What if Republicans hadn't destabilized the Middle East?

[easyt65]

At a time when Islamic Extremists and terrorism is at an all-time high the last thing you need is a President who vowed he would stand with Muslims if the winds of change ever blew....

 

[konradv]

Obama would still have helped the Muslim Brotherhood take over Egypt and would have dragged the country to war on his own to help Al Qaeida take over Libya. Obama still would gave alliwed the Russians to take over Crimea and would have issued his stupid Red Line. He still would have armed Mexican Drug Cartels and added over $6 trillion in new debt in only 4 years...

How come when you hijack a ME thread to talk about Crimea and Mexico, that's OK?

 

[2aguy]

Remember when Saddam attacked Kuwait? Bush Sr. went in, drove Saddam out, destroyed any Iraqi military outside of Iraq's borders. And then stopped at the border of Iraq leaving Iraq intact and a bulwark to Iranian adventurism.

And he walked away with a lot of right wing criticism for leaving Saddam in power and a stable Middle East.

If Bush Jr. had just gone in to Afghanistan, taken out Bin Laden and left, he would have left a stable Middle East.

Unfortunately, Bush came into office with a generation of right wing ideology under his belt. If you do X then Y happens. W and Z doesn't occur to them.

Academics and Historians said what was going to happen based on Middle East history. Unfortunately, we know what Republicans think of Academia. Those people are over educated and don't live in the real world. Turns out the Academics were right. That happens a lot when people study stuff.

Disbanding the mostly Sunni military turned out to be a disaster when so many went on to join Isis. Republican insist that they left a stable Iraq for Obama, when the facts have been posted here at the USMB that the last year of Bush's 8 were the most violent in Iraq. The "surge" may have ended a big military battle, but did nothing to stop suicide bombers and "lone wolves".

Now that Republicans have all this experience against terrorists and so much experience with the Middle Eastern people, what have they learned? Also unfortunately, they learned to pass the blame. It's Clinton's fault for not killing Bin Laden. It's Obama's fault because he was given a "stable Iraq". No where has the GOP taken any responsibility. They still don't know anything about the people who live in the Middle East. Because they pass the blame. That's all they really need to know is how to pass the blame.

I'm worried they will send many more young Americans to the Middle East to die for no apparent reason. Obama has pulled back because there is really no one you can trust over there. Republican want to block any Muslims from coming over here, but they want to send our military over there. They goad Obama. They call him weak for not being a leader.

Well, who is he supposed to lead and where is it he's supposed to lead them to?

And look at the GOP. Rafael Cruz wants "precision carpet bombing" until the sand glows. And millions of Republican want him to be commander in chief? Do I even need to explain what is wrong with "precision carpet bombing"?

Ted Cruz misfires on definition of 'carpet bombing' in GOP debate

So say a Republican does win the White House and both Houses end up GOP. What is it the USMB expects to happen? What do they expect the GOP president to do that was different from the last one? What has the GOP learned about the Middle East. What will become their ME policy? After the Economic meltdown, what have they learned about the economy? Have they learned if there is any value to education?

No...we were stabilzing the crazy place, Iraq and afghanistan were stable, libya was stable iran was quiet....and then obama got elected and it blew up.......get your facts straight.

 

[Iceweasel]

You'd have to go back to when the Earth first cooled to find peace in the middle east but Jimmy Carter abandoning the Shah of Iran really set things in motion and the mullahs took over. Iran has been behind much of the terrorism we see today.

 

[konradv]

You'd have to go back to when the Earth first cooled to find peace in the middle east but Jimmy Carter abandoning the Shah of Iran really set things in motion and the mullahs took over. Iran has been behind much of the terrorism we see today.

How is that any different from Bush taking down Saddam? Both were dictators and keeping extremists in line, but Carter gets bashed and Bush gets applauded.

 

[Iceweasel]

You'd have to go back to when the Earth first cooled to find peace in the middle east but Jimmy Carter abandoning the Shah of Iran really set things in motion and the mullahs took over. Iran has been behind much of the terrorism we see today.

How is that any different from Bush taking down Saddam? Both were dictators and keeping extremists in line, but Carter gets bashed and Bush gets applauded.

Who's applauding anyone? The problem didn't start with Bush. What changed is the nature of weapons and taking the extremism outside the borders of Iran, who will soon have nukes, thanks to you know who.

 

[my2¢]

Invasion of Iraq was a huge mistake and Hillary was all for it These candidates that think they're capable of bringing social change to the Middle East region through nation building are delusional. Our senator McCain here in Arizona is the worse when it comes to this.

 

[konradv]

You'd have to go back to when the Earth first cooled to find peace in the middle east but Jimmy Carter abandoning the Shah of Iran really set things in motion and the mullahs took over. Iran has been behind much of the terrorism we see today.

