 4 year, or even an 8 year period. Obama was handed a mess and he's tasked to clean up the mess, but instead of being recognized for what he's succeeded in doing, unscrupulous politicians exploit the scene and blame him for the aftermath of Bush's irresponsible actions.

I have to completly agree with this (hopefully it is not because it was told to me twice) i think it is funny how obama is blamed for things that were messed up before he got them. this war was bush's war and if you really dig into the beginnings you will find that we are at fault for this in the beginning during reagans reign.
 

Liberty

Active Member
Ok, I am extremely confused then. People are all up in arms, screaming about us not helping the Syrians, they were not overly thrilled with how we handled the other various rebellions in the region, and screamed that Obama didn't do enough. Most currently we will just stick to Syria. So according to your logic, we are doing the right thing here then yes? Then why is everyone crying foul? My point is, you are wrong. It doesn't matter what we do, and who we do it with, we will never be on the good list of the middle east.
I'm having a hard time following your logic. I said bring the troops home and get our own house in order. No, I don't agree at all with what we are doing in Syria. You would think we would have learned our lesson by now, but apparently not. It has been reported in both the CFR's Foreign Affairs journal and by Reuters that Al Qaeda is a part of the rebels that we are supporting. Sounds a lot like when we funded and supported Osama bin Laden and his merry chaps in their fight against the USSR, or how we funded and armed a gentleman named Saddam Hussein, in order to fight Iran, and it goes on and on.

I did forget to add, we shot missiles at Libya with the blessings of the Arab League. So, your logic doesn't apply there,
How do you figure that the Arab League blessing it, makes it alright?

and as near as I can tell other than Libya, we have Iraq and Afghanistan. Hardly a case of bullying in the Middle East.
What business do we have with any of these sovereign nations?
 

DeletedUser34

Here's the fallacy of what you are saying. The fact that we are bombing, overthrowing their governments and occupying their countries, has proven to be a huge recruiting tool for Al Qaeda. Makes sense doesn't it? Tell me, if another country's government started bombing the U.S. and accidentally or not, killed some of your family and friends, drove tanks in our streets and overthrew our government and put in a puppet of their choosing, would it kind of tick you off? Would you then consider joining a group to fight them, that you never would have considered joining before?

Bottom line, our actions are increasing their ranks.
The only gov't we have "overthrown" was Iraq and Afghanistan. Hardly the cause of the ill tensions as this came at the earliest 7 years after the first terror attempt on our soil.

Hardly. Why would you think we would have a different problem when the foreign policy is virtually the same? It's not vastly different at all. Which is why so many neoconservatives are quite happy with Obama.
Puleese, Obama is so much more rational than the Republican hotheads. Almost annoyingly so. However, he still is doing a pretty good job at National Security. He can't shut his eyes to all the foreign diplomatic repercussions that exist out there.

I find the fact that that was the same gripe people had with Bush, a bit err ironic...we have had Obama now for 4 years, whose policy is vastly different, and yet we still have the same problem. Doesn't that then beg the question, that maybe you are wrong?

And actually, in many ways I agree with DC's comments. This is one of the reasons I don't agree with giving Syria a dime, or a heart beat. Look at Egypt, Lybia, and Iraq. The people went from one monster to another...what did we solve? Not a darn thing. And now we have crazy idealists to contend with, which for us is far worse than a dictator.
Maybe seeing it in order will help you follow my logic?

In many ways I agree with you (chokes)
But, 9/11 happened in 01....hardly enough time to cause the middle east to be mad at his (Bush) politics....And in reality, 9/11 was the success story for their mindset, not the beginning. It was in fact the second attempt yes? So, back to my point...how can we blame Bush? It was in the works long before he took office. With that fact in mind, how can anyone expect silence and tip toeing around to actually prove effective?

But it still doesn't answer my question of, his policies (Obama's) haven't decreased in the antagonism towards the US. SO that being said, no matter the cause, or the time, or the who or the how,etc etc etc.....Is it possible to calm things down? Is it possible for those who are bred to hate us, and breed their youth to hate us, to go back. I am sure it is in the long term. Actually I believe it is inevitable. BUT, is the answer to be prissing around their idealistic extremes and turning a blind eye? I personally don't think it does.

Uh huh, and more are being created as Obama runs around spreading "peace" with bombs and drones.

