General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIs Obama Lying Us Into Another War In The Middle East For Oil?
Because I'm not seeing it.
Calling this Obama's War as if it were Bush's War, is ridiculous. Making it seem like Obama is no better than Bush on this is also lacking in any perspective on reality. What's happening now is STILL Bush's War. This is happening because we were lied into a war 11 years ago. Obama is still on clean-up duty from Bush's mess.
Obama is not using the specter of a Mushroom Cloud.
Obama is not claiming they will use WMD against us.
Obama is not using 16 words in his State of the Union speech to rally the American Public into a bloodthirsty frenzy of war.
Obama *is* doing damage control. Damage that was created 11 years ago and we all know damn well who created it.
Any dissension among the Democrats regarding this war in the middle east is about how it should be cleaned up. Almost everyone agrees that it should be cleaned up. Don't turn this into a divisive war-vs-anti-war stance, because that would simply lead to catastrophic failure this November.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
blm
(113,010 posts)From just about every perspective.
Not even 5% of the corpmedia has paid close attention to what has been going on diplomatically in the region - they were only interested before because they wanted to cover Clinton, and Clinton's press people knew how to work them.
Major changes were pushed through in our relationships with both Iraq and Iran that corpmedia have been ignoring. See, the changes don't fit with the narrative that McCain, Graham, and neocons have been pushing 24/7.
cali
(114,904 posts)I think it both is and isn't bush's war still. yes, he initiated it, but President Obama has chosen what direction to take military force in the region for the past several years.
President Obama isn't using the hyperbole that bush did. He's not lying us into war, but he is opening a new front and one that has a great chance of exacerbating the problems in the region more than solving them.
How it should be "cleaned up"? What does that even mean? And your claims that 1) "everyone agrees that it should be cleaned up" and 2) that being anti-war in this context, will lead to catastrophic failure in November, are not only not supported by any evidence, but are the same tired old lines that people who put partisanship over everything else, employ:
You're essentially telling people who believe that the President's policy and ramped up military force are going to make things worse, not better, to shut up.
I won't.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)What makes you think that? Is it simply because the region has oil; we believe that bush went in for oil; we are still there; therefore, it's decidedly about oil?
No ... that's not what was said. Whether you believe the course he is taking will make things worse, is a wholly different matter from what the OP has said.
glowing
(12,233 posts)selling into the market low... They aren't signing onto OPEC and the rest of the worlds manipulation of the barrel of oil. Otherwise, during this latest ME crisis, wouldn't you be expecting to see gas jump? Mine have been steady and pretty low considering the news we are hearing reported.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)Well, there you go.
If this spreads, the power Cartels may be broken and consumers could enjoy the benefits of a "Free Market" for petroleum.
We MUST wipe them out to bring stability........(to the world oil Cartel).
glowing
(12,233 posts)guess our media forgets to report this to the rest of us.
Cayenne
(480 posts)http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/pipeline-politics-in-syria/
In 2009, Qatar proposed to run a natural gas pipeline through Syria and Turkey to Europe. Instead, Assad forged a pact with Iraq and Iran to run a pipeline eastward, allowing those Shia-dominated countries access to the European natural gas market while denying access to Sunni Saudi Arabia and Qatar. The latter states, it appears, are now attempting to remove Assad so they can control Syria and run their own pipeline through Turkey.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)Response to blkmusclmachine (Reply #3)
Post removed
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)subtlety is overrated
Peacetrain
(22,872 posts)they are fixated on it for some reason..
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)Barry White and the oversexed black man stereotype. It is still a frightening image among people who haven't given thought to racial inequality. Especially those who have few interactions with African Americans.
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)but Peace, itself, is already present inside of every human being.
This one has a few moments of (former) Mayor Julian Castro who has
been supportive of this program after seeing what happened in the
Texas prison.
http://tprf.org/pfp2014/
http://www.peaceoneday.org/
http://www.un.org/en/events/peaceday/
maced666
(771 posts)berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)
kwassa
(23,340 posts)
FrodosPet
(5,169 posts)
CJCRANE
(18,184 posts)of fighting two simultaneous ground wars with American boots on the ground -> "partnering" with other countries to help them fight wars for themsevles.
