Thanks Biden, the Terrorists are beheading our allies again.

[surada]

What's nonsense because you don't understand the word "καθολικός" = "[all-]encompassing". The Nicene creed is common for all Christians. Only the sentence "we believe in one catholic and apostolic church" is sometimes replaced with sentences like "we believe in the christian church" where "christian" means the same as "καθολικός".



We Germanics were once "Arianer" =arians (not to confuse with "Arier" = aryans. In German this are totally different words). We saw in Him a hundred percent human being. But this did not change when we became Catholics. On logical reasons, which I don't like to explain now, it is impossible not to see in Jesus god. No one is really able to make a difference between Jesus and god - except he calls Jesus an impostor. And not even Muslims do so. They call Jesus a prophet.



Don't be astonished: But no one has really to believe in an own immortal soul who is a Christian, although nearly everyone is doing so. For the past I can say such a thing seems to exist because we all seem to be here since the very first moments of the universe, but whether we will continue to exist after our death I do not know. We believe in general god will call us back into a new everlasting (¿or timeless?) life with our soul and a new body made of light. And between Catholics and other Christians exists here specially the difference that many Roman Catholics are not convinced from an everlasting hell, because we are living in a limited way here on Earth - what not seems to justify a never ending punishment. We think more about a kind of cleanig fire - the so called purgatory - in which the soul (including body of light) will be finally cleaned from our last sins.



A sword is a piece of metal which is made to kill human beings. We were over long thousands of years excellent manufacturers of swords. The Japanese katana is the most famous sword in the world - but the German long sword is really doing what the myths say about the Japanese katana. Both are two hand swords - and the ways to fight with them are very different.



Everyone belongs to a tribe - and to call all people from a tribe to be "not good in their own religion" sounds to be a little racist. I'm sure it exist also very wise Saudis - but whether other people hear or like to hear what they say will be another problem.



Leadership? Hmmm ... Roman Catholics are unified under a leading servent of the servents of god who serve other Catholics. So who is our real leader? A tramp? ... Whatever. ... Fortunatelly a Trump seems not to be any leader in such a context. ...

The word catholic means UNIVERSAL.

 

[Rigby5]

There is nothing to doubt in this fact.



No idea what you say here.



What? Hitler never had money. He was poor. He was jailed because he made a riot. Unfortunlately he was not jailed long enough then "Mein K(r)ampf" had been perhaps a serialize novel.



Sure. He got it from his fan club.



What do you like to say? That Hitler was able to convince people from his political ideas?



On what? Tank design? Funny.



What started world war 2.



You are really an idiot. Learn first somehting before you try to discuss with a German like me about Hitler. ...

There is nothing to doubt in this fact.



No idea what you say here.



What? Hitler never had money. He was poor. He was jailed because he made a riot. Unfortunlately he was not jailed long enough then "Mein K(r)ampf" had been perhaps a serialize novel.



Sure. He got it from his fan club.



What do you like to say? That Hitler was able to convince people from his political ideas?



On what? Tank design? Funny.



What started world war 2.



You are really an idiot. Learn first somehting before you try to discuss with a German like me about Hitler. ...

Again, Hitler was poor and unknown when he was let out of prison early.
Clearly he had people who were selecting him, and spent a great deal of money making him famous.
Nor did Hitler have any goals or ideas that warranted him having a fan club or any supporters at all.
The only obvious factor was that Hitler was the most likely to mean war, and war meant munitions profits.
But war was not Hitler's goal, and Hitler did not profit from war, so obviously Hitler was just a pawn.
He was never powerful or in control.
Like Mussolini, he was the front man, the fall guy, the patsy.
Those who invested all that money in making Hitler famous, did not lose a dime.
They got Hitler to do exactly as they wanted, and the result of WWII was just what they wanted.

 

[Rigby5]

The history of cooperation between Hitler's Germany and Stalin's USSR is much more extensive than most people realize.

{...
Twenty years of intermittent cooperation had thus armed both Germany and the USSR for war. That relationship had begun in the immediate aftermath of the First World War. In the Treaty of Versailles that ended the war, the victorious allies reduced the German Army to only 100,000 men, and banned it from purchasing or producing tanks, aircraft, submarines or chemical weapons. They also stationed inspection teams in Germany to supervise the demilitarization of German industry. The remnants of the German High Command, now leading the much reduced Reichswehr [Reich Defense Force], did not accept these limitations. Instead, they immediately sought ways to circumvent Versailles and its enforcers. But isolated and occupied, they needed a partner.

