How is it every time that a republican advocates enhanced security we get blamed for starting a war that's 1400 years old?

 

 ThIs war will continue as long as the human race exists in its current form.  This can be taken to the bank along with death and taxes.

---

Who are you talking about liking or not liking Mexico? The CIA armed the factions against the Soviets in Afghanistan. Seems that worked to stop a 10-year war. Nobody armed Osama. Osama didn't come along until well after the mujahadeen broke into the Taliban and al-Qaida. In the late 80s he became the figure head and organizer to what is known as al-Qaida today. For its intent, arming the mujahadeen was successful. It did not change the climate of Afghanistan, it kept it status quo, which has always been crap.

 

I agree taking out Sadaam had a negative impact on Iraq, which was corrupt anyways. Should we have left him to his brutality? It was certainly a mistake to think the corrupt Iraq country would band together for democracy when they were never acclimated to making those types of choices or even having the ability to do so. They were not educated enough and it seems neither were we. To say it destabilized the whole region is ignorant. You just became newly aware of what had been.

 

Taking out Gaddafi was necessary just like Sadaam. In fact, they both came into power in almost identical ways. The difference is we wanted to take out Sadaam because he was such an evil dictator, whereas NATO was asked to take out Gaddafi to end his illegal reign. It was just part of and the end piece to the civil war or "Arab Spring". It did not give rise to.

 

So the common picture to all these places? They were already unstable countries before any interaction. We faulted in thinking they could control their own mess after our assistance. Additionally, extremist groups were preexisting and lying in wait for the opportunity.

 

I think in order to grow, people need to realize that this is never the true motive

---

I think in order to grow, people need to realize that this is never the true motive

Was not or should not be?

---

Well how much do they like Mexico? Seems they don't like us meddling all the time...I mean we armed Osama, took out Sadaam which had a destabilizing effect in the region and fueled more terrorism, took out Ghaddafi which further destabilized the region. Seems to me our military interventionist policy does more harm than good. The travel ban didn't make us any safer.

 

Umm...  we didn't "take out" Sadaam Hussien.  We took him into custody, turned him over to the then Iraqi government and let them go through their legal process.

 

We never "armed" Osama bin Laden.

 

Should I go on?

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Umm...  we didn't "take out" Sadaam Hussien.  We took him into custody, turned him over to the then Iraqi government and let them go through their legal process.

 

We never "armed" Osama bin Laden.

 

Should I go on?

I gave him the benefit of a doubt in thinking he meant "out" of power but seems that might not have been what was meant since it was lumped with Gaddafi. In either case a lot of misses and redirect from the true issues within Africa and the Middle East.

---

I gave him the benefit of a doubt in thinking he meant "out" of power but seems that might not have been what was meant since it was lumped with Gaddafi. In either case a lot of misses and redirect from the true issues within Africa and the Middle East.

 

LOL.  The fake scientist might say that's what he meant.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Was not or should not be?

 

It wasn't the true motive.  Politicians often appeal to humanitarian causes but its a facade.  There is always a bigger, more selfish agenda going on.

---

Umm...  we didn't "take out" Sadaam Hussien.  We took him into custody, turned him over to the then Iraqi government and let them go through their legal process.

 

We never "armed" Osama bin Laden.

 

Should I go on?

 

We bombed the hell out of the entire country and removed what was a secular government, which created a vaccum in which Islamic States could rise to power.  I read somewhere that before the US invasion, there were 0 suicide bombings in Iraq.  Post invasion is complete opposite.

 

I think he is referring to Reagan using the CIA to assist the mujahideen in fighting Russia in the 1980s, which included Osama Bin Laden.  You can see how Osama and other leaders of the Afghan rebels have broken off from the mujahideen and make up much of today's current radical islamic groups.  This means that you have CIA trained radical muslims leading the way for multiple terrorist orgs.  Not a good look.

---

We bombed the hell out of the entire country and removed what was a secular government, which created a vaccum in which Islamic States could rise to power. I read somewhere that before the US invasion, there were 0 suicide bombings in Iraq. Post invasion is complete opposite.


I think he is referring to Reagan using the CIA to assist the mujahideen in fighting Russia in the 1980s, which included Osama Bin Laden. You can see how Osama and other leaders of the Afghan rebels have broken off from the mujahideen and make up much of today's current radical islamic groups. This means that you have CIA trained radical muslims leading the way for multiple terrorist orgs. Not a good look.

Well, I thought I'd never say this but thank you Badger. That's exactly what I meant. I could not go into detail because I was on my phone. I think you can go back all through history and see that our interventionist policies have often created new enemies. We will never have peace. I used the Mexico thing because how often do you hear about Mexico being terrorized by radical Islamic jihadist? If you go looking for trouble you'll find it.

---

It wasn't the true motive. Politicians often appeal to humanitarian causes but its a facade. There is always a bigger, more selfish agenda going on.

I asked because it's always interesting to hear what folks believe were the reasons.

---

Well, I thought I'd never say this but thank you Badger. That's exactly what I meant. I could not go into detail because I was on my phone. I think you can go back all through history and see that our interventionist policies have often created new enemies. We will never have peace. I used the Mexico thing because how often do you hear about Mexico being terrorized by radical Islamic jihadist? If you go looking for trouble you'll find it.

There appears to be a strong assumption that these places were peacful and thriving before our intervention. That couldn't be further from the truth. Just using Iraq as an example, there were mass murders between sects and attempts at ethnic cleansing. Whether there was a suicide bombing or not should not be the measuring stick for peace. The place was evil and spreading into Iran, Syria, and attempts into Kuwait.


In today's global climate, you do not need to look for trouble to find it. It will come looking for you. Americans have not known true peace since the birth of the nation. The world has not known true peace since the beginning of structured civilizations. There have always been battles for things other have that others want. Unfortunately, relative peace is only known by the inconvience and sacrifice of a few for the majority, projection of power and deterrent. Really would be nice for all Americans to leave their little bubbles in the US and travel abroad to see how they are treated elsewhere and experience that feeling of lack of security and vulnerability.


I'm still not getting the Mexico/ISIS connection. Last I knew people were trying to get out of Mexico, not immigrate in. I would also state the cartels pose more of an issue than any ISIS wannabes or jihadists. What would there be to gain? With that said, don't think islamic extremists aren't trying to get to the US through the Mexican border.

---

There appears to be a strong assumption that these places were peacful and thriving before our intervention. That couldn't be further from the truth. Just using Iraq as an example, there were mass murders between sects and attempts at ethnic cleansing. Whether there was a suicide bombing or not should not be the measuring stick for peace. The place was evil and spreading into Iran, Syria, and attempts into Kuwait.


In today's global climate, you do not need to look for trouble to find it. It will come looking for you. Americans have not known true peace since the birth of the nation. The world has not known true peace since the beginning of structured civilizations. There have always been battles for things other have that others want. Unfortunately, relative peace is only known by the inconvience and sacrifice of a few for the majority, projection of power and deterrent. Really would be nice for all Americans to leave their little bubbles in the US and travel abroad to see how they are treated elsewhere and experience that feeling of lack of security and vulnerability.


I'm still not getting the Mexico/ISIS connection. Last I knew people were trying to get out of Mexico, not immigrate in. I would also state the cartels pose more of an issue than any ISIS wannabes or jihadists. What would there be to gain? With that said, don't think islamic extremists aren't trying to get to the US through the Mexican border.

Peace is a relative term. No one assumed anything.

---

Peace is a relative term. No one assumed anything.

So then stop being gun shy and leaving your posts up to interpretation and start typing what you mean. 

---