Where's Trump's Nobel Peace Prize?

A sane leader (but one who didn't understand Islam) would think "OF COURSE they'll welcome freedom/democracy!!" But Muslims generally don't, as their Qur'an teaches to conquer the Infidel (Q8:39, Q9:5, Q9:29, etc., etc.)

Can you condemn the Qur'an for not teaching democracy/freedom, but rather teaching (un-democratic) Islamic supremacist Sharia Law, Lesh? I do, how about you?

Take care.

 

You're on a roll tonight, Robert.

 

We didn't keep the troop numbers down because we had to. That was the "Rumsfeld Doctrine" of "war on the cheap".

They refused to think about what would be needed AFTER they blasted hell out of the country AND disbanded the Iraqi Army (which was a HUGE mistake RUMMY)

 

So who is better, Fidel Castro (I despise him), or Trump, or GW Bush? Please tell us, Lesh.

 

I condemn the BUSHIES for invading a country for no good reason and destabilizing a whole region of the world

 

The real problem was that Allah didn't foresee (ooops, thought he was all-powerful and timeless) the Shia/Sunni divide that his lack of direction lead to. The Sunnis fighting the Shia, and vise versa, was a HUUUUGE problem after we gave Iraq it's freedom.
Have the Iraqis ever thanked us?

 

In other words you are telling us it was just an empty law. That Clinton did not mean it. That in truth the Democrats supporting the Clinton law actually liked Saddam being in office. Do you understand now?

 

Your inability to not condemn the Qur'an is clearly one of the underlying problems with our Western world.

 

Superman...no Batman...no the Green Hornet...

Save your pointless childish fantasy exercises for someone who cares.

 

Unilateral trade sanctions really don't have the power you're thinking they have. It's a global economy, for example. And, China is the real supplier of NK, not the USA.

Beyond that, NK has gone through serious starvation without overthrowing their leadership.

Suggesting that a new western-sponsored starvation will change that hits me as both immoral and monumentally improbable.

 

He certainly didn't mean to invade..or he would have.

You'll note that he didn't

 

It was part of a progression. When Saddam invaded Kuwait, it triggered the USA sending in our troops. Saddam did not learn the lesson. Read General Fred Franks book and see how that worked. Fred Franks not related to General Tommy Franks. Fred had Tommy in his command as a one star General. Freds book is Into the Storm. Excellent book on that war.

Bush counted on the Democrats since they supported the Clinton law and kept up a steady dialogue for Bush to invade. I would think you would blame Democrats as well.

 

Ummm when you "win a war"...it's usually over.

We're still FIGHTING that war "he won"...

 

By the way, the correct answer is "Superman"...that's the one, true, correct answer - trust me, I have it from divine revelation, and divine revelation is never ever wrong.

 

Jesus...you babble.

Blame the 10th Mountain? I blame Franks for not USING them

 

No, you think there is just one war. I see more than one since you call what is going on today as a war.

Why would Obama want to fight a war?

 

You see a lot of stuff that isn't there.

Maybe you ought to learn the difference between a battle...a campaign...and a war
We're still fighting that war. Never stopped

 

Bush41 pretty much smashed the Republican Guard.

Let's remember that our policy in Iraq was deBaathification. And, THAT was the inception of the civil war.

WE created that! In fact, we chose Maliki as president of Iraq BECAUSE he was our primary partner in deBaathification.

The fact that Maliki continued his policy of slaughtering Sunnis and driving them out of government wasn't random - it was EXACTLY what WE had promoted.

Having more boots on the ground would not have changed that. It would have simply been more support for Maliki in slaughtering Sunnis, including civilians.

It's true that after years we recognized that slaughtering Sunnis wasn't a great idea, but we created the Maliki government AFTER what we so self servingly called the "awakening" - as if it were Sunnis, not Americans who were awakening to the fact of the totally unjustified slaughter of Sunnis we supported.

I agree with the serious problem posed by the neoconservatives. Frankly, I believe THEY were the cause of the Iraq war - that Bush simply couldn't resist its numerous officials infesting the Bush White House from VP on down.

 

He knew...he knew......

 

Trump's tweets (words) are worse than actually bombing 7 Muslim countries and issuing record number of drone strikes like Obama did?

 

Just like nobody is now seeing that Trump will likely get Kim to lose all power, eventually.

 

How about this.

 

Obama hated his mother because she was white. He said so in his book.

 

Why does Obama hate Muslims so much - he's bombed not one, not two, not five, but SEVEN Muslim nations in a mere eight years. Why the sheer hatred towards Muslims, Barack?

 

I agree with the necessity of "ideological" progress.

However, then you mention Islam.

We're not going to remove Islam as the majority religion of Afghanistan - or anywhere else.

And, if we progress with that idea, we are NOT going to make progress.