I suspect Cheld is confusing TO INVADE and WAGING WAR IN. Bush invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama didn't pull out all the troops just to invade again. He continued the wars, he hasn't invaded a single country.
I suspect Cheld is confusing TO INVADE and WAGING WAR IN. Bush invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama didn't pull out all the troops just to invade again. He continued the wars, he hasn't invaded a single country.
I'm sure the thousands of innocents killed in Afghanistan by Obama's drones and the hundreds of innocents killed in Syria by Obama's airstrikes take solace in your semantic hairsplitting.
The middle east situation is very inflammatory and these discussions always go round in circles, everyone seems to have a counter argument or ridicule for any comment made. it's a pertinent subject on this thread purely because along with others the America was instrumental in lighting the fuse which in modern history is causing the middle east to be ripped apart and destroyed on a daily basis, therefore like it or not any new president has a duty of responsibility.
Western involvement I'm the middle east has never been successful, our obsession with meddling in cultures we do not agree with or understand causes countless deaths and wholesale slaughter..... Syria is an absolute shambles, huge city's destroyed, children killed all for precious little, toppling so called dictators released the beast and gave us a new problem what's not appreciated is that remove the leaders and return the country to its people is a fine notion but not possible it's all too sectarian. The western powers have a duty to try and stabilise the region and then leave it to the people of those lands to live in their culture. Our way of life does not suit everyone.
My problem starts when half-accurate and heavily biased propaganda (like below) is cc'ed and presented as fact. Putin would be very proud!
I have no problems for criticizing Obama on many points, but it's certainly not as easy and clear like the 'stats" try to imply.
It's all about history and reading both sides of the story and history is, what has happened 10-5 years ago.
While Cheld was wildly inaccurate in the first part of his statement, he had a point in the later part. Obama has engaged militarily in more countries than Bush did. The difference is that Obama bombed or sent special forces, but never invaded like Bush did. In an invasion you put boots (infantry) on the ground and try to take control of the country.
Well, he also "conventiently forgot" that the engagements in Syria and Libya had different motives.
The airstrikes in Syria are against ISIS and not directly against the existing government (which is also evil - no doubt) - while some rebel groups in Syria are being heavily supported.
The airstrikes in Libya have started after Gadaffi started to massacre his own people and are backed by UN decisions as far as I know.
In both cases, there has been no breech of UN decisions and the demonstration of fake evidences.
Both are not regarded as offensive wars like it was the case with the second Iraq war.
What his statement also conveniently leaves out is that the Republican Party Congress Majority are fundamentally blocking virtually any decision which would be pro Obama in the last 8 years. The necessity of the Congress' approval for the airstrikes is highly controversal among experts.
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
There's a lot wrong with a lot of people's opinions about the second gulf war, it's amazing to think 9/11 was considered by some in politics and the intelligence community as "convenient" and gave validation to pursue a certain agenda... A human tragedy used to legitimise an otherwise illegal invasion and become a catalyst to the now humanitarian catastrophe.
What really sticks in my throat is the demonisation of some towards the military and the civilians now hopelessly lost in needless conflict. Ignorance reigns supreme. Political indecision has allowed Russia to gain ground and instigate it's own agenda while we in the West look weak and leaderless in such matters, will either trump or Clinton. Address this? Doubtful trump will pull up the American drawbridge and stick two fingers up to the mess and I see Clinton pursuing her own agenda, another lame duck president of the world's most powerful nation awaits I fear.... Allowing those against us to gain more ground.
My problem starts when half-accurate and heavily biased propaganda (like below) is cc'ed and presented as fact. Putin would be very proud!
I have no problems for criticizing Obama on many points, but it's certainly not as easy and clear like the 'stats" try to imply.
It's all about history and reading both sides of the story and history is, what has happened 10-5 years ago.
I never denied the accuracy of that manipulative 'stat'. Manipulative because it leaves out all important background infos that explain the targets, motives and legitimacy of the mentioned actions in Obama's case.