It's an improvement on the neocons but it's still feeding the MIC.
berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)Well said.
Stellar
(5,644 posts)
warrant46
(2,205 posts)Marr
(20,317 posts)
bobGandolf
(871 posts)He's getting crap for being against that "American boots on the ground" crap that's spewing all over the place.
FSogol
(45,446 posts)grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)hawks to look in the mirror?
We are fighting an enemy that we trained who have our equipment.
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)We don't know how many. ISIS has a HUGE amount of American weapons they captured.
We didn't knowingly equip or train ISIS- it was one of those predictable "unforeseeable consequences".
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)them--usually by people who want to conflate all rebel groups with ISIS. I have no doubt that we inadvertently gave guns to people who ended up switching allegiances, but that's why the whole arm-the-rebels thing was shaky to begin with (and why I think Hillary Clinton has a lot of really bad ideas).
cali
(114,904 posts)but it's a fuck of a lot more than just guns that they have; tanks, other armored vehicles, anti-aircraft missiles and more. Much of it comes from Mosul and Iraq weapons depots. Some was captured in Syria.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)“When we woke up in the morning, there were no [military] officials at the post. Our officers told us to put on civilian clothes and return to our families,” the Iraqi soldier added.
The humiliating retreat raised the possibility that senior Iraqi military leaders were colluding with ISIS, particularly following reports that former regime figures—including outlawed Ba’athist party leader Izzat Al-Douri—had been seen alongside the radical Sunni Islamists.
Fahd accused the General Commander of Iraq’s Land Forces Lt. General Ali Ghaidan Majid and Nineveh Operations Command chief Mahdi Al-Ghrawi of treason.
cali
(114,904 posts)
99Forever
(14,524 posts)Denial is just plain silly.
You want a war? Fine, do it yourself on your own damn dime.
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)99Forever
(14,524 posts)Nor do I have any interest in what you think needs "proved."
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)Caretha
(2,737 posts)check out Viet Nam and that debacle & get back to me.
That lesson went right down the ol' memory hole. It be the same schit...different day.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)If Obama wants to "clean up" Bush's war, let him start indict the monsters who started it. No boots on the ground needed.
berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)I don't think so.
And to say no to boots on the ground is already too late. We have boots on the ground in Iraq still. Should we pull out all support at this point and allow ISIL to overrun Baghdad?
What is your solution? The fact of the matter is that there isn't any good solution.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)I agree that there isn't "good" solution. There seldom is a "good solution" in a war, or in this case, wars. But, adding more firepower whether in boots or not isn't working just as it hasn't worked in the past.
As for Baghdad falling. I've heard that song many times before except the dominoes ranged from Saigon to Bangkok to New Delhi.
The main problem with our "helping" is that it inevitably ends (sort of) with countless more deaths and a new crop of enemies.
Even the Russians knew when they were beaten and got out.
berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)1. I want to continue Bush's war. I never said that.
2. for political gain. While I did reference politics, it's not for gain, it's to prevent division in our own ranks. But I see your point.
JayhawkSD
(3,163 posts)...is that the Islamic State is not a threat to the United States but that it might become one in the future and that justifies war now. The statement is false as to justification of war, because a possible and future threat does not justify war and never will. That was the Bush claim and it was and is false. Only real and imminent threat justifies war.
His claim of future threat is highly questionable, because it consists of the vague issue of people going there, learning to fight, and coming back here to "continue the..." whatever it is they learned there. The idea that a few individuals who learned fighting techniques arriving back home unarmed would constitute a threat to national security is pretty doubtful.
"Obama is not claiming they will use WMD against us." Which is all well and good, but if not, what is the nature of their threat to us and what is the reasons for putting our lives at risk and spending money that could better be used for domestic issues in order to "degrade and destroy" them?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)"real and imminent threat" to the U.S. from 1934 through 1938, when his power securing efforts were internal to Germany ? What about 1939 through 19419, when he started invading neighboring states?
