Well, he also "conventiently forgot" that the engagements in Syria and Libya had different motives.
The airstrikes in Syria are against ISIS and not directly against the existing government (which is also evil - no doubt) - while some rebel groups in Syria are being heavily supported.
The airstrikes in Libya have started after Gadaffi started to massacre his own people and are backed by UN decisions as far as I know.
In both cases, there has been no breech of UN decisions and the demonstration of fake evidences.
Both are not regarded as offensive wars like it was the case with the second Iraq war.
What his statement also conveniently leaves out is that the Republican Party Congress Majority are fundamentally blocking virtually any decision which would be pro Obama in the last 8 years. The necessity of the Congress' approval for the airstrikes is highly controversal among experts.
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
I think it's time we clearify what it is to invade. Here is the definition from the Merriman Webster dictionary: Simple Definition of invade: to enter (a place, such as a foreign country) in order to take control by military force
The Oxford Dictionary: (of an armed force) enter (a country or region) so as to subjugate or occupy it.
Maxmillian Dictionary: to take or send an army into another country in order to get control of it
I hope we can all agree that Obama hasn't invaded any country by any of these definitions.
So, you say that the US are still in Iraq.
That's true
BUT!!!!
You conveniently leave out some important facts.
Troops in Iraq:
2003 when GWB invaded Iraq: 150.000
2008 when Obama took over: 160.000
2016: around 10.000
So, Obama pulled out massively out from there.
Why isn't that entirely to zero?
Well it has to do with an organisation named ISIS, which filled the vaquum because the newly installed Iraqi gouvernment and their troops where simply run over by ISIS who then took entire towns hostage, massacred the people there and so on.
So, Obama's numbers and motives are entirely differently why the US are still there.
I could elaborate in the same way with the other mentioned countries - where Obama is still doing airstrikes, but it would be boring for most of us because most of us know recent history and the background.
Problem with populists is that they say "We're still in Iraq". Well, that's true but only a small part of the entire story - which can't be told in a oneliner.
Life - unfortunately is not that easy!
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
I think Chris previously said it and I agree - it's a non issue to me.
It would be interesting to check all of Trump's email correspondence from the last 10 years - it would be eye-opening for many of his supporters, I bet.
He's lucky because he was not part of a gouvernment so far and is not obliged to disclose them.
I am aware that secretaries hiding emails are committing a crime - it's certainly not watergate imo and I can understand why Hillary did not want to disclose them all to the public.
Nobody knows what really is in these emails and as long as she wasn't bribed, sold her country etc - it's hardly the big thing that the conservatives are riding on.
I say, let's demand Trump to disclose his emails the same way like he insists Hillary doing and you'll see him backing off immediately
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
I think it's time we clearify what it is to invade. Here is the definition from the Merriman Webster dictionary: Simple Definition of invade: to enter (a place, such as a foreign country) in order to take control by military force
The Oxford Dictionary: (of an armed force) enter (a country or region) so as to subjugate or occupy it.
Maxmillian Dictionary: to take or send an army into another country in order to get control of it
I hope we can all agree that Obama hasn't invaded any country by any of these definitions.
I listening 24, Higgins is a bit preoccupied by a two pronged attack )
And you are quite correct, Obama in these instances has perpetuated existing offensives.
Obama has prolonged existing attacks. He has also ordered military actions less than invasions, such as bombings by planes or drones and special forces missions.
FBI JUST RE-OPENED THE INVESTIGATION OF HILLARY CLINTON!!!!!!
Just saying......
Actually, this did not happen. There are new emails that may be investigated, but the old investigation has not been reopened. No reason to shout false information. So this is unlikely to have any effect on the election, as much as the people pushing lies are hoping it to have. Only if something treasonous is found in these newly uncovered emails will there be any impact.
At the time I write it the reports were very fresh and sketchy. The reason I shouted was that I felt this was very importert news, still no-one had reacted to my first post about it. Now I think you are right in saying that it won't changes the election signifikante.
I listening 24, Higgins is a bit preoccupied by a two pronged attack )
And you are quite correct
It's more like one pinkie in a childish attempt to fool us all
Cheld I can't take seriously anymore since he labelled GWB's Iraq invasion having been 'humanitarian' 8-)
And Number 24 is right, Obama did not invade Iraq or any other of the mentioned countries {[]
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Well the Iraq invasion (the second time) could never be heralded as a humanitarian invasion, but I'm prepared to believe the American people were fed a load of bullsh+t to justify the new offensive. Given a cursory glance the facts can looked skewed, but read intelligent information and all becomes alarming clear on this subject. GWB and his lap dog Blair unnecessarily opened a huge can of worms.
