Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Between Uranium One, the $145 million dollar gift to the Clinton foundation, and Flynn's covert uranium deals... everything points toward trying to conceal what the planners really intended, as they put us and our allies at risk. To me, Manafort, Gates, Papadopolus and Flynn were seeded into the Trump campaign as soon as the players saw Trump had a chance to win.
I think Flynn tried to balance our security interests while trying to prosper personally from another nuke deal, as his peers were, after seeing the Clinton team net $145 million and $500000 more.
Clearly, this has less to do with current and past presidents, and more to do with the personal profiting of Americans who don't value the freedoms our men and women die for everyday in the battlefields across two continents.
Uranium obviously is the big ticket item, as the word "non-proliferation" is inserted into the article. The stakes remain the highest for national security, and hence those seeking to undermine it, pay the best. Russians, through any means, no differently than Iran, China and North Korea, see the mineral as leverage, opportunity, control and power... enough to hold whole regions hostage.
If Meuller's focus isn't on this and instead only meant to derail the ever-tweeting Trump, then he his efforts will be seen as treasonous, as well. And, to that end, Americans (50% at least) will ensure what? That they keep their guns. That some will become alt-right, creating even greater issues for this nation, that others will once more lose their faith in the system, and that trust will never come back to DC.
I hope it goes two ways. One for the good of all, it is swept under the rug, and the Dems must retreat for fear of dragging Obama himself into the fray. Two, everything comes out, and we find out how dirty and treasonous actors like Podesta, Manafort, Clinton and many others are, while DJT is ironically vindicated.
When taking a closer look though at Dems and all people in power, but especially those falsely deemed sensitive to America's concerns... much like the sex scandals, these people used their sensitivity as a ploy to get close, close enough to touch, sniff, take and control. They did it with women who needed their respect, why wouldn't they do it with national security?
Is Meuller man enough to unveil this? I doubt it. He was a Clinton backer.
If the last decade has told anything, it was one of very odd agendas:
-Giving everything to Iran (for Europe's gain).
-Laying aside immediate concerns, while making grand gestures labeled as virtue signaling. eg The shty deal of the Paris Summit.
-Pulling back to create power vacuums and a refugee crisis, where Merkel got her cheap labor and simultaneously further punished her neighbors.
-Weaken Israel and Saudi Arabia... try to break their hold on MENA.
-Undermine Eastern Europe, by creating the Orange Revolution in Ukraine... so Putin could never get his Eurasian Economic Union going.
-Crippling Venezuela, without firing a round... crippling its neighbors simultaneously... all through ignoring the effects of low resource valuations.
-It was one of agreements, where George Soros got his way, and Bill Clinton got his, as well.
And Uranium must be part of this.
None of the above was in America's best interests, but all do point toward installing a new form of power. The shock of Hillary not winning must be the greatest of setbacks, not spoken. It is up to Robert Meuller to explain it to us, and then all the rest will make sense.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/michael-flynns-role-in-middle-eastern-nuclear-project-could-compound-legal-issues/2017/11/26/51ce7ec8-ce18-11e7-81bc-c55a220c8cbe_story.html?utm_term=.1aa3af82485c
Obama caved to Europe on Iran. He was so taken by Europe's love for a weak / sensitive American leader, that he paved the way for them to finish their pro-Iranian contracts.
This behavior wasn't unique during the Obama administration. He sold "getting the troops out" to US citizens, so Merkel could start her reckless approach to bringing cheap (and unfortunately unskilled) labor to Europe.
Obama gave away Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt and Yemen to Iran. Again, this was the gift, so Europe could get their deals... and to keep up his approval numbers and relationship with Merkel.
There is so much on Obama's Middle East policy that goes unnoticed. One has to wonder if this was created by powerbrokers, who exploited their representative's need for proving the rest of us wrong.
Was he smart?
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/10/iran-nuclear-trump-europe/542094/
The reimposition of U.S. sanctions on Iran would, ultimately, also hit European business interests that deal with the Islamic Republic. Trade between Iran and Europe has resumed—mostly driven by oil exports from Iran. But the Islamic Republic has also signed agreements with Airbus, the European aircraft manufacturer, to buy 73 jetliners. Iran signed a similar deal, worth $20 billion, to buy 110 aircraft from Boeing, the American aircraft manufacturer. German exports to Iran, meanwhile, rose by 26 percent last year. British firms are reportedly considering deals with Iran that could be worth $600 billion over the next decade. All of this stands to be threatened by any new sanctions.
It would be nice if this turned into a bitcoin operation. That would be smart.
Aw your feelings are hurt, because I don't post pro-Trump stuff.
While you ignore the efficiency of the allegations in killing off Trump's chance, the macro issues I guess are too heady for you.
You would rather make this board a ra-ra series of posts for DJT.
Not a big deal, while you try your best to ignore the depth of issues in preference to your passion to replace Melania.
I figured you were smarter than the pro-lib board, with its 30000 pro-HRC posts, cheerleading idiocy.
But like dmmm near all American voters, you don't want to be reminded of the actual issues at hand but are content to say, "duh, dose were debunked..." so I am guessing Trumps numbers are going to go up now, because you posted the little tidbit that fits your agenda.
Ok, 2short, I will leave your board. Good luck with your 24/7 love affair with Trump. I am sure that will work out.
Heck what do I know except macro economics and policy and political jockeying? Obviously nothing.
Ignorance is bliss.
Disclosed "on-budget" numbers for 2008 to 2011... 696 to 721 billion a year, AND Obama killed off any off budget or appropriated funding measures. (2017 it will go under 600 billion.)
For the Bush years you had the military portion of the budget plus approximated 200 billion a year in off budget / appropriated / dark monies / other expenditures was spent additionally to fight the wars that we attended to, and replace what was used.
Basically peaking over 900 billion a year all totaled.
Trust me, we were spending just under a trillion dollars between on-budget and off-budget expenditures with all defense measures, not just the US military without what was hidden from the taxpayer. Not anymore. Because again, Obama killed off any off budget or appropriated funding. So now what you see is all you get. As to say, suck it up military, you are on an allowance, no matter how much you need to protect interests or fight wars.
Keep in mind, meaningful graphs show that Military expenditures pale in comparison to past budgets, as all should realize. But not just Obama's fault. We are more efficient, but have no footprints where needed.
http://www.heritage.org/multimedia/infographic/2014/12/mandatory-spending-more-than-double-as-a-share-of-the-economy
http://www.heritage.org/multimedia/infographic/2012/10/federal-spending-by-the-numbers-2012/62-percent-of-the-federal-budget-goes-to-entitlements
2017 budget proposals
http://www.defense.gov/News/News-Releases/News-Release-View/Article/652687/department-of-defense-dod-releases-fiscal-year-2017-presidents-budget-proposal
To answer your question, not everything is captured for obvious reasons. Primarily, you don't know how much you will spend to meet the world's concerns, so flexibility is necessary. Obama doesn't comprehend this when he speaks of full transparency of military expenditures. Makes no sense in the real world to hold the military hostage to a president's whim, while people suffer and interests are at risk.
