Obama's Foreign Policy

[Magox]

 

No, I'm able to do it but it's pointless to have a conversation with a guy who's determined to not only twist what you're saying into something else, but determined not to be open minded to anything outside of state propaganda.

 

You're the same guy who loves Rubio and thinks the world is a better place without Saddam. I know where your interests lie, and it's not in the truth.

 

 

You spend countless time concocting these tinfoil hat conspiracy theories. Spend five minutes in quoting the parts that back up this claim:

 

We're supporting ISIS and Al Qaeda fighters in Syria to be our proxies against Russian and Assad forces. That's a fact.

 

 

 

It's an easy task, from the links that you provided, quote the part that backs up this claim. Any part.

 

 

 

You know, the same questions you've been dodging for months now on this topic. But it's okay, we can play this game all day if you want. I have no problem continuing to make you look like the jingoistic zombie that you're clearly revealing in being.

 

 

Dude, you are the one that looks bad here, not GG.

 

GG is well-respected on this board and everyone knows he's on the up and up.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

 

You spend countless time concocting these tinfoil hat conspiracy theories. Spend five minutes in quoting the parts that back up this claim:

 

 

 

It's an easy task, from the links that you provided, quote the part that backs up this claim. Any part.

 

"Tinfoil hat". Yup. Like clockwork. The last bastion of someone who's got nothing to offer and is unable to think beyond the story that's concocted and pushed down your throats by the folks who want you to be deaf, dumb and blind to their true ambitions.

 

Think for yourself, and you must be nuts. Dare to question the establishment's narrative and you're a nut. I get it, I do. And I'll tell you what I tell GG, when you do finally wake up and see what's really happening on a global level, it's going to hurt.

 

But I'll have the beers ready.

Dude, you are the one that looks bad here, not GG.

 

GG is well-respected on this board and everyone knows he's on the up and up.

 

To you, sure. To people doing their own thinking they'll see GG for what he is. He's a jingoist who constantly comes down on the side of the federal government's right to do whatever it wants to the people. Including waging illegal wars for profit in the ME.

[GG]

 

You know, the same questions you've been dodging for months now on this topic. But it's okay, we can play this game all day if you want. I have no problem continuing to make you look like the jingoistic zombie that you're clearly revealing in being.

 

it should really be very simple for you to either answer the question of how US involvement in Syria benefits Chevron & Exxon or to provide a link to where you answered the question.

 

I'm also interested in seeing these apparent questions that I have been avoiding.

[Magox]

 

"Tinfoil hat". Yup. Like clockwork. The last bastion of someone who's got nothing to offer and is unable to think beyond the story that's concocted and pushed down your throats by the folks who want you to be deaf, dumb and blind to their true ambitions.

 

Think for yourself, and you must be nuts. Dare to question the establishment's narrative and you're a nut. I get it, I do. And I'll tell you what I tell GG, when you do finally wake up and see what's really happening on a global level, it's going to hurt.

 

But I'll have the beers ready.

 

 

So no quote from the links that you provided as definitive proof that the US was in "fact" supporting ISIS and Al Qaeda as proxies as you explicitly claimed?

 

I'm shocked!

Edited October 3, 2016 by Magox

[Deranged Rhino]

 

it should really be very simple for you to either answer the question of how US involvement in Syria benefits Chevron & Exxon or to provide a link to where you answered the question.

 

I'm also interested in seeing these apparent questions that I have been avoiding.

 

It is easy.

 

1) What is our mission in Syria now, and what should it be in your mind?

2) What is my position on the geopolitical events happening over the past 15 years and counting?

3) What is the logic behind committing a war crime and bombing Syrian troops other than to support ISIS fighters on the ground and shred the cease fire keeping Assad in power? Considering the potential ramifications to such brazen provocation, do you think it was in the US's best interest to launch said attack?

 

 

 

So no quote from the links that you provided as definitive proof that the US was in "fact" supporting ISIS and Al Qaeda as proxies as you explicitly claimed?

 

I'm shocked!

 

Like I said, you're reading comprehension and contextual analysis are lacking. Which isn't surprising considering you thought Rubio had a chance to be the nominee.

 

See, two can play at this game. It's fun, right? Or, you know, we could have a real conversation.

