Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Extreme terrorism will increase ? You mean, just like with obama ? The more useless president I have ever seen ?

I am so glad Trump won, so happy that the so called leftist «progressive», «defender of the free speech» show, at last, their true nature of fascism.

Don't tell that something is impossible until it has been tried.
New president, new way, maybe new results.

 godardc wrote:
I am so glad Trump won, so happy that the so called leftist «progressive», «defender of the free speech» show, at last, their true nature of fascism.

Ah yes, the "fascism" that means "anything I don't like", not anything to do with actual fascism.

Don't tell that something is impossible until it has been tried.
New president, new way, maybe new results.

Do you have any specific reasons for why Trump might get new (and better) results, or just wishful thinking that everything will magically turn out ok?

Just been reading that Trump has signed an Executive order creating a new national day of Patriotism

WTF?

When is it going to be held? The 4th of July?

I need to lie down...

Well, the new president is certainly trying to have a new way of handling foreign policy: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-fires-us-ambassadors-no-replacements-a7538256.html

tneva82 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Just been revisiting some of the stuff Trump said yesterday.

His goal to tackle extreme Islamist terrorists gets no argument from me, but I wonder how Trump will react when one of his advisors briefs him about Saudi Arabia...

Too bad his policies will result in opposite result. Extreme terrorism will just increase. He's not going to fix problem. He's going to fuel more of them. Just what the world needs...More extremists...

The more he acts the more crap comes out. One would assume eventually he couldn't make things worse but so far every action he does makes it even worse.

I'm hoping that we'll all be pleasantly surprised with some pragmatic moves.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
Well, the new president is certainly trying to have a new way of handling foreign policy: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-fires-us-ambassadors-no-replacements-a7538256.html

You're a master of understatement

Still, at least here in Britain, we have a new US Ambassador - the guy that owns the New York Giants.

No word on his suitability when it comes to dealing with foreign relations, though.

Still, as the UK is increasingly hell bent on keeping its nose as far as possible up America's rear as it possibly can, I suppose it's one of the 'easier' ambassador posts.

 godardc wrote:
Extreme terrorism will increase ? You mean, just like with obama ? The more useless president I have ever seen ?

You're probably thinking of the Bush administration, the one that really caused no end of trouble in the ME.

Don't tell that something is impossible until it has been tried.
.

Try walking on the sun.

Probably cooler if you go at night perhaps.






it's not like she's under any scrutiny or anything




The silent majority showing off their formidable stealth skills once again.

http://www.politicususa.com/2017/01/20/trump-breaks-presidential-promise-record-time-hats-inaugural-china.html

that has to be a world record.



https://twitter.com/willdizard/status/822536469755609088

for marks for spraying the people trying to help the lady in red.

and feth the people throwing bits of concrete, that'll really help matters.

Why are those guards guarding empty chairs?

 reds8n wrote:
http://www.politicususa.com/2017/01/20/trump-breaks-presidential-promise-record-time-hats-inaugural-china.html

that has to be a world record.

I am going to be laughing about that one for at least months, possibly years. I don't think it's possible to beat that record!

What did you think about Jackie Evancho's performance singing your national anthem ? I don't know how it is supposed to be singged, but I see a lot of people telling it was bad, and a lot of others people telling it was great...
I enjoyed it, but I rarely heard your anthem so I can't tell if it was good or not.

 Peregrine wrote:

 godardc wrote:
I am so glad Trump won, so happy that the so called leftist «progressive», «defender of the free speech» show, at last, their true nature of fascism.

Ah yes, the "fascism" that means "anything I don't like", not anything to do with actual fascism.

Don't tell that something is impossible until it has been tried.
New president, new way, maybe new results.

Do you have any specific reasons for why Trump might get new (and better) results, or just wishful thinking that everything will magically turn out ok?

That's where you are wrong: I think it is the first time I say someone is fascist, and this is because I'm open minded and I usually don't hate people who disagree with me, unlike the leftists.
As you can see, they have a childish behaviour, laughing at TRUMP and telling him to "respect the democracy" and, as soon as they lost, they began to cry like babies and to attack the poor TRUMP supporters who just support democracy.
And they call them, the TRUMP supporter, fascists !
Why ? Because they disagree with them.
I'm not calling fascist someone with who I disagree, but people holding "white live matter too much" or punching Richard Spencer or rioting. This people aren't democratics at all and they truly think their idea are worth more than mine.
And that's not correct.

 reds8n wrote:

 godardc wrote:
Extreme terrorism will increase ? You mean, just like with obama ? The more useless president I have ever seen ?