If you look at the Bush numbers and the Obama numbers and the "cost of war" then it is obvious that he has cut when he said no more hidden appropriations, thru the budget transparency law.
Otherwise with your argument, Bush fought major wars for less than Obama spent keeping the troops away from the Middle East.
Would that make sense? Nope. We would go to war.
Something to consider is that therefore money appropriated for contingency operations has declined by 70%.
http://www.cfr.org/defense-budget/trends-us-military-spending/p28855
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/86/InflationAdjustedDefenseSpending.PNG
Again, while the numbers show 20% cuts, we are ignoring walking away from unfinished business, worldwide. Estimate effect 40%... and reflected in most of the graphs where % of another measure shows serious downturn. And largely proven by a reduction of deployed troops from almost 200000 to 15000, and the associated costs.
To me, that is irresponsible, in the face of war in Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran plus unresolved issues in Eastern Europe and South China Sea/Korea, and the spread of ISIS all the way to the Philippines.
http://www.cfr.org/defense-budget/trends-us-military-spending/p28855
Sorry you feel otherwise.
I only deal with realities. People here on this board and in DC have told us that Islam isn't on the attack, isn't ambitious, isn't interested in anything but finding a new home to live in peace. I have given you example after example of failure to contain the worst of it. Now it has expanded on multi-fronts to include England, Australia and the US at risk. F your doom and gloom, that is reality. And we make excuses for our avoidance in dealing with it. It will succeed, if only because we are too lazy to disallow it.
We cannot build tall enough walls to think it won't affect our way of life. And as Obama says, we are interconnected whether we like it or not. If so, which I accept, then we have a responsibility to outcompete this effort to sell Islam unto all nations.
To sit by and continue to do nothing is to give western civilization away.
Here is more reality. It is spot on, as I always say. The fact that most are too lazy to embrace it is pitiful.
http://www.realclearworld.com/2016/09/12/how_does_jihadism_end_178654.html
The women of October.
For women to continue to delay reporting the abusive behavior of men is completely different from a boy not being able to come forth being molested by a priest. Women have a say, where the boy is but a child.
However, whether in the world of beauty pageants, television and Hollywood or in business where one wishes to climb the ladder, I can tell you that a woman will encourage, flirt and condone. They may even expect certain behavior, and perceive it as "unimportant".
The woman on the plane was offended that Trump reached for her thigh. She said she could have tolerated his hands if they stayed above her waist? WTF??? and the media never said boo.
My point. Women should work on becoming leaders, where they control the world in which they choose to partake. Otherwise, to use sexuality continuously as a tool, present it on TV as a tool (sales aid) and to then cry foul just makes them look like the toys that they state they are not.
As I can tell you from the world of beauty pageants, ten girls compete... the rest are eye candy. The stakes are high. Girls are willing to accept way too much to achieve nonsensical reward.
One was raped...a friend of mine. Her mother ran the pageant. Her mother's response was for her daughter to get out there and compete the next day, regardless. WTF?
But as I look in business and see more "eye candy" as administrative assistants... one can only imagine that they likely are willing to endure or condone what the boss brainwashes them with.
To then say that the culture is inacceptable, is bullsh..
You cannot regulate morality. Try telling Muslims what you think is acceptable.
But we do draw lines in the sand. I believe that these women answer to wherever that line is drawn, as it is the culture they choose; given the environment as business eye-candy, beauty contestant, Hollywood figure, TV personality.
And average Americans only see it as "she was asking for it" or "that poor girl". Neither are correct.
Culturally, a 20 yr old admin and a 50 yr old boss, or however you slice it, pretty much states that that girl is willing to accept much.
Monica Lewinsky.
Unprecedented. That is what they call the stumping by Michelle and Barack Obama.
What the Obama's fail to understand, much as women and minority voters fail to understand is that by rallying behind Clinton, all of them will be the subject of the "I told You So" moments that will come.
Clinton is the most unqualified candidate for the issues we have. When she drops the ball, everyone will be able to ask the Obamas and the women and all minorities, "Why did you singularly with your actions, put her in office? Are you that stupid?"
And the Obamas legacy will be one of irresponsibility.
They purposely deviated from their own game plan... that which they had followed since Jan 2009. Stay away from the volatile issues.
When it becomes quite apparent that Clinton's mental and emotional breakdowns will be exposed as her panicked inabilities to solve a single issue, one will look to the Michelle Obamas of the world and ask "why".
What is the irony in all of the October women?
Not that Trump has kissed or touched them. And only now do they feel like it was inappropriate.
It is that the American voter is so easily suckered away from the true issues we face.
Obama has f'd up foreign policy, and the whole world is now fleeing from ISIS, Muslim refugees, Russia, China
Obama has pushed us to an inevitable financial-based recession, much like the last.
Obama has not been able to help the inner city.
Obama has a failed energy policy, that further penalizes our allies.
Obama has to be held accountable for reducing the military budget by 40%, in the face of a five front war.
Our actions have made us weak, and we look vulnerable.
The media hides the truth. When you are an utter failure in all matters of state, little wimps like Obama turn to social issues, and only social issues.
Americans are impressionable and overly-sensitive to issues that while important, are hardly what matters as to why they have no savings and are about to lose multiple avenues of security.
What is the new norm? Being broke, pro-LGBT and accepting acts of Terrorism as inevitable.
And Americans are worried about the women of October.
Islam on the march
You're looking at the end of western driven civilization because we retreated when we should have hunted.
http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2016/10/14/isis_spreads_its_roots_in_the_philippines_110206.html
Why Iran, when the problem has spread to Europe? I think Iran is no longer on the table, thanks to people who want a live and let live policy. How is the Obama deal working out for us?
Iran abuses it at will.
I merely see the reality and finality of war, as history is written as it and pestilence as two measures to right the ship.
You however, think of voluntary containment (or containment of Islam, voluntarily as long as Muslim countries make the decision)as a sole philosophy for being happy with Islam.
If Muslim's wish to live by those tenets fine... just keep it within their own borders
You admitted the basic flawed thinking on Islam and its extremism. There lies the problem. Islam can never be contained.
Take your flawed second point.
I can only assume you mean a victory for globalist expansion and the destruction and destabilization of sovereign nations in the Middle East.
Are you so prejudiced in your thinking to assume that Muslim countries don't have the same aspirations? Or are not allowed to? Or cannot fathom such?
You are ridiculously flawed in your logic.
While you may have read op eds that state that you cannot play whack-a-mole with Islam, there is no other solution beyond expanding our way of life onto others, in any format. No country in the world, no congregation of countries in the world allow others to live and let live. How ignorant.
Each vie for control, control of thought, market share, control over lesser people, control of thoroughfares. It is a view of prejudice to think that others don't engage in the very same actions.
Do you allow Muslims to have Africans as slaves?
Do you allow Iran to use Syria as a launching ground for access to the Mediterranean?
