You knew it was going to happen!

Nope. Mainly because ... well you know...

I Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

^^^ ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?

This is unbelievably dishonest historical revisionism!

"Iraq War Over"?

No, it wasn't! Obama's prematurely inept withdrawal of all US forces from Iraq in 2011 opened the door to the rise of ISIS! Odumbo looked incredibly stupid when he had to send 5,000 troops back to Baghdad just a few years later!

"Foreign Policy... worked with UN to help Libyans free themselves from Gaddafi"?

ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME? Do you seriously want to take "credit" for turning Libya into its current clusterfuck of a failed state? "Leading from behind" was the 2nd biggest foreign policy blunder of the Odumbo Presidency (the biggest was leaving Iraq)!

Who writes this garbage? That lying liar Ben Rhodes?

Only ignorant purveyors of lies and misinformation are capable of embracing a false meme like this one posted by Yssup!

P.S. And guess who was balls-deep in shit for BOTH of Obama's top foreign policy fuckups (Iraq and Libya) - his Veep Joe Biden!

P.P.S. On second thought, I may have to revise my rankings for all of odumbo's foreign policy fuckups! That disastrous Iran nuke deal and the crumbling "red line" in Syria mustn't be overlooked!

For clarification for both YR and LL - While the US narrative was that we left on our own terms in 2011, we were largely asked to leave by the Iraqi government due to what was seen as a lack of justice and accountability in human rights violations, such as the Haditha Massacre.

For clarification for both YR and LL - While the US narrative was that we left on our own terms in 2011, we were largely asked to leave by the Iraqi government due to what was seen as a lack of justice and accountability in human rights violations, such as the Haditha Massacre. Originally Posted by GastonGlock

It's far more complicated than that (see link). And whatever the flimsy rationale at the time, it was a HUGE and entirely foreseeable mistake. Odumbo didn't care. He just wanted to campaign in 2012 bragging no troops remained in Iraq.

https://eccie.net/showpost.php?p=105...&postcount=167

And btw, I am astounded that Biden is making the same fucking mistake all over again in Afghanistan! Doesn't he learn from his own history?


An Alternative to the Afghan Pullout

Biden presents a false choice between total withdrawal and ‘forever wars.’

By James Inhofe
June 13, 2021 4:25 pm ET


I had the opportunity this month to visit and thank U.S. troops stationed around the world. Some of our troops are too young to remember 9/11, but that day is etched in my memory and the heart of our nation.

The threat we saw that day is why we went to Afghanistan in 2001. The conditions on the ground had created an incubator for terrorists with international ambitions. Our troops went to prevent further attacks on the U.S. and our allies.

Unfortunately, President Biden chose to ignore the conditions on the ground and withdraw all U.S. troops by Sept. 11 of this year—a purely political decision. The Biden administration pretends there are only two options: unconditional U.S. withdrawal, or a “forever war.” Nobody wants to see U.S. troops in Afghanistan forever. But there is a third option: maintaining a relatively small troop presence until the conditions outlined in the 2020 U.S.-Taliban Agreement are fully implemented.

As we saw after President Obama’s withdrawal from Iraq in 2011, terrorists will exploit a security vacuum. Two and a half years after U.S. troops left Iraq, ISIS captured Mosul. It took five years, tens of thousands of troops and more than 30,000 airstrikes to destroy the physical caliphate.

An expert report to the United Nations Security Council forecasts a similar outcome in Afghanistan now and observes that al Qaeda and other militants are celebrating President Biden’s decision as a “victory . . . for global radicalism.”

Mr. Biden could leave a small force of about 1,000 troops in Afghanistan until at least the spring of 2022. Maintaining a small, tailored troop presence for an additional six months would accomplish critical objectives. It would maintain a quick counterterrorism force as the political and security environment evolves; enable more-effective intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance; help protect the U.S. Embassy during what the intelligence community predicts will be a chaotic transition; and allow more time to process visas for Afghans who assisted U.S. troops and now fear for their lives.

This small contingent, for a limited time frame, would preserve air-transport capability in case Kabul International Airport is overrun. The U.S. would be able to conduct a realistic assessment of how the security situation is evolving. It will help us understand whether the Taliban intends to meet its commitments. Having military capability in Afghanistan would also be a deterrent, making our Chinese and Iranian competitors think twice. And it would reassure our regional partners, which might be tempted to form closer relationships with our peer competitors.

Preventing terrorist attacks from coming to American shores is why we have troops in Syria, Iraq and Somalia. Maintaining peace and preventing aggression is why we’ve had troops in Kosovo for more than two decades, on the Sinai Peninsula in Egypt for almost five decades and in South Korea for more than seven decades. It is also why our troops are standing sentry in Europe and the Indo-Pacific today.

