How soon will Biden start another war?

[Rigby5]

Trump was the only US, president for decades which did not start a war.

uh...what?

?

Clinton, Obama, Carter, Ford...none of 'em started wars.

Clinton , obama started wars trump and Carter did not

Obama didn't start any wars.. They US had NOTHING to do with the Arab Spring or Yemen.

I don't believe that.
Hillary was constantly talking about the "Arab Spring" and how it gave us an opportunity.
While we did not start the Arab Spring in Tunisia, we did massacre Qaddafi's forces, causing his murder.
We did arm, finance, and give Toyota trucks to Arab dissidents in Benghazi and other places, with the intent of escalating the Syrian civil war.
We likely also created, armed, and equipped ISIS.
And al Qaeda is our creation going way back to 1979.
We also smuggle support to dissidents in Iran.
We obviously funded Sisi's take over in Egypt.
The only place where the violence may not be the fault of the US is Yemen.
I don't know enough about that conflict to say.

 

[Utilitarian]

I wouldn't consider Gaddafi a bad actor compared to the ex-Al Quida that took over after him. Also, a massive slave trade has risen there now.

Libya went from being one of the highest rated countries in HDI in Africa to one of the lowest. I don't see how removing him has been a net positive for anyone other than war profiteers.

I used to live in Libya and I know Gadffi was a bad actor. He threw out the Idris Constitution which was enlightened. The only way to keep him in power would have been a huge occupation force. The US did not "remove" him.

Wouldn't you say that his successors are worse though? Gaddafi didn't allow for a slave trade of this magnitude, for example.

 

[Utilitarian]

Trump was the only US, president for decades which did not start a war.

uh...what?

?

Clinton, Obama, Carter, Ford...none of 'em started wars.

Clinton , obama started wars trump and Carter did not

Obama didn't start any wars.. They US had NOTHING to do with the Arab Spring or Yemen.

I don't believe that.
Hillary was constantly talking about the "Arab Spring" and how it gave us an opportunity.
While we did not start the Arab Spring in Tunisia, we did massacre Qaddafi's forces, causing his murder.
We did arm, finance, and give Toyota trucks to Arab dissidents in Benghazi and other places, with the intent of escalating the Syrian civil war.
We likely also created, armed, and equipped ISIS.
And al Qaeda is our creation going way back to 1979.
We also smuggle support to dissidents in Iran.
We obviously funded Sisi's take over in Egypt.
The only place where the violence may not be the fault of the US is Yemen.
I don't know enough about that conflict to say.

The US isn't the sole culprit for these conflicts, but yeah, we've had a hand in almost everything.

 

[surada]

Trump was the only US, president for decades which did not start a war.

uh...what?

?

Clinton, Obama, Carter, Ford...none of 'em started wars.

Clinton , obama started wars trump and Carter did not

Obama didn't start any wars.. They US had NOTHING to do with the Arab Spring or Yemen.

I don't believe that.
Hillary was constantly talking about the "Arab Spring" and how it gave us an opportunity.
While we did not start the Arab Spring in Tunisia, we did massacre Qaddafi's forces, causing his murder.
We did arm, finance, and give Toyota trucks to Arab dissidents in Benghazi and other places, with the intent of escalating the Syrian civil war.
We likely also created, armed, and equipped ISIS.
And al Qaeda is our creation going way back to 1979.
We also smuggle support to dissidents in Iran.
We obviously funded Sisi's take over in Egypt.
The only place where the violence may not be the fault of the US is Yemen.
I don't know enough about that conflict to say.

You don't know anything about Libya or Syria or Egypt either. The US couldn't have stopped what was happening in Syria or Libya or Egypt if we'd tried.

 

[Rigby5]

I know.. and the Eastern tribes hated Gadaffi since 1969. He was an ignorant bedu boy and a bad actor.

I wouldn't consider Gaddafi a bad actor compared to the ex-Al Quida that took over after him. Also, a massive slave trade has risen there now.

