Cheney blames the refugee crisis on Obama's failed foreign policy.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: seeker1963

What is more pathetic is the finger pointing

I think that is more pathetic, and screwed up is the US, and Bush gets the blame for what the ME has always been, SCREWED UP.

And that is primarily because of Saudi Arabia, and Iran. The Sunni, and the Shia.

Some applaud that ISIS is fighting Iranian Shiite "fire" with Sunni "fire";

You Can't Understand ISIS If You Don't Know the History of Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia

It's Bush's 'fault' for what has been over a 2 millennia blood feud.

I won't argue that.

Did you see how the God of Saudi Arabia bought out the 4 Seasons in NYC and kicked out those who were there? Not to mention his fleet of limousines and personal furnishings that were shipped along to replace the furnishings already there?

Odd how the LGBT community wasn't protesting that scumbags arrival in the US? Odd how Obama rolls out the red carpet for a douchebag who beheads people for being gay, yet welcomes him to our country?

Meh, I am digging in! It's ready to hit the fan.......

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: seeker1963

What is more pathetic is the finger pointing

I think that is more pathetic, and screwed up is the US, and Bush gets the blame for what the ME has always been, SCREWED UP.

And that is primarily because of Saudi Arabia, and Iran. The Sunni, and the Shia.

Some applaud that ISIS is fighting Iranian Shiite "fire" with Sunni "fire";

You Can't Understand ISIS If You Don't Know the History of Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia

It's Bush's 'fault' for what has been over a 2 millennia blood feud.

The Sunni's and Shias haven't been around for two millennia.

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: Metallicus
That sounds right to me. Obama has had six years to fix things. At this point it is Obama's fault.

So you support the idea that Obama should be a dictator? You should take a lesson on how things work in the American government.

How would that make Obama a dictator ? Please , do tell . Or perhaps there is someone else that needs to research how things work in the US ? All I see are words. If you really want to know it deals with national defense.And did from the start.

The President can't do anything militarily such as invading another nation without congress.

a reply to: buster2010

The Sunni's and Shias haven't been around for two millennia.

Well excuse me, and let me correct it.

It's Bush's fault for what has been going on for 1.4 millennia.

The Sunni and Shi'a both trace their differences to the 7th century C.E.,

www.patheos.com...

21st century -7th=14

a reply to: nwtrucker

Says the man who stirred up the mess in the first place.... FM

a reply to: FyreByrd

Yep. Saddam had nothing to do with it....

Does anybody think Iran will be withdrawing from Iraq, Yemen, and Lebanon/Syria etc. ant time soon?

originally posted by: xuenchen
Does anybody think Iran will be withdrawing from Iraq, Yemen, and Lebanon/Syria etc. ant time soon?

Nope.

The 'Taliban 5' are orignally from Yemen.

Remember them?

That's who we trade for a deserter.

Iraq should have created a SOFA agreement so we could put a base there.
Now they are BEGGING us to comeback.

a reply to: buster2010

Funny, I recall Lybia being hit,Syria isn't authorized as we have NO state of emergenciy.
Uncunventional forces can be used as he please.
Seems you aren't up to snuff on your info regarding military.
www.greanvillepost.com...

a reply to: neo96

Who pushed for war with Iraq in 2003 Neo? Was it Bush, or the Democrats? And remember we're not debating whether or not the democrats voted to authorize the president to wage war (based on the intelligence claims from that administration). Who pushed for war with Iraq? Bush and the Republicans, or the Democrats?

a reply to: Southern Guardian

Yep, your right. If the Democrats ran the show back then, Saddam would still be in power, probably nuked up with the Oil for food kickbacks, and we'd be facing a nuclear back version of Isis, run by Saddam.

Of course, the Democrats have made up for lost time and have fed weaponry to Isis and fueled the current mess. Then there's the 'Democrat' support for the Muslim brotherhood, then running Egypt-who were making military moves towards Israel-who fortunately were kicked out by the Egyptians and now get along well with the Israelis.

The left has been dumping on Bush and Cheney for so long they've forgotten who the enemy was...Saddam. Now you all believe your own Bulls**t.