You also may want to check out the size of our embassy in Iraq and the thousands of military contractors we are paying for to defend and supply that place. We haven't left there at all.
I can tell you we are more gone now than we were.

Yes. Stop bombing, occupying and overthrowing their countries. Stop it right now! Bring our troops home to defend our own country. Nowhere in our Constitution does it say we are supposed to use our military to be globo-cop. We used to know that.

You don't fix a problem by making it worse. We are making it worse by continuing the action that caused the problem in the first place.

Bring our troops home. Have a very strong defense, but stop this meddling. Get our own house in order. Our government has bankrupted our country. They are borrowing money from China to pay the interest on the national debt. Did you hear that? They cannot even pay the INTEREST! We are heading down a hole that will change us forever and these jokers in the 2 major parties are arguing who can bomb more countries than the other.

The answers are in the Constitution. We used to know that. It is the principles embodied within that document that once made America the beacon of liberty to people around the world. We gave them hope and they wanted to emulate us. Not anymore. We have lost our way and we'd better figure that out pronto.

Ok, I am extremely confused then. People are all up in arms, screaming about us not helping the Syrians, they were not overly thrilled with how we handled the other various rebellions in the region, and screamed that Obama didn't do enough. Most currently we will just stick to Syria. So according to your logic, we are doing the right thing here then yes? Then why is everyone crying foul? My point is, you are wrong. It doesn't matter what we do, and who we do it with, we will never be on the good list of the middle east.

I did forget to add, we shot missiles at Libya with the blessings of the Arab League. So, your logic doesn't apply there, and as near as I can tell other than Libya, we have Iraq and Afghanistan. Hardly a case of bullying in the Middle East.

I'm having a hard time following your logic. I said bring the troops home and get our own house in order. No, I don't agree at all with what we are doing in Syria. You would think we would have learned our lesson by now, but apparently not. It has been reported in both the CFR's Foreign Affairs journal and by Reuters that Al Qaeda is a part of the rebels that we are supporting. Sounds a lot like when we funded and supported Osama bin Laden and his merry chaps in their fight against the USSR, or how we funded and armed a gentleman named Saddam Hussein, in order to fight Iran, and it goes on and on.


How do you figure that the Arab League blessing it, makes it alright?


What business do we have with any of these sovereign nations?
So there you have it, following the order in which this went down. We were a target prior to invasion of either Afghanistan and Iraq. We were part of a multi nation exercise on Libya and Egypt, so that can't very well be heaped on our shoulders, and we are staying thus far out of Syria. So, seeing as we did help Libya and Egypt, and they have gone to the extremists, The same people who said stay out of the middle east are griping because we are not helping Syria. Which is right? And can you really say based off the facts that staying out of international democracy is going to really make things better? I think not. We are not region wide bullies in that area, so you logic on getting out and staying out will stop the targeting of Americans rather more like wishful thinking.
 

DeletedUser2381

Before Bush Jr, Al Qaeda consisted of a small group of sheepherders practicing to be warriors in the deserts of the Middle East. It consisted of probably less than three thousand. Bush's reactions to 9/11, and his acting on plans created and presented to him by his neocon cohorts before 9/11, resulted in adding the Taliban (Afghanistan's ex-government, ex-police, and ex-military) to the list of combatants and then, later, adding the ex-government, ex-police and ex-military of Iraq. In total, this far exceeds a million extra people who joined the ranks of Al Qaeda, or at least put them on the same side of the conflict. So, from a few thousand sheepherders to millions of well-armed, well-trained combatants. That --- you can squarely place on Bush Jr's head.

As to what happened to birth Al Qaeda, I already addressed that, and it falls on Bush Sr's head. As to the hostilities in the Middle East against the U.S. that has existed for decades, you can blame decades of U.S., British, and French military intervention (meddling), and our support and participation in resettling American/Italian/German/Polish/Russian Jews to a strip of British-occupied Middle East land off the Mediterranean sea.

So, historically, we've been in the wrong and we continue to be in the wrong. Had Bush Jr. provided aid instead of aim, the money posed would have gained us the praise of the people of these nations, instead of their ire. Can it be reversed? Absolutely, but not over a 4 year, or even an 8 year period. Obama was handed a mess and he's tasked to clean up the mess, but instead of being recognized for what he's succeeded in doing, unscrupulous politicians exploit the scene and blame him for the aftermath of Bush's irresponsible actions.