Do you allow Pashtun to hold the complete power over the Hazara?
Do you think that the refugees can be stuffed back into the Middle east?
Would you close every Mosque that preaches hate, and how would you legally do so?
Would you allow ISIS to thrive as long as it plays nice and only kills other Muslims?
What is your solution to the above?
As China and Russia move in to do business with nefarious entities, how do we equally stay safe from both terrorism and the threat of two emerging superpowers? Where each superpower is an enabler for the targeted African, Middle east or Eurasian nation?
Moxa your view is simplistic. But history doesn't stomach the Umayyad, or any other aggressor from the East. Today, it would be intolerable were it not for libs and people perhaps as yourself.
Change is slow and has to ever-evolve. Opportunistically, it always is an outcome from war. And war initiates change. Nothing else does, and never will. There is not one moment in history where change did not include war. And with perfecting security, the need for perfection rebuilding are the only things we have retreated from.
And retreat we did. Moxa I truly hope it isn't your city that suffers the consequence of Doing Nothing.
If you want it reduced to your simplistic terms... Fight them there (in a manner of speaking), so you don't fight them here.
Extrapolated that means fix them there, so they can stay there as you say.
So what do I want for Islam? I love their people on an individual level. Their women and kids adorable. Their countries needing a middle class, hope for families, and a chance for civil liberty and equality. It is called "much needed reformation" not moderate islam, and not "live and let live" which not one group of ambitious peoples will ever be content with. Reformation, where Islam takes a complete backseat to secularism. Complete and final, and punishable for making Sharia type law even possible.
Did not the US want secularism? over the right of any religion to oppress others?
Again the flaw in your argument as you deny that the American way of governance is preferential, or even your bigoted idea that it is unattainable for other peoples.
Like customized Parlament governance that spread to many countries and gained a foothold. That happened thru colonialism, and not just 19th century colonialism.
If you truly want those Muslim countries to stay within their borders in a manner of speaking, then that change must occur first.
Otherwise, both calculated and opportunistic expansion will occur.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Islamic-world/Consolidation-and-expansion-1405-1683
The fact is, no I wouldn't attack Iran. Not anymore, and never would have, if we had kicked their a... decades ago.
I won't have to. As all Middle East nations get nukes, the risk of an errant field nuke will become a reality. We will be fighting a new war. One of trying to properly police the streets of Europe's cities and refugee camps, and another policing the deterioration of our own inner cities. Small drones will carry ieds, and liberals will create Sharia approved zones to avoid civil war. Your containment can only come if we change them in their homes. Your flaw in your thinking is that you don't appreciate the mind of Islam and its aspirations as much as I do. Likely you never were properly exposed to its own arrogance.
Your voluntary Containment cannot work either. It takes a blend of measures to solve this. And my guess is it will be 2050 before the true change happens, either for the better or for our final defeat. This is another 100yrs war. And truthfully, China and Russia share our concerns. People like you IMO don't even see the advantage in that.
http://warontherocks.com/2016/09/how-does-jihadism-end-choosing-between-forever-war-and-nation-building/
Al Qaeda was expanding and planning way before we invaded Iraq. Your argument is a lie.
Maybe people simply see the merits of having less children, while poor people culturally across the globe have always had large families. That was part of the reason behind a global middle-class before we hit a period of regression after 2008. Responsible population control beyond the norms- pestilence, famine and war. The world doesn't need more people. It needs less. Mankind abuses it, not cares for it. And our traditional norms that contributed to natural selection have been defeated by empathy as much as ignorance.
I believe you are struggling with the curve created by automation, also. No explanation needed, automation destroyed the blue collar worker who could avoid continued education, and make good money if he was a hard worker. Moreover, Reagan opened the door to globalization. And Clinton forced us into a consumption-based economy. While Reagan had little idea, Clinton had no idea. Today is an outcome of all three. If the corporate world seizes upon it, it is no surprise. They too adapted to all three. And the disparity of those who have, and those who have not is greater since Reagan tripled the debt, and created low-interest rates, where your money garners you nothing today.
What it points to today is the drawback of entitlement is not a whole lot different than the difficulties in being a self-made man or woman. One can only blame himself for being a traditional worker bee. Taking responsibility for one's actions and decisions, is not something we espouse from a mic, podium or TV set.
Today, with information at our fingertips, why are we sending our kids to colleges for 50-100 grand? Could that money not be better spent with teaching them investment or entrepreneurship, and then giving them the balance of the money to play with? Degrees can be a waste as much as bad investments.. in a sense, many degrees are a bad investment.
If nothing else, trade schools that offer overseas employment would stimulate a certain part of our society, while benefiting the recipient who would get some dmmm good workers.
My point is it isn't always the "man", on the most individual of levels. On the grandest scales, such as manipulating markets or controlling countries at risk, yes it is always the man. It is merely one's perception of what is achievable and his priorities in the advanced societies. Elitists prey on one's ignorance, because they are past the learning curve, while the worker refuses to admit he is uneducated. No one is looking for a benevolent dictator as Keynes promoted, are they? The world is cruel in that sense. BDs are fictional.
This proves that natural selection is skewed... for obvious reasons. I submit to you that if we removed every piece of entitlement and aid, you would see a third kind of society... one that was very cold and logical. Just like every other living creature on earth. But you wouldn't have to control people who are disadvantaged, nor manage them, for they wouldn't exist.
It is not natural evolution you refer to, but manipulated.
But automation is your devil. Unless we decide to build infrastructure all over the world, the only workers we need will be ones with incremental refined skills.
That is why global stimulus is correlated to your sentiment. It throws enough scraps to satisfy us plebs.
While the source blows donkey d...
You have to assume that the administration has seized every opportunity to take the Iraq victory and turn it upside down.
So preoccupied with proving that the rest of us are wrong, the administration would go to any length to spin a win into the reason why the Middle East is a victim.
Let's face it, when it comes to leaders who could deal with the West, Assad, Erdogan, Qaddafi, Mubarak were all as capable as was Netanyahu...country by country. Not one of them was as undermining as Saddam then, nor Rouhani today.
Same goes for our anti-Nouri Al-Maliki agenda, where he lost all faith in the US. Same will go for the Kurds, when we cut and run in the 11th hour on them...just as we always do. We alienate our created alliances by leaving them hanging.
You and I agree on nothing. You love Muslim independence and its spread to Europe, I respect security, containment, rollover and prevention policy blended and customized to prevent a refugee crisis and terrorism.
But everything points to a crooked administration enabling protest and revolution. The president thinks that they are responsible reactionary measures for anyone who is deemed by Liberal America as victimized. True or no?
Orange Revolution- our instigation.
Undermining of Gruevski- American personal attention to Macedonian issues, for no specific regional reason at the time (Soros).
Unseating Assad- strictly us funding incapable rebels to sucker Shias.
Removing Qaddafi- a need to put the "little man" in power at any cost.