How is that any different from Bush taking down Saddam? Both were dictators and keeping extremists in line, but Carter gets bashed and Bush gets applauded.

Who's applauding anyone? The problem didn't start with Bush. What changed is the nature of weapons and taking the extremism outside the borders of Iran, who will soon have nukes, thanks to you know who.

So what if Iran has nukes? They'd be utterly destroyed, if they used them and they know it. They may want them as a point of national pride, but to think they'd be any more than that is the same kind of alarmism with which AGW believers are often charged.

 

[2aguy]

You'd have to go back to when the Earth first cooled to find peace in the middle east but Jimmy Carter abandoning the Shah of Iran really set things in motion and the mullahs took over. Iran has been behind much of the terrorism we see today.

How is that any different from Bush taking down Saddam? Both were dictators and keeping extremists in line, but Carter gets bashed and Bush gets applauded.

Bush was creating stability....carter backed radical muslim extremists who sponsored terrorism all over the world......and kept Iraq and Afghanistan from becoming stable, peaceful countries...the training, equipment and money that flowed to the terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan and the IEDs that blew up our men came from Iran.....

 

[2aguy]

You'd have to go back to when the Earth first cooled to find peace in the middle east but Jimmy Carter abandoning the Shah of Iran really set things in motion and the mullahs took over. Iran has been behind much of the terrorism we see today.

How is that any different from Bush taking down Saddam? Both were dictators and keeping extremists in line, but Carter gets bashed and Bush gets applauded.

Who's applauding anyone? The problem didn't start with Bush. What changed is the nature of weapons and taking the extremism outside the borders of Iran, who will soon have nukes, thanks to you know who.

So what if Iran has nukes? They'd be utterly destroyed, if they used them and they know it. They may want them as a point of national pride, but to think they'd be any more than that is the same kind of alarmism with which AGW believers are often charged.

Do you listen to what they actually say...they are going to use them. They don't care about being destroyed, that is why they are dangerous....they believe what they say.....sadly, we don't believe what they are telling us...as you just showed....

 

[Oldstyle]

You'd have to go back to when the Earth first cooled to find peace in the middle east but Jimmy Carter abandoning the Shah of Iran really set things in motion and the mullahs took over. Iran has been behind much of the terrorism we see today.

How is that any different from Bush taking down Saddam? Both were dictators and keeping extremists in line, but Carter gets bashed and Bush gets applauded.

Who's applauding anyone? The problem didn't start with Bush. What changed is the nature of weapons and taking the extremism outside the borders of Iran, who will soon have nukes, thanks to you know who.

So what if Iran has nukes? They'd be utterly destroyed, if they used them and they know it. They may want them as a point of national pride, but to think they'd be any more than that is the same kind of alarmism with which AGW believers are often charged.

Let me give you a scenario, Konradv...

Iran develops nuclear weapons. It then gives a nuke to one of the many terrorist organizations that it supports and THAT group detonates a device in a Western city. Who do you retaliate against?

You're dealing with religious fanatics that truly believe that if they are killed in a "holy war" that they will go to paradise. The Russians didn't use nukes against us or us against them because we both understood the utter destruction that would entail. Islamic extremists WELCOME that utter destruction!

 

[konradv]

Iran develops nuclear weapons. It then gives a nuke to one of the many terrorist organizations that it supports and THAT group detonates a device in a Western city. Who do you retaliate against? You're dealing with religious fanatics that truly believe that if they are killed in a "holy war" that they will go to paradise. The Russians didn't use nukes against us or us against them because we both understood the utter destruction that would entail. Islamic extremists WELCOME that utter destruction!

How does Iran not get found out and punished heavily. It's pure fantasy that they'd leave their fate in the hands of terrorists.

 

[Oldstyle]

Iran develops nuclear weapons. It then gives a nuke to one of the many terrorist organizations that it supports and THAT group detonates a device in a Western city. Who do you retaliate against? You're dealing with religious fanatics that truly believe that if they are killed in a "holy war" that they will go to paradise. The Russians didn't use nukes against us or us against them because we both understood the utter destruction that would entail. Islamic extremists WELCOME that utter destruction!

How does Iran not get found out and punished heavily. It's pure fantasy that they'd leave their fate in the hands of terrorists.

I suppose you think it's pure fantasy that Iran supports Islamic terrorists around the globe?
They are willing to support groups that slaughter innocent men, women and children in the name of Allah...but they wouldn't be willing to give those same groups a small nuke? What do you base that on exactly? Your belief that the Mullahs in Iran are really nice guys?

 

[Oldstyle]

Would you on the left support a retaliatory nuclear strike against Iran if it was "suspected" that they were behind the detonation of a nuke in a Western city?

 

[Rustic]

Only a blithering idiot would believe the Middle East has ever been stable, foolish little drones.