The Reichswehr would find one a thousand miles to the east. After their victory in the Russian Civil War, the Bolsheviks found themselves largely cut off from the rest of the world. The Red Army was in parlous shape. Famine and disease were rife. And industrial production had dropped to nearly zero. Facing the hostility of much of the rest of the world, Soviet Russia needed help, even if it meant working with the arch-counter revolutionaries heading the German Army.

Circumstances thus thrust together ideological opponents. The German military began to provide the Soviets materiel and intelligence during the Bolsheviks’ war against Poland in 1920. In April 1922, the two states normalized relations in the Treaty of Rapallo. Shortly thereafter, the two militaries expanded cooperation, beginning with the relocation to the USSR of industrial production banned in Germany. The first products of this effort would be a chemical weapons complex near Samara and an aircraft factory in the Moscow suburbs; each began production in 1923.

The scale of industrial cooperation between the two states would grow to staggering proportions, much of it mediated by the German military. In the 1920s alone, the Red Army negotiated contracts with 255 German companies, including nearly every major industrial firm in Germany. The long-term impact on Soviet industrialization was tremendous: By 1940, 55% of all Soviet tank production would be dependent on factories that had been built or designed by German engineers, or equipped with German machine tools.

As these corporate projects took off, German and Soviet military leadership also sought to expand direct military-to-military cooperation. In 1923, the Reichswehr began to dispatch German pilots to a Soviet air base near Lipetsk. There they trained Soviet cadets on basic flight techniques. In 1925, the Germans would acquire the base on a lease, providing a space where the Reichswehr could test new plane prototypes and train new pilots, mechanics and engineers; in exchange, they would train in Soviet officers and engineers and provide the Soviet Air Force access to Germany’s newest technologies.

Lipetsk was the first of a network of shared military facilities. The next, a chemical weapons testing ground, opened in the fall of 1926 near Moscow. Starting in 1927, construction also began on a joint armored warfare training and testing ground. Based near Kazan, this facility would become fully operational with the arrival of German tank prototypes in 1929.

These facilities provided the basis for future German rearmament. All but one of the seven aviation firms in Germany were secretly contracted to dispatch their prototypes to Lipetsk for testing. Almost all of Germany’s aircraft designers who worked in the Second World War had their first major professional experience designing aircraft for Lipetsk. In essence, Germany would have been largely incapable of mass-design and production of combat aircraft without the Soviet partnership. The same was true in tank design: beginning in 1926, major industrial firms – Daimler, Krupp and M.A.N. – dispatched entire teams of engineers to take up residence at Kama, where Germany’s first new (and secret) tank prototypes were tested and improved. The engineers who resided in the USSR would later be responsible for designing the Panzer Mark I, II, III and IV - Germany’s main tank designs through 1943. These vehicles were in turn based on the prototypes that had first been tested and developed in the USSR.

The facilities in the USSR trained relatively small numbers of German officers and men - less than a thousand in total. Twenty-two future Luftwaffe generals of three star rank or above had either studied, taught, or had a command position at Lipetsk. Seventeen of the students who had attended Kama would command at least a division in combat in the Second World War. Other alumni would manage training as the German military grew, as few other German officers had experience with tanks or planes. In sum, the German military would not have been capable of expansion or rearmament had it not been for the work conducted in the USSR.

This first period of Soviet-German cooperation would come to a close under Hitler in the fall of 1933. In early 1939, the Soviets and Germans would both begin reassessing the possibility of revisiting their earlier partnership. The result would be the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of August 23, 1939 - a “renewal,” in Hitler’s words, of the earlier period of Soviet-German cooperation. The two states proceeded to partition Eastern Europe into spheres of influence. The following month, Hitler invaded Poland, triggering British and French declarations of war. For the next twenty two months, the Soviets and the Germans would again operate as partners. This second period of partnership would end with Hitler’s betrayal in June 1941. Hitler decided on war with the USSR in December 1940, following his failure to convince Stalin to join the war against Great Britain – there were limits to the dictators’ pact. Nevertheless, by then, thanks to years of collaboration, Germany and the Soviet Union shared a border, a capacity for making war, and bloody-minded ideologies, setting the stage for the most violent front of the Second World War.
...}

Ambitious for War: How German-Soviet Collaboration Set the Course for WWII | History News Network

historynewsnetwork.org

 

[HappyJoy]

surada

Both of you show by calling me a Nazi who defends Hitler that you don't have any real arguments because you refuse to see the complexity of reality. Example: George W. Bush created ISIS by defending the Saud system, which is in the total opposite of the founding principles of the USA. You create what you hate. Saddam Husein had by the way fought once against the Iran for the Sauds and the USA and had caused an immense damage in the Iran - for long eight years.

