That's great and all, but enough with the history lesson already....do you blame Bush or Obama?
Who Do You Blame for ISIS?
- Thread starter What Would Jesus Do?
- Start date
That's great and all, but enough with the history lesson already....do you blame Bush or Obama?
It's not his life. Besides, every time one of them gets killed, he can stand at attention with his righty buddies and thump his chest and be proud.
Right or wrong Torbee blame needs to be assigned and the only way to do that realistically in todays environment is keeping it within the vicinity of current leaders.
Here was the question: Who Do You Blame for ISIS?
Here is what we know: ISIS didn't exist before Obama took office. When they did pop up Obama called them the JV squad (assuming he is regretting that now). They popped up after Obama gave orders to for the most part leave the area. Obama took the job of POTUS knowing of the current conflict in the middle east.
From a pure ownership perspective he earned this one.
Right or wrong Torbee blame needs to be assigned and the only way to do that realistically in todays environment is keeping it within the vicinity of current leaders.
Here was the question: Who Do You Blame for ISIS?
Here is what we know: ISIS didn't exist before Obama took office. When they did pop up Obama called them the JV squad (assuming he is regretting that now). They popped up after Obama gave orders to for the most part leave the area. Obama took the job of POTUS knowing of the current conflict in the middle east.
From a pure ownership perspective he earned this one.
Well, I'll stand by your point torbee. The mucking about in the Middle East started a long time ago. However, I would remind that Britain, France and others played a role as well during the Crusades. One can't talk about long standing hatred of the West without talking about the Crusades.
Libs want high crime they can run on a platform that high crime is committed by everyone but criminals.
BTW Obama is to blame for the mess in Iraq, the imbecile called ISIS the JV.
Au contraire. The writer of that blog provided hyper-links to support his position. The other link was to NY Times.
This is just way out there. The UN was conceived by Communists (Gromyko, Vyshinsky , Molotov and Alger Hiss). Implemented to end war, it has had a polar opposite effect...to the benefits of the Oligarchs. They have used this world body of unelected and unaccountable cronies to incite perpertual war. Why would any American want foreign troops on their soil? They would have no problem drawing a gun on Americans.
Just look at your posts re: NATO and Ukraine. NATO derives its power from the UN. Look at the damage and despair they have caused. This post runs completely counter to your other thoughts.
Bush's actions created ISIS. Obama just ignored them when he could have stopped their growth.
Obama walked by the house when just the porch was on fire and said, "We don't need to get the fire department involved for such a minor blaze." The next day, the neighborhood was burning down and he still believed he did the right thing by not putting it out when he had the chance.
Our government seems to be really good at funneling money and goods that ends up in the wrong hands...
It's really weird that we keep supplying our enemies with arms and money, perhaps the battlefront is on ideas instead of bodies.
The older I get the more absolute truths become more abstract and the "perception is reality" becomes more concrete.
I think that's why Zogby has stuck around for this long.
You and I often agree about what's going on beyond our borders. This is one case. Ukraine another. But your comments on the UN are off base.
Sure, major powers tried to steer the UN in ways helpful to their interests - both in design and operation - but the concept had been around for a very long time. The League of Nations - President Wilson's baby - being the obvious modern precursor. You could probably trace it back to the Delian League if you wanted to.
I don't disagree that the power of the UN - of the Security Council, to be more accurate - has been abused to the advantage of the major powers and those who run them. The US pretty much controls what the Security Council does these days. For good or ill. Which makes it pretty amusing when the Tea Party types here (and right wingers going back to the John Birch Society) claim the UN is bad and call for us to get out. Why would we want out of an organization that provides legal cover for pretty much anything we want?
When I was growing up we were proud that the US had never used its veto power. As opposed to the USSR which used it periodically (always for bad things, we were told).
The US exercised its first UN veto in 1970. For something really noble, you would probably guess, right? Sadly, no. Nixon had us cast our veto in defense of Britain's white minority rule of Rhodesia.
For those who are interested, this is a great article (with good charts) on UN veto use:
http://theconversation.com/hard-evi...ecurity-council-most-often-and-for-what-29907
That was a little bit of the wine catching up to me and me going off on a tangent.
You're a poster who likes their polls just as your previous handle would imply.
Think nothing of it.
I think you just made my case. It's because 'they' can do anything 'they' want. And when I say 'they', I mean the oligarchs. When I say oligarchs, I mean Rockefeller et al. The family didn't hand over $8.5 million for the land which sits the UN bldg. for nothing. So, be careful when you use the word 'we'. We are not the beneficiaries, nor are they doing it for us. In fact, they reap the trillion dollar tax payer funded wars in the ME, while the soldier gets a medal. How nice. We do the same for dogs when they please their master.
If the UN was built on ending all wars, it has failed miserably and should be shown the trash heap. Just as the Fed had stated in its early mission to give us stability in the dollar and end inflation. It too has failed. It has always been for the benefit of the 1%. These unelected and unseen Oligarchs hide behind these world institutions to legitimize their wanton theft and pillage. They lend money through their other governing bodies (IMF and World bank) to tin pot dictators who enslave their subjects. When they can't pay up, they take UN votes from them at crucial times. This isn't governance. It's power on a grand scale. It's control, not freedom.
How many wars have we been in since WW2? Korea was fought to validate NATO (a military arm of the UN), as told by Dean Acheson. Great! 53K of my countrymen died for nothing. If the UN really wanted to end all wars, all they would have to do is quit funding them. We know who they are. Why is peace never an option on the table?
You make some good points, but I'm not sure why you refer to NATO as a military arm of the UN. One of the problems with NATO is that it (and other such multi-national cartels) are largely exempt from UN oversight.
The US largely controls both UN and NATO at the moment and can use whichever one is more compliant. So, for example, we use the UN for most Middle East stuff, NATO for Ukraine and sanctions on Russia - even though the main folks following our lead on sanctions are the same folks whether we are talking about Russia or Iran. Because Russia can't veto NATO actions.
That's all good for the US - although, as you point out, that means the oligarchs in control of the US, not so much the US people. But would you rather another nation's oligarchs have that power instead? Because I don't think getting rid of the oligarchs is really an option. Do you?
NATO is a subsidiary of the United Nations. The NATO Charter, signed by its 12 original member nations, notes that the pact derives its legitimacy from the UN. Article I of the NATO Charter states:
The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.
But, as history has shown us, war is always on their psychopathic plate. These billionaires are used to getting their way by consent or conquest. Nor would I prefer another country's oligarchs to have power. The UN should be shredded into a thousand pieces and scattered to the wind. I should be careful. JFK said the same re: the CIA after the Bay of Pigs.
You know what I meant. Our POTUS, and or his negotiators are boys in a world of men. Get your mind out of the gutter.