I remember our foreign minister Joschka Fischer calling out Rumsfeld with "I am not convinced" during a safety conference.
He was recently interviewed and asked about it and he replied wih a big grin " we knew for sure that all that evidence was rubbish"
The 'witness' that came up with the weapons truck 'evidence' was classified for not being credible and the US colleagues have been warned that his claim was fake.
Just google Rafid Ahmed Alwan or "curveball" for the full story
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Iraq was invaded for ideological reason - regime change there was an old dream for the neocons because the believed it would start a domino effect creating pro-American regimet in the region. Control of the oil fiendskap was also important. In my opinion the invasjon was hardly humanitarian.
I have read a fair amount of USA historie and followed current eventuelt, and in my opinion that invasjon is the worst single decision by an US president. At least since WW2, perhaps ever.
From what Fischer says, he visited the US some days after the 9/11 attacks. It was clear to him that they where determined to attack Iraq and just needed a reason.
Tennant said in an interview, that he told GWB on 12th September, that according to CIA intelligence, there was no Iraqi involvement in the attacks.
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
I think Chris previously said it and I agree - it's a non issue to me.
It would be interesting to check all of Trump's email correspondence from the last 10 years - it would be eye-opening for many of his supporters, I bet.
He's lucky because he was not part of a gouvernment so far and is not obliged to disclose them.
I am aware that secretaries hiding emails are committing a crime - it's certainly not watergate imo and I can understand why Hillary did not want to disclose them all to the public.
Nobody knows what really is in these emails and as long as she wasn't bribed, sold her country etc - it's hardly the big thing that the conservatives are riding on.
I say, let's demand Trump to disclose his emails the same way like he insists Hillary doing and you'll see him backing off immediately
Silhouette ManThe last refuge of a scoundrelPosts: 8,693MI6 Agent
Iraq was invaded for ideological reason - regime change there was an old dream for the neocons because the believed it would start a domino effect creating pro-American regimet in the region. Control of the oil fiendskap was also important. In my opinion the invasjon was hardly humanitarian.
Iraq was invaded for ideological reason - regime change there was an old dream for the neocons because the believed it would start a domino effect creating pro-American regimet in the region. Control of the oil fiendskap was also important. In my opinion the invasjon was hardly humanitarian.
Are you suggesting that 9/11 is an inside job?
As I said in post 432 9/11 was considered convenient by some in power and the intelligence community. There is no conspiracy other than it was used to justify illegal and unwarranted actions.
I think the e-mail scandal is a big deal. I also Hillary is very calculating, but she also has a tendency to keep things from the public as long as she can. This is probably because of her history where she has been hounded by the press for many years (e.g. Whitewater).
Hillary is a strong candidate in many ways, but there are also reasons to be sceptical. If I was an American citizen (I'm not), I would consider voting for the Republican candidate who was experienced, respectable, stable and seemingly sane (but there isn't)
The middle east situation is very inflammatory and these discussions always go round in circles, everyone seems to have a counter argument or ridicule for any comment made. it's a pertinent subject on this thread purely because along with others the America was instrumental in lighting the fuse which in modern history is causing the middle east to be ripped apart and destroyed on a daily basis, therefore like it or not any new president has a duty of responsibility.
Western involvement I'm the middle east has never been successful, our obsession with meddling in cultures we do not agree with or understand causes countless deaths and wholesale slaughter..... Syria is an absolute shambles, huge city's destroyed, children killed all for precious little, toppling so called dictators released the beast and gave us a new problem what's not appreciated is that remove the leaders and return the country to its people is a fine notion but not possible it's all too sectarian. The western powers have a duty to try and stabilise the region and then leave it to the people of those lands to live in their culture. Our way of life does not suit everyone.
Well said, though I don't think it's possible for "western powers to stabilise the region" ("Mission Accomplished", anyone?). The best the west could try to do is to assist in negotiations to establish new, ethnically-consistent borders ("Sunnistan", "Kurdistan", etc.) but that won't happen because you'd have to take territory away from Turkey, Syria, and Iran in addition to partitioning Iraq.