Oh yes, the 'intelligence claims' you quote date back to the Clinton Administration and were promoted by every Democrat you can name including Hillary and Bill.

My utter and complete contempt.

Americas invaision of Iraq in 2003 was a huge destabilising issue for the Middle East. That's why there were so many anti war campaigners, because there was no exit strategy. That wasn't Obama fault. If even a bunch of anti war protesters recognised this mistake shame the bush admin couldn't. Now it's left to everyone else to tidy up the mess. You can't get into a war without an exit strategy. Most people knew this. Unfortunately the Americans were Expecting to be greeted with flowers flowers from the Iraqis

a reply to: nwtrucker

Yep, your right. If the Democrats ran the show back then, Saddam would still be in power,

Because lord knows we get to pick and choose which dictators we should overthrow for the sake of convenience. Are you going to advocate we overthrow the other dictators around the world as well? The removal of Saddam made no difference to the problems facing the ME, in fact Iraq is in a much worse state than it was prior to Saddam. This along with the issues in Syria and other nations in the region.

So what if Saddam was still in power?

probably nuked up with the Oil for food kickbacks, and we'd be facing a nuclear back version of Isis, run by Saddam.

Your assumptions, no facts. The fact is, there were no WNDs found in Iraq. None.

Of course, the Democrats have made up for lost time and have fed weaponry to Isis

America has been feeding weapons to groups in the middle east for decades. This isn't a 'democrat' thing buddy. Get off the Republican kool-aid. Reagan and his Iran contra affair is a good example of that. Doesn't matter the president. It's the military industrial complex.

The left has been dumping on Bush and Cheney

Everybody has been dumping on Bush and Cheney and rightfully so. Not just the left. Have you been living under a rock or something? They had a disastrous administration, so much so that even many conservatives began jumping off the Bush Cheney boat. They pushed for a war for a reason that turned out to be false, and the war itself was a waste of billions. Made no difference to the issues facing the ME. What news sources do you frequent?

Oh yes, the 'intelligence claims' you quote date back to the Clinton Administration

Oh really? And where's your source? Did Bill Clinton tell Bush to invade Iraq? Hmm.

Obama accused the case, he and his boss created. This is convenient. Making things you should take is to work in the US government a lesson.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
Cheney blames the refugee crisis on Obama's failed foreign policy.

It's not a failure, if the long term goal is to destabilize the EU ?

a reply to: Ove38

Wow! That's an interesting thought!

My first reaction to it is they don't need any help. They're doing fine on their own....

a reply to: Southern Guardian

Hmm, a couple of good points. Definitely on the weapons supply. Although the cold war issues that were in play during the 70's really doesn't apply these days....still, there's always a 'reason' isn't there.

Yes, the nuke part is an assumption. Not an unreasonable one based on the funds available, the connection to Pakistan's nuclear scientists, so on. I give it a better than 50-50 he'd be nuked up by now, be it Pakistan or NK helping/selling a couple for hard cash....

The pick and choose argument doesn't work. That logic, followed through, implies take 'em all out or none. Neither is logical. Unfortunately, we seem to pick and choose based on whether it affects international commerce or not. If it does, we seem more inclined to intervene...

You call it cool-aide, I see the same mechanism being forced on the next Republican President. I wonder what the dems would have done if they had won instead of Bush 41? Saddam continues into Saudi Arabia? Ends up controlling the whole middle east oil supply? You call it an assumption, perhaps rightly, yet there is potential downsides to non-action as well.

Saddam still in power and your response is "so what"? You make my point about Democrats with that comment.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

P.S.

I went from supporting the invasion of Iraq to considering it a mistake. Not for the same reasons as most, but due to how it was handled and the end result.

I moved to the screw them attitude stay out of it and, again for different reasons, somewhat supported the U.S. not being at the forefront of actions in Egypt and Libya...the Brits took over and that was fine with me.

Now we see the result of that non-action. It's flooding into Europe. Expanding. The unrest in Europe is going to expand with the massive refugee migration.

I really don't see any viable out to this mess...it's depressing.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

Yeah WHO pushed for the war in Iraq there ?

www.abovetopsecret.com...