The invasion of Iraq was his decision.
The timetable to leave Iraq was approved by Bush. He thought the timing was just right.
The invasion of Iraq was Bush's decision.
dubya, head, NSA/CIA LIED about ALL the "reasons" to invade Iraq, which was hkead's secret "national energy plan" discussed in private with BigOil industry execs.
“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.” — Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002
“(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. …And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War.” — John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003
dubya, head, NSA/CIA LIED about ALL the "reasons" to EVERYBODY to invade Iraq, which was hkead's secret "national energy plan" discussed in private with BigOil industry execs.
On Fox, of course, non-stop anger-mongering and fear-mongering by Fox and Repugs, and their viewers, base falls for it every time.
Here's TX in a ing cowboy hat
Texas Sheriff Claims ‘Quran Books’ Found At Mexican Border May Mean ISIS Infiltration
“I received an intelligence report that said that there were ISIS cells that were active in Juarez [Mexico] and that there was some activity for the sheriffs along the border to be on alert,”
ISIS members are poised to infiltrate the border, that “we’ll send them to .”
. “I’m saying the border is wide open. We have found copies, or people along the border, have found Muslim clothing, they have found Quran books that are laying on the side of the trail. So we know that there are Muslims that have come across, have been smuggled in the United States.”
“If they show their ugly head in our area, we’ll send them to ,”
“I think the United States needs to get busy and they need to bomb them. They need to take them out. I would like for them to hit them so hard and so often that every time they hear a propeller on a plane or a jet aircraft engine that they urinate down both legs.”
http://thinkprogress.org/immigration...united-states/
You Stay Classy, Texas!
The decision to withdraw was Obama's.
The decision to go back to war in Iraq is Obama's.
The plan approved by Bush. Did you want to stay forever?
Bushy broke it, you bought it.The decision to go back to war in Iraq is Obama's.
So in your ed up brain, you simply FORGET that the Repugs ed up the M/E for decades and the economy for decades and SCOTUS for decades, and Obama starts with a clean page?
I went back through the article, and read through it.
Can you tell me where exactly Mr. Olsen said ISIS poses no threat at all?
And as of now, I only marginally agree.
I think your calculus seems to be missing the shia/sunni dynamic, and the ultimate declared goal of this group is an entirely new country that will disrupt global oil supplies in a very major way.
The conflict that ISIS is carrying out to establish itself is touching off and making a lot of recent sunni-shia violence much worse.
This violence is not limited by national borders.
To claim there is no threat also misses the kinds of future threat that such a group poses. The Taliban didn't pose a direct threat to the US either, but it provided operating space to people who were ultimately responsible for thousands of US deaths.
ISIS is something new entirely, although not exactly unexpected given the radicalization that has taken place in many countries as a second or third order consequence of the Iraq invasion by the US.
As I have said before, I put very little stock in MOST criticisms of Obama's foreign policy.
And what of the many criticisms coming from his own party?
Criticisms from Democrats, since they are from his own party I tend to give a bit more credence as they are less obviously partisan.
Is this hard to understand?
O's foreign policy polls poorly with the public. But does public know or GAF what his foreign policies are? and what foreign policies would they approve of?
This would be a lot easier to address if you would parse it out into separate posts.
Again, I find your general at ude somewhat naive, and simplistic, per par, although in this case there aren't any poor people for you to feel superior to for imagined personal failings.
It doesn't take much more than simply looking at a map with some important overlays to note why this might be important you.
These guys have more than AK's and busted toyota trucks.
The possibility they could possibly overrun whatever of Assad's chemical weapons stockpiles remain is also something that should worry you.
None of this will directly threaten the US mainland right now, but if you think that such a strong de-stabilizing force so close to a very sizable percentage of the world's oil supply as well as NATO members isn't a threat, perhaps you need to do some more reading beyond your own confirmation bias.
The articles you posted to support your position never really said that this group isn't a threat. While some will exaggerate the current threat, I couldn't find many, even Mr. Olsen, who seems to credibily imply, as you seem to here that they are NO threat.
Their own statements fully outline what they intend.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...llegiance.html
They seem to be pretty clear about doing this, and don't really care much who gets hurt in the process.
If you can't see that, you obviously have not been paying attention.
Done.
Threat = increasing sunni-shia animus in an area already experiencing for tat killing.
This de-stabilizes an important part of the world.
threat = provides money and training for people who pretty much would, and have killed westerners that they feel directly threaten their way of life.
This islamist ideology views the US and Israel as fighting some imagined "anti-muslim" war. This is part and parcel of what drives the rank and file, and can be seen explicitly in al-Baghdadi's statements. Google them, this ideology is not hard to find, nor understand.
threat = Allowing them to continue to hold land is handing tens of millions of dollars monthly to a group of people who subscribe to an ideology that has pretty much already long ago declared a war on us.
Hope that provides a bit more substantiation for viewing them as a threat. They will not be attacking the US tomorrow, no.
How many people would they have to kill before you would suddenly view them as important enough? 1? 100? 2,977?
He was cited for the proposition that ISIS does not pose the same threat that AQ once did. I was responding to this gem:
In this case it is far clearer that ISIS is a threat, and a far more serious one than Al Qaeda ever was as it was sheltered by the Taliban in Afghanistan, or than Saddam was.
That same dynamic will see regional actors (i.e., Turkey) check whatever progress the Caliphate makes
Not saying there's no violence - or that ISIS doesn't represent a threat to certain groups in the region. But you still haven't shown why ISIS threatens the US outside of making numerous large inferences and assumptions of how geopolitics will play out.
While true, they're not storming our shores. If anything, the fact that the most "shock-value" strike they've done -- beheadings -- are localized to Syria should tell you about the threat level they represent. If they're so well funded and sophisticated, why chop off 3 journalists heads instead of attacking the US directly?
The Taliban were also sheltered by the Afghani government at the time (they were kinda the government at the time). Assad is trying to bomb ISIS out of his country, as are the Kurds, so I don't see the "slippery slope" analogy there. Moreover, What evidence do you have that ISIS is anywhere near the level of AQ such that they could take advantage of a failed state and do some bad ?
No its not. It's a different iteration of regional theo-nationalism mixed in with some terrorism. What's so novel beyond its claims of creating a caliphate (which, you know, are just words and don't hurt)?
I'm much more worried about the American Christian Taliban unending attempts to create a theocracy in the USA, than any ISIL caliphate.
I never knew liberals could be such good fear-mongers. Posing with a rocket and a tank doesn't inspire fear. Nor do claims of wanting to re-impose the Caliphate.
I don't get what point you're trying to make about the pipelines. The picture doesn't show where all the wells are or how much their producing (in fact, one of the pipelines is defunct). The oil reserves are outside of ISIS land and are all near borders with Iran, Kuwait, and Saudi (representing a pretty strong deterrent to the Caliphate's advancement).
Use your words, pictures don't mean .
Liberals and Neocons are cut from the same cloth.
You're just taking them at their word and asserting that eventually they'll do something bad. Where's your evidence?
Oh and lol stability. Because the region is known for its stability and we wouldn't want to do anything to destabilize it.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