Obama's perversion... that is what this is. Nothing more, nothing less. He is hellbent on proving to us that we are all interconnected, "whether we like it or not" as he says. The action was met with multiple countries pulling back from globalized trade, preferring selective trade. When the Brits did it, he threatened them. Who threatens England, Israel and Saudi Arabia... only a man with a perversion to make the little immigrant the new emperor, wherever he lands. No one wants Islamic culture as their go to... no one. It sucks.
Obama's perversion.
And ignorance. This college professor/community organizer sponsored the Muslim Brotherhood. If you ever thought Bush was stupid for saying he didn't know Sunni from Shia, Hamas from Hezbollah (not that many did back then either, in DC), well Obama the great savior of Islam, pissed off every Muslim in MENA the day he backed the Brotherhood.
Why did he do it? Because he doesn't know what he is doing. Neither does Kerry, or Hillary and a whole lot of this administration's FP appointees.
Obama's perversion. He is a social issue whore. He doesn't know FP, monetary policy, dept of interior dynamics, trade, lending, policing, certainly not military deployment... not how, what, where, why or when. He knows one thing... you get in the streets and go protest... like a f...ing parade.
Then, as the article asserts... when he runs out of answers, he turns to undermining a situation, because above all things, he needs to hide his lack of understanding.
Only an fool goes out of his way to remove every leader from the Middle East, while pulling back troops. And Russia, Iran and China all see it as welcomed opportunity.
Yes I am sure the rebels used gas, whether we enabled them or not. But we didn't punish them, when the assertion was made and then hit the media. And because Obama is also hesitant, his worry that the truth might implicate him made him equally walk away from unseating Assad.
Remember one thing. Today's American leadership on both sides have little applicable, and certainly zero successful experience. You have a college law professor running the show. What do we know about academia? They have no experience, and see the world thru altered-reality. I have one in my family. Never held a job, insulated at best. Hillary for all her titles, doesn't know a whole lot outside of a social platform. Kerry, too rich to relate. A man who had mental issues post Nam, and had to make a point by throwing away his medals. You know he hates the military for it, ever since.
These leaders today (on both sides) aren't ex- ministers of the interior, ex-heads of central banking, ex-military analysts, ex-job creators/businessmen/builders of empires, ex-heads of Wall Street, ex-brokers of int'l trade . They aren't ex-anything, unless you change the word to excrement. Yes, that is who they are.
I am sure the Syrian refugees silently say, "we needed his help, and he did nothing." Same for Yazidis. Same for Mosul. Same for Somalis to Tunisians.
It is the "TRUE COST OF DOING NOTHING." As I always say. And it will cost us and the world millions of lives, and trillions of dollars. The disintegration of all cultures is about to occur. And Moxa... One incursion into Iraq ain't the reason. It is because while the Saudi religious fundamentalist groups and the Iranian Shias undermined the world (as Ulama stated in his speech. Barack Obama did nothing at a pivotal moment in history, with Middle East economies collapsing all at once, triggered by a world recession. And why? Simply put, 8 yrs later, he still doesn't know what he is doing. And a retreating policy, is not one that can evolve. And policies and measures do need to evolve.
This is why Obama failed, we failed. You must evolve, as much as you must pick a starting point. Bush is ten times better than Obama for that reason.
The president today grew up in Hawaii, Indonesia and Kenya? He doesn't know America. Heck, I don't think he even likes America. And certainly, he has no experience that would have made him pass an interview for the job he was given.
Islamic apocalypticism is still a powerful force. According to a 2012 poll by the Pew Research Center, half of Muslims or more in nine Muslim-majority countries believe that the coming of the Mahdi is “imminent,” and could happen in their lifetime. The Islamic State just goes further by claiming that it is bringing the prophecies to life.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/04/opinion/the-problem-with-the-islamic-apocalypse.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=0
Muslims can understand Jesus’s Second Coming in the horrifying way of the Islamic State or the inspiring way of Abduh. That is because religious texts come to life at the hands of men. And it makes a great difference whether the believers’ purpose is to self-righteously sharpen their blades against others, or to humbly educate and enlighten themselves.
Xi makes Obama look like the sophomore he really is.
http://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2015/11/23/the_new_great_game_between_china_and_the_us_111580.html
His China is everything Obama's America isn't.
Obama from day one has lacked vision, and has relied on trying to sell us on islam and other useless social causes.
In Flanders, one in five Muslims understand Islamic State and the way the terrorist organization campaigning. According to a survey by VTM News and Humo
Twenty percent of them understands IS, and sixteen percent would not even tell radicalized youth to the police.
https://translate.google.be/translate?hl=nl&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.demorgen.be%2Fbuitenland%2Feen-op-de-vijf-vlaamse-moslims-heeft-begrip-voor-is-en-haar-manier-van-actievoeren-b8338104%2F
Obama's Asian pivot fails. No respect for weakness, another leader flips us off
http://warontherocks.com/2016/10/if-duterte-kicks-out-u-s-special-operators-a-hard-rains-gonna-fall/
As pressure increases on ISIL in Iraq and Syria, the estimated 100 to 200 Filipino fighters will attempt to return home to help expand the “caliphate”. Given the influx of overseas foreign workers that have “broken travel” while in the Middle East, Philippine security and intelligence organizations are going to have a very challenging time tracking them. Further pressure from the Indonesian government will likely be a catalyst for increased cooperation with regional jihadist groups such as East Indonesia Mujahideen Simultaneously, support for ISIL will continue to grow through recruitment tailored toward jihad in the Philippines. The Philippines will see attacks in Manila’s national capital region and other major western tourist spots, such as Palawan. Failure to counter terrorism there will return the world to the time when extremists were able to use the entirety of the Mindanao to plan attacks on a global scale.
Yep this one is also Bush's fault, right? hardly.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-global-economy-has-entered-unexplored-dangerous-territory/2016/10/09/a04852ac-8e24-11e6-a6a3-d50061aa9fae_story.html?utm_term=.59e2bddd0f7c
Guaranteed that Hillary will have to turn on Obama, and even then, she will be demonized for falling short. Should be quite the democratic folly all based on bullsh.. social cause.
Nero fiddled, Obama piddled, and Clinton diddled while Rome burned.
And Bill, he just hit on the help. If he takes the big dirtnap, maybe Hillary can anoint Trump as her cohort. If only to have someone around she sees with the same contempt.
You say basically that you have an innate ability to keep radical Islam out of the US, Moxa. Then you defend them in Europe. Then you deny your isolationist, no use of military is somehow differing than Obama's current strategy, when all three are basically yours and Obama's strategy. Plus as the great defender and apologist that you are thru those posts of anything Islam, you expect:
That radicals won't enter thru our porous southern borders.
That those that come to Trudeau's Canada won't inflict terror upon us from the north.
That Soros-types won't fund it.
And you cannot accept facts and Muslim opinion as illustrated by Ulama's speech that the cause of our misery is Shia Iran and Sunni private investment out of Saudi Arabia.