 

Again, you're omitting the 3rd part of the earlier questions you raised. I wonder why that is...

[Magox]

 

 

 

See, two can play at this game. It's fun, right? Or, you know, we could have a real conversation.

 

Again, you're omitting the 3rd part of the earlier questions you raised. I wonder why that is...

 

I will get to that, I promise... But let's first tackle one thing at a time. I promise you we will get to the rest.

 

Let's start all over. Pretend that I'm someone that you haven't met and I say to you:

 

Greg, I read the links you provided and I was unable to find the part that showed that the US was definitively engaging in a proxy war supporting ISIS and Al Qaeda to fight Russia and Assad. Could you please quote the part that backs this up? I'm really interested in learning about this and I want to show my hard-headed friends real proof of this happening.

 

Thanks Greg

 

[GG]

 

We've covered this. The difference is I funded one attack and not the other. One attack was done by my government, which committed a war crime by bombing troops of a sovereign nation so ISIS fighters could retake a foothold they had lost while shredding the cease fire keeping Assad in power, and the other was done by Putin.

 

One is not like the other. See the difference?

 

- Yes, the difference is that you don't expect one side to act like a civilized group, and offer excuses for them because they're backwards societies who murder innocent civilians for fun, while holding the other side to an idealistic standard in a war zone. What the US did is not a war crime, because the action occurred in a combat zone against military targets. You would have more credibility if you called it an act of war, which it was. Just like the Russian jet flying over Turkish airspace that got shot down. Things like that happen in active combat.

 

 

Of course you do because you're smart. You're just desperate to change the narrative here because you're getting your ass handed to you.

 

- Must be another part of the new normal, right?

 

The top of your statement is absurd. I'm aware of my positions, and think they're quite clear, but I don't care if they're clear or not. I do care when one poster constantly goes out of his way to twist and misinterpret my remarks to make his own arguments seem valid and on point -- but I only care because you're too smart of a poster to have to constantly resort to such nonsense.

 

I find that hilariously deceitful and call you out on it. There's a difference between that and caring what people think of my take. Say what you will about my opinions, just make sure you're actually saying things about my opinions and not inventions that you create to better fit your rebuttal.

 

- A little search of this and other threads will remind you that I'm not the only one calling you out on your whacked out theories. Meanwhile your support comes from Ozy.

 

So, let's get it all out on the table. Since you presume to know my positions so well, please give me a paragraph summing up my take on the current geopolitical state of the world. This will be fun. I'll wait:

 

- Again, since you haven't laid out a clear position, but continue to post links to whacked out conspiracy theories, we have to surmise that you support them. As said before, this would be the same if B-Man claimed to be a Hillary supporter, despite his posting patterns.

 

I love when you ask questions without ever responding to questions asked your way. It's so wonderful and something you do almost as often as make stuff up.

 

- Ask the question, I'll answer

 

I've answered this already.

 

- No you haven't

 

You have yet to answer what you think our mission should be in Syria, including an endgame for when we remove Assad from power. So, I'll wait for that answer, and just saying you disagree with Obama isn't an answer. I want to know what you think we should be doing in Syria.

 

- The end game is to stop the fighting so the flow of refugees stops. It could be with Assad still in power if he agrees to stop the killing fields. If he doesn't, then he goes. After that will be more challenging, but it's not like the world hasn't dealt with the aftermath of a genocide. Funny how everyone thinks that these events don't have an end state, but most of these ethnic cleansing types of battles end very quickly after the leadership is chopped off. See Rwanda, Bosnia, etc for your history lesson.

 

Certainly, the Economist is a legit news source. It's also incredibly slanted and not objective -- like nearly every mainstream media outlet these days.

 

- Precious, coming from an avid reader of the Intercept and RT News.

 

No, we're witnessing the aftermath of the neocon agenda in the ME. Try again.

 

- No, you're witnessing what happens to the world with US taking a back seat. If you close your eyes, all bad stuff goes away, right?

 

And yes, you are incredibly jingoistic. It's amazing because you're far too smart to be duped this much. You cannot get a positive from a negative. And working with monsters to replace bad guys has been a proven failure not just in recent history, but in all of history.

 

- To me, there's a gulf of difference between bad guys who want to enrich themselves and bad guys who don't care an iota whether they slaughter a million people. Yet to you, they're the same.