And that's simply populist propaganda to fool people with easy 'truth'
Again, Putin would be proud {[]
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Can Hillary actually lose the election because of this, or are the voteres allready decided no matter what?
I don't think Hillary will lose voters because of this. She's already been through this, and people have already considered what she has done versus what Trump has done. Her voters already know she's done plenty of bad things. Also, if people are voting for her versus Trump based on their positions on the issues (like abortion or gun control), they won't be switching to Trump.
As I understand it (and I acknowledge upfront that I may be wrong), the latest FBI interest is in emails from a Clinton aide rather than Hillary herself.
As I understand it (and I acknowledge upfront that I may be wrong), the latest FBI interest is in emails from a Clinton aide rather than Hillary herself.
Hillary has over time become an evil cog in an evil profit-driven corporate MIC plan. I dislike her INTENSELY, but The Donald is a loose cannon on deck that could start WWIII on a whim & bring about the rise of the planet of the apes. Not that we are very far from that now... 8-)
As I understand it (and I acknowledge upfront that I may be wrong), the latest FBI interest is in emails from a Clinton aide rather than Hillary herself.
Still unfolding...but it's quite a development. If Hillary fires her right-hand-woman/confidante Huma Abedin-Weiner ( ) ) in the next couple of days, it will be telling. Meanwhile, I assume that the FBI director (Comey) has competent security around him )
I'm in Illinois, and Hillary will carry this wrong-headed state even if authorities find a dead baby in the trunk of her limo, so my presidential vote is the epitome of inconsequential.
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
From what I am hearing, they are referring to one of A Weiner's laptops that has been also used by Abedin.
It could be that they've found that way some of Clinton's missing emails.
The investigation of those require a court decision - so nobody knows so far what these emails are about.
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
I don't know about you Gentlemen but when I think of America one phrase always springs to mind
...national security.
Whatever the fbi are investigating it's pertinent to the campaign, the thing is becoming more and more of a pantomime. Whatever happened to serious people for serious work.
And let's not forget who started all the mess which then had to be cleaned up by Obama.
And also let's not forget that the USA where tired of the war 8 years ago and everybody wanted to get out of there asap.
From what I am hearing, they are referring to one of A Weiner's laptops that has been also used by Abedin.
It could be that they've found that way some of Clinton's missing emails.
The investigation of those require a court decision - so nobody knows so far what these emails are about.
They don't require a court for the FBI to investigate.
Can Hillary actually lose the election because of this, or are the voteres allready decided no matter what?
I don't think Hillary will lose voters because of this. She's already been through this, and people have already considered what she has done versus what Trump has done. Her voters already know she's done plenty of bad things. Also, if people are voting for her versus Trump based on their positions on the issues (like abortion or gun control), they won't be switching to Trump.
I'm willing to bet good money this will move the undecideds to trump.
As I understand it (and I acknowledge upfront that I may be wrong), the latest FBI interest is in emails from a Clinton aide rather than Hillary herself.
Hillary has over time become an evil cog in an evil profit-driven corporate MIC plan. I dislike her INTENSELY, but The Donald is a loose cannon on deck that could start WWIII on a whim & bring about the rise of the planet of the apes. Not that we are very far from that now... 8-)
My problem starts when half-accurate and heavily biased propaganda (like below) is cc'ed and presented as fact. Putin would be very proud!
I have no problems for criticizing Obama on many points, but it's certainly not as easy and clear like the 'stats" try to imply.
It's all about history and reading both sides of the story and history is, what has happened 10-5 years ago.
My problem starts when half-accurate and heavily biased propaganda (like below) is cc'ed and presented as fact. Putin would be very proud!
I have no problems for criticizing Obama on many points, but it's certainly not as easy and clear like the 'stats" try to imply.
It's all about history and reading both sides of the story and history is, what has happened 10-5 years ago.
