Obama is not to blame for events in Syria and Iraq

I've read some hilarious stuff in my life, but this is the most pathetic excuse I've ever seen! Only Obama himself would write such nonsense.

 

Yeah, Bush is responsible for what happened in Iraq and Syria 4-8 years after he left office, and also to blame for what happened 8 months into his first term. Anything for Jan 20, 2001, its Bush's fault till Jan 20, 2017.

 

Syria resolution vetoed by Russia and China at United Nations
You don't even know how correct you are.

Sent from my SM-T560NU using Tapatalk

 

That may sound fair.

However, he is in Syria. He is in Iraq. And he never left Afghanistan.

He made a mess of Egypt, Libya, Yemen and of course Syria and Iraq and Afghanistan.

Maybe we paid him too much.

 

They wouldn't to that for Bush. Bush was supposed to see a civil war in Iraq ahead of time.

 

You sure don't know jack chit about the Middle East.. or did you think Obama was the magic mulatto?

 

And this coming from one who knows only a very little after spending some time there. So you have no business talking (*)(*)(*)(*) and not after I have had to show you the way many times.

 

Backed by Obama and US funding.

No, it is not. A “failed state” is one that can no longer exert effective control over its territory and borders, and cannot provide basic security and services.

The US needs control of Syria as a pre-requisite to effecting "Regime Change" in Iran.

 

Strictly an ad hominem response. How childish. You appear incapable of questioning any of the statements made.

 

You described a failed state perfectly. 500,000 Syrians have died in this civil war and there is no end in sight. Would you call that providing security? ISIS, rebels, and Kurds control large parts of Syria. Many cities are in ruins along with transportation hubs, railroads, and bridges. Does Assad control Syria or does Russia?

Regime change in Iran? On the face of it, your statement is highly questionable. Perhaps, you can support it? Also, no one in the U.S., except some fanatic nuts, is suggesting regime change in Iran.

The course Obama chose was prudent. Critics today are saying that Russia and Iran now control the region. Think about it. Is that a bad thing? Look at the chaos in Iraq, the months long battles for Fallujah, Ramadi, and Mosul. Syria is a failed state. Who wants it? Aleppo is a human tragedy. Major cities, transportation hubs, railroads, and bridges have been destroyed throughout Iraq and Syria. In both countries Islamic terrorists attack mosques, churches, market places, and other soft targets with tremendous loss of innocent life. The terrorist attacks are a daily occurrence.

Ask yourself a question. Do we really want any part of that?

The truth is, no one has come up with one good reason why the U.S. should be involved. That's a fact.

 

I beg to differ. I think the people living in Syria, Iraq, Libya, Egypt, and Afghanistan made a mess of it. We tried to gain control of the Middle East and failed miserably. Doing something over and over again expecting a different result is a sign of insanity. I think we should stop trying. We can no longer afford to be the policeman of the world. After all, it was a thankless job. We made more enemies that friends.

Conservatives sources are severely criticizing the Obama administration because Syria, Russia, and Turkey are currently holding negotiations to bring the civil war to an end. The U.S. is not involved. Great, that is the way it should be. Critics say Russia will control Syria. Excellent, they can have it. It will be nothing new. Russia and Syria have been allies since 1980, and Russia has a naval base at Tartus in Syria.

 

Do you have any idea what you are talking about?

I thought not.

 

Again meetings that were little more than a sop to the few Democrats that actually cared, weren't going to be productive nor were they intended to be productive. The left has specialized for years in this sort of form over substance nonsense.

 

Excellent post. However, my point is Trump should not get involved in the Middle East for the reason you stated, "The Mid-East has been an uncontrollable blood bath for centuries." He has suggested sending 30,000 troops to the Middle East to defeat ISIS. That is a fool's errand. That is exactly what ISIS wants him to do. They get another chance to kill the soldiers of the Great Satan. ISIS doesn't care how many soldiers they would lose. Killing the infidel is life's purpose to them.

 

I read that from time to time Sandy claims to be conservative.

It saddens me as you might expect to have the poster harp that conservatives are anti Obama and his aims.

When Bush sort of invaded Afghanistan (Gen. Tommy Franks great book actually lays out what really happened) apparently the Democrats could stomach that. The one they now say, well post the actual invasion of course, they quit stomaching is in Iraq.

When Bush waged his two wars to obtain freedom for over 50 million humans, all he caught was grief over it.

So what are Obama's aims?

