The Middle East Problem

[ClaNker]

The US is definitely guilty, in some part, for the rise of ISIS. But it was also definitely a blunder.

It's a massive cluster f*ck. Obama's addiction to shape ME far surpassed Bush, and did more damaged than any previous WH Admin ever did. Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Syria, now he's playing dangerous game with Iran.

Pulling out all troops in Iraq and Afghanistan is his major political talking point now tie that up with his addiction to overthrow Asad and eureka, we have ISIS.

[minicarph]

It's a massive cluster f*ck. Obama's addiction to shape ME far surpassed Bush, and did more damaged than any previous WH Admin ever did. Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Syria, now he's playing dangerous game with Iran.

Pulling out all troops in Iraq and Afghanistan is his major political talking point now tie that up with his addiction to overthrow Asad and eureka, we have ISIS.

Ayaw nga nya sa ME that's why he pulled out the troops. Ayaw din nya sa outsorucing, kaya ayaw nya call center. Yan ang character nya when he stepped in sa office,

Americans for americans lang, sya.

-----

Kaya sya nagalit sa Assad regime is because asad used chemical weapons on the rebels on the ifrst years of the war. Try to go back. Bsck then we all hated the Syrian regime for crimes against humanity.

Now russia and china are backing them up. Ang labo.


This is a conflict that has gone to the dogs, there are no good vs, evil here, It's evil vs. evil. It's a conflict wherein tthere are no good guys, Beast vs. beast.

----

First world countries who were drawn in got so confused on who to support na.

[niky]

It's a massive cluster f*ck. Obama's addiction to shape ME far surpassed Bush, and did more damaged than any previous WH Admin ever did. Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Syria, now he's playing dangerous game with Iran.

Pulling out all troops in Iraq and Afghanistan is his major political talking point now tie that up with his addiction to overthrow Asad and eureka, we have ISIS.

Not really. One of the keys to Obama's victory in the election was his promise to pull out.

Unlike GWB, who dabbled in more direct military intervention, Obama's interventions were minimalist. This is what the voting public demanded. US boots off the ground... and less exposure for the US in the Middle East.

Voters would never have elected a President who didn't promise to pull out of Iraq. That was a given. The only way to ensure ultimate stability in those countries would have been the solution being discussed now: a 25-year occupation. Eh. Good luck enforcing that with money from US taxpayers over four different Presidents and Congresses!

-

It was only late in the game that Obama went for the military options, and even then, it took the US forever to decide on who to support in Libya and how much support to give.

-

And dangerous games with Iran? Obama is actually trying to talk to Iran... where all previous US Presidents have simply gone with the "Evil Empire" rhetoric... which is partly why we are where we are at today. Saddam and ISIS would never have happened if the US hadn't been trying to destabilize Iran for so many decades.

-

This is not to say that Obama hasn't effed up somewhat in the Middle East. But to paint him as the worst President ever when it comes to handling Middle East politics is to vastly understate the damage done by previous Presidents in that part of the world.

-

Also, Obama didn't create the Afghan problem. Or the Iraqi problem. Nor did he set in place the extended police actions there, which were already going poorly before his term. He didn't create the Arab Spring.

The most you can accuse him of doing is supporting the wrong rebels. Only after John McCain told the world that those rebels were worth supporting.

[minicarph]

Double post

[anonemus]

Here's all we need to know to consider this conspiracy theory:

1. Who benefits from increased military spending? The industrialists.

2. Which political party is in the pockets of the industrialists, and has the more pro-hawkish stance? The Republicans.

3. Which President greenlit US operations in Syria? Obama. Is he a Republican? No.

4. Which party is now using the ISIL situation to try and discredit Obama and the Democratic Party? Well... duh.

-

The Republican party loves war. They love terrorism. It gives them a talking point to drum up paranoia, and a chance at another Presidential win. If another war happens at the right time, they might even get another double-term President, like they did with Bush.

But Republicans weren't in charge of everything. It was Obama, at the end, who had his finger on the button.

The US is definitely guilty, in some part, for the rise of ISIS. But it was also definitely a blunder.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -



Here's all we need to know to consider this conspiracy theory:

1. Who benefits from increased military spending? The industrialists.

2. Which political party is in the pockets of the industrialists, and has the more pro-hawkish stance? The Republicans.

3. Which President greenlit US operations in Syria? Obama. Is he a Republican? No.

4. Which party is now using the ISIL situation to try and discredit Obama and the Democratic Party? Well... duh.

-

The Republican party loves war. They love terrorism. It gives them a talking point to drum up paranoia, and a chance at another Presidential win. If another war happens at the right time, they might even get another double-term President, like they did with Bush.

But Republicans weren't in charge of everything. It was Obama, at the end, who had his finger on the button.

The US is definitely guilty, in some part, for the rise of ISIS. But it was also definitely a blunder.

Good questions. But really, there is no fundamental difference between the Republicans and Democrats these days as both are controlled by The Industrialists, aka The 1%. They're the ones who benefited and are benefiting from this ME Problem to the tune of US$4.4 TRILLION, and counting.

Its really about that old adage that War Is Business. From the linked video:

In Iraq, there were zero suicide attacks in the country's history until 2003. Since then, there have been 1,892.

In Pakistan, there was one suicide attack in the 14 years before 9/11. In the fourteen years since, there have been 486.

After 14 years, $4.4tn, and hundreds of thousands of deaths - has the so-called war on terror made the world a safer place?

Reality Check: The failure of the 'war on terror' - Al Jazeera English

[niky]

Good questions. But really, there is no fundamental difference between the Republicans and Democrats these days as both are controlled by The Industrialists, aka The 1%. They're the ones who benefited and are benefiting from this ME Problem to the tune of US$4.4 TRILLION, and counting.

Its really about that old adage that War Is Business. From the linked video:

Reality Check: The failure of the 'war on terror' - Al Jazeera English

Definitely... spending more only makes matters worse. The idea that Obama's "inaction" is causing problems is the fundamental lie being fed the American public by Republican Presidentiables seeking an edge. Obama has definitely been taking too much of the wrong kind of action... though, to be fair... it's hard to tell what the right kind is.

Think the US and EU would be willing to drop another trillion or two dollars on a perpetual police action in Syria?

[minicarph]

The right kind of action would be to let them be. Rebel Factions vs. IS vs. Syrian Govt. (or any other Mid East Govt). Matira matibay because that's how they like it, parang underground fight club.

Then after all these, (The US) talk and maintain diplomatic relations to the victor for the future of their newly gained territories. It's in the art of war naman eh,

[safeorigin]

IMAO - Nuke the Moon

hahaha

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

http://www.imao.us/docs/NukeTheMoon.htm

hahaha

[safeorigin]

man, that hockeystick

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -



man, that hockeystick

[badkuk]

Why Islamic State Has All the Money It Needs


Something like US$500M annually from oil alone.

They also engaged in one of the most lucrative rackets in the world -- taxation :p