US hypocrisy

[frigidweirdo]

Dude. Put the bong down. Iraqi Civil War (2014–present) - Wikipedia

They've been fighting in Mosul for six months straight. http://m.jpost.com/#/app/article/486112

What nonsense are you spouting?

Baghdad says US pledges continued support for Iraq's war against ISIS

For three years Iraq has been essentially stalemated against ISIS in Iraq. Where did you get this nonsense about peaceful? Compared to Anbar Province, Detroit is a peaceful place, Chicago is a paradise of neighborly love and respect.

Dude. I don't know what you are taking, but it is nearly too late for rehab.

Are stupid? Yes, there is a war, and Iraq is a functioning democracy.

What does "functioning democracy" mean?

A "functioning democracy" doesn't mean the country doesn't have massive problems. It doesn't mean there isn't widespread corruption, it doesn't mean people don't get killed all the time, it doesn't mean much, to be honest.

If you don't know what the term, functioning democracy means, what are you doing on a political message board? Obviously, you have no interest or background in politics.

Having been on message boards for a long time, I've learned that people often have different definitions of things.

Also, the point I was making that a functioning democracy doesn't mean much these days.

As for your "obviously", well.. seems like a cop out for not answering the questions. What sort of a person goes on a message board and doesn't answer the questions? "Obviously, you have no interest or background in politics."

Ok, have it your way, democracy doesn't mean much to you.

You have no idea what I'm even saying, but to be honest, it doesn't seem like you're up for a proper debate anyway.

 

[LeftofLeft]

And people wonder why so many DESPISE that the world thinks the US government of the past 100 years even comes close to representing THE PEOPLE.

When and where did the US use Chemical Weapons against its own people?

 

[toomuchtime_]

Are stupid? Yes, there is a war, and Iraq is a functioning democracy.

What does "functioning democracy" mean?

A "functioning democracy" doesn't mean the country doesn't have massive problems. It doesn't mean there isn't widespread corruption, it doesn't mean people don't get killed all the time, it doesn't mean much, to be honest.

If you don't know what the term, functioning democracy means, what are you doing on a political message board? Obviously, you have no interest or background in politics.

Having been on message boards for a long time, I've learned that people often have different definitions of things.

Also, the point I was making that a functioning democracy doesn't mean much these days.

As for your "obviously", well.. seems like a cop out for not answering the questions. What sort of a person goes on a message board and doesn't answer the questions? "Obviously, you have no interest or background in politics."

Ok, have it your way, democracy doesn't mean much to you.

You have no idea what I'm even saying, but to be honest, it doesn't seem like you're up for a proper debate anyway.

lol Debate what? Whether democracy is important? Look, you wanted to say something disparaging about the US effort in Iraq but you didn't have the facts to come up with anything real, so you made a stupid statement about democracy not being important and now you're trying to defend something that is indefensible.

 

[SavannahMann]

Dude. Put the bong down. Iraqi Civil War (2014–present) - Wikipedia

They've been fighting in Mosul for six months straight. http://m.jpost.com/#/app/article/486112

What nonsense are you spouting?

Baghdad says US pledges continued support for Iraq's war against ISIS

For three years Iraq has been essentially stalemated against ISIS in Iraq. Where did you get this nonsense about peaceful? Compared to Anbar Province, Detroit is a peaceful place, Chicago is a paradise of neighborly love and respect.

Dude. I don't know what you are taking, but it is nearly too late for rehab.

Are stupid? Yes, there is a war, and Iraq is a functioning democracy.

A reply ago Iraq was peaceful because we had intervened. Now I'm an idiot because of course there is a war.

I can't decide if you are hopeless because you swallow the propaganda or if you are inept at spreading it.

I suppose you hoped I was dumb enough to be ignorant of what is going on. It doesn't make the MSM much anymore. It would be simple to be ignorant. I suppose that may be your excuse.

Y

Dude. Put the bong down. Iraqi Civil War (2014–present) - Wikipedia

They've been fighting in Mosul for six months straight. http://m.jpost.com/#/app/article/486112

What nonsense are you spouting?

Baghdad says US pledges continued support for Iraq's war against ISIS

For three years Iraq has been essentially stalemated against ISIS in Iraq. Where did you get this nonsense about peaceful? Compared to Anbar Province, Detroit is a peaceful place, Chicago is a paradise of neighborly love and respect.

Dude. I don't know what you are taking, but it is nearly too late for rehab.

Are stupid? Yes, there is a war, and Iraq is a functioning democracy.

A reply ago Iraq was peaceful because we had intervened. Now I'm an idiot because of course there is a war.

I can't decide if you are hopeless because you swallow the propaganda or if you are inept at spreading it.

I suppose you hoped I was dumb enough to be ignorant of what is going on. It doesn't make the MSM much anymore. It would be simple to be ignorant. I suppose that may be your excuse.

Your posts are stupid because you are a true believer, not a thinker, and are unable to process information that does not support what you have already decided to believe. So in response to the fact Iraq is now a functioning democracy, you say but there is a war, which is irrelevant to the issue of Iraq being a democracy because you are committed to believing nothing good came from the war, but since when don't Americans believe democracy is a good thing?

Dude. Put the bong down. Iraqi Civil War (2014–present) - Wikipedia

They've been fighting in Mosul for six months straight. http://m.jpost.com/#/app/article/486112

What nonsense are you spouting?

Baghdad says US pledges continued support for Iraq's war against ISIS

For three years Iraq has been essentially stalemated against ISIS in Iraq. Where did you get this nonsense about peaceful? Compared to Anbar Province, Detroit is a peaceful place, Chicago is a paradise of neighborly love and respect.

Dude. I don't know what you are taking, but it is nearly too late for rehab.

Are stupid? Yes, there is a war, and Iraq is a functioning democracy.

A reply ago Iraq was peaceful because we had intervened. Now I'm an idiot because of course there is a war.

I can't decide if you are hopeless because you swallow the propaganda or if you are inept at spreading it.

I suppose you hoped I was dumb enough to be ignorant of what is going on. It doesn't make the MSM much anymore. It would be simple to be ignorant. I suppose that may be your excuse.

Y

Dude. Put the bong down. Iraqi Civil War (2014–present) - Wikipedia

They've been fighting in Mosul for six months straight. http://m.jpost.com/#/app/article/486112

What nonsense are you spouting?

Baghdad says US pledges continued support for Iraq's war against ISIS

For three years Iraq has been essentially stalemated against ISIS in Iraq. Where did you get this nonsense about peaceful? Compared to Anbar Province, Detroit is a peaceful place, Chicago is a paradise of neighborly love and respect.