 

If the Iraqi government were that concerned about ISIS reemerging, they would have never rejected the US's proposal to keep 10,000 US troops there. And I'm not sure what you mean by the Obama administration would not provide the helicopters that the Iraqi government requested, the administration provided nearly $30 billion in military aid and equipment to the Iraqi government. Much of that military equipment ended up getting intercepted by ISIS

The problem with that idea is Iraq was already their own sovereign nation by then, and once you give a nation their sovereignty, you're going to have a very hard time taking it away from them again without experiencing severe backlash. As for taking some of the land in Iraq for ourselves, once you make a piece of territory yours forever, it is forever your responsibility. That means it would be our responsibility to keep that territory protected indefinitely, and seeing how we would be taking land from a sovereign nation, we would be more prone to attacks from people of various political sides (again, the severe backlash from when people feel you are violating their sovereignty). In the end, keeping said territory for ourselves would most likely cost us more than giving that land back to the Iraqi people. That is also why colonialism in large scales usually does not last

It was the Iraqi government who rejected keeping US troops in Iraq beyond 2011, not the US government. You can try and say the US government didn't propose keeping US troops there hard enough.. but at the end of the day it was the Iraqi government's decision to rejects the US's proposal.

 

The Japanese were equally fanatical. Truman handled that. Funny innit?

 

The worst US president we have ever had, glad he is walking his ass out of the White House next month, and that's just for his foreign policies. His domestic policies, like the ACA are even worse. And then there is our pathetic economy, which never saw a year with even a 3% GDP growth, and that's with pouring $10 trillion in new debt, and almost $4 trillion in all the quantitative easing.

He is a serial liar, good riddance.

 

Your apologetics for Obama's massive foreign policy failures are typical, it's like Hillary blaming everyone but herself for losing the election.

 

You mean that Bozo Kerry wasn't invited.

 

Truman signed a peace treaty with Japan that allowed them to keep their emperor. What kind of treaty do you make with a terrorist organization like ISIS?

Note that this is not another country we are fighting, it is a terrorist organization whose end goal is to be an ideology that does not need direct command and control to fight

 

Talking about how the Left blames everything on Bush. But that will stop when the next GOP POTUS is in office.

 

They were concerned about AQ reemerging. But then the US was more worried about the Shia and what they were doing with Iraq and marginalizing the Sunni and the Kurds. Both Repubs and BO peep were upset with the fact that the Shia were not including the Kurds or Sunni in the New government. But forgot that the Iraqi people voted who they wanted in.

Moreover they were upset that Iraq was helping Assad. Unable to figure out that part about the Shia sticking together. Yes we gave aid.....then denied the Apache Helicopters and drones after repeated requests. BO and the Repubs thought he might use them against the Kurds and the Sunni opposition in Iraq.

To top it off......BO then denies Abadi the same thing he did Maliki in April of 2015.



PM Maliki’s secret appeal for U.S. airstrikes denied.....

http://www.iraqinews.com/baghdad-politics/pm-malikis-secret-appeal-u-s-airstrikes-denied/


U.S. Said to Rebuff Iraqi Request to Strike Militants.....

As the threat from Sunni militants in western Iraq escalated last month, Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki secretly asked the Obama administration to consider carrying out airstrikes against extremist staging areas, according to Iraqi and American officials.

But Iraq’s appeals for a military response have so far been rebuffed by the White House, which has been reluctant to open a new chapter in a conflict that President Obama has insisted was over when the United States withdrew the last of its forces from Iraq in 2011.

The swift capture of Mosul by militants aligned with the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria has underscored how the conflicts in Syria and Iraq have converged into one widening regional insurgency with fighters coursing back and forth through the porous border between the two countries. But it has also called attention to the limits the White House has imposed on the use of American power in an increasingly violent and volatile region.

The Obama administration has carried out drone strikes against militants in Yemen and Pakistan, where it fears terrorists have been hatching plans to attack the United States. But despite the fact that Sunni militants have been making steady advances and may be carving out new havens from which they could carry out attacks against the West, administration spokesmen have insisted that the United States is not actively considering using warplanes or armed drones to strike them.

As the Sunni insurgents have grown in strength those requests have persisted. In a May 11 meeting with American diplomats and Gen. Lloyd J. Austin III, the head of the Central Command, which oversees American military operations in the Middle East, Mr. Maliki said he would like the United States to provide Iraq with the ability to operate drones. But if the United States was not willing to do that, Mr. Maliki indicated he was prepared to allow the United States to carry out strikes using warplanes or drones.

In a May 16 phone call with Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., Mr. Maliki again suggested that the United States consider using American air power. A written request repeating that point was submitted soon afterward, officials said.

Some experts say that such American military action could be helpful but only if Mr. Maliki takes steps to make his government more inclusive.....snip~

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/12/...rstrikes-on-militants-officials-say.html?_r=0


Iraqi PM Maliki struggles to convince U.S. lawmakers to back more aid.....


U.S. lawmakers had tough criticism for Iraq's government after meeting with Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki on Wednesday, saying they were open to meeting his request for military assistance only if Baghdad made significant changes.

Maliki is on his first visit to Washington in two years, urgently seeking U.S. Apache attack helicopters and other military supplies to fight militant groups such as al Qaeda in Iraq as sectarian violence spills over the border from Syria.