 

But let's go back to the real issue you raised:

 

"While you're profiting from an industry that's done more privacy intrusions into people's lives than any government action known to man.

But I'm the jingoistic one."

Which industry is that again?

- Hollywood, media, content - whatever the industry wants to call itself today.

 

 

I've used plenty of sourced stories to make the case that we are doing more harm than good in Syria. The only way you can deny what I'm saying is to either take GG's track which is to make up what I'm saying and try to spin it to something else, or to live with your head buried in the sand.

 

We're in Syria without a mission. That's a fact.

 

We're supporting ISIS and Al Qaeda fighters in Syria to be our proxies against Russian and Assad forces. That's a fact.

 

The US media doesn't cover the second point because it would confuse the US gov't's narrative on ISIS and the war on terror -- and rather than hold the government accountable as the 4th estate is supposed to do, they've co-opted the false narrative to support the administration. That's a fact.

 

The US committed a war crime in Syria designed to aide ISIS, shred the cease fire and could have easily sparked a shooting war with Russia -- yet this topic was barely covered by the western media and wasn't brought up in the debate at all. That's also a fact.

 

The real saying is, never try to wake a jingoistic neocon. They're much more comfortable when they're asleep.

 

- These have been covered before. US is in Syria because they screwed the pooch earlier and are playing catch up. There aren't many palatable options anymore, but sitting it out is not an option either. Interesting that you use US, UK and France interchangeably when you discuss Western involvement in the region.

 

You have as much credibility as when you railed against Keystone and TPP.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

I will get to that, I promise... But let's first tackle one thing at a time. I promise you we will get to the rest.

 

Let's start all over. Pretend that I'm someone that you haven't met and I say to you:

 

 

You would think the biggest thing would be the actual war crime committed by our country that directly led to the cease fire being torn up and the US walking away from the table today... but I digress.

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-usa-equipment-idUSKCN0RP2HO20150926

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/09/25/443577215/syrian-rebels-trained-by-u-s-gave-equipment-to-al-nusra-front

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/25/world/middleeast/arms-airlift-to-syrian-rebels-expands-with-cia-aid.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/08/31/petraeus-use-al-qaeda-fighters-to-beat-isis.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/america-siding-with-terrorists-like-al-nusra-its-not-a-conspiracy-theory-10319370.html

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2015/12/29/How-Qatar-Funding-al-Qaeda-and-Why-Could-Help-US

 

 

Sorry, need to go adjust my tinfoil hat...

[GG]

 

You would think the biggest thing would be the actual war crime committed by our country that directly led to the cease fire being torn up and the US walking away from the table today... but I digress.

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-usa-equipment-idUSKCN0RP2HO20150926

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/09/25/443577215/syrian-rebels-trained-by-u-s-gave-equipment-to-al-nusra-front

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/25/world/middleeast/arms-airlift-to-syrian-rebels-expands-with-cia-aid.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/08/31/petraeus-use-al-qaeda-fighters-to-beat-isis.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/america-siding-with-terrorists-like-al-nusra-its-not-a-conspiracy-theory-10319370.html

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2015/12/29/How-Qatar-Funding-al-Qaeda-and-Why-Could-Help-US

 

 

Sorry, need to go adjust my tinfoil hat...

Nope it had nothing to do with targeting hospitals and UN convoys. It was the one air strike hitting Assads forces. And US pulling out of the talks is another sign of the pending WW3

[Magox]

 

You would think the biggest thing would be the actual war crime committed by our country that directly led to the cease fire being torn up and the US walking away from the table today... but I digress.

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-usa-equipment-idUSKCN0RP2HO20150926

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/09/25/443577215/syrian-rebels-trained-by-u-s-gave-equipment-to-al-nusra-front

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/25/world/middleeast/arms-airlift-to-syrian-rebels-expands-with-cia-aid.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/08/31/petraeus-use-al-qaeda-fighters-to-beat-isis.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/america-siding-with-terrorists-like-al-nusra-its-not-a-conspiracy-theory-10319370.html

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2015/12/29/How-Qatar-Funding-al-Qaeda-and-Why-Could-Help-US

 

 

Sorry, need to go adjust my tinfoil hat...