I didn't call you a Nazi, but you sure do appear to be defending Germany during WWII.

I'm also not a fan of George W Bush, I think his administration set fire to a powder keg in the middle east.

 

[HappyJoy]

Hitler got no orders - from no one. (Except when he had been a soldier in world war 1). And Hitler had been an anti-Soviet. Some people in the USA attack "The Democrats" of the USA, because Hitler had been a socialist and they like to see in Democrats also socialists and Nazis - but this is just simple an extreme political nonsense propaganda. What doesn't mean that not some people - independent from their political orientation - use the same form of an extreme inhuman propaganda as the Nazis did do - also with racist biological arguments (=elitist pseudo-Darwinism). Here in Germany we say sometimes: "Someone is so far left that he comes back from the extreme right edge." or "Someone is so far right that he comes back from the extreme left edge." But this is not a system. In general the Nazis had been a right wing movement - a kind of right wing revolution.

Agree.

 

[Rigby5]

I didn't call you a Nazi, but you sure do appear to be defending Germany during WWII.

I'm also not a fan of George W Bush, I think his administration set fire to a powder keg in the middle east.

Which Hillary supported setting fire to and continued on with her "Arab Spring" nonsense, which was actually all the US except for the origins in Tunisia in 2010. Trying to kill off all the Arab leaders, like Saddam, Qaddafi, Assad, Morsi, etc., was a terrible idea.

 

[surada]

Which Hillary supported setting fire to and continued on with her "Arab Spring" nonsense, which was actually all the US except for the origins in Tunisia in 2010. Trying to kill off all the Arab leaders, like Saddam, Qaddafi, Assad, Morsi, etc., was a terrible idea.

You are dead wrong on the Arab Spring.

 

[Rigby5]

Agree.

If Hitler was not taking orders from anyone, then how was he able to afford to put on these million dollar outdoor events when he was poor, and why did he do suicidal things, like attack the USSR before finishing off England?
Hitler was never acting in his own interests.
Nothing he did made sense in terms of what would have been good for him, nor could he possibly have pulled it off himself.

 

[Rigby5]

You are dead wrong on the Arab Spring.

The original and real Arab Spring is what put Morsi into power.
The Arab Spring that arrested Morsi and put General Sisi into power was not the real Arab Spring, but a fake one.
Same with Assad and Saddam.
The dictators provided the most freedom and stability because they were from the minority and had to provide or else.
If the majority takes over, like in Iraq, then there is nothing to stop the majority from abusing the minority.
Iraq likely will now simply be submerged with Iran.
If Assad were to lose, it would be a bloodbath and Shia would be massacred.

 

[HappyJoy]

Which Hillary supported setting fire to and continued on with her "Arab Spring" nonsense, which was actually all the US except for the origins in Tunisia in 2010. Trying to kill off all the Arab leaders, like Saddam, Qaddafi, Assad, Morsi, etc., was a terrible idea.

Neat kid. The Iraq war set off an imbalance in the region that could only lead to a single conclusion that benefits Iran. Clinton didn't have the opportunity to manage either war (Iraq and Afghanistan) early on, that was on Bush. The Obama administration didn't start a single additional war, rather had to deal with the outcomes of what they inherited. They are accused of either being the cause of ISIS or not fighting ISIS soon enough. They made a lot of mistakes no doubt. However under two separate Democratic presidencies we have managed to finally get out of both Iraq and Afghanistan.

In the meantime the last two Republican presidents could only win the popular vote 1 time out of 4.

 

[HappyJoy]

If Hitler was not taking orders from anyone, then how was he able to afford to put on these million dollar outdoor events when he was poor, and why did he do suicidal things, like attack the USSR before finishing off England?
Hitler was never acting in his own interests.
Nothing he did made sense in terms of what would have been good for him, nor could he possibly have pulled it off himself.

Hitler earned a lot of money through through book sales. Do you mean the "million dollar" events after he was Chancellor? Gee, I suppose having a government put that together is not really out of the question. Even a poor country.