I know we avoid Godwin; but, it seems relevant here.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)Hitler was not a threat in 1933. And MANY opportunities to limit, contain or otherwise influence the situation inside of Germany were missed between 1933 and 1939. Truth is, the out come of the end of WW I (in 1918) is the PRIME cause of the rise of Nazi Germany. Even by '39 when he started moving into the Rhineland (the soldiers that marched in had no bullets in their guns and were under orders to turn around if confronted) and making moves towards Austria there were relatively "peaceful" efforts that could and should have been done.
Now, back to the subject at hand, what Obama is doing is the usual assertion that acts of violence will somehow accomplish something useful in the long run. Mind you there is little evidence in history of the long term usefulness of "pre-emptive war" but none the less, he is enamored with the use of violence, especially from the air, he is once again sending out the Secretary of State to advocate for the use of military power to achieve foreign policy goals.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Is kind of my point ... opportunities were missed then; yet, we resist efforts to NOT miss pre-emptive containment opportunities now.
People act as if President Obama has cut the phone lines and is poised with his finger on the war button ... that is an inaccurate assessment of his foreign policy goals.
But that said, what is your solution? But more, HOW WILL YOU BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE, AND BY WHOM, SHOULD YOUR SOLUTION FAIL?
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)The opportunities of which I speak are not about the pre-emptive use of violence. The opportunities were simple things like changing the onerous sanctions on Germany. We could have joined the League of Nations and used it much as the UN exists today. We could have been vastly less isolationist than we were without going to war or using violence.
The "solution" is to stop making enemies in the middle east and else where by stopping the bombing of wedding parties and other "innocent" actors in the region. It is to start enforcing international laws, waging law enforcement as oppose to war. Of course that means we'd have to enforce them here too, ya know like when we "torture some folks".
But shooting people is so much easier.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)Last edited Sat Sep 20, 2014, 02:02 PM - Edit history (1)
Israel had to face international sanctions.
Assad is in jail.
Ossama is on trial.
The IRA is on trial
The Checen rebels are forced to make their case in a court of international law,.
Do you object to this?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)You have no idea how to accomplish any of that, but the phrase sounded good when you heard it.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)He's been told how to do it and explicitly said he WON'T do it. He said he wants to look forward not backwards. He goes to federal and international courts to prevent Cheney et. al. from having to face courts for their actions. He went over to the CIA and said he "had the backs" of the people who committed acts of torture. He chooses to kill Americans as oppose to bringing them back to the US to face trial. He made no attempt what so ever to bring Ossama back for trail. We have federal courts that put people on trail for these things be he choose NOT to use them more than he chooses to do so. His preference has been to bomb people instead.
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)He is enamored? With the use of violence? Really?
Can you point me to a video? Or are you confusing
him with McCain, Palin, and Sean Hannity?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)Extra judicial killings
Drone attacks
Advocation of attacking Syria (twice now actually)
Ramping up the forces by a factor of 3 in Afghanistan
This isn't exactly the behavior of a man who is attempting to avoid the use of violence.
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)being in love with, infatuated or besotted; nothing to
do with being smitten, captivated or enchanted by
violence and killing; neither fascinated nor bewitched,
nor beguiled by it.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)Despite what you want to call it, the outcome is the same.
And he went to accept the Nobel Peace Prize and gave a speech advocating for wars of choice. What do you call that?
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)It isn't mine; and I'm certain it's not a universal truth.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)How is the conclusion any difference?
Innocent people die hoping that somehow, despite thousands of years of evidence to the contrary, that it will accomplish anything besides developing new "enemies" to be opposed, and that his that path he chooses. How would you like ME to describe it?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)President Obama hasn't considered/isn't pursuing other alternatives?!?
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)When you keep making the same choice over and over, and basically never pick the other choice, it's because you prefer that method.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)well ... Okay; if by "prefer" you mean, it's the option that you believe, based on your informed and considered deliberation, to be the better course of action, then yes.
But that does not quite equate to being "enamored" ... Right?
