Trump Goes Full Reagan On Fighting Radical Islam, Media Ignores

originally posted by: eNumbra

originally posted by: TheBulk


In fairness, the situation in Iraq had been nearly stabilized and the $hit didn't hit the fan till Obama removed us from the area.

How indefinitely should we have stayed in Iraq?

Iraq is still a very unstable country. Putting an exact date on a withdrawal is not easy.
Take Korea, that war ended in 1953 and we still have 60k troops at the border.
Not exactly the same situation but it is some perspective.
Iraq was a mistake we need to help clean up and Egypt will probably be similar.

originally posted by: Bluntone22

originally posted by: eNumbra

originally posted by: TheBulk


In fairness, the situation in Iraq had been nearly stabilized and the $hit didn't hit the fan till Obama removed us from the area.

How indefinitely should we have stayed in Iraq?

Iraq is still a very unstable country. Putting an exact date on a withdrawal is not easy.
Take Korea, that war ended in 1953 and we still have 60k troops at the border.
Not exactly the same situation but it is some perspective.
Iraq was a mistake we need to help clean up and Egypt will probably be similar.

So maybe tomorrow, maybe never; that's about what I thought.

Syria was not stable, in fact Syria has been stable for a very long time. In fact some of the groups who make up the Arab and Kurdish rebels today were formed after uprising that had been crushed before. And the US did not start the revolt in Syria.

Libya was also not stable. It's armed forces were so nou trusted none of them were being given fuel so they could not reach the capital after the Army tried to kill him in 93. Riots and uprisings were normal in Libya starting the mid 1990s on even. The regime became even more repressive as a result which just drove more people to revolt. None if this has anything to with the US. The UN backed intervention later simply shortened the war. And Trump supported it

Nor did the US remove Mubarak who much like the current ruler of Egypt is a secular US ally that is pretty much just a strong man who stamped out any opposition and they were fighting the same radicals in the Sinai that that they are today. It was in fact worse then, the 1997 the Luxor massacre killed 58 tourist and 4 Egyptians, 2004 bombings killed 34, a 2005 attack killed 3 foreign journalists, 2005 Sharm el-Sheikh bombings killed almost 70 people etc.

And the only reason things were calm in iraq is because Bush has signed the agreement (not that he has a choice the Iraqis were kicking us out) for US forces to leave in 2011. So everybody was just waiting for that to happen. A pull out by the way that Trump agreed with.

Of course Trump know his own supporters will not fact check him so he can spew this nonsense. Some of us however know a little about the history of the region. And it is also ironic the Trump supported the invasion of iraq, the pulling out of Iraq and in the intervention in Libya but, no bases on those decisions.

Reagan had his grubby fingers in the militant jihadi pie too.

a reply to: xuenchen

This summer, there has been an ISIS attack launched outside the war zones of the Middle East every 84 hours.

wrong, not a good start.

Libya was stable.

Syria was under control.

Egypt was ruled by a secular President and an ally of the United States.

all were ruled by dictators, america was hardly friends with mubarek.

Iraq was experiencing a reduction in violence.

if you call a civil war a reduction in violence, your mental.

Iran was being choked off by economic sanctions.

united nations still has the sanctions under review, therefore america does too.

The group that would become what we now call ISIS was close to being extinguished.

it wasn't, saud started funding them heavily when al qaeda appeared over.

so his speech was full of lies, and what?
you declare him right?
repeating a lie dosent make it true.

politico expose the other lies you missed.

originally posted by: awareness10
a reply to: dukeofjive696969

triple double quadruple... what the '### are you on about now?

My iphone goes bonkers sometimes

a reply to: buster2010

He sure knows how to take credit for it....

a reply to: TheBulk

Thanks Bush? Really?

Hmm. Where to begin with that one...
Yes, if you worked for Halliburton, I guess you could thank Bush for all of those no-bid government contracts. I guess if you were a corporate fatcat for the energy industry in those behind-the-curtain meetings with Darth Cheney you could thank Bush for the windfall.
Yes, I'm sure all the rich people who got richer due to that invasion and occupation could thank Bush--probably some of the descendants of rich people who could thank Prescott Bush and his cronies for all the money they made leading up to and immediately after WW2.

Outside of all the tasty profits to be had with that racket known as war, it's truly difficult for me to think of something I could thank Bush for. Do I feel more secure and free? Not in the slightest. For the rest of us, the worst economic situation since the great depression wasn't so tasty. Can't think of why I would thank Bush and a super majority of Greedy Old Parasites in the house and senate for blowing a budget surplus and spending our tax dollars like a college freshman with his first credit card. Can't think of why I should thank them for running up a trillion dollar war bill and conveniently leaving it off of the official books. (Wouldn't want anyone to think we're not conserving anything other than the status quo and our own pocketbooks now would we?)

Maybe I should thank him for the Patriot Act and for pretty much making it officially legal to do what most of us knew the government was already doing? No, I don't think so.

And I'm sure Sadam Hussein was thankful to the good old USA and uncle-shoot'em-up, it's-morning (mourning?)-in-America-Ronnie for that satellite intel he used to gas the kurds with WMD's of WESTERN design he obtained when it was convenient for the West to support a secular Iraq against a religious Iran--those weapons that our men and women in uniform dug up in the desert, causing horrific harm in some cases. I'm sure they're saying "Thanks Bush."