Why did Hitler attack the USSR before finishing off England? Are you questioning the judgement of a guy who had millions killed for the simple sake of their religion to have sound judgement?

Who are you scapegoating Hitler off to anyway?

 

[Rigby5]

Neat kid. The Iraq war set off an imbalance in the region that could only lead to a single conclusion that benefits Iran. Clinton didn't have the opportunity to manage either war (Iraq and Afghanistan) early on, that was on Bush. The Obama administration didn't start a single additional war, rather had to deal with the outcomes of what they inherited. They are accused of either being the cause of ISIS or not fighting ISIS soon enough. They made a lot of mistakes no doubt. However under two separate Democratic presidencies we have managed to finally get out of both Iraq and Afghanistan.

In the meantime the last two Republican presidents could only win the popular vote 1 time out of 4.

Its true Bush was the major cause of the wars, but Hillary and Kerry were in their giving their speeches to support both wars.
Then in 2009 they did nothing to reduce the wars, but instead greatly expanded the destabilization in Libya, Egypt, Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan, etc.
The only good thing I remember is that Obama eased up on Iran.
I agree ISIS predated Obama, but I think ISIS not only was fake and a western artifact, but could have been eliminated by the US going back to the plan of dividing Iraq up into 3 regions. It was wrong to remove autonomy of the Iraqi Sunni.

 

[Rigby5]

Hitler earned a lot of money through through book sales. Do you mean the "million dollar" events after he was Chancellor? Gee, I suppose having a government put that together is not really out of the question. Even a poor country.

Why did Hitler attack the USSR before finishing off England? Are you questioning the judgement of a guy who had millions killed for the simple sake of their religion to have sound judgement?

Who are you scapegoating Hitler off to anyway?

No one would have published or bought a book about the thoughts of a WWI corporal, if not being backed already.
Hitler was putting on expensive events before becoming Chancellor. That is how he got picked to become Chancellor.

Religion has no influence on Hitler's actions at all.
That is like saying FDR has the US Japanese interned because they were Taoists.

It was clear the money Hitler was able to campaign on did not come from Germany, but US companies like GM, Std Oil, etc.

 

[HappyJoy]

Its true Bush was the major cause of the wars, but Hillary and Kerry were in their giving their speeches to support both wars.
Then in 2009 they did nothing to reduce the wars, but instead greatly expanded the destabilization in Libya, Egypt, Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan, etc.
The only good thing I remember is that Obama eased up on Iran.
I agree ISIS predated Obama, but I think ISIS not only was fake and a western artifact, but could have been eliminated by the US going back to the plan of dividing Iraq up into 3 regions. It was wrong to remove autonomy of the Iraqi Sunni.

Oh, Clinton and Kerry are responsible for the destabilization of Afghanistan? Every country in the middle east was destabilized by what we started in the early Bush years.

Obama got us out of Iraq and Biden Afghanistan.

ISIS was fake? What does that even mean? How exactly would dividing Iraq up have ended ISIS? Let's see the U.S. government would almost assuredly have setup 3 governments (way more complicated than 1) that were U.S. friendly, we wouldn't have done it any other way and somehow ISIS would have been fine with that?

Everything we did in Iraq was wrong. Should have never been there and only one president gets to take responsibility that we were there and that we fucked it up so badly so early. It's not just a coincidence that he was also a Republican. A Republican mind you who at the time received some of the same adulation that Trump has now. He was revered for his anti-intellectualism and status as a culture war hero. He fought off teh gay marriage don't ya' know? Way more than half these wingnut fucks supported that guy like they do Trump today. Some won't admit it, but we know.

 

[Rigby5]

Oh, Clinton and Kerry are responsible for the destabilization of Afghanistan? Every country in the middle east was destabilized by what we started in the early Bush years.

Obama got us out of Iraq and Biden Afghanistan.

ISIS was fake? What does that even mean? How exactly would dividing Iraq up have ended ISIS? Let's see the U.S. government would almost assuredly have setup 3 governments (way more complicated than 1) that were U.S. friendly, we wouldn't have done it any other way and somehow ISIS would have been fine with that?