Dude. I don't know what you are taking, but it is nearly too late for rehab.

Are stupid? Yes, there is a war, and Iraq is a functioning democracy.

A reply ago Iraq was peaceful because we had intervened. Now I'm an idiot because of course there is a war.

I can't decide if you are hopeless because you swallow the propaganda or if you are inept at spreading it.

I suppose you hoped I was dumb enough to be ignorant of what is going on. It doesn't make the MSM much anymore. It would be simple to be ignorant. I suppose that may be your excuse.

Your posts are stupid because you are a true believer, not a thinker, and are unable to process information that does not support what you have already decided to believe. So in response to the fact Iraq is now a functioning democracy, you say but there is a war, which is irrelevant to the issue of Iraq being a democracy because you are committed to believing nothing good came from the war, but since when don't Americans believe democracy is a good thing?

But that isn't what you said you blithering idiot.

Those are all countries in which the US didn't help, but in Iraq where the US did help, we have Sunni, Kurds and Shia living as peacefully as the Catholics and Protestants in Ireland. Perhaps more peacefully.

So I pointed out this was an asinine statement. Then you pretend you were talking about something else entirely.

I think we have reached the point some time ago. You want the terrorists to win. You don't pretend that there is any other alternative without massive deployment of American troops. That this would trigger World War III is not important to you.

I think the terrorists winning would be without a doubt the worst possible outcome.

When I voted last November. The worst outcome in my mind was Hillary in the Oval Office. Literally anything was preferable to that outcome. I knew the Trump admin would not be good, but it wouldn't be as bad as Hillary. I voted for Trump because I hoped to avoid the worst possible outcome.

You have a different opinion. You want to pretend we can moderate the Terrorists. Then you call me a dreamer for pointing out what a stupid idea this is.

The truth is the war broke out when Obama did just what you want, withdrew US troops from Iraq. Were you capable of processing facts that do not support your ideological commitments, you would note that while the Bush administration kept our troops there and stayed engaged with the Iraqi government, there was relative peace between Sunni and Shia, but when Obama withdrew the troops and disengaged politically, the Shi'ites turned on the Sunni and the terrorists were able to gain recruits.

Btw, it is a mark of just how demented and dishonest you are that you call everyone in the conflicts who are not loyal to brutal dictators terrorists. Sadam and Assad terrorized their populations but you don't see terrorizing people as the mark of a terrorist. However, anyone who opposes these brutal dictators you call a terrorist even if they have not sought to terrorize the population.

So it's Obama's fault that Bush signed the Agreement to withdraw the troops.

U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement - Wikipedia

Where did you get this idea that Obama did it on a whim? Remember the shoe throwing incident when Bush was in iraq? Bush was there to sign the agreement.

This reply shows you are completely full of shit. I am seriously wondering if you are that stupid? If you are that stupid I wonder why the Nurse let you near a computer. How hard is it for you to walk by a window and not lick it?

This is the same kind of bullshit I remember when Bill Clinton gave the Panama Canal to Panama. Morons like you wanted to blame Clinton like he came up with it. Idiots just like you with the attention span of a gnat forgot the treaty was signed more than twenty years before.

Let me guess. The approach we are supposed to take is we do whatever we want and any treaties or agreements are just scraps of paper right?

 

[SavannahMann]

And people wonder why so many DESPISE that the world thinks the US government of the past 100 years even comes close to representing THE PEOPLE.

When and where did the US use Chemical Weapons against its own people?

Chemical weapons, World War II. Nuclear Was post World War II. Biological was pre and post World War II.

World War II was the presence of tons of mustard gas shipped from America to England. The ship was hit by a German Bomb and released into the water.

The Navy intentionally irradiated Sailors and Soldiers to see the long term effects of nuclear contamination. They included the islanders from Bikini Atoll after the Castle Bravo bomb.

The Government infected people with syphillis to study the long term effects. Tuskegee Study - Timeline - CDC - NCHHSTP

 

[busybee01]

Are stupid? Yes, there is a war, and Iraq is a functioning democracy.

A reply ago Iraq was peaceful because we had intervened. Now I'm an idiot because of course there is a war.

I can't decide if you are hopeless because you swallow the propaganda or if you are inept at spreading it.

I suppose you hoped I was dumb enough to be ignorant of what is going on. It doesn't make the MSM much anymore. It would be simple to be ignorant. I suppose that may be your excuse.

Y

Are stupid? Yes, there is a war, and Iraq is a functioning democracy.

A reply ago Iraq was peaceful because we had intervened. Now I'm an idiot because of course there is a war.

I can't decide if you are hopeless because you swallow the propaganda or if you are inept at spreading it.

I suppose you hoped I was dumb enough to be ignorant of what is going on. It doesn't make the MSM much anymore. It would be simple to be ignorant. I suppose that may be your excuse.

Your posts are stupid because you are a true believer, not a thinker, and are unable to process information that does not support what you have already decided to believe. So in response to the fact Iraq is now a functioning democracy, you say but there is a war, which is irrelevant to the issue of Iraq being a democracy because you are committed to believing nothing good came from the war, but since when don't Americans believe democracy is a good thing?

Are stupid? Yes, there is a war, and Iraq is a functioning democracy.

Bush did not want to tie Obama's hands so he did not commit US troops to be in Iraq beyond his Presidency. Bush himself warned what would happen if we withdrew too soon and everything he said would happen has happened.

A reply ago Iraq was peaceful because we had intervened. Now I'm an idiot because of course there is a war.

I can't decide if you are hopeless because you swallow the propaganda or if you are inept at spreading it.

I suppose you hoped I was dumb enough to be ignorant of what is going on. It doesn't make the MSM much anymore. It would be simple to be ignorant. I suppose that may be your excuse.

Y

Are stupid? Yes, there is a war, and Iraq is a functioning democracy.

A reply ago Iraq was peaceful because we had intervened. Now I'm an idiot because of course there is a war.

I can't decide if you are hopeless because you swallow the propaganda or if you are inept at spreading it.

I suppose you hoped I was dumb enough to be ignorant of what is going on. It doesn't make the MSM much anymore. It would be simple to be ignorant. I suppose that may be your excuse.

Your posts are stupid because you are a true believer, not a thinker, and are unable to process information that does not support what you have already decided to believe. So in response to the fact Iraq is now a functioning democracy, you say but there is a war, which is irrelevant to the issue of Iraq being a democracy because you are committed to believing nothing good came from the war, but since when don't Americans believe democracy is a good thing?

