It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

ISIS Expands In Libya: Obama, the foreign policy disaster IS WRONG AGAIN!

page: 1
10
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 02:12 PM
link   
According to his dummies in the state department




“U.S. officials were arguing reassuringly that the militants of the self-styled Islamic State, formerly ISIS, were focused to the exclusion of all else on the consolidation of their caliphate straddling Syria and Iraq—and therefore posed no immediate major transnational threat beyond the bite of a “lone wolf” sympathizer.”


Of course this ignorance doesn’t beat Obama’s

Isil is a JV team utterance as they were rampaging across Iraq and Syria while this ignoramus president did nothing but golf

Now while he runs a pathetic “coalition” of the cowards (the UAE has left the “coalition” obviously fearful some of their troops may face the same wonton fiery murder as the Jordanian pilot) Isil is expanding to other areas of the ME.



But in the last week, with deadly attacks mounted by groups claiming allegiance to ISIS in North Africa and Pakistan, the rhetoric of ‘what happens in Syria will most likely stay in Syria’ has looked alarmingly misplaced. ISIS seems determined to go transnational as soon as possible. And last week the group—or at least its affiliates—demonstrated an ability to do so, with an attack in Egypt’s Sinai that saw at least 30 security personnel killed; another on a luxury Tripoli hotel that left 10 dead; and a bombing of a Shiite mosque in Pakistan. Established jihadist groups that ISIS had wooed away from al Qaeda carried out the attacks in Egypt and Pakistan, while the assault in Libya was launched by the so-called Tripoli Province of the newly minted "Mujahideen of Libya,” which announced its formation last October in the eastern Libyan city of Derna and is thought to number about 800 fighters. Obama was told and is being told by sober foreign policy experts of the bankruptcy of his “coalition” and weak policy on Isil.
www.thedailybeast.com...

His policy has doomed and is dooming scores of people to certain death which all can be laid at the doorstep of this countries foreign policy since he and Hillary Clinton has been at the head of it.

He messed up Libya, he and Hillary, and sat by and did nothing as Isil was hatched and is not doing nearly enough to rid the world of Isil

Obama’s foreign policy is so bad you wonder is it deliberate

He has surrounded himself with not one seasoned foreign policy expert

Obama needs to wake up and smell the s___



edit on 5-2-2015 by Willtell because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-2-2015 by Willtell because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-2-2015 by Willtell because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 02:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Willtell

Why is it the US responsibility to get rid of ISIL?
We just got out of that area, can we just stay out of it for once and not sacrifice our men and women and spend more money that we don't have.
We are not the only military that has the capability to do it.



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 02:23 PM
link   
That's like your child messing up somewhere and ruining somebody’s house.

The next day your wife brings him by the same house and he does the same thing.

You tell you wife “don’t bring Johnny over there again"

But he goes back on his own and messes up again.

You say

Leave him alone to your wife, let him just make a mess

Does that make sense?

America has done the damage

They should clean it up



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 02:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80

Were the only military that screwed it up in the first place.

America should be responsible for its actions.

For America to say

Just get out now

is cowardly and evil
edit on 5-2-2015 by Willtell because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 02:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Willtell

Well they didn't want us there any more, but this would be the same premise that got us there in the first place.

It was the AQ and taliban that 'needed to be stopped' 13 years ago and nothing has changed but the names of the players.

We should have never been over there in the first place and there is no reason other then brushing of the dust of the war toys for us to go back again.



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 02:33 PM
link   
Well, there wouldn't be any ISIS without the help of the USA and it's bestest buddies and lapdogs, and of course Israeli handlers. Set the ME aflame and watch as the newest, biggest, baddest group slaughter everyone who opposes them, then step in as the heroic helpers once the dust has settled. Of course, they needed to fund, arm and train ISIS to get it all started to begin with, something they have a lot of practice at doing.