Everything we did in Iraq was wrong. Should have never been there and only one president gets to take responsibility that we were there and that we fucked it up so badly so early. It's not just a coincidence that he was also a Republican. A Republican mind you who at the time received some of the same adulation that Trump has now. He was revered for his anti-intellectualism and status as a culture war hero. He fought off teh gay marriage don't ya' know? Way more than half these wingnut fucks supported that guy like they do Trump today. Some won't admit it, but we know.

Yes, Kerry and Clinton. I remember their war speeches very well. All those WMD like atomic bombs 2 weeks away, tons of anthrax, etc.
Bush did not declare war, Congress did, and it was a democratic congress.
( an no I am not a republican, but very far left )

Obama increased our troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan. He got out of nothing. And in fact he got us into Libya (Stevens in Benghazi).

ISIS was all the Iraqi Sunni who used to have government jobs, like teachers, lawyers, soldiers, bureaucrats, etc., that the Shiites suddenly made all permanently unemployed. All the US had to do was to offer them jobs. A 3 way partitioning of Iraq would have done that, and kept the Kurds from conflicting with the Turks in Syria as well. Would have been easy to prevent. ISIS would not have been necessary because these Iraqi Sunni would have had their own partition.

 

[zaangalewa]

Again, Hitler was poor and unknown when he was let out of prison early.

He got five years (minimum penalty), was imprisoned in a tolerant way like a politcal prisoner and not like a criminal - so he had many visitors and had been able to write his book "Mein K(r)ampf". He went to prison 1st of April 1924 (what somehow shows that Hitler had something like humor) and was set free on parole 20th of december 1924 (Christmas) because of the intrecession of the leader of the prison. Looks like no one saw really a crime in his trying to eliminate the Bavarian democracy.

Clearly he had people who were selecting him, and spent a great deal of money making him famous.

He had a big fan club.

Nor did Hitler have any goals or ideas that warranted him having a fan club or any supporters at all.

He had many supporters.

The only obvious factor was that Hitler was the most likely to mean war, and war meant munitions profits.

Hitler always said he likes peace.

But war was not Hitler's goal,

Hitler always prepared war.

and Hitler did not profit from war, so obviously Hitler was just a pawn.

You think like an US-American when you say so - that's all. To make profit with war is a shame in the view of many Germans still today. War is the question to be or not to be. ThatÄs why many Germans say US-Americans don't know what war is.
You never had the question to be or not to be.

He was never powerful or in control.

He was. Whatever Hitler said was made.

Like Mussolini, he was the front man, the fall guy, the patsy.
Those who invested all that money in making Hitler famous, did not lose a dime.

Hitler made Hitler famous. That's why he got more and more money.

They got Hitler to do exactly as they wanted, and the result of WWII was just what they wanted.

I know it is difficult to explain the unexplainable but what had happened in history had happened. Even if I fear if I would give you very self-critical textes from Germans you would also not understand why had happened what had happened.

 

[Rigby5]

He got five years (minimum penalty), was imprisoned in a tolerant way like a politcal prisoner and not like a criminal - so he had many visitors and had been able to write his book "Mein K(r)ampf". He went to prison 1st of April 1924 (what somehow shows that Hitler had something like humor) and was set free on parole 20th of december 1924 (Christmas) because of the intrecession of the leader of the prison. Looks like no one saw really a crime in his trying to eliminate the Bavarian democracy.



He had a big fan club.



He had many supporters.



Hitler always said he likes peace.



Hitler always prepared war.



You think like an US-American when you say so - that's all. To make profit with war is a shame in the view of many Germans still today. War is the question to be or not to be. ThatÄs why many Germans say US-Americans don't know what war is.
You never had the question to be or not to be.



He was. Whatever Hitler said was made.



Hitler made Hitler famous. That's why he got more and more money.



I know it is difficult to explain the unexplainable but what had happened in history had happened. Even if I fear if I would give you very self-critical textes from Germans you would also not understand why had happened what had happened.

Sorry, but in the US we understand this better because it happens here so often.
War is profits.
It funnels public tax money into private pockets, without question.
We have almost constant war in the US, with the greatest % of military spending in the world.
It makes no sense at all, but munitions means profits, and profits control the media, so we have perpetual war in the US.
It is not like the US has ever actually been threatened since 1812.

Hitler could not have created his own fan club.
No individual can ever do that unless they already are wealthy, like Trump.
Hitler was not wealthy.
So he was picked by the wealthy instead.