 

Greg,

 

So you can't quote the part for me to show to my friends that the US is actively helping and using ISIS and Al Qaeda as a proxy to defeat Russia and Assad? I guess I will go back to reading Alex Jones and The Intercept.

Thanks anyway

[Deranged Rhino]

 

- Yes, the difference is that you don't expect one side to act like a civilized group, and offer excuses for them because they're backwards societies who murder innocent civilians for fun, while holding the other side to an idealistic standard in a war zone. What the US did is not a war crime, because the action occurred in a combat zone against military targets. You would have more credibility if you called it an act of war, which it was. Just like the Russian jet flying over Turkish airspace that got shot down. Things like that happen in active combat.

 

The bolded is false and based on a preconceived assumption of me in your head. It's not the truth nor how I feel. This is all you do when you realize you've got no leg to stand on here... make stuff up and argue that hoping no one notices. It's gotten old.

 

And, if you read what I said I did call it an act of war at best and a war crime at worst when we first discussed this. But you wanted to focus on Putin instead of talking about the issue.

 

 

- A little search of this and other threads will remind you that I'm not the only one calling you out on your whacked out theories. Meanwhile your support comes from Ozy.

 

<yawn>

 

- Again, since you haven't laid out a clear position, but continue to post links to whacked out conspiracy theories, we have to surmise that you support them. As said before, this would be the same if B-Man claimed to be a Hillary supporter, despite his posting patterns.

 

So, in other words, you don't know my positions and yet you persist in making them up for me and arguing those invented positions rather than having a conversation with me about the topic.

 

Got it. At least we're being honest now on what you're doing.

 

 

- Ask the question, I'll answer

 

And yet... here we are in a thread where you're not answering. Who's really trolling who now?

 

 

I've answered this already.

 

- No you haven't

 

I absolutely have, and considering you just admitted you don't know my positions or what I've said it's a bit disingenuous to take such a hard line stance on what I said or didn't say. Isn't it?

 

...But when you got nothing else, I guess you have to stick with what you know.

 

 

- The end game is to stop the fighting so the flow of refugees stops. It could be with Assad still in power if he agrees to stop the killing fields. If he doesn't, then he goes. After that will be more challenging, but it's not like the world hasn't dealt with the aftermath of a genocide. Funny how everyone thinks that these events don't have an end state, but most of these ethnic cleansing types of battles end very quickly after the leadership is chopped off. See Rwanda, Bosnia, etc for your history lesson.

 

So, your plan is to stop the fighting by continuing the fighting...

 

I mean, there was a cease fire in place. Then we intentionally broke it. So, maybe stopping the fighting isn't really the plan?

 

Of course you're neglecting the Russian and Iranian element in your answer. Those are added variables Bosnia and Rwanda lacked. Do you expect them to just walk away from Syria and it's untapped oil resources and pipeline disputes? Or are you planning on fighting them for it as well?

 

 

- Precious, coming from an avid reader of the Intercept and RT News.

 

More bullshite you're making up. Remember above when you said you didn't know my positions? You should stop acting as if you do... Or do you make it a habit to just contradict yourself moment to moment?

 

 

 

- No, you're witnessing what happens to the world with US taking a back seat. If you close your eyes, all bad stuff goes away, right?

 

- To me, there's a gulf of difference between bad guys who want to enrich themselves and bad guys who don't care an iota whether they slaughter a million people. Yet to you, they're the same.

 

More stuff you're ascribing to me to make your own case appear stronger.

 

Weak.

 

 

 

"While you're profiting from an industry that's done more privacy intrusions into people's lives than any government action known to man.

But I'm the jingoistic one."

Which industry is that again?

- Hollywood, media, content - whatever the industry wants to call itself today.

 

What?!

 

I'm can't wait to hear how Hollywood's done something more pervasive than setting up the massive and illegal surveillance state that we're currently all living under.

Please, tell me more.

 

 

- These have been covered before. US is in Syria because they screwed the pooch earlier and are playing catch up. There aren't many palatable options anymore, but sitting it out is not an option either. Interesting that you use US, UK and France interchangeably when you discuss Western involvement in the region.

 

 

You have as much credibility as when you railed against Keystone and TPP.