But that isn't what you said you blithering idiot.

Those are all countries in which the US didn't help, but in Iraq where the US did help, we have Sunni, Kurds and Shia living as peacefully as the Catholics and Protestants in Ireland. Perhaps more peacefully.

So I pointed out this was an asinine statement. Then you pretend you were talking about something else entirely.

I think we have reached the point some time ago. You want the terrorists to win. You don't pretend that there is any other alternative without massive deployment of American troops. That this would trigger World War III is not important to you.

I think the terrorists winning would be without a doubt the worst possible outcome.

When I voted last November. The worst outcome in my mind was Hillary in the Oval Office. Literally anything was preferable to that outcome. I knew the Trump admin would not be good, but it wouldn't be as bad as Hillary. I voted for Trump because I hoped to avoid the worst possible outcome.

You have a different opinion. You want to pretend we can moderate the Terrorists. Then you call me a dreamer for pointing out what a stupid idea this is.

The truth is the war broke out when Obama did just what you want, withdrew US troops from Iraq. Were you capable of processing facts that do not support your ideological commitments, you would note that while the Bush administration kept our troops there and stayed engaged with the Iraqi government, there was relative peace between Sunni and Shia, but when Obama withdrew the troops and disengaged politically, the Shi'ites turned on the Sunni and the terrorists were able to gain recruits.

Btw, it is a mark of just how demented and dishonest you are that you call everyone in the conflicts who are not loyal to brutal dictators terrorists. Sadam and Assad terrorized their populations but you don't see terrorizing people as the mark of a terrorist. However, anyone who opposes these brutal dictators you call a terrorist even if they have not sought to terrorize the population.

So it's Obama's fault that Bush signed the Agreement to withdraw the troops.

U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement - Wikipedia

Where did you get this idea that Obama did it on a whim? Remember the shoe throwing incident when Bush was in iraq? Bush was there to sign the agreement.

This reply shows you are completely full of shit. I am seriously wondering if you are that stupid? If you are that stupid I wonder why the Nurse let you near a computer. How hard is it for you to walk by a window and not lick it?

This is the same kind of bullshit I remember when Bill Clinton gave the Panama Canal to Panama. Morons like you wanted to blame Clinton like he came up with it. Idiots just like you with the attention span of a gnat forgot the treaty was signed more than twenty years before.

Let me guess. The approach we are supposed to take is we do whatever we want and any treaties or agreements are just scraps of paper right?

 

[Tehon]

The truth is the war broke out when Obama did just what you want, withdrew US troops from Iraq. Were you capable of processing facts that do not support your ideological commitments, you would note that while the Bush administration kept our troops there and stayed engaged with the Iraqi government, there was relative peace between Sunni and Shia, but when Obama withdrew the troops and disengaged politically, the Shi'ites turned on the Sunni and the terrorists were able to gain recruits.

The Bush administration set the timetable for our withdrawal having first deemed the surge a success. It was also the Bush administration that acknowledged a shifting alignment in the Middle East and chose to cast our lot in with Nations that support radical Sunniism and nations that have a history of animosity toward Syria. It seems that Obama just advanced policies that were developed under Bush and were designed to destabilize Syria in order to try and contain Iranian influence across the region.

 

[August West]

Barry and the democrats raised hell over the Fake News conspiracy Theory that Russia 'hacked the election', demonizing them for doing so - something Barry himself said happens all the time - AFTER Barry had tried to alter 4 nation's governments himself:
- Egypt, an ally: Helped oust Mubarak and replace him with the terrorist Muslim Brotherhood
- Libya: Helped Al Qaeda murder and replace Gaddafi
- Israel, an ally: Used tax dollars to try to oust Netanyahu
- Syria: Made it his foreign policy to inject himself into their civil war / government to oust their President

Great thread....America's cup of hypocrisy floweth over.

Barry? Would that be Manilow or Goldwater? You should get over the death of Gaddafi already because he`s not coming back and it`s a shame that POS netanyahu hasn`t met the same fate.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Are stupid? Yes, there is a war, and Iraq is a functioning democracy.

A reply ago Iraq was peaceful because we had intervened. Now I'm an idiot because of course there is a war.

I can't decide if you are hopeless because you swallow the propaganda or if you are inept at spreading it.

I suppose you hoped I was dumb enough to be ignorant of what is going on. It doesn't make the MSM much anymore. It would be simple to be ignorant. I suppose that may be your excuse.

Y

Are stupid? Yes, there is a war, and Iraq is a functioning democracy.

A reply ago Iraq was peaceful because we had intervened. Now I'm an idiot because of course there is a war.

I can't decide if you are hopeless because you swallow the propaganda or if you are inept at spreading it.

I suppose you hoped I was dumb enough to be ignorant of what is going on. It doesn't make the MSM much anymore. It would be simple to be ignorant. I suppose that may be your excuse.

Your posts are stupid because you are a true believer, not a thinker, and are unable to process information that does not support what you have already decided to believe. So in response to the fact Iraq is now a functioning democracy, you say but there is a war, which is irrelevant to the issue of Iraq being a democracy because you are committed to believing nothing good came from the war, but since when don't Americans believe democracy is a good thing?

Are stupid? Yes, there is a war, and Iraq is a functioning democracy.

A reply ago Iraq was peaceful because we had intervened. Now I'm an idiot because of course there is a war.

I can't decide if you are hopeless because you swallow the propaganda or if you are inept at spreading it.

I suppose you hoped I was dumb enough to be ignorant of what is going on. It doesn't make the MSM much anymore. It would be simple to be ignorant. I suppose that may be your excuse.

Y

Are stupid? Yes, there is a war, and Iraq is a functioning democracy.

A reply ago Iraq was peaceful because we had intervened. Now I'm an idiot because of course there is a war.

I can't decide if you are hopeless because you swallow the propaganda or if you are inept at spreading it.

I suppose you hoped I was dumb enough to be ignorant of what is going on. It doesn't make the MSM much anymore. It would be simple to be ignorant. I suppose that may be your excuse.

Your posts are stupid because you are a true believer, not a thinker, and are unable to process information that does not support what you have already decided to believe. So in response to the fact Iraq is now a functioning democracy, you say but there is a war, which is irrelevant to the issue of Iraq being a democracy because you are committed to believing nothing good came from the war, but since when don't Americans believe democracy is a good thing?

But that isn't what you said you blithering idiot.