And I doubt those picking Hitler were German.
Hitler was not good for Germany at all.
Nor did what Hitler want, get made.
Hitler was really stupid, and wanted aircraft carriers with huge guns, tanks that were too big for bridges, and impossible fantasy weapons.
He never understood strategic bombing, why he needed to get the local support of the Soviet people, or almost anything about the conduct of war.

The Maus was silly, weighing 188 metric tons.
Hitler was the perfect leader, only if your goal was to ensure eventual defeat.
With Allies air superiority, actually Germany would have been better off with many smaller and faster tanks, not fewer, bigger ones.

 

[HappyJoy]

Yes, Kerry and Clinton. I remember their war speeches very well. All those WMD like atomic bombs 2 weeks away, tons of anthrax, etc.
Bush did not declare war, Congress did, and it was a democratic congress.
( an no I am not a republican, but very far left )

Actually Congress didn't declare war on Iraq or Afghanistan. The last time that happened was for WWII. What Congress did was give the Bush administration to basically do what they wanted in Iraq in the name of fighting terrorism. Big mistake. Most Democrats in Congress voted against it. Of course you won't agree with that point but here is a link that tally's up the votes.

Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Congressional votes:
Democrats: Ayes - 110 / Nays - 147
Republicans: Ayes - 263 / Nays - 7

Of course the more liberal you were the less likely you were to vote for it and the more conservative the more likely to be in favor of.

Obama increased our troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan. He got out of nothing. And in fact he got us into Libya (Stevens in Benghazi).

Yes, remember when I said the Obama administration made mistakes? He also got us out of Iraq and took OBL out in Afghanistan. A much better record than both Bush and Trump. It's not easy inheriting someone other dumbfucks war that you were against.

ISIS was all the Iraqi Sunni who used to have government jobs, like teachers, lawyers, soldiers, bureaucrats, etc., that the Shiites suddenly made all permanently unemployed. All the US had to do was to offer them jobs. A 3 way partitioning of Iraq would have done that, and kept the Kurds from conflicting with the Turks in Syria as well. Would have been easy to prevent. ISIS would not have been necessary because these Iraqi Sunni would have had their own partition.

It was a lot of the Iraqi military who Bush disbanded and sent packing. One of the absolute worst decisions ever made in Iraq and you want to blame Clinton, Kerry and Obama for? You've got to be fucking joking.

 

[Rigby5]

Actually Congress didn't declare war on Iraq or Afghanistan. The last time that happened was for WWII. What Congress did was give the Bush administration to basically do what they wanted in Iraq in the name of fighting terrorism. Big mistake. Most Democrats in Congress voted against it. Of course you won't agree with that point but here is a link that tally's up the votes.

Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Congressional votes:
Democrats: Ayes - 110 / Nays - 147
Republicans: Ayes - 263 / Nays - 7

Of course the more liberal you were the less likely you were to vote for it and the more conservative the more likely to be in favor of.



Yes, remember when I said the Obama administration made mistakes? He also got us out of Iraq and took OBL out in Afghanistan. A much better record than both Bush and Trump. It's not easy inheriting someone other dumbfucks war that you were against.



It was a lot of the Iraqi military who Bush disbanded and sent packing. One of the absolute worst decisions ever made in Iraq and you want to blame Clinton, Kerry and Obama for? You've got to be fucking joking.

The Joint Resolution for the Use of Force in Iraq was passed mostly by Hillary and Kerry speeches, and essentially was a declaration of war, since Bush already gave his opinion.

I don't believe Obama got us out of Iraq at all, and killing OBL was a terrible idea, We needed OBL alive.
But I will agree it was Bush who created ISIS and it was before Obama.

 

[HappyJoy]

The Joint Resolution for the Use of Force in Iraq was passed mostly by Hillary and Kerry speeches, and essentially was a declaration of war, since Bush already gave his opinion.

Really? The Republicans who had a majority in both houses looked to Clinton and Kerry? Again, most Democrats voted against the war. Also Clinton and Kerry did not execute the early parts of the war. Basically not taking care of Afghanistan early on because we had a new shiny toy in Iraq and then they weren't SOS when we clearly fucked that up from the get go.

I don't believe Obama got us out of Iraq at all, and killing OBL was a terrible idea, We needed OBL alive.
But I will agree it was Bush who created ISIS and it was before Obama.

Getting out of Iraq happened while Obama was the president. Not Bush. We got out of Afghanistan under Biden, Not Bush, Obama or Trump. That means Democrats ended both wars.

What did we need OBL alive for?