Revealed: How Obama SET FREE the merciless terrorist warlord now leading the ISIS horde

Here is some more 'jingosim':

directorblue.blogspot.com...

But they leave out Carter and Reagan there.

They also leave out Benghazi there.

Carter and the 'iranian Hostage crisis'.

Reagan and the Lockerbie bombing.

Hell who the hell can forget 'Black September'.

WHAT 'JINGOISM' ?

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: DelMarvel

It's the height of partisan idiocy to imply that Obama released one man and that resulted in the insurgency we see now. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Nope because HE IS THE GUY WHO PULLED US OUT THERE.

He OWNS it.

I really don't see what the Carter administration has to do with any of this. They got caught with their pants down on the Iranian revolution but a lot of that was the institutional failure of the CIA> If we're going into the way back machine we have to start at least with the CIA coup that put the Shah of Iran in power in 1953 or the British shenanigans even earlier.

The logical starting point here is the first Gulf War where Powell and Schwarzkopf used the principle of the Art of War and went in with overwhelming force and a clear exit strategy and Bush I and Scowcroft knew better than to take out Saddam.

All those principles were abandoned in Gulf War II. The neocons went in with no exit strategy, dismantled the army and the Baathist infrastructure and failed at rebuilding the nation.

Obama pulled out according the timetable already established by Bush 2. What was the other option? Stay permanently in Iraq and do the job Saddam was doing of using force to keep three antagonistic groups together in one nation. If we weren't going to do that (and the nation had no stomach for it not to mention the money) what is happening now is the inevitable result. The Bush I administration knew this and said as much explicitly.

It has nothing to do with letting one man go years ago. Using sensationalistic, jingoistic terms like "merciless terrorist" and "ISIS horde" is to fail to understand was is going on or to intentionally use this crisis for scoring partisan points in an election year which is even worse.

a reply to: DelMarvel

The Iran hostage crisis, referred to in Persian as تسخیر لانه جاسوسی امریکا (literally "Conquest of the American Spy Den,"), was a diplomatic crisis between Iran and the United States. Sixty-six American diplomats and citizens were held hostage for 444 days (November 4, 1979, to January 20, 1981), after a group of Iranian students, belonging to the Muslim Student Followers of the Imam's Line, who were supporting the Iranian Revolution took over the US Embassy in Tehran.[1] President Jimmy Carter called the hostages "victims of terrorism and anarchy," adding that "the United States will not yield to blackma

en.wikipedia.org...

Gee what did the Carter administration have to do with anything.

They got caught with their pants down on the Iranian revolution but a lot of that was the institutional failure of the CIA> If we're going into the way back machine we have to start at least with the CIA coup that put the Shah of Iran in power in 1953 or the British shenanigans even earlier.

Is that right ?

Cia eh ?

The 1953 Iranian coup d'état, known in Iran as the 28 Mordad coup, was the overthrow of Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh and his cabinet on 19 August 1953, orchestrated by the United Kingdom (under the name 'Operation Boot') and the United States (under the name TPAJAX Project).[

en.wikipedia.org...

But hey instead of going after those governments take students HOSTAGE !

That will show them evil 'Mericans'.

Oh wait the British were there too.

And what that WAS ALL ABOUT was so that BP could buy these guys.

The Anglo-Persian Oil Company (APOC) was an English company founded in 1908 following the discovery of a large oil field in Masjed Soleiman, Iran. It was the first company to extract petroleum from Iran. In 1935 APOC was renamed the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC) and in 1954 it became the British Petroleum Company (BP), one of the antecedents of the modern BP plc

en.wikipedia.org...

I do so love revisionist history there.

The US gets the 'blame'

The UK gets the oil.

originally posted by: neo96

en.wikipedia.org...

I do so love revisionist history there.

The US gets the 'blame'

The UK gets the oil.

All right, so the British got the Iranian oil.

The CIA still was involved in the coup. The U.S. still gave the Shah hundreds of millions of dollars, sold him billions of dollar in weapons and helped train and support the SAVAK all of which were variables leading to the revolution and all of which happened before Carter though he continued the policies.

And none of which really has much to do with my original comment about the topic of this thread.

I'm not sure what your position on the current situation actually is. Do you believe the the invasion and occupation of Iraq was good policy and that Obama should have kept troops there?