........... :blink:
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Liberty

Active Member
The only gov't we have "overthrown" was Iraq and Afghanistan. Hardly the cause of the ill tensions as this came at the earliest 7 years after the first terror attempt on our soil.
You need to read up on some history. The CIA released documents years ago proving that our government fomented Mossadegh being overthrown in 1953. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Mosaddegh). We put in the Shah. Which then led to the Iranian people starting to listen to the crazies like Khomeini and voila the Iranian Revolution in 1979.

Actions have consequences. It is also referred to as BLOWBACK.


Puleese, Obama is so much more rational than the Republican hotheads. Almost annoyingly so. However, he still is doing a pretty good job at National Security. He can't shut his eyes to all the foreign diplomatic repercussions that exist out there.
The thing is, the neoconservatives who ran Dubya's foreign policy and who would also run Romney's, are leftists who came from the Democratic Party. That is simply a fact. http://www.amazon.com/Neo-conservatism-Autobiography-Idea-Irving-Kristol/dp/0028740211

Maybe seeing it in order will help you follow my logic?

I can tell you we are more gone now than we were.
True, but he did nothing but follow Dubya's timetable for withdrawal. Fact is, we should have never gone over there. Iraq had absolutely 0 to do with 911 and as disgusting as Saddam Hussein was, our own government armed him, and they did that to keep Iran in check. So, what do they tell us now that he's gone...ooooohh... we have to stay here, because mean 'ol Iran might get ahold of Iraq. DOH. Don't you think they knew that? Sure, they did. Another agenda is afoot.

So there you have it, following the order in which this went down. We were a target prior to invasion of either Afghanistan and Iraq. We were part of a multi nation exercise on Libya and Egypt, so that can't very well be heaped on our shoulders, and we are staying thus far out of Syria.
No, we are not staying out of Syria. Our government has been helping a small faction of anti-Assad rebels, who Al Qaida is a part of, by the way.

So, seeing as we did help Libya and Egypt, and they have gone to the extremists,
They didn't "go" anywhere. The extremists were a part of the faction that we helped.

The same people who said stay out of the middle east are griping because we are not helping Syria. Which is right?
Not I. I think we should get our cotton-pickin' noses out of other sovereign nations' affairs and treat them as we would like to be treated. How difficult is that?

Look, when we give aid to someone's enemy, that makes us their enemy too. Makes sense to me. Doesn't it you? How much more of this do we have to do? We overthrow Mossadegh and get Khomeini and the crazy moullahs, we fund bin Laden and his merry crew (now called Al Qaida) and we all know where that led, we fund Saddam Hussein and we know what happened with that, we help overthrow Gaddahi and our Ambassador is killed and I have no doubt there will be more blowback to come. How much more, folks? How much more until we get that we need to stop meddling in other sovereign nations' affairs. Who died and left us God?

And can you really say based off the facts that staying out of international democracy is going to really make things better? I think not. We are not region wide bullies in that area, so you logic on getting out and staying out will stop the targeting of Americans rather more like wishful thinking.
Oh, puhleese. What "international democracy"? What it is is simple bullying. Either a nation does our bidding, or we overthrow them and put someone in who will. And they give the American public some crock about helping humanity. Yeah, we help the heck out of their humanity by bombing the ever-lovin beejeezus out of them, killing members of their family, their friends, (ooopsy, casualties of war) and turning their country into a pile of rubble. This is NOT what America and Americans used to stand for!!! Once upon a time, we thought we should make sure our own house was in order and serve as an example that others might want to follow. This whole notion of cramming a gun up against someone's temple and claiming it is for peace, came from Woodrow Wilson. War is "peace". What a notion. It amazes me that anyone still buys it.

We have been bombing the Middle East for years on end. You really ought to check. It won't make you smile. Let's put it this way. They don't hate us for our freedoms; they hate us because we've been bombing them for years, overthrowing and occupying their countries. There most definitely are some nut jobs in the Middle East and a bunch of different religious factions who have ALWAYS fought, but our actions are the greatest recruiting tool that the nut jobs ever had.

Actions have consequences. Even when those actions are our own.
 
Last edited:

DeletedUser34

Irony is...
you posted a single wiki link for your sole back up...really?

*ignore*
 
Top