 

More proof you haven't a clue as to what I'm actually debating when we butt heads on these topics.

The jingoism runs deep in you.

[Deranged Rhino]

Greg,

So you can't quote the part for me to show to my friends that the US is actively helping and using ISIS and Al Qaeda as a proxy to defeat Russia and Assad? I guess I will go back to reading Alex Jones and The Intercept.

Thanks anyway

 

[Magox]

[GG]

The bolded is false and based on a preconceived assumption of me in your head. It's not the truth nor how I feel. This is all you do when you realize you've got no leg to stand on here... make stuff up and argue that hoping no one notices. It's gotten old.

 

And, if you read what I said I did call it an act of war at best and a war crime at worst when we first discussed this. But you wanted to focus on Putin instead of talking about the issue.

 

 

<yawn>

 

 

So, in other words, you don't know my positions and yet you persist in making them up for me and arguing those invented positions rather than having a conversation with me about the topic.

 

Got it. At least we're being honest now on what you're doing.

Are you not the one who's outraged that the US government is providing support & logistics to groups fighting Assad, but haven't said a peep about Assad's & Putin's actions. If anything, many of your posts rationalize Putin's actions. After all, since you use US & UK interchangeably this would fall into a war crimes bucket based on your logic.

 

 

And yet... here we are in a thread where you're not answering. Who's really trolling who now?

 

 

I absolutely have, and considering you just admitted you don't know my positions or what I've said it's a bit disingenuous to take such a hard line stance on what I said or didn't say. Isn't it?

 

...But when you got nothing else, I guess you have to stick with what you know.

Again, since you've offered no position of your own, other than post links to anti-US commentary and conspiracy theories, we can only surmise. Prove us wrong.

 

 

So, your plan is to stop the fighting by continuing the fighting...

 

I mean, there was a cease fire in place. Then we intentionally broke it. So, maybe stopping the fighting isn't really the plan?

And yes, if you have a force that refuses to stop fighting, you have to force them into submission because the alternative is much worse.

 

Of course you're neglecting the Russian and Iranian element in your answer. Those are added variables Bosnia and Rwanda lacked. Do you expect them to just walk away from Syria and it's untapped oil resources and pipeline disputes? Or are you planning on fighting them for it as well?

So now you're defending Obama's actions? Why haven't your Russian and intel sources picked up on the idiocy of Obama's policy to give Iran $2 billion at the same time they're fighting Assad & Russia? Or could it be that the entire foreign policy is FUBAR, and the only reason anything is happening is that Joint Chiefs are squeezing Ash Carter's balls, because they know the **** mess they will be cleaning up while Obama is raking up millions on the speech circuit on how he won the Nobel peace prize.

 

More bullshite you're making up. Remember above when you said you didn't know my positions? You should stop acting as if you do... Or do you make it a habit to just contradict yourself moment to moment?

 

 

 

More stuff you're ascribing to me to make your own case appear stronger.

Again, prove us wrong

 

I'm can't wait to hear how Hollywood's done something more pervasive than setting up the massive and illegal surveillance state that we're currently all living under.

Please, tell me more.

 

 

 

More proof you haven't a clue as to what I'm actually debating when we butt heads on these topics.

The jingoism runs deep in you.

I can tell you with a 100% certainty that Google knows far more about my activities, interests and whereabouts than any government entity.

 

Bob & weave.

[ALF]

The Middle East with millions of traumatized desperate refugees will no doubt be a source of many angry terrorists .

 

The U.S. should have never gone into the quagmire of Afghanistan or Iraq.

 

The so called rebels to take on Assad and Russia since 2011 means they must have massive support from Saudi Arabia and other rich countries who want Assad out of there way. JMO to this tragedy.

[Joe Miner]

The Middle East with millions of traumatized desperate refugees will no doubt be a source of many angry terrorists .

 

The U.S. should have never gone into the quagmire of Afghanistan or Iraq.

 

The so called rebels to take on Assad and Russia since 2011 means they must have massive support from Saudi Arabia and other rich countries who want Assad out of there way. JMO to this tragedy.

So up to Iraq, the ME was known as a paradise? All tribes, cultures, religions, and nations living in harmony? No murdering dictators, only peaceful democracies?

 

There were definitely no terrorists coming out of the ME before Bush Jr invaded Iraq.