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)9 times out of ten he chooses violence. He goes to he Peace Prize award and argues FOR violence, as a solution. And you want to argue about the semantics?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)and you want to call my argument "semantic"?
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)Your position doesn't seem to be that he prefers diplomatic means, but just with the characterization of his preference for violence. However you what to call it, the end result is the same, he leads with his spear.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)My position is that President Obama has proven, time and again, that he seeks diplomatic solutions as his 1st, 2nd and 3rd option ... and 9 times out of 10 the violence that you claim he prefers, never happens.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)Realizing that in order to establish any such position, you're starting at a deficit of continuing SOFA, ramping up the Afghan war. Literally hundreds of bombings in Pakistan, Yemen, and other countries. He's gone to congress TWICE looking for support in bombing Syria. He has arrested NO ONE from Al Queda, he's killed everyone he's gone after. He's force fed prisoners in Gitmo.
Apparently he's seeking these options, but never finding them.
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)What did Democrats do to stop them, and what have they done since to hold them accountable?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)that Hitler was to ISIS as a justification to take action, then it is an apt comparison to ask what the Democrats did to stop the "real and imminent threat" of Bush/Cheney from killing 100,000+ in Iraq, and what they have done since to hold them accountable.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I was comparing historical precedent (that we cannot affect) to a current situation, suggesting that "real and imminent" can really only be determined in retrospect ... and therefore, that standard is a fairly useless standard.
Your question(s) is/are ... I don't know.
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)Not surprising in the least.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)leftstreet
(36,098 posts)Nicely stated
berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)to our interests and the interests of our allies.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)FlatStanley
(327 posts)Another useless war. Americans won't die, though, so it's ok.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)to say the results are the same.
FlatStanley
(327 posts)It's disappointing so many people don't. It must be the atheist in me.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)going on there. The question is whether letting that war go on with no resolution is better than air strikes.
cali
(114,904 posts)ISIS has anti-aircraft missiles. They shot down a Syrian jet over Raqqa this week. There are American advisers/soldiers on the ground in Iraq and some will be attached to Syrian groups. They could be killed or captured and made a display of.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Last edited Fri Sep 19, 2014, 04:54 PM - Edit history (1)
You are correct that whenever the military is deployed, there is a chance of casualties, whether the foe be ISIL or Ebola.
But, this certainly looks more like Libya or Kosovo than the invasion of Iraq.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)
Amonester
(11,541 posts)And they probably won't vote for the Democratic candidates again no matter what, although many of them may rethink their position sooner than later.
Happened to FDR too... 
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)in the White House, as compared to those who support or oppose war based upon political convenience.
Amonester
(11,541 posts)and of just any other insult in the dictionary they can find for not following their 100% utopian agenda...
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)By claiming that opposition to Obama's current war-of-choice to be "utopian," you're simply engaging in pro-war propaganda just like those who told Vietnam War protesters to "love it or leave it."
I have no need to expose myself to your brand of war apologetics. /ignore.
Amonester
(11,541 posts)
cali
(114,904 posts)It has to do with being familiar with our very recent- and less recent- history of intervention in the region and the purportedly unforeseen consequences of such military action.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)
ReRe
(10,597 posts)It's easy to get into, but hard to get out of.
Mark my word: There will be a pretense for further involvement and eventually there will be 260,000 boots (130,000 soldiers) on the ground again.
IMHO
senz
(11,945 posts)I revived an old comatose DU account just to express my gratitude for your fairness and common sense.
Botany
(70,447 posts)n/t
sendero
(28,552 posts)..... nobody likes the prospect of war but where are we?
11 years ago we invaded a country for no good reason. We destabilized a multi-ethnic situation that has been a powder keg throughout history by allowing, practically helping, one faction to gain control. Now the tribal wars are raging out of control.
Should we just walk away? The argument that "nothing good will come of anything we do" sounds like a slogan and I'm pretty sure it is not a fair or accurate assessment of the complex situation developing.
Obama does not have any good choices. So far, I think he is taking a moderate course, somewhere between "we're done here" and the neocon desire to "send in the troops".