Libya went from being one of the highest rated countries in HDI in Africa to one of the lowest. I don't see how removing him has been a net positive for anyone other than war profiteers.

I used to live in Libya and I know Gadffi was a bad actor. He threw out the Idris Constitution which was enlightened. The only way to keep him in power would have been a huge occupation force. The US did not "remove" him.

Qaddafi was a bad actor, but could not possibly have been in control himself. Clearly those in charge were the southern Hill elders, and they picked him as their patsy.
That was the best that could be done in Libya.
We ambushed his mercenaries with an air attack, massacred tens of thousands, and essentially gave the country over to the Syrian and Egyptian dissidents in Benghazi.
So by removing all his troops and arming the dissidents in Benghazi, we did "remove" him.
And Hillary openly pushed for just that.
It was no secret.
It was done right in the open.
Not just a big mistake, but totally illegal and immoral.
Qaddafi was better than what is there now.

 

[surada]

I wouldn't consider Gaddafi a bad actor compared to the ex-Al Quida that took over after him. Also, a massive slave trade has risen there now.

Libya went from being one of the highest rated countries in HDI in Africa to one of the lowest. I don't see how removing him has been a net positive for anyone other than war profiteers.

I used to live in Libya and I know Gadffi was a bad actor. He threw out the Idris Constitution which was enlightened. The only way to keep him in power would have been a huge occupation force. The US did not "remove" him.

Wouldn't you say that his successors are worse though? Gaddafi didn't allow for a slave trade of this magnitude, for example.

When Libya fell apart and Gadaffi promised blood in the streets our only hope (and a damned slim one) was that the Eastern tribes might help reinstate the Idris constitution. Yes, its worse.. Civil wars often turn out worse.

 

[Utilitarian]

I don't believe that.
Hillary was constantly talking about the "Arab Spring" and how it gave us an opportunity.
While we did not start the Arab Spring in Tunisia, we did massacre Qaddafi's forces, causing his murder.
We did arm, finance, and give Toyota trucks to Arab dissidents in Benghazi and other places, with the intent of escalating the Syrian civil war.
We likely also created, armed, and equipped ISIS.
And al Qaeda is our creation going way back to 1979.
We also smuggle support to dissidents in Iran.
We obviously funded Sisi's take over in Egypt.
The only place where the violence may not be the fault of the US is Yemen.
I don't know enough about that conflict to say.

You don't know anything about Libya or Syria or Egypt either. The US couldn't have stopped what was happening in Syria or Libya or Egypt if we'd tried.

Even if we assume that all of these conflicts are inevitable, it's surely better to stay out of the mess than to get involved, no?

 

[Utilitarian]

Wouldn't you say that his successors are worse though? Gaddafi didn't allow for a slave trade of this magnitude, for example.

When Libya fell apart and Gadaffi promised blood in the streets our only hope (and a damned slim one) was that the Eastern tribes might help reinstate the Idris constitution. Yes, its worse.. Civil wars often turn out worse.

This is why I favor Assad maintaining power in Syria. He may be a dictator, but he's better than the alternatives.

Saddam was better to keep in power as well. So was Mubarak.

 

[Rigby5]

I doubt Honduras is on the radar. It's more likely that we're going to escalate the Syrian War again. I don't know if we'd invade a new country at this point.

Syrian war? with whom against whom?
To give Syria to Kurds? or to the Islamic state? or to Turkey?

and a direct fight with Russians?

US has too litte problem fighting Russia in Ukraine?

To give to the SAUDS...........

Give what to the Saud's? They don't want Syria, idiot.

I disagree with you on this one as well.
Saudi is Sunni and strongly supports Sunni over Shiites.
Assad is Shiite.
So the Saudis strongly want Assad out of power in Syria.
But since the Shiites are the minority, the only way to prevent massacres is by keeping the minority Shiites in power.

People talk about Iran being such a source of problems in the Mideast, but in my opinion the major source of problems is the Saudis, not the Iranians.