I think they owe the people of Libya something of an apology for destroying their country and leaving it in the hands of the crazy Islamists that Gadaffi kept at bay for so long. Of course, the place needed plundering so tough luck Libyans, it's back to the stone age for you.

So, all the bravado, chest puffing and idiotic talk about stopping the crazies is pretty lame when it is our own governments who created them and continue to fund and arm them (ask the Kurds and Iraqi military about the nighttime airdrops to ISIS).

Of course, the theatrical beheadings and burnings are all part of the propaganda push to show how brutal and scary these ISIS folks are. SITE Intelligence and Rita Katz must be running 24/7 to keep those productions coming, but I am sure she is being well compensated.



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 02:46 PM
link   
if the general public does not see how they are being duped with ISIS as the replacement boogeyman for Al-qaeda, a name which no longer really instills fear in the public anymore, then were just going to be repeating this global eternal war for the next five decades. 100+ years of perpetual warfare. Funny how ISIS is now the name in all trouble spots that deserve Western intervention, kind of like just how al-qaeda has been since 9/11.

It wont be log until Russia is accused of arming groups "Linked to ISIS" in Ukraine from their arming of the rebels. Its the same damn trick every time, does nobody see this???



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 03:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80

NO we can't! we can't stay out of it. were the center of "it" We are "it"! We created "it"! we help fund "it"

It being the war time economy what Eisenhower tried to warn us about



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 03:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Willtell

Why is it the US responsibility to get rid of ISIL?
We just got out of that area, can we just stay out of it for once and not sacrifice our men and women and spend more money that we don't have.
We are not the only military that has the capability to do it.
well perhaps launching illegal invasions and supporting rogue groups doesn't make the west responsible in your eyes, but it does in mine. Indeed, that area you just got out of is now in the mess it's in because you were there to begin with.



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 03:16 PM
link   
a reply to: sg1642

\that area is a mess because it has been historically known for chaos and conflict. Is it the U.S. fault that Sunni and Shiites don't get along?



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 03:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: American-philosopher
a reply to: sg1642

\that area is a mess because it has been historically known for chaos and conflict. Is it the U.S. fault that Sunni and Shiites don't get along?


that area is historically known for chaos and conflict. Yes. But there was a level of order in Iraq and the region was nowhere as unstable as it is now. No it isn't America's fault there are sectarian divides. It is America and Britain's fault that the country is in complete anarchy and people are dying in their thousands.



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 03:31 PM
link   
a reply to: sg1642

Right the order of Saddam throwing mustard gas on his own people and torturing people yeah that's order



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 03:33 PM
link   
a reply to: sg1642

How long is it going to be America's and Britain's fault? if there's anarchy and people are still dying lets say 50 years from now is it still America's and Britain's fault?



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 03:40 PM
link   
So let me get this straight we get out and people say "why aren't you in there doing something!"

We go in...

"stupid imperialist Americans always sticking your noses in where it doesn't belong."

So which is it.. It doesnt matter what we do we are are the villain, anything bad happens.. The us gets the blame for what we did or didn't do or what someone thinks we did.

That said isil needs extermination, but why does the us have to carry the load?



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 03:50 PM
link   
Obama is between a rock and a hard place on this.

Sure boots on the ground from a westen coalition could help, but only if done right.
And the USA has a poor record of doing things right......

Usa has a piss poor repuation in the east and a American lead coalition would likely cause more ISIS support.
But American resources and troops would be needed as no other western country has the resources to do it alone.

Only thing I can see working is a western coalition lead by another country. Only viable countrys with resent combat experiance are UK and France.


Then you got a war weary population to convince.......



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 03:56 PM
link   
Folks a lesson is in order.

It’s called original sin.

WE SHOULDN’T HAVE STARTED THE IRAQ WAR!

Certainly Bush and Cheney and the neo-cons will roast in the hell fire along with Isil, the Taliban, and the other murderers Al Queda.