As a frequent critic of Obama I believe that he's handing this as well as anyone could.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)I think President Obama has chosen the least undesirable position.
valerief
(53,235 posts)
gordianot
(15,233 posts)Possibly Turkey? Would be nice to cut their funding source. Not sure it is exactly lying but comes close to the great philosopher Donald Rumsfield and his "unknown known". Those trucks moving the oil would be a nice target.
CJCRANE
(18,184 posts)the whole National Security team "wanted to arm ISIS" last year "but the President refused".
So, accepting the fact that McCain is conflating the good and bad rebels, it seems that the President is surrounded by people who were already set on this course of action.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)the bush-cheney war profiteers.
Bush gang- TOOK a trillion dollars of Americans Federal money and squandered lots of it, handed much of that money over to the private 'for profit's.
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)you need to check your ideological bias.
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)phew. thank you. sheesh.
Dems to Win
(2,161 posts)Pretending that the Saudis were not responsible for the creation of ISIS.
Looks like we are being lied into a war that Saudi Arabia wants -- they want the US to be their mercenary army (again) to take out Assad for them.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Dems to Win
(2,161 posts)KKK is practicing Christianity as they understand it. And they can quote Bible verses to justify their actions.
ISIS is practicing Islam as they understand it, and they have plenty of verses from the Koran to quote to justify their actions.
There are no arbiters to dictate what is 'real' Christianity or Islam. Each member and sect makes these decisions for themselves.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)
Jamaal510
(10,893 posts)Docross
(39 posts)For the GREAT MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX.... it isn't about OIL, it's about $$$$!
HOPEFULLY, our President, with help from France and the other countries, can stop these war moneymakers from getting what they want. Just to name a few we've seen all over the media lately:
General Jack Keane Retired:
Pushing for WAR: Left unsaid during his media appearances (and left unmentioned on his congressional witness disclosure form) are Keane’s other gigs: as special adviser to Academi, the contractor formerly known as Blackwater; as a board member to tank and aircraft manufacturer General Dynamics; a “venture partner” to SCP Partners, an investment firm that partners with defense contractors, including XVionics,Retired General
Anthony Zinni, perhaps the loudest advocate of a large deployment of American soliders into the region to fight IS, is a board member to BAE Systems’ US subsidiary, and also works for several military-focused private equity firms.
CNN pundit Frances Townsend, a former Bush administration official, has recently appeared on television calling for more military engagement against IS. As the Public Accountability Initiative, a nonprofit that studies elite power structures, reported, Townsend “holds positions in two investment firms with defense company holdings, MacAndrews & Forbes and Monument Capital Group, and serves as an advisor to defense contractor Decision Sciences.”
FromThe Nation
Now if we could just find out what McCain, Graham, and others have stock in... Cheney, we know - Haliburton! Pretty sure the Carlyle Group (Bush Senior, Colin Powell?) are invested in Mercenaries.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)(other than the last time he tried to take action in Syria based upon chemical attacks later proven to be a false-flag operation by Turkey).
No, those were used by the last guy. This time, they have all new fearmongering rhetoric:
(From here: https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/09/08/lesson-americans-refuse-learn-war/)
Is it even possible to imagine more potent evidence of systemic media failure than that (or systemic success, depending on what you think the media’s goal is)? But in terms of crazed irrationality, how far away from that false belief is the current fear on the part of Americans that there are ISIS sleeper cells “living in the United States”?
“This is a terrorist group the likes of which we haven’t seen before, and we better stop them now. It ought to be pretty clear when they start cutting off the heads of journalists and say they’re going to fly the black flag of ISIS over the White House that ISIS is a clear and present danger.”
They’re a “clear and present danger” because they threatened to “fly the black flag of ISIS over the White House.” It’s hard to believe the fear-mongering is anything but deliberate.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)He's assuming responsibility, at least, for the mess left in Iraq, but the assholes who tore it down for profit are first in line once again to enrich themselves at our expense. Oil is only one of their interests that are driving us into war, and many people are going to die needlessly.
War is always a terrible thing, but my objections would be fewer if this one were being run by the UN instead of so directly by the war pigs and their captive president.