Your whole point is to demonize the US military.
Sure you aren't a Democrat ready to vote for Hillary?
Your stance on Foreign Policy is to be the Neville Chamberlain of the US, or basically you are BHO, and you decided to covertly type your sh... here just to make IHub that much better.
I am a piece of work, or sh.. as whatever you need to label me, but my facts and worldwide concensus kicks the sh.. out of your faulty logic, doesn't it?
You hate reading? Or do you just use selective cognition to guide your ill feelings about the military.
Here Moxa, one of your buddies just made the news again. He thinks much as you do, but more, he funds the gateway for Islam into Europe. And he is a sponsor for the affable BLM.
http://www.allenbwest.com/analytical-economist/new-leaked-email-exposes-hillarys-true-intentions-colluding-soros
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/08/iran-iraq-syria-isis-land-corridor
There. Obama's Iranian friends are using Obama's funds wisely.
I'm sure they will play nice.
Somehow you think it is up to us to police the world, fight other peoples battles, and rebuild their countries after they've been destroyed.
You mean like WW II, to save the world. Or do you mean like the Berlin airlift to show our resolve in a Cold War, or do you mean our sphere of influence off the Barbary Coast with the world's fastest ships, or do you mean creating confidence thru policing a world so that cultures actually don't devour us, while they consume themselves. Or do you mean making the difference in WW I, where stalemate was costing the world much, while Balkan fighters did the dirty work in the East, and we saved the west?
All thru history, it is the great empires policing other cultures. You really think that they are developed enough to naturally evolve, in a fast paced world where investment, lending, infrastructure and trade depends on securing interests?
Our bombs, you say. They do poison ground water and soil. I will give you that. But our bombs are there because we didn't finish enaging an enemy and killing him to begin with. The rise of Hitler, the rise of pro-Serbian right wing authority, the rise of Al Shabab, Boko Haram, ISIS, Saddam, Taliban, Al Qaeda.
You are naive.
You still think that everyone just lives in harmony contained within their own tribal environment, when I give you Muslims in Sweden imposing Sharia law upon their cities, and history is written time and time again with the migration of peoples for many reasons, conflict being just one.
What of the Puritans leaving England to basically depose every Indian tribe in the New World. There was "cause and oppression from within." Do you expect history to be rewritten as the Puritans should had stayed and made the best of it, and the American Indian, First Nation, Native American would have "naturally evolved" to meet what has become the globalized 21st century after being minimal farmers, and a hunter gatherer society.
Dmmm you are naive, and a bad historian. Or a revisionist perhaps.
The world ALWAYS interacts with itself. I have given you so many f..ing examples, and you just say, "Aww poor picked on Muslims, leave them to themselves. When have they contained themselves???
For example, while you and B2B discuss the conspiracy of 9/11. There wasn't a boots on the ground war fought against Al Qaeda. Just a wannabe looking for power and respect, after fighting as the Mujahedin in Afghanistan, against Russia. We didn't create Al Qaeda by killing Muslims. But they did stick it to us.
Who do you blame there? Russia? Ok, so how do you stop global interests by a second deemed oppressor? Go to war with him to in a proxy state? Well, how about Afghanistan then. And why did the Russians step in? Maybe they were a bit p!ssed at investing and supporting Afghanistan only to have it go to sh..
So we stand on the sidelines, YOU are elected Obama in charge, because your policies are the same for foreign interests, and another country fills the power vacuum opportunistically and then creates greater conflict resulting in refugees.
YOU CANNOT BLAME SYRIA ON BUSH, IRAQ WAR FAILURES OR ANYTHING EXCEPT A LAISSEZ FAIRE APPROACH TO THE WORLD.
History says you are delusional.
We have as an acceptable % of GDP, as well as, a responsibility as the leader of the free world to address the problems emanating from the Muslim world without and within our own societies.
Because, if not, someone else will tip the apple cart over, break the eggs in your one basket, and put the straw on your camel's back.
Moreover, the article is dead on and is a reasonable path forward, which will require both military and nation building support, for which we will have to fund, one way or another, like it or not.
Or we can just chock it up to global Illuminati conspiracy and wait for WW III, just so you may be vindicated. Which is fine to a point.
But back to the tangible, if discussing FP, then this guy knows way more about engaging the issue than you do walking away from the issue.
http://warontherocks.com/2016/09/how-does-jihadism-end-choosing-between-forever-war-and-nation-building/
Please stop sympathizing with Indonesian raised Obama as if Indonesia is a Muslim success story. It is tucked away in the corner of the world, and has only labor and cheap clothing, in a manner of speaking, to offer.
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/05/10/asia/indonesia-extremism/index.html
much as the other article just stated that the Saudis and Iranians create jihad in Afghanistan, Pakistan and India, Ulama seems to think the same.
There it is.
What cause radical Islamic Terrorism?
The ability for two nations in the Middle East to spread their influence.
The very thing we were to stamp out in the first place.
And while you don't just nuke Saudi Arabia, you do send a message to them. And that ain't in the form of p!ssing them off by dropping oil prices. And it ain't by arming Iran with new found hope and hefty payments with interest.
And it sure as hell isn't by being an Isolationist like you and hoping everyone plays fair.
You don't know much about the Muslim world except you had "a nice time" and got butt hurt because of our approach to settling the score.
F me...
Stop blaming the US military for creating a problem that has existed since the 6th century, 7th century. These people war over who got more french fries at McDs, as much as, who to follow in Islam.
Much like delaying a bridge to be built in SC, that 15 year delay made the initial bid go from 118 million to 450 million. Putting off the inevitable becomes more expensive. When you say we can't afford it, what are you really saying? Don't fight the battle, so that when it becomes insurmountable, they can just run all over us.
You are the castle at the oasis.
Something to consider for your peaceful trips to Scandinavian Europe that you alluded to once before.
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-37578919
I am told that religious enforcers attempt to control the community to ensure Sharia law is adhered to. They allegedly harass and intimidate people - mainly women - for the way they dress and for attending parties where there is music and dancing, which they consider haram.
Meanwhile, two-thirds of children have dropped out of school by the time they are 15, and unemployment is 11% - high by Swedish standards. It's these vulnerable young people that the extremists target.
And for America's inner cities, this is what comes next
"We have lost more than 50% of the policemen working in uniform in the different areas - 50%," he says. "You can see for yourself. How many policemen have you seen during your time here in the areas you have been to? Have you seen any?" No, I reply.
Not that it matters to Americans or the European left wing as Trump gives us a soundbite on "how to seduce women" and Hillary basically commits acceptable treason about every 30 minutes, but Islam again is illustrated in the article below as opportunistically radicalizing vulnerable cultures.
http://thediplomat.com/2016/10/the-saudi-iran-rivalry-and-sectarian-strife-in-south-asia/
This is what they will continue to do wherever there is a foothold to be gained.