 

[surada]

I know.. and the Eastern tribes hated Gadaffi since 1969. He was an ignorant bedu boy and a bad actor.

I wouldn't consider Gaddafi a bad actor compared to the ex-Al Quida that took over after him. Also, a massive slave trade has risen there now.

Libya went from being one of the highest rated countries in HDI in Africa to one of the lowest. I don't see how removing him has been a net positive for anyone other than war profiteers.

I used to live in Libya and I know Gadffi was a bad actor. He threw out the Idris Constitution which was enlightened. The only way to keep him in power would have been a huge occupation force. The US did not "remove" him.

Qaddafi was a bad actor, but could not possibly have been in control himself. Clearly those in charge were the southern Hill elders, and they picked him as their patsy.
That was the best that could be done in Libya.
We ambushed his mercenaries with an air attack, massacred tens of thousands, and essentially gave the country over to the Syrian and Egyptian dissidents in Benghazi.
So by removing all his troops and arming the dissidents in Benghazi, we did "remove" him.
And Hillary openly pushed for just that.
It was no secret.
It was done right in the open.
Not just a big mistake, but totally illegal and immoral.
Qaddafi was better than what is there now.

Syrians and Egyptians weren't in Benghazi. although a handful of ISIS had moved there. We didn't arm anyone. Libya was a wash in weapons. Gaddafi had been on a two year spending spree in Europe and Russia.
Gadaffi's military and police were all foreign nationals as you said.. For the most part they threw down their weapons and ran.

 

[surada]

Wouldn't you say that his successors are worse though? Gaddafi didn't allow for a slave trade of this magnitude, for example.

When Libya fell apart and Gadaffi promised blood in the streets our only hope (and a damned slim one) was that the Eastern tribes might help reinstate the Idris constitution. Yes, its worse.. Civil wars often turn out worse.

This is why I favor Assad maintaining power in Syria. He may be a dictator, but he's better than the alternatives.

Saddam was better to keep in power as well. So was Mubarak.

Assad isn't in charge. His brother Mehr is running the show. I agree about Saddam and Mubarak, but the US doesn't have any magic control over the Arab street.

 

[Rigby5]

Trump was the only US, president for decades which did not start a war.

uh...what?

?

Clinton, Obama, Carter, Ford...none of 'em started wars.

Clinton , obama started wars trump and Carter did not

Obama didn't start any wars.. They US had NOTHING to do with the Arab Spring or Yemen.

I don't believe that.
Hillary was constantly talking about the "Arab Spring" and how it gave us an opportunity.
While we did not start the Arab Spring in Tunisia, we did massacre Qaddafi's forces, causing his murder.
We did arm, finance, and give Toyota trucks to Arab dissidents in Benghazi and other places, with the intent of escalating the Syrian civil war.
We likely also created, armed, and equipped ISIS.
And al Qaeda is our creation going way back to 1979.
We also smuggle support to dissidents in Iran.
We obviously funded Sisi's take over in Egypt.
The only place where the violence may not be the fault of the US is Yemen.
I don't know enough about that conflict to say.

You don't know anything about Libya or Syria or Egypt either. The US couldn't have stopped what was happening in Syria or Libya or Egypt if we'd tried.

That is not at all true.
Qaddafi would have easily taken Benghazi if not for us wiping out his entire military.
Morsi in Egypt was the elected democratic leader, and the military would not have illegally taken him out without a very large pay off. Similar to the pay off we give them to blockade the Palestinians.
Sisi was trained in the US.
He is a US lapdog.
The Syrian rebels have hundreds of millions in new weapons and Toyota trucks.
If not financed by the US, then who?

 

[Utilitarian]

I disagree with you on this one as well.
Saudi is Sunni and strongly supports Sunni over Shiites.
Assad is Shiite.
So the Saudis strongly want Assad out of power in Syria.
But since the Shiites are the minority, the only way to prevent massacres is by keeping the minority Shiites in power.

