Obamao supported the rebels against Assad, now going to help...Assad
-
Huge difference between backing Assad and destroying ISIS. I can't stand the guy but I'm not for a minute looking at this as backing Assad. I look at it as insuring America's security. ISIS' capital is Raqqa, Syria. It needs to go. It will go.
Americas security has been compromised due to the fact that ISIS has members with western passports.
any proactive attacks to slow down ISIS in Syria and then back into Iraq by air strikes are temporary and may be too late?
Obama is completely comfortable STILL by leading (from behind) the so called and unnamed "coalition" as far as support goes...
After all, the terrorists can very well be right here in the US - imagine that ? we have to.
Americas security has been compromised due to the fact that ISIS has members with western passports.
any proactive attacks to slow down ISIS in Syria and then back into Iraq by air strikes are temporary and may be too late?
Obama is completely comfortable STILL by leading (from behind) the so called and unnamed "coalition" as far as support goes...
After all, the terrorists can very well be right here in the US - imagine that ? we have to.
Not 100 why you quoted me. These two posts don't seem related too much. That's alright, though. If people think an attack on the homeland isn't going to happen they are naive. We are blessed it hasn't happen yet on a big scale. You're right attacks in Syria/Iraq may be too late but there is little doubt in my mind that if we wanted to we could annihilate the extreme build up these douchebags have made.
I do think that the perception of weakness and hands off approach has opened a void that someone is going to fill in the great power struggle. I think that is what we are seeing in the Middle East, Ukraine, China.
Ain't nobody said to not imagine terrorists here. I guarantee they are here. It would be preposterous to think otherwise.
I just hope we decide to unleash holy hell on them all.
-
I think whoever the president of the United States maybe we find ourselves in a no win situation when mediating a struggle between a spider and a scorpion.
we were probably (possibly?) better off with Kadafi Mubarak and Assad.
we tend to forget that the rebels are not Jeffersonian Democrats.
WSS
I think whoever the president of the United States maybe we find ourselves in a no win situation when mediating a struggle between a spider and a scorpion.
we were probably (possibly?) better off with Kadafi Mubarak and Assad.
we tend to forget that the rebels are not Jeffersonian Democrats.
WSS
We may have even been better off with Saddam.
-
I think whoever the president of the United States maybe we find ourselves in a no win situation when mediating a struggle between a spider and a scorpion.
we were probably (possibly?) better off with Kadafi Mubarak and Assad.
we tend to forget that the rebels are not Jeffersonian Democrats.
WSS
We may have even been better off with Saddam.
We may have even been better off with Saddam.
I am curious as to what would have happened had the United States allowed him to go into Kuwait.
That's what caused the problems in the first place.
WSS
-
We may have even been better off with Saddam.
I am curious as to what would have happened had the United States allowed him to go into Kuwait.
That's what caused the problems in the first place.
WSS
I am curious as to what would have happened had the United States allowed him to go into Kuwait.
That's what caused the problems in the first place.
WSS
Iraq would have increased in size small, but greatly in wealth(with better shipping lanes) and more oil. They would have also erased the last of their debt from Iraq-Iranian war. The US would have never proven to world the advances in military air power that we had achieved(and would use to deter/bomb such as sebia later), US and our allies in the regions(Saudia Ariba) would have lost face and standing among other nations in that region. Other nations/dictators could have taken advantage of the situation..... Oil prices would have probably increased at the same rate it increased with the gulf war.
-
Or, as the devil's advocate mights say, they would most certainly be a stronger ally of the United States and the largest oil producers in the region and that oil would be traded in US dollars.
They would replace Saudi Arabia as the United States number one strange bedfellow.
Iran would be shit out of luck.
WSS
-
Its possible, we were really supportive of their war with Iran.
-
Saddam was a colossal piece of shit but he at least kept his country under wraps. Saddam ran a secular government albeit with an iron fist.
-
Saddam was a sunni muslim, and his gov was involved with
arms trafficing to rebel/terrorist/sunni extremist groups/etc orgs....
he -was- isis before there was isis.
-
Saddam was a sunni muslim, and his gov was involved with
arms trafficing to rebel/terrorist/sunni extremist groups/etc orgs....
he -was- isis before there was isis.
Saddam was a sunni muslim, and his gov was involved with
arms trafficing to rebel/terrorist/sunni extremist groups/etc orgs....
he -was- isis before there was isis.
Most of this was(if at all) after the first Gulf War, when we where preventing exports/imports and enforcing the no fly zones.
Then why are we not attacking Saudi Arabia, most terrorist(including 15 out of 19 of the 9/11 terrorist and many key former al-qaeda figures) are from or recruited in Saudi Arabia, and a lot of financing comes out of this area.
-
Saddam was a sunni muslim, and his gov was involved with
arms trafficing to rebel/terrorist/sunni extremist groups/etc orgs....
he -was- isis before there was isis.
Most of this was(if at all) after the first Gulf War, when we where preventing exports/imports and enforcing the no fly zones.
Then why are we not attacking Saudi Arabia, most terrorist(including 15 out of 19 of the 9/11 terrorist and many key former al-qaeda figures) are from or recruited in Saudi Arabia, and a lot of financing comes out of this area.
Most of this was(if at all) after the first Gulf War, when we where preventing exports/imports and enforcing the no fly zones.
Then why are we not attacking Saudi Arabia, most terrorist(including 15 out of 19 of the 9/11 terrorist and many key former al-qaeda figures) are from or recruited in Saudi Arabia, and a lot of financing comes out of this area.
Because even though the terrorists were of Saudi Arabian nationality they were not supported by the Royals. In fact they were rebelling against the Royals and their connection with the west. When I said strange bedfellows I meant it. We need the Saudis, they need us.
Saddam expected us to turn a blind eye on his invasion of Kuwait. When we did not he felt betrayed. Possibly rightly so.
But no matter Saddam Hussein is, or was, the power structure in Iraq. Osama bin Laden was not the power structure in Saudi Arabia.
WSS
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login