They obligated this country to Iraq

You can’t ruin somebody’s country and just go away

The karma for America is to go destroy Isil

If not AMERICA WILL BE DESTROYED VERY QUICKLY

It’s the law of the universe

Which is heating up!



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 04:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Irishhaf
So let me get this straight we get out and people say "why aren't you in there doing something!"

We go in...

"stupid imperialist Americans always sticking your noses in where it doesn't belong."

So which is it.. It doesnt matter what we do we are are the villain, anything bad happens.. The us gets the blame for what we did or didn't do or what someone thinks we did.

That said isil needs extermination, but why does the us have to carry the load?



Exactly.

American lead intervention would stir up more trouble.

If a westen coalition went in another country would be best to lead it.

Only choices would be UK or france.

UK has the advantage of been respected by the US for its high quality training. Its is its closest ally and knows all but a few secrets and UK officers have comanded US military assets on a smaller scale, so there is a presedent.

The drawback I see is Iraq has tarnished the UK name. Though the UK may not be as contraversal a choice as the USA.
Uk is also suffering war wearness from the crusades of bush and blair.....

France may not be close to the USA but it has had great success fighting islamic extremists in africa.
And may have a less war weary public.

But France has a negative respect it seems from the USA....

Either its pointless.

US pride means they will always want the lead role in a coalition, even if thats not the best thing.

edit on 5-2-2015 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 04:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Willtell

How do you not see this as iraq war 2.0 tho?
So if we should not have done it in the first place why does it make sense to do it now?

We got it wrong the first time, how is the answer to that to do the same exact thing over again?

I'm sure we all know the definition of insanity



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 04:02 PM
link   
The US strategic policy at present is relatively accurate for the situation. The US does not need to commit ground forces to the region right now. Do you remember Bush's fiasco in Iraq? Republicans want to complain about overspending, not taking into accounts how much money was already wasted overseas. They don't want to help the people in the US who could use it, want to slash public aid programs, but somehow it is okay to travel across the world and spend billions upon billions, if not trillions, of dollars for something that has little direct effect on our nation. The US needs to go back to an isolationist policy, or at least somewhat, instead of adopting the warmongering of the right. Some people have their priorities misplaced considering that our country needs to be taken care of first before we start spending so much money on other nations.

ISIS was created by Bush, plain and simple, in an indirect way. But apparently nobody wants to talk about that fact. Had Bush never gone into Iraq ISIS would not exist...The truth of the matter is that US foreign policy, under Obama, has been better than it was under Bush. Is it not plainly and painfully obvious that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have failed miserably, considering ISIS now exists? If you want to talk about policy failures then Bush takes the cake, the worst since Vietnam. I mean an utter failure of military strategy.

I am only placing all the blame on Bush for these failures because people like you want to place all the blame on Obama for policies and strategies that he is not directly responsible for. You do realize that presidents are not absolute monarchs right? And there is a huge difference in making a mistake where expectations are concerned, especially military expectations, and an actual policy failure. Policy is what shapes military decisions and actions, and these decisions and actions, the "ways and means" are used to achieve objectives, ie policy/strategy. So making a mistake where expectations are concerned simply means that altering the ways and means is in order. It need not mean an altering of strategy, and definitely not policy, although it can be expanded. Objectives should never change for transient reasons, and the slight expansion of ISIS forces is definitely not going to alter policy.



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 04:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Willtell

How do you not see this as iraq war 2.0 tho?
So if we should not have done it in the first place why does it make sense to do it now?

We got it wrong the first time, how is the answer to that to do the same exact thing over again?

I'm sure we all know the definition of insanity


One is responsible for there acts.

Colin Powell told stupid Bush: If you invade it you own it.


He did and ruined the delicacy of that society

They therefore have obligated this country to Iraq one way or the other.


That’s why though there not doing boots on the ground they still are bombing




top topics



 
10
<<   2 >>

log in

join