The Obama administration has miscalculated global affairs in general, as the next war won't be one over oil pricing, over who controls the shipping straits, or how Russia decides to divide up Eastern Europe (an area of US foreign policy best described as "as needed, reactionary rhetoric"). The real war will be where we failed on stabilizing areas to fend off radicalization.
This will task Hillary with swallowing hard on the "no boots on the ground" statement. "Necessary footprints" will have to be created, and the costs will be exponential if we cannot recreate and transform American governance, liberty and economics in these areas where Islam's radical tentacles are reaching ever deeper.
Therefore to head off Russian and Chinese expansion in areas that will equally be at risk in the coming decades, perhaps there is common ground, or a common "foe" for the three of us.
It is a given that we cannot "sanction" Russia into the ground, and remove Putin thereby. Nor can we make friends thru Climate Change Summits, where the intent albeit popular, will fall short due to economics in the wake of another recession.
But to take both Russia and China into a period where peace and prosperity become more beneficial than dividing the world up between the three of us would beget, the better avenue for Obama would have been stabilizing areas and then building their infrastructure for global expansion.
Not an easy task, and not available to the Obama administration due to his isolationist retreat, but certainly the only avenue that can be a talking point at a table where we hate who we are speaking with. Prior to Putin, when relations broke down, we would purposely review nuclear weapons so we kept an open dialogue. Today, a smug Obama doesn't allow for that, nor because we RETREATED away from conflict areas and areas destabilized by Arab Spring (and further destabilized Iraq and Yemen by selling them to Iran) does Vladimir Putin see us as anything but a nuisance species within the scope of World Politics.
But Hillary, while she licks her chops at how Trump continues to brag on the art of bedding women, best listen to what open dialogue (that which her opponent stated) can do in light of the rookie mistakes her president has made, and continues to make. There is much collateral damage to Obama and Kerry's policies and superficial soundbites.
One place where all three superpowers (used to be just us before Obama)can state what each thinks will move the world toward peace and prosperity is for the need of nation-building areas at risk. Much as we failed to not evolve Afghanistan, there are lessons to be learned and methodology to be refined. We should have perfected the task of nation building, whether is involved US created civil liberties, Russian might to remove rival factions, or Chinese resource driven investment are some combination of all three avenues.
Otherwise, western specific economies, which all three have in the form of one "name" or another will always be sidetracked by the virus type assault on those economic forms, and that can be illustrated as cyberwarfare, radicalizing the poor and then sending them out as "cells", or simply as a Chechen dirty bomb in Moscow. Or all three.
Maybe that moment has passed as America tired of endless war, or because we played a losing hand to Putin, who is much smarter than our leadership. Nonetheless, the only threat all three of us share that is tangible is radicalization. Both abroad and in our cities.
Yes, while simultaneously and purposely defending his Indonesian roots, Obama chose the "one shared item" as Climate Change. It was meaningless intent as no one will give a sh.. about it, if your poor are being sold on radicalization and your cities are uninhabitable due to acts of terrorism or lawlessness.
Hillary is 68. In poor health. Suffers from a bout of 1992-2000 Clintonomics. She exhibits the signs of her boss' arrogance and ignorance cocktail of mismanaged affairs.
If anyone therefore doesn't view her as making America even more vulnerable, they are fools.
As much as Trump is a buffoon and deserves no quarter these days for his stupidity, the TIME calls for someone in American history who is unpredictable, unreadable and yet has an opportunity to open dialogue and looks at things from the freshest of perspectives... business.
With Hillary, you already know what you are getting. All of our enemies also know what they are getting. Maybe a safe play, but she made her case.
No boots on the Ground.
Defense of Obama's policies
Outmoded Clintonomics
Poor communicator
Defensive behavior as she is dirty.
You cannot ironically have a president possess all of those "Qualities".
I expect she will not make all four years. Much as I expect the Vatican will remove this pope. There is your conspiracy moment.
Best we perfect nation building, we just wasted 8 years of your inaction / isolationist soft policy, Moxa.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/10/04/isis-sets-sights-on-rest-of-africa.html
signs are everywhere.
We can all call it the Illiterati, sorry I mean Illuminati, actually I was right in the case of those on the sidelines warming the American bench.
But in the meantime, while we prefer to go down swinging and not take it in the backside thru Obama's soft policy and its continuance under "no boots" just high heels Clinton's coming policy.
Here Moxa actually read the dmm article...
http://warontherocks.com/2016/09/how-does-jihadism-end-choosing-between-forever-war-and-nation-building/
We will fight the expansion of Islam in spite of people who want to try us in the Hague, regardless. Just that we will lose, thanks to minds who believe we should never try in the first place.
Moxa your opinion mirrors Obama. Mine believes that Sharia Law no matter how presented always leads to further constraints. The only thing to recognize is where the culture it victimizes is currently with regard to civil liberties. But Sharia never moves toward civil liberties. It expects quite the opposite.
Deny who we are, deny who the enemy is.
Yes unabated and without any effort made what you get is 9/11 over and over and over.
That is what happened to Bill Clinton.
So history kicks your illogic in the a..
Last time I checked, Iraq was all but won under Patraeus and Bush. Clinton and Obama which would agree with your hands off agenda, and actually have engaged in your hands off agenda, have created and conspired such debacle across MENA and the EU.
So again your illogic is found wanting.
As for a million lost lives, some of them were my friends. I am well-aware of what that loss of life looked like about once every three weeks. Like a cycle that wouldn't end.
Sure for someone like you Moxa who can't separate personal agenda from national agenda, that would embitter one...absolutely.
But removing Saddam's arsenal was apropos. And given the situation at the time regarding, Saddam's sponsoring terrorism, upsetting oil pricing, a need for a beacon of hope in recreating the Middle east and whatever other sentiment proposed, anyone would have moved past the sanctions and no-fly zones.
Again, if 1 million (which is actually 300-500 thousand, but still a vast loss of life) were killed, I guess you would be satisfied with 1 million equally killed in America as retribution for your pro-Muslim, pro-life stance.
What of the mass incendiary bombing of Hitler's cities and civilians, what of the two H bombs dropped on Japan, what of the act of doing nothing to prevent Rwanda as Bill Clinton did (there is your actual million, Moxa), what of the repeated rape and genocide that we allowed under Clinton? There... two situations where we acted beyond military targets, and two of your DO NOTHING situations.
Do we go to the Hague for those too?
You live in a fictitious world.
Please go live in the Middle East / Eurasia some more. Live where Boko Haram thrives. F... just stand in line at Dubai's passport control and look at your future Moxa.
You are more like Obama than you want to reveal.
Merely in retrospect to the Bush administration, better he got the ball rolling, as many continue to think that staying on the sidelines of any one issue is adequate. Globalist, Saudi conspirator, father a Clinton voter regardless. For the time Jan 2001- Jan 2009, W's administration made efforts to learn on the fly what to do. Most sit back and warm the bench and then say everything is hopeless. If Bush is to be accused of pushing us closer to a one world order, his policies don't quite show it as blatantly as Obama's do.