You're probably thinking of the Bush administration, the one that really caused no end of trouble in the ME.

You mean, the one that brought Democracy to Afghanistan and Iraq ? The one that put the terrorists in jail in Guantanamo Bay ? When America and the whole free world was attacked in the 9/11 ?
Bush defended his country, and defended the whole world, in fact, and for this I will always be thankful to him
And he made the world safer. Safer, yes.
Obama ? War everywhere, everywhen. Even Iraqi, that Bush spend so many time to help, was invaded by isis.... And now what ? After 8 years, there are still terrorists everywere, and in more countries than before.

8 years for nothing. He was elected because he was black, and he did nothing more than smiling and being "cool". Great..

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and was no threat to the whole world. Saddam was a threat to Iraqis, certainly, and possibly to his neighbours but on the world stage he was a nobody since the first Gulf war, until Bush decided to elevate him to the position of Satan based on lies. And if Saddam wasn't removed then it is possible ISIS would not exist as a large portion of its leadership is ex-members of Saddams government and military.

Also, that violence in Iraq was due to Bush (and Blair) fething up the post invasion planning which left a weak government and badly lead and prepared military which was unable to adequately react to ISIS.

How do you propose was Obama meant to prevent the rise of ISIS? Should he have sent ground troops into Libya and Syria to topple their governments and begin a years long occupation, too? Yes the Middle East is currently a mess but that is not Obama's doing. The clue is in the fact that Syria is in the midst of a civil war, not a foreign invasion. Same went for Libya. The violence in these countries was started by their own citizens and governments.

Oh, and Obama's government actually caught and killed the person responsible for planning 9/11. Bush just killed an unrelated dictator.

 godardc wrote:
I'm open minded and I usually don't hate people who disagree with me, unlike the leftists

It is good to see someone contradict themselves in less than a sentence. That is economical writing.

 godardc wrote:
As you can see, they have a childish behaviour, laughing at TRUMP and telling him to "respect the democracy" and, as soon as they lost, they began to cry like babies and to attack the poor TRUMP supporters who just support democracy.

This has nothing to do with fascism. Fascism is a defined political ideology, and it does not have anything to do with "childish laughing at a president".

And they call them, the TRUMP supporter, fascists !
Why ? Because they disagree with them.

No, they call Trump and his supporters fascists because when you look at the definition of "fascism" in the dictionary a lot of what Trump is saying fits. It's not a perfect match, but there's a lot more to it than mere dislike of Trump.

I'm not calling fascist someone with who I disagree, but people holding "white live matter too much" or punching Richard Spencer or rioting.

What does the "black lives matter" movement have to do with fascism? Or punching white supremacists?

This people aren't democratics at all and they truly think their idea are worth more than mine.
And that's not correct.

Everyone thinks their ideas are worth more than the ideas of the people they disagree with. This has nothing to do with fascism.

You mean, the one that brought Democracy to Afghanistan and Iraq?

For certain, rather flexible, definitions of "democracy".

The one that put the terrorists in jail in Guantanamo Bay?

For certain, rather flexible, definitions of "terrorists". And I find it interesting that, after all your complaints about "fascists", you're praising an act of right-wing authoritarianism and contempt for the rule of law. I don't know about you, but I think there's a problem when we can imprison people indefinitely without a trial and say "trust us, it's national security" as the only justification.

When America and the whole free world was attacked in the 9/11?

That's a rather dramatic way of looking at things. What exactly is the "free world", and how was it attacked by a single event in the US?

Bush defended his country, and defended the whole world, in fact, and for this I will always be thankful to him

Defended the whole world from what? A terrorist organization that promptly moved out of Afghanistan and set up operations elsewhere as soon as the US invaded? Or from a dictator in Iraq that had no means of attacking anyone outside of his neighbors (and own citizens)?

And he made the world safer. Safer, yes.

That's a rather shaky claim given how much of a disaster the Bush-era wars have been.

Obama ? War everywhere, everywhen. Even Iraqi, that Bush spend so many time to help, was invaded by isis.... And now what ? After 8 years, there are still terrorists everywere, and in more countries than before.