People talk about Iran being such a source of problems in the Mideast, but in my opinion the major source of problems is the Saudis, not the Iranians.

I just long for the day when we no longer depend on the petrodollar. It's the only real reason we get involved in the Middle East usually.

If we didn't have any need to maintain it, we could let the Saudis and Iranians fight each other without any care here.

 

[surada]

I doubt Honduras is on the radar. It's more likely that we're going to escalate the Syrian War again. I don't know if we'd invade a new country at this point.

Syrian war? with whom against whom?
To give Syria to Kurds? or to the Islamic state? or to Turkey?

and a direct fight with Russians?

US has too litte problem fighting Russia in Ukraine?

To give to the SAUDS...........

Give what to the Saud's? They don't want Syria, idiot.

I disagree with you on this one as well.
Saudi is Sunni and strongly supports Sunni over Shiites.
Assad is Shiite.
So the Saudis strongly want Assad out of power in Syria.
But since the Shiites are the minority, the only way to prevent massacres is by keeping the minority Shiites in power.

People talk about Iran being such a source of problems in the Mideast, but in my opinion the major source of problems is the Saudis, not the Iranians.

The SAG doesn't give a shit about Syria with the exception of 6 million Syria refugees.

You obviously don't know anything about Saudi Arabia. Iran is another matter.. The Iranian people are not like their terrible government or the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.

 

[Utilitarian]

When Libya fell apart and Gadaffi promised blood in the streets our only hope (and a damned slim one) was that the Eastern tribes might help reinstate the Idris constitution. Yes, its worse.. Civil wars often turn out worse.

This is why I favor Assad maintaining power in Syria. He may be a dictator, but he's better than the alternatives.

Saddam was better to keep in power as well. So was Mubarak.

Assad isn't in charge. His brother Mehr is running the show. I agree about Saddam and Mubarak, but the US doesn't have any magic control over the Arab street.

I'm not saying we do, but foreign interference plays a big part in every conflict in the Middle East. The current Syrian government is largely still in power due to Russian and Iranian support, for example. If we had gotten involved but Russia and Iran were not, then Assad would be gone by now. It doesn't mean that foreign powers determine everything, but influence adds up over time.

 

[Rigby5]

I know.. and the Eastern tribes hated Gadaffi since 1969. He was an ignorant bedu boy and a bad actor.

I wouldn't consider Gaddafi a bad actor compared to the ex-Al Quida that took over after him. Also, a massive slave trade has risen there now.

Libya went from being one of the highest rated countries in HDI in Africa to one of the lowest. I don't see how removing him has been a net positive for anyone other than war profiteers.

I used to live in Libya and I know Gadffi was a bad actor. He threw out the Idris Constitution which was enlightened. The only way to keep him in power would have been a huge occupation force. The US did not "remove" him.

Qaddafi was a bad actor, but could not possibly have been in control himself. Clearly those in charge were the southern Hill elders, and they picked him as their patsy.
That was the best that could be done in Libya.
We ambushed his mercenaries with an air attack, massacred tens of thousands, and essentially gave the country over to the Syrian and Egyptian dissidents in Benghazi.
So by removing all his troops and arming the dissidents in Benghazi, we did "remove" him.
And Hillary openly pushed for just that.
It was no secret.
It was done right in the open.
Not just a big mistake, but totally illegal and immoral.
Qaddafi was better than what is there now.

Syrians and Egyptians weren't in Benghazi. although a handful of ISIS had moved there. We didn't arm anyone. Libya was a wash in weapons. Gaddafi had been on a two year spending spree in Europe and Russia.
Gadaffi's military and police were all foreign nationals as you said.. For the most part they threw down their weapons and ran.

