Justice Posted November 20, 2015 Posted November 20, 2015 Assad in Syria too. And not a single initiative to remove them was to protect the west from a threat Exactly. How many times can we screw up with our foreign policies before someone actually realizes all of this was by design? Are we to assume the greatest and most powerful nation on earth doesn't know what they're doing? Why aren't we going after the people that sell the terrorists their weapons and ammunition? Why aren't we going after the people that buy their oil?
DC Tom Posted November 20, 2015 Posted November 20, 2015 There is nothing ignorant about the historical realities of total war, and colonization of the conquered. It's the most effective way of eliminating a problem culture. That's not the historical reality of war. Nor is it the current reality of Islam.
GG Posted November 20, 2015 Posted November 20, 2015 Absolutely it does and I don't have a plan for that either. The only suggestion I have is to stop intervening in that part of the world. The world was a better place when people like Saddam and Gadhafi were in charge. The world was not a better place. The whole reason the region is a mess is because ME tyrants kept a lid on the festering mess in their "countries" But in the process they're defying natural laws of physics. You can only contain expanding gas for so long. A very little talked about neocon strategy to transform the region was projecting the fatal mix that the demographics and growing Islamist movement would entail in the near future. Removing Saddam & Gadhafi may have accelerated the explosion, but it was certainly bound to happen sooner than later. The goal was to have a strong presence in the region to contain the explosion. Unfortunately the failed occupation and the insane withdrawal in 2011 made matters far worse.
TakeYouToTasker Posted November 20, 2015 Posted November 20, 2015 That's not the historical reality of war. Nor is it the current reality of Islam. The historical reality of war does not included cultures conquering other cultures, settling their lands, and breeding with their women?
DC Tom Posted November 20, 2015 Posted November 20, 2015 Exactly. How many times can we screw up with our foreign policies before someone actually realizes all of this was by design? Are we to assume the greatest and most powerful nation on earth doesn't know what they're doing? Why aren't we going after the people that sell the terrorists their weapons and ammunition? Why aren't we going after the people that buy their oil? The greatest and most powerful nation on earth changes foreign policy every 4-8 years. Of COURSE we don't know what we're doing.
truth on hold Posted November 20, 2015 Posted November 20, 2015 The world was not a better place. The whole reason the region is a mess is because ME tyrants kept a lid on the festering mess in their "countries" But in the process they're defying natural laws of physics. You can only contain expanding gas for so long. A very little talked about neocon strategy to transform the region was projecting the fatal mix that the demographics and growing Islamist movement would entail in the near future. Removing Saddam & Gadhafi may have accelerated the explosion, but it was certainly bound to happen sooner than later. The goal was to have a strong presence in the region to contain the explosion. Unfortunately the failed occupation and the insane withdrawal in 2011 made matters far worse. Remove the power structure of any country and you create a vacuum for armed, vigilante groups. . Same would happen in America
Justice Posted November 20, 2015 Posted November 20, 2015 The world was not a better place. The whole reason the region is a mess is because ME tyrants kept a lid on the festering mess in their "countries" But in the process they're defying natural laws of physics. You can only contain expanding gas for so long. A very little talked about neocon strategy to transform the region was projecting the fatal mix that the demographics and growing Islamist movement would entail in the near future. Removing Saddam & Gadhafi may have accelerated the explosion, but it was certainly bound to happen sooner than later. The goal was to have a strong presence in the region to contain the explosion. Unfortunately the failed occupation and the insane withdrawal in 2011 made matters far worse. So you're saying the world was better off with those people in charge. The end result is obvious. Your last sentence sums it up perfectly.
DC Tom Posted November 20, 2015 Posted November 20, 2015 The world was not a better place. The whole reason the region is a mess is because ME tyrants kept a lid on the festering mess in their "countries" But in the process they're defying natural laws of physics. You can only contain expanding gas for so long. You're referencing the ideal gas law? I knew it! It's Tom Brady's fault!
GG Posted November 20, 2015 Posted November 20, 2015 So you're saying the world was better off with those people in charge. The end result is obvious. Your last sentence sums it up perfectly. Are you incapable of reading the entire post? You're referencing the ideal gas law? I knew it! It's Tom Brady's fault! Too bad the pipe to the knees wouldn't solve ME.
DC Tom Posted November 20, 2015 Posted November 20, 2015 So you're saying the world was better off with those people in charge. The end result is obvious. Your last sentence sums it up perfectly. Actually, the world was better off before the "Arab Spring."
Justice Posted November 20, 2015 Posted November 20, 2015 The greatest and most powerful nation on earth changes foreign policy every 4-8 years. Of COURSE we don't know what we're doing. You actually believe that? You think the Prez actually has that kind of power? In my mind we have been traveling down the same exact path that Bush laid out and Obama has continued. They're all in the same gang. Don't get it twisted.
truth on hold Posted November 20, 2015 Posted November 20, 2015 Exactly. How many times can we screw up with our foreign policies before someone actually realizes all of this was by design? Are we to assume the greatest and most powerful nation on earth doesn't know what they're doing? Why aren't we going after the people that sell the terrorists their weapons and ammunition? Why aren't we going after the people that buy their oil? The decision makers don't care about the consequences to civilians, certainly not in the countries they destablize, nor their own citizens UNLESS it interferes with their policy. They only care about their own special interests.
