Posted on 09/06/2015 12:54:48 AM PDT by Olog-hai
He’s right, ISIS is a product of failed policies purposely put in place to allow ISIS to exist and thrive and helping them spread the caliphate throughout the world. The imposter and his muslim friends appointed tohigh positions in our government are joyful at what they have been able to do
And, Russia is taking in how many of this horde of wretched refuse?
On a side note, why aren’t the more local mid-East countries taking in any of these refugees?
Could it be that they are simply using a planned strategy to extend their influence by raising their numbers in societies they have targeted?
You can use individual names like Clinton and McCain but it was the groups.
The NeoCon republicans(led by McCain) were the first to agitate for intervening in Libya. But the Realists(R&D), led by Bob Gates opposed. Then the Liberal Interventionists(led by Clinton, Powers, and Rice) worked up the multilateral agreement and Obama would go in based on the multilateral agreement. Obama is a big fan of multilateralism but opposes unilateralism.
NeoCons(R) and Liberal Interventionists(D) both subscribe to a Idealistic Foreign Policy and support humanitarianism and nation building as part of US foreign policy. NeoCons(R) are unilateralists and are willing to intervene alone but the Liberal Interventionists(D) say the US should intervene only multilaterally. The Realists are opposed to an idealistic foreign policy and say the US should intervene only if it is the US's interest.
So after Obama agreed to intervene in Libya the NeoCons praised Obama. Bill Kristol proclaimed Obama to be a "Born Again NeoCon", but also they criticized Obama saying multilateralism was "leading from behind". The Realists were not happy about the Libya intervention so Henry Kissinger and James Baker published an editorial warning that Libya was a mistake and would probably blow up in our face, which it did(Benghazi).
Syria was the same. When events began to unfold there the NeoCons and Liberal Interventionists wanted to intervene but the Realists and Obama were opposed. But slowly the Realists shifted to supporting intervention.
In the spring of 2013 the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted(15-3) to arm the Syrian Rebels. The two antiwar dems and isolationist Rand Paul voted no. Obama worked up a plan for the CIA to train and supply weapons to the Syrian rebels and got congress to approve it but Obama would give them only anti-tank weapons saying no to anti-aircraft weapons because those might be used against the Israeli air force.
The rebels were glad to get the weapons but complained that they needed anti-aircraft weapons and the pace of training was very slow. So in 2014 Congress would appropriate larger sums of money for weapons and shift the duty of training from CIA to the US military and begin to train more rebels. Somehow we could arm/train certain rebels to fight both ISIS and Assad.
Later in 2014, because of Assad's use of chemical weapons, Obama said he wanted to bomb Assad's forces but would do so only if Congress approved it. But they found a solution with Putin to take Assad's chem weapons. But eventually the Senate Foreign Relations Committee did approve bombing Assad but it was only a 10-8 vote.
Its all a big mess. If you help the rebels against Assad, you might help ISIS. If you help Assad against ISIS, you hurt the "good" rebels. And now Turkey and Russia are getting involved. And Iran is going to get their "sanctions money" that they will give part of it to Assad.
Congress is the real problem. They clearly have a responsibility but refuse to step up because they don't want to be blamed if fit hits the shan. There are problems between dems and GOP. There are problems between Realists, NeoCons, and interventionists. There are problems between military hawks and budget hawks.
Whereas foreign policies may be a pressing issue, funding for Planned Parenthood is the key issue in Congress.
In this case he is right. Overthrowing Qaddafi and trying to bring Democracy to a region where it will not work has caused a lot of these problems.
Well, ya know, it was Jimmy Carter that gave us the Iran of today. It was Obozo and company that just had to overthrow secular leaders in the muzzie world...we now have radicals running those countries.
Wrong or right, Saddam Hussein and his blood thirsty sons should have been forcibly removed. They were sadistic as hell...literally. With that said, why do we always seem to nation build? Democracy in a place that will never sustain one? Why are we still in Afghanistan? What's it been 13 years now?
Good grief. Call me an isolationist or nationalist, but I believe we need to spend our dollars on the Messycan border, on jobs, infrastructure...America first in all things, not using our tax dollars to build jack diddly squat in countries that hate us and will always hate us...that is of course a rival muzzie country/sect/tribe is pressing down on top of them...then they love the hell out of us until its over....then we become the big satan again.
Guys like Saddam are par for the course in the Arab world.
When two half-witted communists are at the helm of the nation what would anyone expect?
That being said, the flood of would-be immigrants needs to be stopped and these muslims need to be returned to the nations they fled.
On the way to paradise in Europe these muslims murdered the Christians that were among them.
NOt a bad summary, but I would add or contend a few points.
1. London and especially Paris pushed hard for the attack on Libya. So they own a lot of that too.
2. Assad didn’t really use chemical weapons. That was a set-up run out of British intelligence in order to gain political support in the West for an invasion of Syria. Check out Seymour Hersch’s reporting.
3. The idea that there are “rebels” in Syria that aren’t allied with ISIS or just ISIS itself is largely a phantom. There probably aren’t even 100 people like that. When people like McCain or Hillary talk about supporting “Syrian rebels,” they’re talking about supporting radical jihadists. Call them Qaeda or ISIS or whatever, that’s what it is. And the McCains of the world know it.
4. Turkey knows all this too. Thus they announce that they are going to “bomb ISIS”, but treally they’re just bombing Kurds, because they hate the Kurds. They see the rest of NATO saying they are going to “bomb ISIS” when they’re really just bombing empty buildings or Assad assets. And the whole time ISIS continues to “mysteriously” rack up American-made arms and materiel, as they have been since Benghazi. It’s really not that mysterious.
Turkey created ISIS.
I think zero may not be bungling, but causing chaos in the world, as he is at home, on purpose. The only question in my mind - Is he smart enough to actually make it happen?
Or maybe he doesn't really care about Europe, but only wants to create refugees he can take in to increase the Muslim population in the US.
I agree with Putin
Hard to disagree with him based in the past 7 years if foreign policy.
FU, Putin...
I agree with most of that but we know Rebel factions have fought against ISIS, one of these US jihadists who joined ISIS was killed by one of the Rebel Factions.
Obviously, I don’t know this for myself but plenty has been written on Assad trying to weaken some rebel groups by bombing them and that actually helps ISIS. These are just two articles of many, including what some Syrians say, that say this.
http://www.businessinsider.com/why-assads-air-force-is-now-a-force-multiplier-for-isis-2015-6
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/pipermail/marxism/2015-June/262209.html
Lt. Col. Oliver North likewise, I know has favored certain Rebel groups as well: http://blog.godreports.com/2015/08/oliver-norths-five-point-plan-to-defeat-isis/ It is not clear to me if he is talking about Syria or Iraq. We don’t hear as much about “other rebel groups” in Iraq.
In this case I agree with Mr. Putin. But I would add in the euroweenies as accessories and the Soviet Union for laying the foundation of hatred in the region post WW2. There’s plenty of blame all around for everyone to have their “fair share”.
Putin also said Assad is ready to share power, that most likely means there is a viable opposition. I doubt if Putin inferred sharing power with the ISIS devils.
Russia has also met with opposition groups in Russia, what a load to claim all opposition are the radicals.
We certainly do not know where that one poisonous gas attack came from, we do know afterwards, via Russia, Syria agreed to destroy its chemical stockpiles.
Not a fan of Putin, but I think he’s right on this point.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.