Benghazi has been Syrians, Egyptians and other displaced dissidents for decades, if not centuries.
The whole point of the US CIA annex in Benghazi was to fund and arm dissidents there.
Libya was not awash in weapons for the dissidents except in Benghazi, at least until the US caused Qaddafi to be murdered.
And Qaddafi's mercenaries did not throw down their weapons and run, they were murdered by US air attacks.
Just like the Highway of Death.
We killed tens of thousands.

 

[surada]

Trump was the only US, president for decades which did not start a war.

uh...what?

?

Clinton, Obama, Carter, Ford...none of 'em started wars.

Clinton , obama started wars trump and Carter did not

Obama didn't start any wars.. They US had NOTHING to do with the Arab Spring or Yemen.

I don't believe that.
Hillary was constantly talking about the "Arab Spring" and how it gave us an opportunity.
While we did not start the Arab Spring in Tunisia, we did massacre Qaddafi's forces, causing his murder.
We did arm, finance, and give Toyota trucks to Arab dissidents in Benghazi and other places, with the intent of escalating the Syrian civil war.
We likely also created, armed, and equipped ISIS.
And al Qaeda is our creation going way back to 1979.
We also smuggle support to dissidents in Iran.
We obviously funded Sisi's take over in Egypt.
The only place where the violence may not be the fault of the US is Yemen.
I don't know enough about that conflict to say.

You don't know anything about Libya or Syria or Egypt either. The US couldn't have stopped what was happening in Syria or Libya or Egypt if we'd tried.

That is not at all true.
Qaddafi would have easily taken Benghazi if not for us wiping out his entire military.
Morsi in Egypt was the elected democratic leader, and the military would not have illegally taken him out without a very large pay off. Similar to the pay off we give them to blockade the Palestinians.
Sisi was trained in the US.
He is a US lapdog.
The Syrian rebels have hundreds of millions in new weapons and Toyota trucks.
If not financed by the US, then who?

Our support for the Free Syrian Army was limited.

US Authorizes Financial Support For the Free Syrian Army The US government granted the Syrian Support Group, an organization that supports the Free Syrian Army, authority to provide financial and logistical support to the armed Syrian resistance.
US Authorizes Financial Support For the Free Syrian Army ...
www.al-monitor.com/originals/2012/al-monitor/us-authorizes-financial-support.html
www.al-monitor.com/originals/2012/al-monitor/us-authorizes-financial-support.h…

 

[surada]

I know.. and the Eastern tribes hated Gadaffi since 1969. He was an ignorant bedu boy and a bad actor.

I wouldn't consider Gaddafi a bad actor compared to the ex-Al Quida that took over after him. Also, a massive slave trade has risen there now.

Libya went from being one of the highest rated countries in HDI in Africa to one of the lowest. I don't see how removing him has been a net positive for anyone other than war profiteers.

I used to live in Libya and I know Gadffi was a bad actor. He threw out the Idris Constitution which was enlightened. The only way to keep him in power would have been a huge occupation force. The US did not "remove" him.

Qaddafi was a bad actor, but could not possibly have been in control himself. Clearly those in charge were the southern Hill elders, and they picked him as their patsy.
That was the best that could be done in Libya.
We ambushed his mercenaries with an air attack, massacred tens of thousands, and essentially gave the country over to the Syrian and Egyptian dissidents in Benghazi.
So by removing all his troops and arming the dissidents in Benghazi, we did "remove" him.
And Hillary openly pushed for just that.
It was no secret.
It was done right in the open.
Not just a big mistake, but totally illegal and immoral.
Qaddafi was better than what is there now.

Syrians and Egyptians weren't in Benghazi. although a handful of ISIS had moved there. We didn't arm anyone. Libya was a wash in weapons. Gaddafi had been on a two year spending spree in Europe and Russia.
Gadaffi's military and police were all foreign nationals as you said.. For the most part they threw down their weapons and ran.

