Can't believe it while we had a president who allowed Wall St to have less regulations than a street corner dice game. Or concocted a housing program that was so catastrophic for the lower class they still haven't recovered from it. Or whose drug and crime agenda put 2.4 million people in jail for petty crimes, 160,000 life sentences handed down for committing 3 petty crimes. Or who absolutely decimated our manufacturing industry that eliminated 5+ million American jobs that will never come back. Or who stood by and watched our troops suffer nearly a dozen deadly terrorist attacks and didn't do a damn thing about it except summon a fat slob the Oval Office to suck his cock and use her snatch as a humidor for his cigars. Or who lies to his wife, his daughter, his cabinet, the American public, the FBI, Congress, and even when confronted with his own lies and his own discharge on a fat slob's dress pretends it didn't happen because we did not understand what the meaning of "is" is. A perverted, slimy, corrupt to the core douche. And Carter for being completed duped by the Iranian ayatollahs, and King Obama who has the worst economic growth rate for any president in modern times (even lower than Bush's) aren't too far behind Clinton. Those two may be clueless idiots that I wouldn't let run a lemonade stand much less the US, but at least they weren't using the Oval Office to score blowjobs.
AQ has always operated in Iraq just on a smaller scale. Whether it be AQ or ISIS or the pillow biter terrorist gang, a group will always operate within the Iraq, Iran, Syrian region. It makes no difference if we had invaded, not invaded or not. They will continue to operate there for the next 1,000 years and that has nothing to do with what one president does or doesn't do.
Of course it makes a difference because if we didn't invade and then leave, there would be no power vacuum and ISIS or AQ or whoever would not have nearly the significance they do if you had a blood thirsty dictator there.
To say it wouldn't make a difference completely diminishes the impact of the US involvement in the ME. Whether you agree with said involvement or not.
You think ISIS would have oil fields if Saddam was in charge? GL w/ that.
You're missing my point. A terrorist group, whether AQ, ISIS, Ba'ath Party has operated in Iraq for years and years. They've just operated under the guise of an evil dictator. Now, they operate out in the open and we can see them. The atrocities committed now in Iraq are the same atrocities we saw during Hussein's regime. All that's changed is we now have eyes and ears in the country and know now what is happening in real time. You don't think AQ murdered people there under Saddam's rule?
Most of ISIS's control of oil is in Syria near Deir Ezzor. They did control one in Iraq near Mosul but I don't think they do any longer. BTW-ISIS should lose Fallujah in a few short weeks.
Yeah, I know they will eventually go down. Those groups are only really able to make headway because of agility and leanness, once they get too big they're just like any other army and they don't have the strength and numbers. Unfortunately when they die off, there will be someone new to fill that void. Also pretty sure they still control oil in Mosul but I don't keep up with that as much as you.
You're missing my point about the evil dictator though. AQ/ISIS/etc would not be a fraction of the threat if you have a dictator in place and thus the threat of global terrorism would not be what it is. The region would be messed up, but far more stable.
ISIS rise in power and significance directly correlates with their being a lack of gov't power in Iraq.
You're missing my point about the evil dictator though. AQ/ISIS/etc would not be a fraction of the threat if you have a dictator in place and thus the threat of global terrorism would not be what it is. The region would be messed up, but far more stable.
ISIS rise in power and significance directly correlates with their being a lack of gov't power in Iraq.
What? He said Islamic state or al Qaeda and not ISIS.....the quote I copied had it wrong and it is now corrected.
Whats the difference? You said they are the same thing?
hes pretty clear about the invasion of Iraq and what the effects would be....and it causes the rise of these terror groups. It's pretty cut and dry. If you don't think that the Iraq war cause a rise and strengthen these terrorists.....then I can't help you.
If these places don't have strong governments then it is easier for them to become terrorist breeding grounds. "Is bad" completely overlooks the degrees of how bad it is in relation to intervening. It is much worse when the US tries to play kingmaker in the ME.
Not sure how anyone can disagree or dispute that at this point.
I mean what do you think the optimal government going forward would be for Iraq or Libya or Syria as it relates to making them less problematic for the rest of the world?
Not sure how anyone can disagree or dispute that at this point.
I mean what do you think the optimal government going forward would be for Iraq or Libya or Syria as it relates to making them less problematic for the rest of the world?
Of course there is, first off if they didn't have the black gold then it would become less problematic very quickly. That is callous to say but given the strength in natural resources, they're able to get away with a lot more BS than other countries would. Especially Saudi Arabia.
Secondly, we've been friendly with dictators before as long as they have no grand ambition of anything beyond controlling their countries. Yeah the ME is never going to be a progressive bastion of human rights, but if you rule with an iron fist then you can keep a lid on instability. Saddam proved that. Assad proves that better than anyone.
What is your solution? Would you have gone into Iraq? Intervened in Libya? Syria?
You have likely thought about these scenarios more than I.
Secondly, we've been friendly with dictators before as long as they have no grand ambition of anything beyond controlling their countries. Yeah the ME is never going to be a progressive bastion of human rights, but if you rule with an iron fist then you can keep a lid on instability. Saddam proved that. Assad proves that better than anyone.
What is your solution? Would you have gone into Iraq? Intervened in Libya? Syria?
You have likely thought about these scenarios more than I.
Your thinking and my thinking are different on this topic. Extremists base actions on religion and Allah. They will not stop until all Christians are exterminated. Don't care about oil, dictators or anything tangible. There is nothing you can do to stop violent extremism short of bombing the entire region.
So what do you think the US foreign policy towards those countries should be? Intervention? Leaving them be? Installing democracy?
Every situation is different so you can answer for Iraq specifically since that 1 is the most hot button.
And I wasn't saying fanatical types care about oil, I was saying the richness of oil in the ME makes it harder for the US to act as aggressively. Creating leverage to be bad actors that others wouldn't have.
Every situation is different so you can answer for Iraq specifically since that 1 is the most hot button.
And I wasn't saying fanatical types care about oil, I was saying the richness of oil in the ME makes it harder for the US to act as aggressively. Creating leverage to be bad actors that others wouldn't have.