...

You do realize that Bush did effectively nothing to fix Iraq, right? We invaded, destroyed the existing government, and left nothing in its place. There was still active fighting going on when Bush left office, and ISIS (or a similar organization in its place) was almost inevitable as soon as the US left Iraq and stopped its massive (and unsustainable) investment in providing security. It's absolutely insane to blame Obama for not miraculously fixing the complete disaster that Bush left for him, and praise Bush for creating the mess in the first place.

 godardc wrote:
He was elected because he was black, and he did nothing more than smiling and being "cool".

Wow that isn't even close to being true.

Richard Spencer is a nazi. Punching him because of that fact is a hugely antifascist thing to do.

Rosebuddy wrote:
Richard Spencer is a nazi. Punching him because of that fact is a hugely antifascist thing to do.

Next he'll be telling us that Georg Elser was a fascist for trying to blow up Hitler (and would have also got Goebbels, Hess, Himmler, Heydrich and others) at a speech. That's censorship!

Rosebuddy wrote:
Richard Spencer is a nazi.

Let's be fair to him, he advocates peaceful ethnic cleansing to establish his dream of a white nation.

 godardc wrote:


That's where you are wrong: I think it is the first time I say someone is fascist, and this is because I'm open minded and I usually don't hate people who disagree with me, unlike the leftists.

You made a post, on this forum, where you wanted the EU to just let Syrian refugees drown in the Aegean because you didn't want them in France. Your moral high horse never existed, so I don't know what sort of beast you're currently trying to ride.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/21/george-w-bushs-struggles-plastic-poncho-donald-trump-prepares/

former leader of the free world being outsmarted by a thin sheet of plastic.

The one that put the terrorists in jail in Guantanamo Bay

Without any pesky trials or anything like that.

And he made the world safer. Safer, yes.

Couldn't keep his own country safe, no way at all he made the world safer.

Iraq and the whole ME region was far more stable and secure prior to his ( + allies TBF) blunderings.

Obama ? War everywhere,

The ones he inherited, yes.

that Bush spend so many time to help

he sure is popular amongst the Iraqi people.

Well presumably not amongst the untold thousands who have died since he decided to invade them for no good reason anyway.

Rosebuddy wrote:
Punching him because of that fact is a hugely antifascist thing to do.

Please keep up.

That's actually an alt-hug, so that'll be fine.





what is it with people who wave their hands like that ?

Reminds of the way that normally the more monstrous the regime the more elaborate and OTT their armies marching style is.

 reds8n wrote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/21/george-w-bushs-struggles-plastic-poncho-donald-trump-prepares/

former leader of the free world being outsmarted by a thin sheet of plastic.

His face when he has that thing over his head... I think I'm going to tear up in laughter

Going by what has happened since yesterday the Trump administration will be severely disappointing (no big surprise) and that speech was just mental. I sincerely hope he elections in Germany, France and the Netherlands will not see significant political gains for populists as they have been way too friendly to Trump.

Also Godarc on Obama and ISIS is hilarious, I don't know what info you're working off, but that must have been the "Thanks Obama" that reaches the furthest back in history I have seen. Next thing we know Obama is going to be blamed for not killing Bin Laden sooner, Obama was close to 50, what took him so long

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and was no threat to the whole world. Saddam was a threat to Iraqis, certainly, and possibly to his neighbours but on the world stage he was a nobody since the first Gulf war, until Bush decided to elevate him to the position of Satan based on lies. And if Saddam wasn't removed then it is possible ISIS would not exist as a large portion of its leadership is ex-members of Saddams government and military.

Also, that violence in Iraq was due to Bush (and Blair) fething up the post invasion planning which left a weak government and badly lead and prepared military which was unable to adequately react to ISIS.

How do you propose was Obama meant to prevent the rise of ISIS? Should he have sent ground troops into Libya and Syria to topple their governments and begin a years long occupation, too? Yes the Middle East is currently a mess but that is not Obama's doing. The clue is in the fact that Syria is in the midst of a civil war, not a foreign invasion. Same went for Libya. The violence in these countries was started by their own citizens and governments.

Oh, and Obama's government actually caught and killed the person responsible for planning 9/11. Bush just killed an unrelated dictator.