Benghazi has been Syrians, Egyptians and other displaced dissidents for decades, if not centuries.
The whole point of the US CIA annex in Benghazi was to fund and arm dissidents there.
Libya was not awash in weapons for the dissidents except in Benghazi, at least until the US caused Qaddafi to be murdered.
And Qaddafi's mercenaries did not throw down their weapons and run, they were murdered by US air attacks.
Just like the Highway of Death.
We killed tens of thousands.

The purpose of the annex in Benghazi was communication to try and identify which tribes might support a return to the Idris Constitution.

Yes, Libya was awash in arms... about 3 billion dollars worth.

 

[Rigby5]

I doubt Honduras is on the radar. It's more likely that we're going to escalate the Syrian War again. I don't know if we'd invade a new country at this point.

Syrian war? with whom against whom?
To give Syria to Kurds? or to the Islamic state? or to Turkey?

and a direct fight with Russians?

US has too litte problem fighting Russia in Ukraine?

To give to the SAUDS...........

Give what to the Saud's? They don't want Syria, idiot.

I disagree with you on this one as well.
Saudi is Sunni and strongly supports Sunni over Shiites.
Assad is Shiite.
So the Saudis strongly want Assad out of power in Syria.
But since the Shiites are the minority, the only way to prevent massacres is by keeping the minority Shiites in power.

People talk about Iran being such a source of problems in the Mideast, but in my opinion the major source of problems is the Saudis, not the Iranians.

The SAG doesn't give a shit about Syria with the exception of 6 million Syria refugees.

You obviously don't know anything about Saudi Arabia. Iran is another matter.. The Iranian people are not like their terrible government or the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.

You are just totally wrong about Saudis and Syria.

{...
Saudi Arabia's involvement in the Syrian War involved the large-scale supply of weapons and ammunition to various rebel groups in Syria during the Syrian Civil War.

The Financial Times reported in May 2013 that Qatar was becoming a larger provider of arms to the various groups.[1] Since the summer of 2013, Saudi Arabia has emerged as the main group to finance and arm the rebels.[2] Saudi Arabia has financed a large purchase of infantry weapons, such as Yugoslav-made recoilless guns and the M79 Osa, an anti-tank weapon, from Croatia via shipments shuttled through Jordan.[3] The weapons began reaching rebels in December 2012 which allowed rebels' small tactical gains against the Syrian army.[3] This shipment was said to be to counter shipments of weapons from Iran to aid the Syrian government.[3]

Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar have received criticism from the Western Media for backing certain Syrian rebels associated with the Army of Conquest, which includes the al-Nusra front, an al-Qaeda affiliated group.[4]

In August 2017, the Syrian opposition was informed by the Saudi foreign minister that the Kingdom was disengaging from them.[5] Subsequently, Saudi Arabia has taken a more conciliatory stance towards the Syrian government.[6]
...}
Saudi Arabian involvement in the Syrian civil war - Wikipedia

Saudi involvement in the Syrian civil war - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Wyatt earp]

Trump was the only US, president for decades which did not start a war.

uh...what?

?

Clinton, Obama, Carter, Ford...none of 'em started wars.

Clinton , obama started wars trump and Carter did not

Obama didn't start any wars.. They US had NOTHING to do with the Arab Spring or Yemen.

I don't believe that.
Hillary was constantly talking about the "Arab Spring" and how it gave us an opportunity.
While we did not start the Arab Spring in Tunisia, we did massacre Qaddafi's forces, causing his murder.
We did arm, finance, and give Toyota trucks to Arab dissidents in Benghazi and other places, with the intent of escalating the Syrian civil war.
We likely also created, armed, and equipped ISIS.
And al Qaeda is our creation going way back to 1979.
We also smuggle support to dissidents in Iran.
We obviously funded Sisi's take over in Egypt.
The only place where the violence may not be the fault of the US is Yemen.
I don't know enough about that conflict to say.

You don't know anything about Libya or Syria or Egypt either. The US couldn't have stopped what was happening in Syria or Libya or Egypt if we'd tried.

You don't know much about anything, Qudaffi son was on the phone with the pentagon that night begging them not to do it