Those are all countries in which the US didn't help, but in Iraq where the US did help, we have Sunni, Kurds and Shia living as peacefully as the Catholics and Protestants in Ireland. Perhaps more peacefully.

So I pointed out this was an asinine statement. Then you pretend you were talking about something else entirely.

I think we have reached the point some time ago. You want the terrorists to win. You don't pretend that there is any other alternative without massive deployment of American troops. That this would trigger World War III is not important to you.

I think the terrorists winning would be without a doubt the worst possible outcome.

When I voted last November. The worst outcome in my mind was Hillary in the Oval Office. Literally anything was preferable to that outcome. I knew the Trump admin would not be good, but it wouldn't be as bad as Hillary. I voted for Trump because I hoped to avoid the worst possible outcome.

You have a different opinion. You want to pretend we can moderate the Terrorists. Then you call me a dreamer for pointing out what a stupid idea this is.

The truth is the war broke out when Obama did just what you want, withdrew US troops from Iraq. Were you capable of processing facts that do not support your ideological commitments, you would note that while the Bush administration kept our troops there and stayed engaged with the Iraqi government, there was relative peace between Sunni and Shia, but when Obama withdrew the troops and disengaged politically, the Shi'ites turned on the Sunni and the terrorists were able to gain recruits.

Btw, it is a mark of just how demented and dishonest you are that you call everyone in the conflicts who are not loyal to brutal dictators terrorists. Sadam and Assad terrorized their populations but you don't see terrorizing people as the mark of a terrorist. However, anyone who opposes these brutal dictators you call a terrorist even if they have not sought to terrorize the population.

So it's Obama's fault that Bush signed the Agreement to withdraw the troops.

U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement - Wikipedia

Where did you get this idea that Obama did it on a whim? Remember the shoe throwing incident when Bush was in iraq? Bush was there to sign the agreement.

This reply shows you are completely full of shit. I am seriously wondering if you are that stupid? If you are that stupid I wonder why the Nurse let you near a computer. How hard is it for you to walk by a window and not lick it?

This is the same kind of bullshit I remember when Bill Clinton gave the Panama Canal to Panama. Morons like you wanted to blame Clinton like he came up with it. Idiots just like you with the attention span of a gnat forgot the treaty was signed more than twenty years before.

Let me guess. The approach we are supposed to take is we do whatever we want and any treaties or agreements are just scraps of paper right?

Once again you demonstrate just how stupid and ignorant you are. Obama has now sent thousands of US soldiers back to Iraq under the same status of forces agreement you claim forced him to withdraw US forces. The current Iraqi government asked Obama for US air support in its fight against ISIS, but stipulated no US troops could be stationed in Iraq and Obama refused, demanding US troops be permitted to take an active part in the fight and Iraq undertake extensive reforms in its military and civilian government. In 2011, Obama could have similarly pressured the Iraqi government to allow US troops to remain, and he had been told by the Pentagon exactly what would happen if he pulled them out, but Obama made a calculated, cynical political decision that not withdrawing the troops would hurt him in the 2012 elections, so he decided to allow Iraq to go up in flames to enhance his chances for a second term.

 

[toomuchtime_]

The truth is the war broke out when Obama did just what you want, withdrew US troops from Iraq. Were you capable of processing facts that do not support your ideological commitments, you would note that while the Bush administration kept our troops there and stayed engaged with the Iraqi government, there was relative peace between Sunni and Shia, but when Obama withdrew the troops and disengaged politically, the Shi'ites turned on the Sunni and the terrorists were able to gain recruits.

The Bush administration set the timetable for our withdrawal having first deemed the surge a success. It was also the Bush administration that acknowledged a shifting alignment in the Middle East and chose to cast our lot in with Nations that support radical Sunniism and nations that have a history of animosity toward Syria. It seems that Obama just advanced policies that were developed under Bush and were designed to destabilize Syria in order to try and contain Iranian influence across the region.

Just more mindless nonsense.

 

[Tehon]

The truth is the war broke out when Obama did just what you want, withdrew US troops from Iraq. Were you capable of processing facts that do not support your ideological commitments, you would note that while the Bush administration kept our troops there and stayed engaged with the Iraqi government, there was relative peace between Sunni and Shia, but when Obama withdrew the troops and disengaged politically, the Shi'ites turned on the Sunni and the terrorists were able to gain recruits.

The Bush administration set the timetable for our withdrawal having first deemed the surge a success. It was also the Bush administration that acknowledged a shifting alignment in the Middle East and chose to cast our lot in with Nations that support radical Sunniism and nations that have a history of animosity toward Syria. It seems that Obama just advanced policies that were developed under Bush and were designed to destabilize Syria in order to try and contain Iranian influence across the region.

Just more mindless nonsense.

Really? Here is what Condoleezza Rice had to say about it.

RICE: This is a different Middle East.

This Middle East is a Middle East in which there really is a new alignment of forces.

On one side are reformers and responsible leaders who seek to advance their interests peacefully, politically and diplomatically.

On the other side are extremists of every sect and ethnicity who use violence to spread chaos, to undermine democratic governments and to impose agendas of hatred and intolerance.

On one side of that divide are the Gulf countries, including Saudi Arabia and the other countries of the Gulf, Egypt, Jordan, the young democracies of Lebanon, of the Palestinian territory led by Mahmoud Abbas and in Iraq.

But on the other side of that divide are Iran, Syria and Hezbollah and Hamas.

And I think we have to understand that that is a fundamental divide.

Iran and Syria have made their choice and their choice is to destabilize, not to stabilize.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee on President's Iraq Strategy

 

[toomuchtime_]

The truth is the war broke out when Obama did just what you want, withdrew US troops from Iraq. Were you capable of processing facts that do not support your ideological commitments, you would note that while the Bush administration kept our troops there and stayed engaged with the Iraqi government, there was relative peace between Sunni and Shia, but when Obama withdrew the troops and disengaged politically, the Shi'ites turned on the Sunni and the terrorists were able to gain recruits.

The Bush administration set the timetable for our withdrawal having first deemed the surge a success. It was also the Bush administration that acknowledged a shifting alignment in the Middle East and chose to cast our lot in with Nations that support radical Sunniism and nations that have a history of animosity toward Syria. It seems that Obama just advanced policies that were developed under Bush and were designed to destabilize Syria in order to try and contain Iranian influence across the region.

Just more mindless nonsense.

Really? Here is what Condoleezza Rice had to say about it.

RICE: This is a different Middle East.

This Middle East is a Middle East in which there really is a new alignment of forces.