In truth, as the puppets before their handlers, I doubt our presidents today can digest the responsibility placed upon them, with Obama being the most ignorant while a supposed Ivy League professor. While all have a responsibility to "Big" everything, as they hired them to do the job, and bought the media along the way, none can absorb the consequence of "inter-dependency", with dumbass Obama saying "that we are all intertwined, get use to it."
He reveals his lack of understanding of his own words. Interdependent is what he meant, and what he missed was two things. We fail together then, when one nation sux wind, or the EU does for instance, and that his very actions caused the rise of countries turning away from such blatant unrestrained globalism.
People in truth hate him today and what he has forced upon their governments. The strain creating right wing nationalism, creating a need to get out of grand global deals, and to shun refugees... a reason for Brexit.
While the TPP and TTIP look attractive, all will hate this man once they see the legal mafia types prey upon those who were so stupid as to sign the deals.
But for the Bush administration and the efforts made, yes his was one of fighting terrorism, not much else. And that actually just about excuses him from blatant globalism. Back then, China threw its new found wealth at us. That was about it, and some risky investment. But Bush said, "We fight them there, so we don't have to fight them here." Good enough from a man deemed a moron, but actually much more of a leader than the one prior, and the one after.
Sure Iraq was a failure to the media puppets. I see it as the inception of WW III, and side with the King of Jordan who sees us fully immersed in one now.
Again, if people in a globalized grouping of the world's economies see Iraq as expensive, you 1) don't care to recognize that doing nothing would have been more expensive in all ways, 2)that the costs today will easily exceed the cost of war in all ways, 3) cannot give me one country now pro-America and thriving in the region of conflict where sanctions were imposed on them. And haven't our sanctions led to civil war and destabilization (less the buyout of Iran and/or Russia surviving thru paying off sovereign debt ahead of time).
And Saddam had an arsenal, and Iraq was under sanctions.
I am sure moreover to Moxa types that the Parisian ghetto Muslims care little about the Iraq war, but are radicalized thru hate speech. I am sure that the terror cells aren't talking about how America attacked Saddam. I am sure that the Taliban isn't talking about our incursion into Iraq. The Kurds see it as liberation. I doubt that the fall of regimes in Tunisia, Libya and Egypt had sht to do with Iraq.
Islamic culture was always one car breakdown away from utter failure. That is the truth. Be it in Europe or MENA.
What if we had stabilized Iraq? All of those shtbag countries and sections of European inner cities would have still failed, as they did post 2008.
And Boko Haram... equally has nothing to do with Iraq.
What all of them do have in common is that the Muslim sees us as losers, weak and disengaged. Their hatred spewed from their Mosques seeks advantage. And they have many many ears to hear it.
That is why it was important and timely for us to perfect Nation building. Muslims need to see "better."
Otherwise, without perfected nation building you get endless war thru endless opportunity and greater costs than the Iraq war ever imagined.
My apologies B2B
And both of you shoot at Bush, as though there was some better choice at the time. Just because we tried and failed at the dynamics of Nation Building, you don't do a 180 and become an isolationist. Overall, for the most part he got everything right. The execution was wrong, the learning curve great. Ever coach a sports team? The first year you suck. By year four, you are champions. That is what perseverance does for winners.
You better count your lucky stars, Bush did exactly what he did.
Otherwise the Moxas of the world would be happy with the current laissez-faire approach until the enemy perfected a dirty bomb and set it off in NY or some other urban center, strategically collapsing economies once more, if not permanently. What is the cost of that? I bet way more than 1 trillion. By the way, just to put a trillion in perspective or even the payout of 7 trillion by 2056 for the war. Standard and Poors downgraded our credit and we lost 3 trillion in a day.
The problem with the article is it avoided the issue of peace thru strength. While maybe not applicable to the rollback and containment proposal put forth, a strong military does keep others from imparting their ideology into the same regions.
Isolationist policy starts with fools like one here saying "we should have never gone in there." Those are the words of a child in a man's game.
Ok, then you cede the region, the market, the country to whomever fills the vacuum or seizes the moment.
Bush ironically was smart to invade. Our presence a multi-layered effort, one to be built upon for generations to come, except for the coward in charge now.
He was smart to attempt supply-side economics, as someone will review how the money was allocated from the effort and adapt the strategy properly to meet today's needs.
As for the rest, Pelosi and Reid held Congress from 2006 forward, and everyone and their moms voted for the Iraq invasion, and lastly it was the Clinton administration who f'd the rest of our normalcy up. Clinton is quoted as saying his pen signing that legislation had nothing to do with the sub-prime debacle.
WHAT the Bush administration did, whether pasted a buffoon or not, was try to get the ball moving. That actually is what leaders do. To armchair QB it, or to be a Dem apologist who cherry picks it, is to show cowardice and irresponsibility.
Bush did the dirty work, while the rest of us critique it to this day.
That is the reality of it.
"Hold him for war crimes at the Hague..." WTF?
But that is the problem today. Even on this board you have people who don't truthfully understand what it means to be an American, and from where we come.
The biggest mistakes we continue to make is to deny who we are, and deny who the enemy is. Lets all hold hands as Moxa wants and fairies and unicorns will cure the world's disease.
The second biggest mistake besides lacking conviction is to further dilute the bullsh.. melting pot we call America, or the other one called western civilization, thinking that every culture offers what western Europe or Asian culture offered us.
The third biggest mistake is to let the sensitive social-consciousness of America decide the tough calls.
Ask yourself, if in the WH and worried about funded terrorism in the aftermath of 9/11, the uncertainty of stable oil prices with the second biggest oil kitchen in Iraq, the markets up for grabs by an expansive China showing its eventual military might to match its economic might at the time, and then the influence of AQAB all over an area we clearly knew little of... plus the rest of the world's eyes upon us...
Yes WTF would you do?
Intel from the past administration and the one before that sees Saddam as someone to remove, but both hesitated. A sponsor of terror, and too many unknowns if anything at least from the very sanctions imposed. Terror in the forefront of our agenda. And a need to show our teeth after being timid under Clinton.
Yep, one choice is to create an agenda in the Middle East.
And dmmm glad we did. Because today, nothing would be any better. But we would know much less, and have a pussy in the WH to boot.
Bush wasn't the best, but when all is said and done, the ball moved closer to the end zone, than what you have today, where it is fumbled on every possession.
And were it not for him to deal with the financial issue initiated under the prior administration, we would look at him much differently today.
The Dems are the sole reason why we are frustrated at Islamic expansion, and are the reasons for the Keynesian driven economics that currently haven't been effective but clintinue to create a vast disparity between wealth and poor in areas where it needs much greater focus.
To say that there are less poor in the world today is great. Unfortunately one can't look to our inner cities, EU ghettos of the Middle east and claim it.
Yep it is our creation. That is the pat answer for this.
More it is our ignorance and then staying on the sidelines that allows this to evolve in a manner that is less than acceptable.
Read the article, it really speaks to the evolution of our efforts moving further and further away from nation building, which was right to begin with.