And no, I'm not about to thank Obama or Clinton for their lovely little contributions to the perpetual state of war and preparing for war that works out so well for the military industrial complex.

I might actually thank a politician for shutting their mouth and putting their thumb where the sun doesn't shine, but that doesn't seem like a thanks I'll ever get to make good on.

Maybe I'll just pre-emptively say NO THANKS to both Hillary and Donald for whatever mess either of them will undoubtedly cause in the not-so-distant future. Pretty certain I'm saying no thanks in advance for the same old three-ring poop circus: perpetual conflict, financial exploitation of the masses, trampling of the constitution, disinformation, lies, environmental rape, and rich people getting richer (yes, true believing Trumpeters, that's still what will happen if your Cheeto messiah gets elected. And the same angry, ignorant, crowd that thinks he can make 'Murica great again won't see any meaningful change in their lives. He's a movement alright--of the BOWEL variety--getting ready to take a giant, uptown dump on everyone who supports him).

Yeah, I'm fairly certain "No Thanks" sounds much better.

a reply to: xuenchen

Goes "full Reagan"? You sure you want to use Reagan as your example? His administration backed the people who would become both Al-Qaeda and the Taliban during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Reagen even dedicated the Space Shuttle Columbia launch to those very same Afghan "freedom fighters".

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: xuenchen

Goes "full Reagan"? You sure you want to use Reagan as your example? His administration backed the people who would become both Al-Qaeda and the Taliban during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Reagen even dedicated the Space Shuttle Columbia launch to those very same Afghan "freedom fighters".

Not to mention when over 200 US Marines were killed in a terror attack in Lebanon the US turned tail and ran never even retaliating dithering about targets while the French, yest the French, went in and took care of business. Also that selling weapons to Iran bit to fund a civil way in Central America.

a reply to: xuenchen

Gotta love conservative ignorance, blaming only Democrats for the Middle Eastern quagmire and ignoring Bush's 8 years of failure. So damn typical and this site is infested with this nonsense. I'd have more respect for this group if they ever just once let their so called leaders take responsibility for their actions. But, nope, never happens because it's always some Democrats fault.

Rinse and repeat. Same old same old.

a reply to: MrSpad

Yep. I'm really lost on what "Full Reagan" actually means in this situation.

a reply to: Swills

You mean Obama's not the one who led us into Afghanistan, like Trump's spokeswoman said?

originally posted by: MrSpad

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: xuenchen

Goes "full Reagan"? You sure you want to use Reagan as your example? His administration backed the people who would become both Al-Qaeda and the Taliban during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Reagen even dedicated the Space Shuttle Columbia launch to those very same Afghan "freedom fighters".

Not to mention when over 200 US Marines were killed in a terror attack in Lebanon the US turned tail and ran never even retaliating dithering about targets while the French, yest the French, went in and took care of business. Also that selling weapons to Iran bit to fund a civil way in Central America.

It was Obama and the liberals fault.

Thanks, Hillary.

a reply to: MrSpad

Yup thats why i dont get the regan worship.

Even the fall of the USSR was forgone conclusion even without Regan.

originally posted by: buster2010
a reply to: TheBulk

In fairness, the situation in Iraq had been nearly stabilized and the $hit didn't hit the fan till Obama removed us from the area.

Which is a flat out lie. The paperwork saying when we would leave was already signed before Obama walked into office.

The term you break it you brought it comes to mind.

We never should of touched Iraq. But we did and so we owed to the innocent people there to stay until the mess was fixed, even if it took 100 years.

Obama could of overturned bushes withdrawal plans.

a reply to: crazyewok

I think they only "revere" Reagan because they're told that they're supposed to revere him. Clearly they don't know his policies.

He gave amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants, wanted an open border with Mexico, and even signed gun control legislation while he was Governor of California. And that's on top of the before mentioned selling of weapons to Iran in exchange for the US Embassy hostages, backing the groups who would become known as Al Qaeda & Taliban, and vigorously pushing the Drug War while his admin helped ship coc aine into America as other other side of the Iran-Contra scandal, etc.

And let's not forget the whole GRIDS/AIDS negligence where his administration ignored AIDS because it was believed to be a homosexual disease (GRIDS stood for "gay-related immune deficiency" and was one of the original name for AIDS). There are a lot of clips on youtube about it, but the audio from this one should get the point across:

originally posted by: crazyewok

Obama made the situation worse.

But the USA should never have been in Iraq in the first place.

And he is sending us back there again.

Who can explain it in a way that makes sense?

a reply to: burntheships

Western, Israeli, and GCC powerbrokers don't want Iran or its allies to fill the void in Iraq. Iraq already has a Shiite majority, a Shiite Prime Minister, & a government that is on good terms with Iran. The Wahhabi groups like ISIS and related anti-Iranian groups failed to force Iraq away from Iran, so we're using those groups as pretexts to take over that role.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

Appreciate your insight, thanks.

I think the current administration is just as guilty as any
with the constant drone strikes.