On one side are reformers and responsible leaders who seek to advance their interests peacefully, politically and diplomatically.

On the other side are extremists of every sect and ethnicity who use violence to spread chaos, to undermine democratic governments and to impose agendas of hatred and intolerance.

On one side of that divide are the Gulf countries, including Saudi Arabia and the other countries of the Gulf, Egypt, Jordan, the young democracies of Lebanon, of the Palestinian territory led by Mahmoud Abbas and in Iraq.

But on the other side of that divide are Iran, Syria and Hezbollah and Hamas.

And I think we have to understand that that is a fundamental divide.

Iran and Syria have made their choice and their choice is to destabilize, not to stabilize.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee on President's Iraq Strategy

Thanks for the quote, but it does not address the claims you made previously that the Bush administration established the policies Obama followed.

 

[JBond]

Are stupid? Yes, there is a war, and Iraq is a functioning democracy.

A reply ago Iraq was peaceful because we had intervened. Now I'm an idiot because of course there is a war.

I can't decide if you are hopeless because you swallow the propaganda or if you are inept at spreading it.

I suppose you hoped I was dumb enough to be ignorant of what is going on. It doesn't make the MSM much anymore. It would be simple to be ignorant. I suppose that may be your excuse.

Y

Are stupid? Yes, there is a war, and Iraq is a functioning democracy.

A reply ago Iraq was peaceful because we had intervened. Now I'm an idiot because of course there is a war.

I can't decide if you are hopeless because you swallow the propaganda or if you are inept at spreading it.

I suppose you hoped I was dumb enough to be ignorant of what is going on. It doesn't make the MSM much anymore. It would be simple to be ignorant. I suppose that may be your excuse.

Your posts are stupid because you are a true believer, not a thinker, and are unable to process information that does not support what you have already decided to believe. So in response to the fact Iraq is now a functioning democracy, you say but there is a war, which is irrelevant to the issue of Iraq being a democracy because you are committed to believing nothing good came from the war, but since when don't Americans believe democracy is a good thing?

Are stupid? Yes, there is a war, and Iraq is a functioning democracy.

A reply ago Iraq was peaceful because we had intervened. Now I'm an idiot because of course there is a war.

I can't decide if you are hopeless because you swallow the propaganda or if you are inept at spreading it.

I suppose you hoped I was dumb enough to be ignorant of what is going on. It doesn't make the MSM much anymore. It would be simple to be ignorant. I suppose that may be your excuse.

Y

Are stupid? Yes, there is a war, and Iraq is a functioning democracy.

A reply ago Iraq was peaceful because we had intervened. Now I'm an idiot because of course there is a war.

I can't decide if you are hopeless because you swallow the propaganda or if you are inept at spreading it.

I suppose you hoped I was dumb enough to be ignorant of what is going on. It doesn't make the MSM much anymore. It would be simple to be ignorant. I suppose that may be your excuse.

Your posts are stupid because you are a true believer, not a thinker, and are unable to process information that does not support what you have already decided to believe. So in response to the fact Iraq is now a functioning democracy, you say but there is a war, which is irrelevant to the issue of Iraq being a democracy because you are committed to believing nothing good came from the war, but since when don't Americans believe democracy is a good thing?

But that isn't what you said you blithering idiot.

Those are all countries in which the US didn't help, but in Iraq where the US did help, we have Sunni, Kurds and Shia living as peacefully as the Catholics and Protestants in Ireland. Perhaps more peacefully.

So I pointed out this was an asinine statement. Then you pretend you were talking about something else entirely.

I think we have reached the point some time ago. You want the terrorists to win. You don't pretend that there is any other alternative without massive deployment of American troops. That this would trigger World War III is not important to you.

I think the terrorists winning would be without a doubt the worst possible outcome.

When I voted last November. The worst outcome in my mind was Hillary in the Oval Office. Literally anything was preferable to that outcome. I knew the Trump admin would not be good, but it wouldn't be as bad as Hillary. I voted for Trump because I hoped to avoid the worst possible outcome.

You have a different opinion. You want to pretend we can moderate the Terrorists. Then you call me a dreamer for pointing out what a stupid idea this is.

The truth is the war broke out when Obama did just what you want, withdrew US troops from Iraq. Were you capable of processing facts that do not support your ideological commitments, you would note that while the Bush administration kept our troops there and stayed engaged with the Iraqi government, there was relative peace between Sunni and Shia, but when Obama withdrew the troops and disengaged politically, the Shi'ites turned on the Sunni and the terrorists were able to gain recruits.

Btw, it is a mark of just how demented and dishonest you are that you call everyone in the conflicts who are not loyal to brutal dictators terrorists. Sadam and Assad terrorized their populations but you don't see terrorizing people as the mark of a terrorist. However, anyone who opposes these brutal dictators you call a terrorist even if they have not sought to terrorize the population.

So it's Obama's fault that Bush signed the Agreement to withdraw the troops.

U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement - Wikipedia

Where did you get this idea that Obama did it on a whim? Remember the shoe throwing incident when Bush was in iraq? Bush was there to sign the agreement.

This reply shows you are completely full of shit. I am seriously wondering if you are that stupid? If you are that stupid I wonder why the Nurse let you near a computer. How hard is it for you to walk by a window and not lick it?

This is the same kind of bullshit I remember when Bill Clinton gave the Panama Canal to Panama. Morons like you wanted to blame Clinton like he came up with it. Idiots just like you with the attention span of a gnat forgot the treaty was signed more than twenty years before.

Let me guess. The approach we are supposed to take is we do whatever we want and any treaties or agreements are just scraps of paper right?

I agree. Obama was a horrific negotiator. He failed in Iraq, Libya, Iran, and Syria. A tremendous failure as a President. He gave hundreds of millions in weapons to terrorists and billions to their sponsors. He failed in every imaginable way.

 

[Dschrute3]

'Might makes Right.'

That's the reality of the world we live in. Most Americans truly believe their Government is always the 'Good Guy.' They're completely incapable of independent critical thinking. The harsh reality is, no other country on earth comes close to the US as far as bombing & killing goes. In fact, recent polls show that most around the world now regard the US as the greatest threat to World Peace.

But most Americans can't fathom why much of the world feels that way. They truly believe they're always the 'Good Guys.' It all comes down to 'Might makes Right' in the end. The US is currently the most powerful nation on earth. So whether it's right or wrong, it's 'right.' What is anyone gonna do about it? That's the current reality.