I wasn't clear, I'm sorry. I don't think saddam threatened the world, but the terrorists in afghanistan did. So he protected the world not by bringing democracy to iraq but by attacking the terrorists in afghanistan

Bush had troops in Iraq for years, fighting the rebels and helping rebuliding the country. One can hardly say he did nothing.
And then, suddenly there was noone anymore, and the terrorists rised and took control of a part of iraq as the iraqi army fleed like cowards. It shouldn't have been tolerated. Nothing to do with Syria: it may have terrorists in syria, but they wouldn't have been so powerful without stealing iraqi weapons, money, and people. And the Victory they had on iraq gave them much needed credit.
There would have been terrorists in syria, yes I agree, but not in iraq, and thus the new iraq could have been protected from this mess.

 Peregrine wrote:

 godardc wrote:
As you can see, they have a childish behaviour, laughing at TRUMP and telling him to "respect the democracy" and, as soon as they lost, they began to cry like babies and to attack the poor TRUMP supporters who just support democracy.

This has nothing to do with fascism. Fascism is a defined political ideology, and it does not have anything to do with "childish laughing at a president".

And they call them, the TRUMP supporter, fascists !
Why ? Because they disagree with them.

No, they call Trump and his supporters fascists because when you look at the definition of "fascism" in the dictionary a lot of what Trump is saying fits. It's not a perfect match, but there's a lot more to it than mere dislike of Trump.

Now I may be lacking informations, of course, but I don't think TRUMP said he wants a single party, or anything like that. Just a bit more patriotism. How is this bad ?
Fascism in a French dictionnary is also this: "Authoritarian, arbitrary, violent and dictatorial attitude imposed by someone to any group, to his entourage" Very much what the democrats are doing right now. Violence to impose their view.

I'm not calling fascist someone with who I disagree, but people holding "white live matter too much" or punching Richard Spencer or rioting.

What does the "black lives matter" movement have to do with fascism? Or punching white supremacists?

It has to do with people physically assaulting people just for their ideas. It is very worrying, especially in the USA where free speech is/was so great, unlike so many country. I think it is sad.
How, and people telling I matter "too much" because of my skin colour, I'm not pleased by this, too.

You mean, the one that brought Democracy to Afghanistan and Iraq?

For certain, rather flexible, definitions of "democracy".

There was a dictator in both of these country, now there are elected presidents. That's democracy for me, or at least, much better than what they had before.

The one that put the terrorists in jail in Guantanamo Bay?

For certain, rather flexible, definitions of "terrorists". And I find it interesting that, after all your complaints about "fascists", you're praising an act of right-wing authoritarianism and contempt for the rule of law. I don't know about you, but I think there's a problem when we can imprison people indefinitely without a trial and say "trust us, it's national security" as the only justification.

Ok, I may seem a bit bad here, but I do think the governement is trying its best to put only dangerous people in jail, so I don't think there is a problem here. Guantanamo isn't for everyone, they know who to send there.

When America and the whole free world was attacked in the 9/11?

That's a rather dramatic way of looking at things. What exactly is the "free world", and how was it attacked by a single event in the US?

To my mind, the free world is The West, and Japan and South Corea. I may have forgotten some countries (some parts of South America). The 9/11 was in deed against America, but as a symbol, the symbol of the clash of civilizations. The free world has been under attack by the the Soviets, now by radical islam (I don't know how you call it ? Maybe extremism ?). We can see it with isis and all the terrorists

Bush defended his country, and defended the whole world, in fact, and for this I will always be thankful to him

Defended the whole world from what? A terrorist organization that promptly moved out of Afghanistan and set up operations elsewhere as soon as the US invaded? Or from a dictator in Iraq that had no means of attacking anyone outside of his neighbors (and own citizens)?

I think he helped the world by fighting the terrorists, yes. You don't have to invade every country in the world to fight them. But afghanistan was their kingdom so taking it from them was a good idea.

And he made the world safer. Safer, yes.

That's a rather shaky claim given how much of a disaster the Bush-era wars have been.

It wasn't perfect, of course, but at the end, it was better than at the beggining. And remember: Bush never wanted this. They attacked him and forced him.

Obama ? War everywhere, everywhen. Even Iraqi, that Bush spend so many time to help, was invaded by isis.... And now what ? After 8 years, there are still terrorists everywere, and in more countries than before.

...