Martin Eden
(12,844 posts)First question we need to ask ourselves:
CAN we clean it up?
2nd question:
Will military intervention by us improve the situation in the long term, or merely delay a local resolution while costing us $$ and creating anti-American blowback (recruiting more terrorists)?
If we don't have a clear answer to either of those questions, it is best not to intervene.
Amonester
(11,541 posts)If we don't have a clear answer to that question, better do nothing and find a hole in the sand somewhere.
Martin Eden
(12,844 posts)I ask because your response to my post makes no sense whatsoever.
It's a ridiculous analogy. There is no comparison.
Efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions may or may not be enough to avert catastrophic climate change, but even incremental reduction is better than no reduction at all.
On the other hand, efforts to "clean up" the chaos in Iraq/Syria through military intervention has the potential to make a bad situation worse.
berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)Have they been asked and answered? I think the first question is still in debate. I have doubts for a positive answer on that. I think the big problem is getting the people of the region to care. I suspect they don't feel like it's their mess to clean up. Our answer to that should be yes, we set your back yard on fire, but what are you going to do about it? I feel that's what Obama is trying to do while keeping the immediate threat of ISIL contained with air strikes.
Martin Eden
(12,844 posts)So far the results of applying military solutions to the problems of the Middle East have not been good.
Furthermore, given the influence of monied interests in the underlying objectives of US foreign policy, I have to question the intentions of The Powers That Be even if I think this president is merely trying to cope with the very bad situation he inherited.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)We can definitely help do so. The united States has the best access to resources of any nation in the world - money, food, diplomatic and political resources, technology, all of it. We might not be #1 at any one thing, but we are the only nation that consistently places in all categories.
Depends on the form of the intervention. What the president advocates probably will not do anything except waste money and lives in the long run. I have enough faith in his intellect to think that he knows this, but that just makes me worry more about why we're going about this.
There is no way that bombing the shit out of Iraqi towns and cities is going to hurt IS in the long run. IS knows this, and it's why they are trying to provoke such action. The people we're bombing are going to close ranks and sign up.
Further, there is absolutely no way that fueling the civil war in Syria is going to bring peace to the region. Best case scenario is that the rebels "win" - and immediately fall to butchering each other and everyone else in order to figure out who's in charge, with the scariest and most extreme of the bunch coming out on top due to the power of intimidation. The president wants to do to Syria what his predecessors did to Afghanistan.
samsingh
(17,590 posts)and being spread by militant islamists
951-Riverside
(7,234 posts)They were never interested in bringing freedom, peace or to get the oil, they came to slaughter the indigenous population and to expand their empire like they did over 200 years ago in the Americas except this time they have these hired ISIS mercenaries helping them continue the slaughter.
The "founding fathers" would be proud of the mass genocide the military industrial complex was able to accomplish in just a few years against the indigenous people in the middle east using these for hire ISIS mercenaries.
The plan has always been to supply them with training, weapons and money then set them loose to destabilize countries and slaughter millions for a few years then come in with tanks, drones and bombs to finish off whats left while making an insane profit from the weapons and conquered land.
No, Obama is reading whatever script his bosses hand him just like Cokehead Jr.
You either stand against genocide or you support it. "November" has nothing to do with it.
Why have "boots on the ground" when you have thousands of ruthless mercs already there?
but at least with these mercs you don't have to worry "PTSD"
Sugarcoated
(7,716 posts)the kookoo post of the thread 
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)But, for a murky policy of regional destabilization in order to ensure the primacy of a US client state or two in the region? Sure.
Cayenne
(480 posts)Assad would not allow that pipeline from the oil/gas rich fields through Iraq, Syria, Turkey.
If this pipeline were built Europe would be in a better position against the Russians.
GummyBearz
(2,931 posts)You call repeating the same mistakes as the guy before you "cleaning up".... weird. Usually if a glass of milk gets spilled, you dont knock over a second glass and call it "cleaning up"
berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)But you can't say Obama is repeating Bush's(sic) mistakes when the entire OP refutes it. Well, you can say it all you want, but it doesn't make you right.