Two years ago, a bipartisan majority of the Senate warned President Trump against removing all U.S. troops from Afghanistan without establishing the proper conditions on the ground. Mr. Trump listened. Mr. Biden didn’t. Reconsidering pivotal decisions is a sign of wisdom, not weakness, and I urge Mr. Biden to reconsider his choice on Afghanistan.

Mr. Inhofe, a Republican, is a U.S. senator from Oklahoma.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/an-alte...ut-11623615905

And btw, I am astounded that Biden is making the same fucking mistake all over again in Afghanistan! Doesn't he learn from his own history? Originally Posted by lustylad

That's not a mistake at all. He's a puppet of the MIC who want him to use and buy more of all the fancy new weapons systems Trump bought and never used.

That's not a mistake at all. He's a puppet of the MIC who want him to use and buy more of all the fancy new weapons systems Trump bought and never used. Originally Posted by GastonGlock

Speaking of fancy weapons never used, I'm surprised at the "surprise" of what is being called a new energy weapon like what most likely caused the problems first detected with our diplomat's in Cuba.


I remember talking about such a weapon decades ago. There was even a piece on 60 minutes demonstrating it. See it below.



I said at the time that such a weapon should be used in Iraq and Afghanistan instead of our soldiers going house to house only to be ambushed. I said, aim the weapon at the building, fire it and everybody in that building will run out side to get away from the energy beam. Then our soldiers could decide who to shoot or not shoot depending on whether that had a weapon or not but for what ever reason, our leaders decided against the use of such a weapon which I never understood.


Now they act like this is something new that nobody has ever heard of before when it's been around for decades.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1w4g2vr7B4


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzG4oEutPbA


"The most effective non lethal capability we possess" and we chose to sacrifice soldiers by not implementing this weapon. I'll never understand why I guess.

That's not a mistake at all. He's a puppet of the MIC who want him to use and buy more of all the fancy new weapons systems Trump bought and never used. Originally Posted by GastonGlock

You don't get it. If we don't have to use those "fancy new weapons" then it's money well spent because they are effectively deterring our enemies.

Biden is definitely a puppet, but not of the MIC. His puppet masters are AOC, Liz, Bernie and the rest of the phony prog left.

Question - why would the MIC favor an Afghan pullout? To enable another 9/11? Do you think they would sacrifice another 3,000+ American lives in order to scare us into higher defense spending? I don't.

Speaking of fancy weapons never used, I'm surprised at the "surprise" of what is being called a new energy weapon like what most likely caused the problems first detected with our diplomat's in Cuba.

I remember talking about such a weapon decades ago. There was even a piece on 60 minutes demonstrating it. See it below.

I said at the time that such a weapon should be used in Iraq and Afghanistan instead of our soldiers going house to house only to be ambushed. I said, aim the weapon at the building, fire it and everybody in that building will run out side to get away from the energy beam. Then our soldiers could decide who to shoot or not shoot depending on whether that had a weapon or not but for what ever reason, our leaders decided against the use of such a weapon which I never understood.

Now they act like this is something new that nobody has ever heard of before when it's been around for decades.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1w4g2vr7B4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzG4oEutPbA

"The most effective non lethal capability we possess" and we chose to sacrifice soldiers by not implementing this weapon. I'll never understand why I guess. Originally Posted by HedonistForever

does it match the symptoms that afflicted u.s. personnel in cuba?


its one thing to get a burning sensation. ff

Yep, I think we have sufficiently established that all Presidents have said dumb things but I'm making the distinction, not very well with you I see, that a "foreign policy" dumb thing to say, on the world stage, with our allies and adversaries all tuned in, is different than making dumb statements with regard to things our allies and adversaries couldn't care less about, to a domestic audience.


You don't want to see the difference for obvious reasons and that is your right. I'll give you that you made a helluva good argument on the "saying dumb things issue", but fail to make the distinction of who was listening and how it might impact their impression of our new President. Foreign friends and adversaries, IMHO, probably had no idea of these faux pas you mention but they sure as hell heard what Joe Biden said.


You don't see a difference and apparently I'm not going to convince you there is a difference. Such is life. Originally Posted by HedonistForever

When you are the leader of the strongest nation in the world anything and everything you say and do in front of a camera is put on a world stage. Either you don't understand that or you just don't want to understand that for the purpose of making yourself right.

Like I said before, with you it is always different when it's your side saying the dumb shit, it's always different when it's Trump who made a complete ass if himself for 4 years. Do you honestly think that foreign leaders had respect for that guy??? Hell no they didn't, they viewed him as the joke he is.

Here is just one example right here.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bus...-2019-12%3famp

"Trump appeared to be roundly mocked by world leaders and royalty behind his back. Though he did not mention Trump by name, Trudeau was recorded on video poking fun at what seemed to be Trump's impromptu 40-minute press conference, prompting laughter from a group that included Macron, UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson, Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte, and Princess Anne."

And don’t forget this.

Puddens has no cognitive abilities ,,,,just saying of course the hoe sidekick isn't any better