But U.S. officials, particularly members of Congress who take a harder line on many foreign policy issues than the Obama administration, have watched in dismay as Maliki has ignored Washington's calls to give Iraq's Sunni and Kurdish minorities a greater role in his Shi'ite-led government, and moved closer to Iran since U.S. troops left Iraq two years ago.

The lawmakers are also angry about reports that Iran uses Iraqi airspace to send military assistance to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in a civil war that has killed more than 115,000 civilians......snip~

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-iraq-usa-maliki-idUSBRE99T1FA20131030


Obama Denies Iraq's Request for Apaches and Drones.....
Apr 14, 2015
President Obama pledged Tuesday to give Iraq what it needs to defeat ISIS but stopped short of promising the delivery of high-end weaponry such as Apache attack helicopters and armed drones.

At an Oval Office meeting with Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi, Obama was asked directly about the Apaches and drones, and said "this is why we are having this meeting."

Obama said he needed to hear first from Abadi on the best ways "to make sure that Iraqi security forces are in a position to succeed in our common mission" against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

Abadi said the Iraqi people were grateful for the U.S. airstrikes, training and weapons support but "we want to see more."

Under former Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, Iraq repeatedly asked for Apaches and F-16s but the U.S. sidestepped on the requests.....snip~

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/04/14/obama-denies-iraqs-request-for-apaches-and-drones.html

 

What a crock??? Are you serious???

What the hack should Obama have done in Syria please? Was you willing to make a full scale invasion into Syria to eliminate Assad regime, including the losses of US soldiers ongoing with it and the knowledge that Assad had at this time for sure WMD's?

It was the majority of US people who wants to get the boys out of the hell of mess in Iraq which was started by Bush administration based on lies and fakes and showing total incompetence. So do you really believe that any US majority was willing to accept a same sort of full invasion into Syria?
And no ... he is not guilty for the ISIS, but Bush is only! ISIS exists still under Bush, was formerly ally of Al Qaida and you maybe remember the fighting's of Fallujah for example? These enemy fighters there were the predecessor of ISIS and are now ISIS and these fighting's were when again please?

Obama may went out too fast out of Iraq in usual US behavior of "mission accomplished" when nothing is accomplished in reality, but this was the will of the majority of US people after they waked up and saw that Bush had started a second Vietnam there, which no one wants to have!

The only thing where Obama administration has bloody hands is Libya, but here also for max. 50% of guilt, because the rest has to be blamed on France and particularly Ex President Sarkozy, because he was the leading power to throw off Gadhafi from power and all who were involved there stopped anything as soon as Gadhafi was dead and let not only a messed up country behind, but more they let all these former worst Islamist they supported blind way because enemy of Gadhafi.
OK, same thing the US and more Turkey did in Syria by backing scum like this Al Nusra with weapons, but again: Was you willing to make a full scale invasion against a dictator who had at this time control over WMD's too?

 

Aleppo: Obama's legacy of shame....


All decent men and women should condemn the assassination of the Russian ambassador to Turkey. They should also condemn the deliberate mass bombing of Syrian civilians in Syria by troops under the command of Syrian strongman Bashar Assad and Russian strongman Vladimir Putin.

Throughout the years, as the carnage continued in Syria, Obama repeatedly opined about the evils of the killing while repeatedly refusing to take actions that could have ended it.

If Obama has the capacity to admit he was terribly wrong about anything, Stavridis is right and the president will someday look back in shame at the things he refused to do while the bloodshed continued.

In October, Secretary of State John Kerry, known to have long favored a stronger policy toward Syria than Obama, called for an international investigation of Syria and Russia for war crimes committed by Syrian and Russian bombing of civilians, which reportedly included the deliberate bombing of hospitals treating wounded and dying civilians.

Even then, Obama refused to act. Our European allies refused to act. Middle Eastern nations refused to act. The United Nations was incapable of acting. While leaders of nations across the free world spoke loudly but did nothing, the carnage continued unabated.

In his repeated public musings since he first said that Assad must go in 2011, and in repeated background quotes from unnamed White House sources, Obama and his White House staff offered a steady stream of incoherent opining that implied Obama did not want to escalate tensions with Russia or engage in another large-scale war in the Mideast.

Obama's ineffective policy has been to provide deliberately inadequate aid to Syrian rebels — designed to keep them fighting but to make certain they had no chance of winning — while taking no meaningful action to effectively oppose the deliberate mass bombing of civilians by Syrian and Russian forces.

Obama never learned that refusing to effectively oppose the mass bombing of civilians by dictators such as Assad and Putin does not reduce tensions with them; it encourages them and other aggressors to escalate their aggression while the innocent continue to perish.

Appeasement, inaction and incoherence are not badges of honor for a president. They are badges of shame that good people today and historians tomorrow will condemn in horror.....snip~

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blo...egacy-of-shame

Says it all.....Right there.