[Magox]

The Middle East with millions of traumatized desperate refugees will no doubt be a source of many angry terrorists .

 

The U.S. should have never gone into the quagmire of Afghanistan or Iraq.

 

The so called rebels to take on Assad and Russia since 2011 means they must have massive support from Saudi Arabia and other rich countries who want Assad out of there way. JMO to this tragedy.

 

It's a disaster. There are a bunch of unholy alliances out there, you don't know who to trust and it is nearly impossible to fully vet your allies from this region. Often times as we've seen in the past, you support one group who you believe is your ally and then they turn around to stab you in the back because they hate you just as much as the ones they were previously fighting. Arms get into the wrong hands much more so than what should happen.

 

The strategic outlook in my view looks too much into short-term gains rather than taking a broad overview of the situation. The problem is that the American public is impatient and often times administrations only last 4-8 years which means that a change of direction comes about with the new administration. Meaning that there is no sustained follow through with a proper solution. Perfect example of that was with Bush, yes the involvement into Iraq was a mistake, and it destabilized the region despite the human tragedies that were occurring under Sadam. However, after some brutal years in Iraq, things became much more stabilized in the region. Then we have a president who runs heavily on being Anti War, he has a strategy that is to essentially pull out at any cost, and what happens? Vacuums become filled and the Middle East becomes destabilized again.

 

No follow through. These Religious wars don't last decades but rather centuries. And with the way our political process works, I'm afraid we will continue to see a volatile middle east for many many life times.

Edited October 4, 2016 by Magox

[Nanker]

The Middle East with millions of traumatized desperate refugees will no doubt be a source of many angry terrorists .

 

The U.S. should have never gone into the quagmire of Afghanistan or Iraq.

 

The so called rebels to take on Assad and Russia since 2011 means they must have massive support from Saudi Arabia and other rich countries who want Assad out of there way. JMO to this tragedy.

Afghanistan was invaded as payback for 911. You do remember 911, don't you?

Iraq was warred upon because it invaded Kuwait.

W got convinced it was in our best interests to depose SH.

Turned out to be an invasion of aggression instead of a semi-defensive one.

That said, the region was terribly destabilized with the overthrow of Hussein and the winning of that war.

We still have Army and Air Force and Navy bases on the land of the Axis powers some 70 + years after the conclusion of WWII.

We still have a lot of military in Korea some 60 + years after the Korean War ended.

Obama and the "Progressives" couldn't stand that we won that war. They grew up during the Viet Nam War era, and they believe that the US just isn't supposed to win wars.

So, instead of maintaining a presence there and trying to stabilize the region, they turned tail and ran.

That created a huge power vacuum that was filled by Fundamentally Insane followers of Islam.

 

Then Hillary and now Kerry began pursuing irrational moves that accelerated the destabilization of the entire region.

They backed the Muslim Brotherhood's Arab Spring toppling of the Democratic pro-western Egyptian government.

They killed Gadaffi and by many accounts they're arming the ISIS/ISIL/fuc ktards.

They're trying their damnedest to remove Assad from Syria and are on the brink of war with its ally - Russia over it.

In a series of cluster-f uck moves, they let Russia retake Ukraine.

 

Now they're making some headway against ISIS, and they have no idea on how to deal with the fallout from that other than say an evil diaspora will be in our neighborhoods soon.

Progressive leadership is a joke. It's a M. F.ing joke.

[ALF]

So up to Iraq, the ME was known as a paradise? All tribes, cultures, religions, and nations living in harmony? No murdering dictators, only peaceful democracies?

 

There were definitely no terrorists coming out of the ME before Bush Jr invaded Iraq.

 

After the U.S. has borrowed $trillions to fight in the M.E. and lost thousands of lives and injured was it worth it ?

 

I even think the overthrow of Gaddafi made matters even worse.

[ALF]

Afghanistan was invaded as payback for 911. You do remember 911, don't you?

Iraq was warred upon because it invaded Kuwait.

 

 

Payback in Afghanistan could have been done with bombing and drones for a fraction of the cost.

 

Operation Desert Storm

17 January – 28 February 1991

(1 month, 1 week and 4 days)

 

For Kuwait invasion was done right and paid for mostly by other countries