Comments
English. Therefore, there's no one way to transliterate a name from Arabic.
I'm sure the thousands of innocents killed in Afghanistan by Obama's drones and the hundreds of innocents killed in Syria by Obama's airstrikes take solace in your semantic hairsplitting.
Guys, if things can't be kept civil then this thread will be closed.
Western involvement I'm the middle east has never been successful, our obsession with meddling in cultures we do not agree with or understand causes countless deaths and wholesale slaughter..... Syria is an absolute shambles, huge city's destroyed, children killed all for precious little, toppling so called dictators released the beast and gave us a new problem what's not appreciated is that remove the leaders and return the country to its people is a fine notion but not possible it's all too sectarian. The western powers have a duty to try and stabilise the region and then leave it to the people of those lands to live in their culture. Our way of life does not suit everyone.
My problem starts when half-accurate and heavily biased propaganda (like below) is cc'ed and presented as fact. Putin would be very proud!
I have no problems for criticizing Obama on many points, but it's certainly not as easy and clear like the 'stats" try to imply.
It's all about history and reading both sides of the story and history is, what has happened 10-5 years ago.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
The airstrikes in Syria are against ISIS and not directly against the existing government (which is also evil - no doubt) - while some rebel groups in Syria are being heavily supported.
The airstrikes in Libya have started after Gadaffi started to massacre his own people and are backed by UN decisions as far as I know.
In both cases, there has been no breech of UN decisions and the demonstration of fake evidences.
Both are not regarded as offensive wars like it was the case with the second Iraq war.
What his statement also conveniently leaves out is that the Republican Party Congress Majority are fundamentally blocking virtually any decision which would be pro Obama in the last 8 years. The necessity of the Congress' approval for the airstrikes is highly controversal among experts.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
What really sticks in my throat is the demonisation of some towards the military and the civilians now hopelessly lost in needless conflict. Ignorance reigns supreme. Political indecision has allowed Russia to gain ground and instigate it's own agenda while we in the West look weak and leaderless in such matters, will either trump or Clinton. Address this? Doubtful trump will pull up the American drawbridge and stick two fingers up to the mess and I see Clinton pursuing her own agenda, another lame duck president of the world's most powerful nation awaits I fear.... Allowing those against us to gain more ground.
Not "biased propaganda". Truth. Perhaps it will sink in if you hear it from a different source?
https://www.facebook.com/fusionmedianetwork/videos/1619160294776609/?hc_ref=NEWSFEED
I never denied the accuracy of that manipulative 'stat'. Manipulative because it leaves out all important background infos that explain the targets, motives and legitimacy of the mentioned actions in Obama's case.
And that's simply populist propaganda to fool people with easy 'truth'
Again, Putin would be proud {[]
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Just saying......
I don't think Hillary will lose voters because of this. She's already been through this, and people have already considered what she has done versus what Trump has done. Her voters already know she's done plenty of bad things. Also, if people are voting for her versus Trump based on their positions on the issues (like abortion or gun control), they won't be switching to Trump.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Still unfolding...but it's quite a development. If Hillary fires her right-hand-woman/confidante Huma Abedin-Weiner (
I'm in Illinois, and Hillary will carry this wrong-headed state even if authorities find a dead baby in the trunk of her limo, so my presidential vote is the epitome of inconsequential.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
It could be that they've found that way some of Clinton's missing emails.
The investigation of those require a court decision - so nobody knows so far what these emails are about.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
...national security.
Whatever the fbi are investigating it's pertinent to the campaign, the thing is becoming more and more of a pantomime. Whatever happened to serious people for serious work.
I'm willing to bet good money this will move the undecideds to trump.
Like I've said it's all half - true and highly manipulative.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
As I pointed out earlier, this part of the post is wrong (Obama never invaded Iraq and Afghanistan):
Countries bombed and/or invaded by Bush only:
NONE
But the rest of the post is accurate and makes an important point.