Justice Posted November 20, 2015 Posted November 20, 2015 Are you incapable of reading the entire post? Too bad the pipe to the knees wouldn't solve ME. Not at all. It's the end result of our actions that got us here. The rest of what you said is pure speculation or opinion.
Tiberius Posted November 20, 2015 Posted November 20, 2015 Actually, the world was better off before the "Arab Spring." Was it? How? Tell us
keepthefaith Posted November 20, 2015 Posted November 20, 2015 Well that strategy hasn't worked thus far, has it? It's only gotten worse. It hasn't worked because the effort has been weak. The tragedy here is that all nations being targeted and those in the region haven't pounced on the terrorist groups to wipe them out. Shows a real lack of principles and a lack of the capability to do so. The hard truth is that there are only a few militaries on earth that can do the job and none are fully engaged at this time. For me there is no middle ground. Either stay the !@#$ out of the region or full speed ahead on taking them out. If I thought 2 ocean's would protect us, then I'd say stay the hell out but ocean's won't do it. The U.S. lacks an effective strategy to keep bad people out of this country and to get rid of them abroad. We aren't doing either well right now.
DC Tom Posted November 20, 2015 Posted November 20, 2015 You actually believe that? You think the Prez actually has that kind of power? In my mind we have been traveling down the same exact path that Bush laid out and Obama has continued. They're all in the same gang. Don't get it twisted. Bush's and Obama's foreign policies are diametrically opposed, right down to the simple observation that Bush fundamentally had one, and Obama fundamentally doesn't. Bush's foreign policy was based on concepts of international leadership, independence, and interventionism. Obama's policy exercises no leadership, focuses on coalition-building (or coalition participation, since building a coalition requires leadership), and not even remotely interventionist. The Bush administration maintained a strong presence in Iraq and attempted to maintain a measure of multilateralism between the major cultures, the Obama administration cut and ran and let the Shia exercise unilateral power. The Bush administration normalized relations with Libya and convinced Qadaffi to give up his WMD programs, PEACEFULLY; the Obama administration abandoned Libya to European interference, sectarian violence, and the overthrow of Qadaffi, based solely on the premise that whatever happened in Tunisa must be good everywhere. You want me to go on? The only real similarity between their policies is the fundamental American bias that everyone should be an American, and the total lack of recognition of Old-World tribalism even existing. You think that's some sort of planned ignorance towards some sort of goal? Really?
GG Posted November 20, 2015 Posted November 20, 2015 You actually believe that? You think the Prez actually has that kind of power? In my mind we have been traveling down the same exact path that Bush laid out and Obama has continued. They're all in the same gang. Don't get it twisted. In what world are the actions of the two Presidents can even be considered the same? In a perverse twist of timing that determines the fate of the civilized world, Bush was saddled with Chirac and Schroeder as negotiating partners, while Hollande & Merkel have to deal with Obama. Bad timing also has a knack of influencing world events and directions of history.
Tiberius Posted November 20, 2015 Posted November 20, 2015 Bush's and Obama's foreign policies are diametrically opposed, right down to the simple observation that Bush fundamentally had one, and Obama fundamentally doesn't. Bush's foreign policy was based on concepts of international leadership, independence, and interventionism. Obama's policy exercises no leadership, focuses on coalition-building (or coalition participation, since building a coalition requires leadership), and not even remotely interventionist. The Bush administration maintained a strong presence in Iraq and attempted to maintain a measure of multilateralism between the major cultures, the Obama administration cut and ran and let the Shia exercise unilateral power. The Bush administration normalized relations with Libya and convinced Qadaffi to give up his WMD programs, PEACEFULLY; the Obama administration abandoned Libya to European interference, sectarian violence, and the overthrow of Qadaffi, based solely on the premise that whatever happened in Tunisa must be good everywhere. You want me to go on? The only real similarity between their policies is the fundamental American bias that everyone should be an American, and the total lack of recognition of Old-World tribalism even existing. You think that's some sort of planned ignorance towards some sort of goal? Really? But, but, but, you use to say Bush deserved the credit for getting us out of Iraq, now you want to say Obama should be blamed for getting us out of Iraq. You are blinded by your bias
truth on hold Posted November 20, 2015 Posted November 20, 2015 Both interventionist (bush = Iraq), (Obama = lybia, Syria, Ukraine), all distrastrous, and none in the interests of American people
GG Posted November 20, 2015 Posted November 20, 2015 Both interventionist (bush = Iraq), (Obama = lybia, Syria, Ukraine), all distrastrous, and none in the interests of American people Can I mambo dogface to the banana patch?
Recommended Posts