 

[paulitician]

It's much bigger than a Republican/Democrat issue. Western Nations have been destabilizing regions all over the world for many years. It's especially the case in the Middle East. But why?... It's all about the plundering of resources. It's not all that complicated.

 

[Wilbur Right]

Remember when Saddam attacked Kuwait? Bush Sr. went in, drove Saddam out, destroyed any Iraqi military outside of Iraq's borders. And then stopped at the border of Iraq leaving Iraq intact and a bulwark to Iranian adventurism.

And he walked away with a lot of right wing criticism for leaving Saddam in power and a stable Middle East.

If Bush Jr. had just gone in to Afghanistan, taken out Bin Laden and left, he would have left a stable Middle East.

Unfortunately, Bush came into office with a generation of right wing ideology under his belt. If you do X then Y happens. W and Z doesn't occur to them.

Academics and Historians said what was going to happen based on Middle East history. Unfortunately, we know what Republicans think of Academia. Those people are over educated and don't live in the real world. Turns out the Academics were right. That happens a lot when people study stuff.

Disbanding the mostly Sunni military turned out to be a disaster when so many went on to join Isis. Republican insist that they left a stable Iraq for Obama, when the facts have been posted here at the USMB that the last year of Bush's 8 were the most violent in Iraq. The "surge" may have ended a big military battle, but did nothing to stop suicide bombers and "lone wolves".

Now that Republicans have all this experience against terrorists and so much experience with the Middle Eastern people, what have they learned? Also unfortunately, they learned to pass the blame. It's Clinton's fault for not killing Bin Laden. It's Obama's fault because he was given a "stable Iraq". No where has the GOP taken any responsibility. They still don't know anything about the people who live in the Middle East. Because they pass the blame. That's all they really need to know is how to pass the blame.

I'm worried they will send many more young Americans to the Middle East to die for no apparent reason. Obama has pulled back because there is really no one you can trust over there. Republican want to block any Muslims from coming over here, but they want to send our military over there. They goad Obama. They call him weak for not being a leader.

Well, who is he supposed to lead and where is it he's supposed to lead them to?

And look at the GOP. Rafael Cruz wants "precision carpet bombing" until the sand glows. And millions of Republican want him to be commander in chief? Do I even need to explain what is wrong with "precision carpet bombing"?

Ted Cruz misfires on definition of 'carpet bombing' in GOP debate

So say a Republican does win the White House and both Houses end up GOP. What is it the USMB expects to happen? What do they expect the GOP president to do that was different from the last one? What has the GOP learned about the Middle East. What will become their ME policy? After the Economic meltdown, what have they learned about the economy? Have they learned if there is any value to education?

Don't forget that BJ Billy Clinton had his chance to take out BinLaden as well but he too pussied out

And right on time.......a Republican passing blame........again.

Do you EVER feel that the party you support may have fucked up.... or are you incapable of accepting responsibility for your own actions?
Or your parties actions.

And of course you will come back and claim you aint no fucking Republican.
Right?

I'm not a republican
Never have and never will be a member of any political flock

I'm just pointing out the partisan hackery here

Dems like to throw blame around but are certainly selective in their memories

FYI I was never for invading Iraq or Afghanistan unlike all the dems who voted for it then changed their minds

And here's one that will blow your mind

I think Reagan was just another big government dupe playing the role of a smaller government advocate

Didnt I tell you that you would come back and claim you aint no stinkin Republican? LMAO

But you sure sound like one to me.
But really, who the fuck cares what we say we are. This is the internet and we can be whatever we want to be.

 

[Wilbur Right]

Would you on the left support a retaliatory nuclear strike against Iran if it was "suspected" that they were behind the detonation of a nuke in a Western city?

No. But I would support an attack on saudi Arabia for suppying all those terrorists on 9/11.

And for supporting terrorism all over the world.

How about you? Wanna kick the shit out of some country that did attack us?

Or you just hate the Iranians?

 

[konradv]

How does Iran not get found out and punished heavily. It's pure fantasy that they'd leave their fate in the hands of terrorists.

I suppose you think it's pure fantasy that Iran supports Islamic terrorists around the globe?
They are willing to support groups that slaughter innocent men, women and children in the name of Allah...but they wouldn't be willing to give those same groups a small nuke? What do you base that on exactly? Your belief that the Mullahs in Iran are really nice guys?

No, it's my belief that, like the Soviets, they're not suicidal.

 

[BluesLegend]

Isn't this typical, all the right coming out, blaming Obama for everything so they don't have to face up to the reality that Bush was a fucking disaster for the people of America and an absolute GOD for the money people in America who will use plebs's lives in order to make more money.

Oh grow a pair Obama begged for the job and promised to fix this mess. Well its been 7 years and he's only made things worse, congratulations he and you libs own that.