 

[Tehon]

The truth is the war broke out when Obama did just what you want, withdrew US troops from Iraq. Were you capable of processing facts that do not support your ideological commitments, you would note that while the Bush administration kept our troops there and stayed engaged with the Iraqi government, there was relative peace between Sunni and Shia, but when Obama withdrew the troops and disengaged politically, the Shi'ites turned on the Sunni and the terrorists were able to gain recruits.

The Bush administration set the timetable for our withdrawal having first deemed the surge a success. It was also the Bush administration that acknowledged a shifting alignment in the Middle East and chose to cast our lot in with Nations that support radical Sunniism and nations that have a history of animosity toward Syria. It seems that Obama just advanced policies that were developed under Bush and were designed to destabilize Syria in order to try and contain Iranian influence across the region.

Just more mindless nonsense.

Really? Here is what Condoleezza Rice had to say about it.

RICE: This is a different Middle East.

This Middle East is a Middle East in which there really is a new alignment of forces.

On one side are reformers and responsible leaders who seek to advance their interests peacefully, politically and diplomatically.

On the other side are extremists of every sect and ethnicity who use violence to spread chaos, to undermine democratic governments and to impose agendas of hatred and intolerance.

On one side of that divide are the Gulf countries, including Saudi Arabia and the other countries of the Gulf, Egypt, Jordan, the young democracies of Lebanon, of the Palestinian territory led by Mahmoud Abbas and in Iraq.

But on the other side of that divide are Iran, Syria and Hezbollah and Hamas.

And I think we have to understand that that is a fundamental divide.

Iran and Syria have made their choice and their choice is to destabilize, not to stabilize.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee on President's Iraq Strategy

Thanks for the quote, but it does not address the claims you made previously that the Bush administration established the policies Obama followed.

We are not talking about public policy here, we're talking clandestine operations. Not easy to prove. That's why I chose to frame my statement cautiously, I didn't claim anything as factual. The point is, it is not mindless nonsense. There are clues that would lead one to question the "official" government narrative. Mindless is not questioning what you are being told.



The U.S. money for Syrian opposition figures began flowing under President George W. Bush after he effectively froze political ties with Damascus in 2005. The financial backing has continued under President Obama, even as his administration sought to rebuild relations with Assad. In January, the White House posted an ambassador to Damascus for the first time in six years.
U.S. secretly backed Syrian opposition groups, cables released by WikiLeaks show

 

[Doc1]

The truth is the war broke out when Obama did just what you want, withdrew US troops from Iraq. Were you capable of processing facts that do not support your ideological commitments, you would note that while the Bush administration kept our troops there and stayed engaged with the Iraqi government, there was relative peace between Sunni and Shia, but when Obama withdrew the troops and disengaged politically, the Shi'ites turned on the Sunni and the terrorists were able to gain recruits.

The Bush administration set the timetable for our withdrawal having first deemed the surge a success. It was also the Bush administration that acknowledged a shifting alignment in the Middle East and chose to cast our lot in with Nations that support radical Sunniism and nations that have a history of animosity toward Syria. It seems that Obama just advanced policies that were developed under Bush and were designed to destabilize Syria in order to try and contain Iranian influence across the region.

Just more mindless nonsense.

Really? Here is what Condoleezza Rice had to say about it.

RICE: This is a different Middle East.

This Middle East is a Middle East in which there really is a new alignment of forces.

On one side are reformers and responsible leaders who seek to advance their interests peacefully, politically and diplomatically.

On the other side are extremists of every sect and ethnicity who use violence to spread chaos, to undermine democratic governments and to impose agendas of hatred and intolerance.

On one side of that divide are the Gulf countries, including Saudi Arabia and the other countries of the Gulf, Egypt, Jordan, the young democracies of Lebanon, of the Palestinian territory led by Mahmoud Abbas and in Iraq.

But on the other side of that divide are Iran, Syria and Hezbollah and Hamas.

And I think we have to understand that that is a fundamental divide.

Iran and Syria have made their choice and their choice is to destabilize, not to stabilize.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee on President's Iraq Strategy

Thanks for the quote, but it does not address the claims you made previously that the Bush administration established the policies Obama followed.

We are not talking about public policy here, we're talking clandestine operations. Not easy to prove. That's why I chose to frame my statement cautiously, I didn't claim anything as factual. The point is, it is not mindless nonsense. There are clues that would lead one to question the "official" government narrative. Mindless is not questioning what you are being told.



The U.S. money for Syrian opposition figures began flowing under President George W. Bush after he effectively froze political ties with Damascus in 2005. The financial backing has continued under President Obama, even as his administration sought to rebuild relations with Assad. In January, the White House posted an ambassador to Damascus for the first time in six years.
U.S. secretly backed Syrian opposition groups, cables released by WikiLeaks show

They're called "Black-Ops" for a reason, barring a very major problem we never know about them.

 

[SavannahMann]

A reply ago Iraq was peaceful because we had intervened. Now I'm an idiot because of course there is a war.

I can't decide if you are hopeless because you swallow the propaganda or if you are inept at spreading it.

I suppose you hoped I was dumb enough to be ignorant of what is going on. It doesn't make the MSM much anymore. It would be simple to be ignorant. I suppose that may be your excuse.

Y

A reply ago Iraq was peaceful because we had intervened. Now I'm an idiot because of course there is a war.

I can't decide if you are hopeless because you swallow the propaganda or if you are inept at spreading it.

I suppose you hoped I was dumb enough to be ignorant of what is going on. It doesn't make the MSM much anymore. It would be simple to be ignorant. I suppose that may be your excuse.

Your posts are stupid because you are a true believer, not a thinker, and are unable to process information that does not support what you have already decided to believe. So in response to the fact Iraq is now a functioning democracy, you say but there is a war, which is irrelevant to the issue of Iraq being a democracy because you are committed to believing nothing good came from the war, but since when don't Americans believe democracy is a good thing?

A reply ago Iraq was peaceful because we had intervened. Now I'm an idiot because of course there is a war.

I can't decide if you are hopeless because you swallow the propaganda or if you are inept at spreading it.

I suppose you hoped I was dumb enough to be ignorant of what is going on. It doesn't make the MSM much anymore. It would be simple to be ignorant. I suppose that may be your excuse.

Y

A reply ago Iraq was peaceful because we had intervened. Now I'm an idiot because of course there is a war.

I can't decide if you are hopeless because you swallow the propaganda or if you are inept at spreading it.

I suppose you hoped I was dumb enough to be ignorant of what is going on. It doesn't make the MSM much anymore. It would be simple to be ignorant. I suppose that may be your excuse.