You do realize that Bush did effectively nothing to fix Iraq, right? We invaded, destroyed the existing government, and left nothing in its place. There was still active fighting going on when Bush left office, and ISIS (or a similar organization in its place) was almost inevitable as soon as the US left Iraq and stopped its massive (and unsustainable) investment in providing security. It's absolutely insane to blame Obama for not miraculously fixing the complete disaster that Bush left for him, and praise Bush for creating the mess in the first place.

Bush spend years in iraq. So many American men and women staying in this country to protect it and rebuild it. They were successful until isi came and almost destroyed it. I guess iraq needed some more years ?

 godardc wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and was no threat to the whole world. Saddam was a threat to Iraqis, certainly, and possibly to his neighbours but on the world stage he was a nobody since the first Gulf war, until Bush decided to elevate him to the position of Satan based on lies. And if Saddam wasn't removed then it is possible ISIS would not exist as a large portion of its leadership is ex-members of Saddams government and military.

Also, that violence in Iraq was due to Bush (and Blair) fething up the post invasion planning which left a weak government and badly lead and prepared military which was unable to adequately react to ISIS.

How do you propose was Obama meant to prevent the rise of ISIS? Should he have sent ground troops into Libya and Syria to topple their governments and begin a years long occupation, too? Yes the Middle East is currently a mess but that is not Obama's doing. The clue is in the fact that Syria is in the midst of a civil war, not a foreign invasion. Same went for Libya. The violence in these countries was started by their own citizens and governments.

Oh, and Obama's government actually caught and killed the person responsible for planning 9/11. Bush just killed an unrelated dictator.

I wasn't clear, I'm sorry. I don't think saddam threatened the world, but the terrorists in afghanistan did. So he protected the world not by bringing democracy to iraq but by attacking the terrorists in afghanistan

Bush had troops in Iraq for years, fighting the rebels and helping rebuliding the country. One can hardly say he did nothing.
And then, suddenly there was noone anymore, and the terrorists rised and took control of a part of iraq as the iraqi army fleed like cowards. It shouldn't have been tolerated. Nothing to do with Syria: it may have terrorists in syria, but they wouldn't have been so powerful without stealing iraqi weapons, money, and people. And the Victory they had on iraq gave them much needed credit.
There would have been terrorists in syria, yes I agree, but not in iraq, and thus the new iraq could have been protected from this mess.

You clearly don't know your regional 21st century history.

Bush did not fight rebels in Iraq, he basically fought Iraq. American troops had to fight insurgents but also sunni and shia sectarians who wanted to kill each other but didn't mind killing US troops that prevented them from doing so. The US was fighting in Iraq trying to control a population that murdered each other over political power due to the vacuum that was left when Saddam was deposed. It was a tragedy that so many lives were lost in an effort to get these people to cooperate instead of kill each other and then having the al-Maliki government trying to bring back a semi dictatorship excluding significant parts of the country. This is why the generalised argument that Bush did nothing is used, because all the US efforts almost collapsed when al-Maliki told them to pack their bags. The significant effort spend by coalition troops and some less than reputable militias prevented a further collapse, although it was already tenuous at best to assume IS would ever be able to take Baghdad.
When the US left it left a semi stable country. After the 2007 US surge and involving the sunni population in the political process the situation stabilized and violence declined. Organizations such as Al Qaeda in Iraq (which became IS) lost most of their power. Then the Syrian civil war broke out. This enabled Al Qaeda in Iraq which had become IS to flee across the border and reorganize itself in the chaotic mess in Syria. It was in Syria they regained their powerbase and the material to invade Iraq. You have it all backwards. When the US left in 2011 on older agreements from before Obama, the al-Maliki government started to shift power in favour of the shia population, promoting these heavily in the government and army. At the same time corruption in the army rose and let to what are called 'ghost soldiers', basically fake people that they use to get more paychecks. This combination let to an angry sunni part in North Iraq that was willing to support the invading IS troops as they thought anything would be better than al-Maliki, with only a corrupt and mostly shia led army not willing to fight for sunni territory.
Iraqi resistance collapsed due to a significant amount of blatant mistakes by the Iraqi government and the Syrian civil war, not thanks to Obama. Iraq flowed out of post Obama Iraqi politics and Syria.

 godardc wrote:

And then, suddenly there was noone anymore, and the terrorists rised and took control of a part of iraq as the iraqi army fleed like cowards. It shouldn't have been tolerated. Nothing to do with Syria: it may have terrorists in syria, but they wouldn't have been so powerful without stealing iraqi weapons, money, and people. And the Victory they had on iraq gave them much needed credit.