It backs up what I always stated... Press the ideology of Americana onto these nations, vs allowing them to expand into ours.
Yes we meddle. And yes, one will always blame Bush and Iraq as the only reason why Islam seeks to expand globally.
But, without Bush, one would easily argue, the expansion would have occurred regardless. Training camps in Africa, Pakistan and Afghanistan remember? And sanctions only make countries ripe for civil war. And then economic downturn, and failed policies that left the Arab Spring nations vulnerable.
If everything is an evolution of issues, then Bush's conviction was right all along... just the political followthru was missing as always. You and everyone else first voted for attacking Iraq and then bowed away as things didn't go right. And why didn't they? The article does a good job of explaining as much.
Bush gets an A for effort. Your Obama gets an F.
http://warontherocks.com/2016/09/how-does-jihadism-end-choosing-between-forever-war-and-nation-building/
Pull your head out of the sand.
Do you always want to be in a position to start from scratch with an Obama type? Or would you prefer that we address and perfect Nation building, counterinsurgency and soon Urban warfare in the EU and possibly at home? Trial and Error, test and retest, assessment of risk and picking a direction of most-likely results.
You wish to penalize Bush, so does B2B, ok run with that tired mantra. But you obviously choose to ignore the scenario where we do nothing and supposedly you assume all just magically goes away, Saddam plays nice, Iran sprouts fairies and pixies, and across northern Africa all the way to Turkey, Jesus comes back and converts the heathens.
I used to think about the same, until I saw the Awakening work and then all went up in smoke as the new administration used Bush's exit strategy for only political advantage.
You have to be sh..ttn me.
Better we perfected this scenario instead of walked away over and over and over. Which is what we do, when the amount of time and resources becomes to vast for America to digest.
Ok, so let's use you logic now. Do we ignore the Islam based agenda before us? We are a new starting point. It isn't Saddam, but Ghani in Afghanistan and the Taliban, Assad and many rebel groups in Syria, Rhouhani and Iran in a delicious deal with the US, add Libya, Yemen, Kurdistan, Turkey, Hamas weaponized in Palestine and Al Qaida in the Sinai and elsewhere, plus... Boko Haram, and then all the terror cells from Europe to Indonesia, the home of Obama.
By all means, lets let them live and evolve on their own... just as you state Bush should have. Please go back to whatever college protest you are attending. Your friends are calling you.
Oh here is the article again, if you missed it up top
http://warontherocks.com/2016/09/how-does-jihadism-end-choosing-between-forever-war-and-nation-building/
Clearly, today we must be very dmmm active in this Islamic jihad attack on the world.
The ONLY option is a long term assault on their culture, and replacing it with ours. It will take decades, but to do nothing, WHICH IS YOUR IDEA, that ain't gonna work.
Blame Bush, God knows his learning curve was severe with having to do what Clinton didn't have the balls to do. Same with trying supply side economics. Same with having to deal with the fallout of sub-prime lending and the reversal of Glass-Steagal. Maybe he wasn't able to be effective and stop history with regard to each.
BUT I can tell you 3 things.
Islam was spreading and needed to be dealt with.
Supply side economics are the only way forward.
And the recession is a result of risky investment, as safe investment disappeared and the fat revenues from economic expansion preferred to go into investment instead of other avenues.
Blame Bush. He was the president during those three pivotal pieces of history. Then put your Obama in his place. Think the outcome would have been better? worse? the same?
If you agree to Sharia law, then admit it here. For me, I don't think it should be allowed anywhere. Moreover, if the Iraq war was costly, you ain't seen nothing yet, with the global costs mounting thanks to your Obama.
And why does a Paul Miller know this sh.. and write about it, while your Obama ignores it?
Bottom line for a lengthy article, we have to perfect all facets of nation building. And while Bush blew it, your Obama ignores it altogether.
Not quite.
http://warontherocks.com/2016/09/how-does-jihadism-end-choosing-between-forever-war-and-nation-building/
Critics will be quick to claim that this is what Bush tried and failed to do, proving the futility of a nation-building strategy — and, indeed, the Bush record illustrates some of the perils of the nation-building strategy. A nation-building strategy is awesomely ambitious, expensive, and time-consuming, and it can easily slide into a utopian and messianic crusade. Yet, in its defense and in contrast to containment, it holds out the promise of ending jihadism: It actually tries to win the war rather than play for a perpetual stalemate. For that reason, it is also more morally defensible.
Four more years of half measures
http://warontherocks.com/2016/09/how-does-jihadism-end-choosing-between-forever-war-and-nation-building/
As I said, a good thumping and conviction.
http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-coming-crisis-in-mosul
More refugees to flood to Europe, because the jayvee team kicked Obama's legacy in the a..
The most intelligent article ever written on globalization and the failure of interdependence
http://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2016/10/03/2008_interdependence_globalization_nationalism_georgefriedman.html
One more outcome the media refuses to acknowledge about Clinton and Obama... the strain on Greece and the Balkans because of the Syrian failure.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/admiral-jim-stavridis-ret/the-hot-corner_b_12234188.html
I think most of working America is going to turn against Clinton and between her attacking Obama, and the understandable outright lack of respect for his so-called legacy, America will regret ever placing two "firsts" into the WH.
She is for big government, and he was but the afterbirth on every topic that needed to be proactively addressed before it was hatched.
The sheer arrogance of attacking the (perceived white only) worker is going to backfire when the next recession hits her administration. She better hope her Secret Service doesn't spike her drink. She isn't very popular after all.
And the media. Hahaha, their day is coming I suspect. Not sure how. But I bet it will look alot like how reporters fare in Syria currently.
I guess that is what it will take to right the ship.
But Obama will fade into history's toilet bowl of useless leaders (think Merkel). And Hillary will collapse under the sheer weight of all she has built upon sand. I relish these days to come. Hope they once and for all prove to America that weakness and lack of character (two common traits in Clintons and Obamas) are not tolerable.
REAL CLEAR politics doesn't see it that way, but she is up 3%. And I doubt she will lose that lead unless Wikileaks does their part.
Then again, why would an incoherent and unhealthy (tho' ambitious) person want to inherit Obama's 8 years of mismanagement?
She will suffer the move of funds out of the market, and into bonds.
A recession. (5 fronts) war and destabilization of Europe. War in the inner city. Massive debt and failing infrastrucuture. She will have to defend the administration of the first African American president to her death, or herself be labeled as a racist.
We will suffer kicking the can down the road, higher deficits and the debt to 24 trillion as she is elected.
Trump won't win at this rate. He looks a lot like Sanders at the moment. I don't get his angle either, I guess, as he is inconsistent and lacks conviction.
We should get this over with and brace for the next four years and the loss of freedoms about to happen worldwide.
What have we become.
Right. Spot on right. To "Claim" it. The other aspect to being diagnosed, and all the profit that comes with it, the book deals, the drug selling, the disability, the psych visits, the expansion of funding and grant.