Obamao did little to stop isil rise in Iraq
-
Don't take that as a "gotcha" moment or anything stupid like that. Just pointing out that the two issues are unrelated.
-
Ah. I see it now. You do have a bit of a point - except Nixon never said the NV ..song...
was the most beautiful song.
Obamao did, however.
Nixon never said push come to shove, he'd side with Muslims.
Obamao did.
Nixon never turned his back on Israel. Obamao certainly has.
But, as this article explains, there are similarities to the withdrawal from nv, and Iraq.
And differences. After the TET offensive, many folks were convinced sv could never win.
Vietnam was an idealogical clusterfook from the gitgo. Iraq and Afghanistan were not.
But all the gains we made there, were thrown out the window by Obamao's naivete and left wing/marxist
garbage'.
Egad. I just thunk a thought. I wonder why Jane "Traitor" Fonda hasn't gone over
to Iraq, and worn a suicide vest, laughing all the way. Never mind.
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AwrBT.GrMlFUj5sAqDJXNyoA?qid=20101117085910AAcOqlt
-
We could have won in Vietnam. Not so much in Iraq and Afghanistan. Just a total difference in where the motivations are. Extremist Islamic factions were there well before the U.S. showed up in the Middle East and will be there until the end of time. Communism in Vietnam was a relatively new problem when we showed up when compared to Islam in the Middle East.
We would have to be in Iraq and Afghanistan for at least another hundred years if the goal is some grand cultural change. No one wants to be policeman for another country for that long, investing the kind of money we would have to in the process.
-
I agree with you, but we left Vietnam in shambles, and we owned Iraq
as far as driving the sick sob's out of power. Obamao deserted it, like
Nixon deserted Vietnam.
LBJ tied our military's "hands behind their backs", and so has
Obamao.
I had a link about that, but I forgot to put it in the post. We didn't have to go
into Vietnam. JFK had about what, 6500 advisors there? Then LBJ went all
stupid and sent way, way over a hundred thousand over there.
I didn't agree with staying in Iraq after the war ended. Those people aren't going to
change, those terrorist dirtbags.
Obamao may as well put on a skirt and a blouse, and change his name to Jane Obamafonda.
LOL. I think I'll keep that for future reference....
-
-
Segue
Segue
Thanks
-
Nixon sided with commies then if we are using your analogy?
Nixon sided with commies then if we are using your analogy?
Nixon was impeached.. I like where you are going with this
Our musical works to date http://www.arielsatticmusic.com/ -
Nixon sided with commies then if we are using your analogy?
Nixon was impeached.. I like where you are going with this
Nixon was impeached.. I like where you are going with this
Obama won't be impeached. He will leave office and some new stooge will take the fall guy seat.
-
But he should be. If only the reps can really take the senate...
-
Obama won't be impeached. He will leave office and some new stooge will take the fall guy seat.
But, but, but,, he was the ONE!! The guy that won a Nobel peace prize for........
He had a fucking super majority for 2 yrs and all we got out of it was the worst pc of legislation that has ever been rammed down the throat of a civilized society in the history of man!!
-
Exaggerating a little? Haha I don't like it but there have been worse laws passed.
-
Let's be fair Axe. There is now a Nobel category entitled "jack shit."
WSS
-
Well, for the same reason we eventually had to join wwii and stop the nazis.
Ignoring "small" threats, just lets them grow into huge threats.
But then, stopping the huge threat is so much loss of life of our own soldiers.
We already should have blasted isil while they were in a big convoy, coming up
that main road from syria into iraq. Now, it's a giant clusterfook.
Clinton ignored al quaida in afghanistan, sending only some missiles into the desert.
Then, we were hit with 9/11, after they planned it for at least 3 years.
-
We shouldn't be fitting the bill anytime something bad happens. Germany, France, UK, etc. could just as easily take care of it. If they can't be bothered then that is on them. They are the one's that can be reached by land by these cowardly pieces of shit.
-
Hell, other Muslim countries should be the ones going in and policing their own.
-
True, on both posts.
But they won't. At least we should have had the Brits, etc, going after isil when I said they should have.
BTW, I was watching a report on the corrupt, cowardly "president" - they knew where the hostages
were, but would not make a decision on rescuing them til about two to three months later, and then
they had been moved.
This obamao regime doesn't care about anything but keeping their power. And doing nothing is
to them, politically expedient.
I mean, they had both houses of Congress and the presidency, and they did jack nothing good for two years.
So, there ya go.
-
We shouldn't be fitting the bill anytime something bad happens. Germany, France, UK, etc. could just as easily take care of it. If they can't be bothered then that is on them. They are the one's that can be reached by land by these cowardly pieces of shit.
We shouldn't be fitting the bill anytime something bad happens. Germany, France, UK, etc. could just as easily take care of it. If they can't be bothered then that is on them. They are the one's that can be reached by land by these cowardly pieces of shit.
Go take a look at the coalition of countries against ISIL. And while you're there, compare to Al-Qaeda which was basically just the brits and americans. There are a lot more countries involved against ISIL - USA, Britain, France, Germany, Canada, Australia, Turkey, Italy, Poland and Denmark in the 'core' group of countries. Even the Iranians and Syrians are starting to be drawn in.
Nobody likes ISIL, they're not government backed, so there's no vested interest from anyone.
-
We shouldn't be fitting the bill anytime something bad happens. Germany, France, UK, etc. could just as easily take care of it. If they can't be bothered then that is on them. They are the one's that can be reached by land by these cowardly pieces of shit.
Go take a look at the coalition of countries against ISIL. And while you're there, compare to Al-Qaeda which was basically just the brits and americans. There are a lot more countries involved against ISIL - USA, Britain, France, Germany, Canada, Australia, Turkey, Italy, Poland and Denmark in the 'core' group of countries. Even the Iranians and Syrians are starting to be drawn in.
Nobody likes ISIL, they're not government backed, so there's no vested interest from anyone.
Go take a look at the coalition of countries against ISIL. And while you're there, compare to Al-Qaeda which was basically just the brits and americans. There are a lot more countries involved against ISIL - USA, Britain, France, Germany, Canada, Australia, Turkey, Italy, Poland and Denmark in the 'core' group of countries. Even the Iranians and Syrians are starting to be drawn in.
Nobody likes ISIL, they're not government backed, so there's no vested interest from anyone.
I was speaking in a broader sense of how things normally are. We feel as if we have to police every bad situation when we could stand to sit some out. It should be resolved by others sometimes.
To be honest, I should not have mentioned the Brits because they are usually along for the ride on every adventure the U.S. goes on.
-
and a lot of that is due to the fact our English bretherin are still using their own currency.
says I.
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