The reason there was no-one there anymore was because Bush agreed to withdraw the troops by a certain date and negotiations between the US and Iraqi government to extend that timeframe were unsuccessful.

So should the US have just ignored their agreement with the Iraqi government and kept its soldiers in Iraq? That would surely not lead to any destabilisation and erosion of the country's government or the Iraqi's faith in their government. Neither would it of course lead to backlash against the American forces and the US in general.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


I'm hoping that we'll all be pleasantly surprised with some pragmatic moves.

All he will do is more bombs. Which is about as usefull as trying to put out fire by pouring in gasoline

 Peregrine wrote:
Well, the new president is certainly trying to have a new way of handling foreign policy: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-fires-us-ambassadors-no-replacements-a7538256.html

Yaknow... that happens just about every new Presidency...

Same way with the DoJ prosecutors...

 reds8n wrote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/21/george-w-bushs-struggles-plastic-poncho-donald-trump-prepares/

former leader of the free world being outsmarted by a thin sheet of plastic.

The one that put the terrorists in jail in Guantanamo Bay

Without any pesky trials or anything like that.

And he made the world safer. Safer, yes.

Couldn't keep his own country safe, no way at all he made the world safer.

Iraq and the whole ME region was far more stable and secure prior to his ( + allies TBF) blunderings.

Obama ? War everywhere,

The ones he inherited, yes.

that Bush spend so many time to help

he sure is popular amongst the Iraqi people.

Well presumably not amongst the untold thousands who have died since he decided to invade them for no good reason anyway.

Rosebuddy wrote:
Punching him because of that fact is a hugely antifascist thing to do.

Please keep up.

That's actually an alt-hug, so that'll be fine.

Spoiler:

what is it with people who wave their hands like that ?

Reminds of the way that normally the more monstrous the regime the more elaborate and OTT their armies marching style is.

Patriotism Day, Communist-style military might parades, 'Murican nationalistic ferver...c'mon Donnie, just go all-in and get the tin-pot dictator military uniform with all the ribbons and bows and just let your freak flag fly!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 General Annoyance wrote:

 reds8n wrote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/21/george-w-bushs-struggles-plastic-poncho-donald-trump-prepares/

former leader of the free world being outsmarted by a thin sheet of plastic.

His face when he has that thing over his head... I think I'm going to tear up in laughter

The best part of that series of photos is the look of almost disdain on Dick Cheney's face who is sitting directly behind him.

 BigWaaagh wrote:

The best part of that series of photos is the look of almost disdain on Dick Cheney's face who is sitting directly behind him.

Didn't check the link with the photos, but there's a video of it.

Cheney's smirk throughout is probably the best part.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and was no threat to the whole world. Saddam was a threat to Iraqis, certainly, and possibly to his neighbours but on the world stage he was a nobody since the first Gulf war, until Bush decided to elevate him to the position of Satan based on lies. And if Saddam wasn't removed then it is possible ISIS would not exist as a large portion of its leadership is ex-members of Saddams government and military.

Also, that violence in Iraq was due to Bush (and Blair) fething up the post invasion planning which left a weak government and badly lead and prepared military which was unable to adequately react to ISIS.

How do you propose was Obama meant to prevent the rise of ISIS? Should he have sent ground troops into Libya and Syria to topple their governments and begin a years long occupation, too? Yes the Middle East is currently a mess but that is not Obama's doing. The clue is in the fact that Syria is in the midst of a civil war, not a foreign invasion. Same went for Libya. The violence in these countries was started by their own citizens and governments.

Oh, and Obama's government actually caught and killed the person responsible for planning 9/11. Bush just killed an unrelated dictator.

Obama and Clinton were key players in toppling the Lybian government and enabling the chaos that currently is playing out in that country.

And if we weren't stuck in the quagmire that was Iraq I could of seen boots on the ground in lybia and the situation probably would of been different

 Ustrello wrote:
And if we weren't stuck in the quagmire that was Iraq I could of seen boots on the ground in lybia and the situation probably would of been different

Gaddafi got capped late in 2011. How many US troops were in Iraq at that point?