Your posts are stupid because you are a true believer, not a thinker, and are unable to process information that does not support what you have already decided to believe. So in response to the fact Iraq is now a functioning democracy, you say but there is a war, which is irrelevant to the issue of Iraq being a democracy because you are committed to believing nothing good came from the war, but since when don't Americans believe democracy is a good thing?

But that isn't what you said you blithering idiot.

Those are all countries in which the US didn't help, but in Iraq where the US did help, we have Sunni, Kurds and Shia living as peacefully as the Catholics and Protestants in Ireland. Perhaps more peacefully.

So I pointed out this was an asinine statement. Then you pretend you were talking about something else entirely.

I think we have reached the point some time ago. You want the terrorists to win. You don't pretend that there is any other alternative without massive deployment of American troops. That this would trigger World War III is not important to you.

I think the terrorists winning would be without a doubt the worst possible outcome.

When I voted last November. The worst outcome in my mind was Hillary in the Oval Office. Literally anything was preferable to that outcome. I knew the Trump admin would not be good, but it wouldn't be as bad as Hillary. I voted for Trump because I hoped to avoid the worst possible outcome.

You have a different opinion. You want to pretend we can moderate the Terrorists. Then you call me a dreamer for pointing out what a stupid idea this is.

The truth is the war broke out when Obama did just what you want, withdrew US troops from Iraq. Were you capable of processing facts that do not support your ideological commitments, you would note that while the Bush administration kept our troops there and stayed engaged with the Iraqi government, there was relative peace between Sunni and Shia, but when Obama withdrew the troops and disengaged politically, the Shi'ites turned on the Sunni and the terrorists were able to gain recruits.

Btw, it is a mark of just how demented and dishonest you are that you call everyone in the conflicts who are not loyal to brutal dictators terrorists. Sadam and Assad terrorized their populations but you don't see terrorizing people as the mark of a terrorist. However, anyone who opposes these brutal dictators you call a terrorist even if they have not sought to terrorize the population.

So it's Obama's fault that Bush signed the Agreement to withdraw the troops.

U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement - Wikipedia

Where did you get this idea that Obama did it on a whim? Remember the shoe throwing incident when Bush was in iraq? Bush was there to sign the agreement.

This reply shows you are completely full of shit. I am seriously wondering if you are that stupid? If you are that stupid I wonder why the Nurse let you near a computer. How hard is it for you to walk by a window and not lick it?

This is the same kind of bullshit I remember when Bill Clinton gave the Panama Canal to Panama. Morons like you wanted to blame Clinton like he came up with it. Idiots just like you with the attention span of a gnat forgot the treaty was signed more than twenty years before.

Let me guess. The approach we are supposed to take is we do whatever we want and any treaties or agreements are just scraps of paper right?

I agree. Obama was a horrific negotiator. He failed in Iraq, Libya, Iran, and Syria. A tremendous failure as a President. He gave hundreds of millions in weapons to terrorists and billions to their sponsors. He failed in every imaginable way.

Obama made the same mistake that nearly every President has made. He trusted the "experts" in the various departments.

Carter trusted that the Joint Chiefs had come up with a good plan to rescue the hostages. It was a disaster and Carter got the blame. Carter certainly approved it, but anyone who thinks he came up with it is a damned fool. Carter ignored the experts regarding Three Mile Island. They kept warning that explosion and nuclear contamination was almost certain. Carter ignored them because he had experience with Nuclear Power from the Navy.

The show West Wing was interesting. The President was a Nobel winner in Economics. So he knew economics as well as if not better than anyone else. But the Military he knew little about.

In many ways that is what happens every time with few notable exceptions. The career bureaucrats have tons of experience and they can dazzle the inexperienced. When Congress started asking questions about Project Azorian which was the Glomar Explorer the Navy knew they had to work fast to protect their spy submarine.

He head of Covert ops insisted on a closed secret session with no aides or staff. Then they entered the room with a locked box surrounded by armed guards who glared menacingly. The Navy opened the box and showed the Congressmen the contents. Bits of scrap metal and some broken circuit boards. The Navy explained how this material was from Russian Missiles that had been tested and the debris had been instrumental in learning the guidance systems of the Russian Missiles and the performance numbers.

The crap in the box could have been parts of a Stereo that had been smashed with a hammer. You would expect cynical congressional types to scoff and roll their eyes. Instead they were all like a bunch of kids. They were in on the real secret. It made them feel important and impressed with the Navy.

The Military couldn't do that with Eisenhower even though they tried. JFK was very wary of the CIA after the Bay of Pigs. During the Missile Crisis JFK routinely ignored the advise of the Generals.

Think about that for a minute. If JFK had not learned from the Bay of Pigs debacle that the Military would mislead him then we might have died in nuclear fire during the Cuban Missile Crisis. The Generals were straining at the leash promising deadly consequences if they were not permitted to attack.

JFK even doubted the reports of the U2 pictures until he had seen them himself.

Reagan was an actor, and as such knew when he saw bluff and acting. He knew the Soviet Union was weak because they spent so much time declaring how powerful they were. The experts in his own party were furious that Reagan walked away in Iceland when Andropov offered to get rid of all Nuclear Missiles.

When you are ill or injured you trust the expert. You believe the Doctor. It is normal to defer to an expert. It is said that Doctors make the worst patients and Lawyers make the worst clients. The reason is obvious. They are experts in those fields and are reluctant to sit quietly and trust the other

 

[toomuchtime_]

The truth is the war broke out when Obama did just what you want, withdrew US troops from Iraq. Were you capable of processing facts that do not support your ideological commitments, you would note that while the Bush administration kept our troops there and stayed engaged with the Iraqi government, there was relative peace between Sunni and Shia, but when Obama withdrew the troops and disengaged politically, the Shi'ites turned on the Sunni and the terrorists were able to gain recruits.

The Bush administration set the timetable for our withdrawal having first deemed the surge a success. It was also the Bush administration that acknowledged a shifting alignment in the Middle East and chose to cast our lot in with Nations that support radical Sunniism and nations that have a history of animosity toward Syria. It seems that Obama just advanced policies that were developed under Bush and were designed to destabilize Syria in order to try and contain Iranian influence across the region.

Just more mindless nonsense.

Really? Here is what Condoleezza Rice had to say about it.

RICE: This is a different Middle East.

This Middle East is a Middle East in which there really is a new alignment of forces.

On one side are reformers and responsible leaders who seek to advance their interests peacefully, politically and diplomatically.