Comments
You can't be serious!
Do you really mean this?
And where did you get that info?
Did you bother to check with any ( and I don't mean all the right-wing crap) balanced source?
Just a hint for our friends from the right wing - and I am just repeating myself from eariler:
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Simple Definition of invade: to enter (a place, such as a foreign country) in order to take control by military force
The Oxford Dictionary:
(of an armed force) enter (a country or region) so as to subjugate or occupy it.
Maxmillian Dictionary:
to take or send an army into another country in order to get control of it
I hope we can all agree that Obama hasn't invaded any country by any of these definitions.
Well, it may surprise you, but I know
So, you say that the US are still in Iraq.
That's true
BUT!!!!
You conveniently leave out some important facts.
Troops in Iraq:
2003 when GWB invaded Iraq: 150.000
2008 when Obama took over: 160.000
2016: around 10.000
So, Obama pulled out massively out from there.
Why isn't that entirely to zero?
Well it has to do with an organisation named ISIS, which filled the vaquum because the newly installed Iraqi gouvernment and their troops where simply run over by ISIS who then took entire towns hostage, massacred the people there and so on.
So, Obama's numbers and motives are entirely differently why the US are still there.
I could elaborate in the same way with the other mentioned countries - where Obama is still doing airstrikes, but it would be boring for most of us because most of us know recent history and the background.
Problem with populists is that they say "We're still in Iraq". Well, that's true but only a small part of the entire story - which can't be told in a oneliner.
Life - unfortunately is not that easy!
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
I think Chris previously said it and I agree - it's a non issue to me.
It would be interesting to check all of Trump's email correspondence from the last 10 years - it would be eye-opening for many of his supporters, I bet.
He's lucky because he was not part of a gouvernment so far and is not obliged to disclose them.
I am aware that secretaries hiding emails are committing a crime - it's certainly not watergate imo and I can understand why Hillary did not want to disclose them all to the public.
Nobody knows what really is in these emails and as long as she wasn't bribed, sold her country etc - it's hardly the big thing that the conservatives are riding on.
I say, let's demand Trump to disclose his emails the same way like he insists Hillary doing and you'll see him backing off immediately
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
And you are quite correct, Obama in these instances has perpetuated existing offensives.
Jeans:
Coca Cola:
Eh, both are rubbish to me, but women make great use of the first and Warhol made novel use of the second.
Actually, this did not happen. There are new emails that may be investigated, but the old investigation has not been reopened. No reason to shout false information. So this is unlikely to have any effect on the election, as much as the people pushing lies are hoping it to have. Only if something treasonous is found in these newly uncovered emails will there be any impact.
It's more like one pinkie in a childish attempt to fool us all
Cheld I can't take seriously anymore since he labelled GWB's Iraq invasion having been 'humanitarian' 8-)
And Number 24 is right, Obama did not invade Iraq or any other of the mentioned countries {[]
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
I remember our foreign minister Joschka Fischer calling out Rumsfeld with "I am not convinced" during a safety conference.
He was recently interviewed and asked about it and he replied wih a big grin " we knew for sure that all that evidence was rubbish"
The 'witness' that came up with the weapons truck 'evidence' was classified for not being credible and the US colleagues have been warned that his claim was fake.
Just google Rafid Ahmed Alwan or "curveball" for the full story
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
I don't even think that it was a decision.
A decision would be "Will we attack them or not?"
From what Fischer says, he visited the US some days after the 9/11 attacks. It was clear to him that they where determined to attack Iraq and just needed a reason.
Tennant said in an interview, that he told GWB on 12th September, that according to CIA intelligence, there was no Iraqi involvement in the attacks.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LXb0dui43dA
*my face is similar when I see the newest posts from Asp9mm here 8-)
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Making them fat, however, most definitely is!
I hope you delete that comment.
Hillary is a strong candidate in many ways, but there are also reasons to be sceptical. If I was an American citizen (I'm not), I would consider voting for the Republican candidate who was experienced, respectable, stable and seemingly sane (but there isn't)
Well said, though I don't think it's possible for "western powers to stabilise the region" ("Mission Accomplished", anyone?). The best the west could try to do is to assist in negotiations to establish new, ethnically-consistent borders ("Sunnistan", "Kurdistan", etc.) but that won't happen because you'd have to take territory away from Turkey, Syria, and Iran in addition to partitioning Iraq.