On the other side are extremists of every sect and ethnicity who use violence to spread chaos, to undermine democratic governments and to impose agendas of hatred and intolerance.

On one side of that divide are the Gulf countries, including Saudi Arabia and the other countries of the Gulf, Egypt, Jordan, the young democracies of Lebanon, of the Palestinian territory led by Mahmoud Abbas and in Iraq.

But on the other side of that divide are Iran, Syria and Hezbollah and Hamas.

And I think we have to understand that that is a fundamental divide.

Iran and Syria have made their choice and their choice is to destabilize, not to stabilize.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee on President's Iraq Strategy

Thanks for the quote, but it does not address the claims you made previously that the Bush administration established the policies Obama followed.

We are not talking about public policy here, we're talking clandestine operations. Not easy to prove. That's why I chose to frame my statement cautiously, I didn't claim anything as factual. The point is, it is not mindless nonsense. There are clues that would lead one to question the "official" government narrative. Mindless is not questioning what you are being told.



The U.S. money for Syrian opposition figures began flowing under President George W. Bush after he effectively froze political ties with Damascus in 2005. The financial backing has continued under President Obama, even as his administration sought to rebuild relations with Assad. In January, the White House posted an ambassador to Damascus for the first time in six years.
U.S. secretly backed Syrian opposition groups, cables released by WikiLeaks show

There were no Syrian opposition groups when Bush was in office. You're just making things up.

 

[JBond]

The Bush administration set the timetable for our withdrawal having first deemed the surge a success. It was also the Bush administration that acknowledged a shifting alignment in the Middle East and chose to cast our lot in with Nations that support radical Sunniism and nations that have a history of animosity toward Syria. It seems that Obama just advanced policies that were developed under Bush and were designed to destabilize Syria in order to try and contain Iranian influence across the region.

Just more mindless nonsense.

Really? Here is what Condoleezza Rice had to say about it.

RICE: This is a different Middle East.

This Middle East is a Middle East in which there really is a new alignment of forces.

On one side are reformers and responsible leaders who seek to advance their interests peacefully, politically and diplomatically.

On the other side are extremists of every sect and ethnicity who use violence to spread chaos, to undermine democratic governments and to impose agendas of hatred and intolerance.

On one side of that divide are the Gulf countries, including Saudi Arabia and the other countries of the Gulf, Egypt, Jordan, the young democracies of Lebanon, of the Palestinian territory led by Mahmoud Abbas and in Iraq.

But on the other side of that divide are Iran, Syria and Hezbollah and Hamas.

And I think we have to understand that that is a fundamental divide.

Iran and Syria have made their choice and their choice is to destabilize, not to stabilize.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee on President's Iraq Strategy

Thanks for the quote, but it does not address the claims you made previously that the Bush administration established the policies Obama followed.

We are not talking about public policy here, we're talking clandestine operations. Not easy to prove. That's why I chose to frame my statement cautiously, I didn't claim anything as factual. The point is, it is not mindless nonsense. There are clues that would lead one to question the "official" government narrative. Mindless is not questioning what you are being told.



The U.S. money for Syrian opposition figures began flowing under President George W. Bush after he effectively froze political ties with Damascus in 2005. The financial backing has continued under President Obama, even as his administration sought to rebuild relations with Assad. In January, the White House posted an ambassador to Damascus for the first time in six years.
U.S. secretly backed Syrian opposition groups, cables released by WikiLeaks show

There were no Syrian opposition groups when Bush was in office. You're just making things up.

The truth is the war broke out when Obama did just what you want, withdrew US troops from Iraq. Were you capable of processing facts that do not support your ideological commitments, you would note that while the Bush administration kept our troops there and stayed engaged with the Iraqi government, there was relative peace between Sunni and Shia, but when Obama withdrew the troops and disengaged politically, the Shi'ites turned on the Sunni and the terrorists were able to gain recruits.

The Bush administration set the timetable for our withdrawal having first deemed the surge a success. It was also the Bush administration that acknowledged a shifting alignment in the Middle East and chose to cast our lot in with Nations that support radical Sunniism and nations that have a history of animosity toward Syria. It seems that Obama just advanced policies that were developed under Bush and were designed to destabilize Syria in order to try and contain Iranian influence across the region.

Just more mindless nonsense.

Really? Here is what Condoleezza Rice had to say about it.

RICE: This is a different Middle East.

This Middle East is a Middle East in which there really is a new alignment of forces.

On one side are reformers and responsible leaders who seek to advance their interests peacefully, politically and diplomatically.

On the other side are extremists of every sect and ethnicity who use violence to spread chaos, to undermine democratic governments and to impose agendas of hatred and intolerance.

On one side of that divide are the Gulf countries, including Saudi Arabia and the other countries of the Gulf, Egypt, Jordan, the young democracies of Lebanon, of the Palestinian territory led by Mahmoud Abbas and in Iraq.

But on the other side of that divide are Iran, Syria and Hezbollah and Hamas.

And I think we have to understand that that is a fundamental divide.

Iran and Syria have made their choice and their choice is to destabilize, not to stabilize.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee on President's Iraq Strategy

Thanks for the quote, but it does not address the claims you made previously that the Bush administration established the policies Obama followed.

We are not talking about public policy here, we're talking clandestine operations. Not easy to prove. That's why I chose to frame my statement cautiously, I didn't claim anything as factual. The point is, it is not mindless nonsense. There are clues that would lead one to question the "official" government narrative. Mindless is not questioning what you are being told.



The U.S. money for Syrian opposition figures began flowing under President George W. Bush after he effectively froze political ties with Damascus in 2005. The financial backing has continued under President Obama, even as his administration sought to rebuild relations with Assad. In January, the White House posted an ambassador to Damascus for the first time in six years.
U.S. secretly backed Syrian opposition groups, cables released by WikiLeaks show

Did you even bother to read your own link? A cable channel and a satellite channel. That is what Bush funded. Oh the horror! Sigh...

 

[MaryL]

And people wonder why so many DESPISE that the world thinks the US government of the past 100 years even comes close to representing THE PEOPLE.

And people wonder why so many DESPISE that the world thinks the US government of the past 100 years even comes close to representing THE PEOPLE.

HMM, well here we go:
1) Silly overstatement, Atomic weapons THEN were unprecedented. Not ever deemed a war crime.
2) Fact. America used a toxic herbicide. Not ever deemed war crime.
3) No, actually that's just one reason why we went to war with Iraq.
4) Fact. We used all the weapons in our arsenal .Weapons are meant to kill people. Not a war crime.
5) Matter of opinion.