the writing was on the wall. this quote suggests foul play.

“To begin withdrawing [military forces] before our commanders tell us we are ready would be dangerous for Iraq, for the region and for the United States. It would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to Al Qaeda. It would mean that we’d be risking mass killings on a horrific scale. It would mean we allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they lost in Afghanistan. It would mean we’d be increasing the probability that American troops would have to return at some later date to confront an enemy that is even more dangerous.” George Bush in 2007.

I just posted that to another thread and when I look at it something is clear. Those words weren't his. Those words are what his advisors told him. It makes it pretty clear even then the white house (and westminster too no doubt) knew exactly how things would pan out. It was obvious. They would have had the foresight to know sending weapons and funding to rebel groups in the middle east would probably see them end up in the hands of the dangerous enemy he spoke of. This begs two questions. If current events were expected back then why would you allow them to unfold as they have and perhaps play a part in it? And if that was the case would it imply that the unfolding events were desired in some way?

Well I suppose you need to look at the campaign that engineered the reversal of public sentiment. After WWII we stayed in force in both Germany and Japan for a long time, some would say we're still there although the countries in question have long since regained their autonomy. But it took much, much longer for those countries to be put back on their feet in a stable enough manner to stand alone. Why did anyone think Iraq could do it in the few years we were there? I don't think anyone did, but there was a concerted political and media effort to undermine efforts in that country.

Who did that and why and you might have your answer.

so you don't need to study battle tactics or channel Themistocles to know that giving weapons to your enemy is not generally a good idea.

Lets take this a step further can we say that the U.S is breeding their future enemies. I mean were choosing who were giving weapons and aid and resources to and were saying that it is to fight an evil monstrous faction so lets give weapons to this faction. even though research will show that said faction may not be any better then the aforementioned faction but we do it anyways.

a reply to: sg1642
This begs two questions. If current events were expected back then why would you allow them to unfold as they have and perhaps play a part in it? And if that was the case would it imply that the unfolding events were desired in some way?




the present situation,, with the rise of ISIS-ISIL-IS-caliphate was allowed to happen... the think-tanks and Administrations advisers did not envision what exactly has taken place... but the WH help in allowing certain things to be unhindered/even encouraged was not completely unseen by either myself (a non-credible resource) or bay any number of other Journalists or Generals in the Military who were summarily discharged from the Active Duty Ranks & Leadership positions (as being unfaithful to Obama but not unfaithful to the Constitution)

sorry, I cannot say anything further or I will be labeled as a seditionist and defaming the 'Leader-of-color'

draw your own positions

a reply to: St Udio

Exactly, most of the moves that have been made in the ME as of late have been moves that are advantageous to what we see going on. They have undermined stability and encouraged the strengthening and development of the very forces that were struggling to rise all through the '90s.

So for the next two years at the very least, we can only expect things to continue to deteriorate into chaos and madness.

a reply to: sg1642
The post to which you responded was written in 2005, Ex-President Bush's quote in this post is from what...2007? And yet you used Ex-President Bush's quote as a way to disparage the OP from 2005. Way to go there.
Good luck with the OP though, there is room for everything here.

originally posted by: Jonjonj
a reply to: sg1642
The post to which you responded was written in 2005, Ex-President Bush's quote in this post is from what...2007? And yet you used Ex-President Bush's quote as a way to disparage the OP from 2005. Way to go there.
Good luck with the OP though, there is room for everything here.

I would like to point out that was directed at the journalist who wrote the book the OP was quoting it wasn't directed at the OP. I'll make that clear in the other thread. I Apologise for not making that clear.

originally posted by: sg1642

originally posted by: Jonjonj
a reply to: sg1642
The post to which you responded was written in 2005, Ex-President Bush's quote in this post is from what...2007? And yet you used Ex-President Bush's quote as a way to disparage the OP from 2005. Way to go there.
Good luck with the OP though, there is room for everything here.

I would like to point out that was directed at the journalist who wrote the book the OP was quoting it wasn't directed at the OP. I'll make that clear in the other thread. I Apologise for not making that clear.

And my point is it was blatantly obvious back then things were heading to where they are now. That would suggest to me current events weren't just allowed to unfold, as apposed to being encouraged.

originally posted by: sg1642

originally posted by: sg1642

originally posted by: Jonjonj
a reply to: sg1642
The post to which you responded was written in 2005, Ex-President Bush's quote in this post is from what...2007? And yet you used Ex-President Bush's quote as a way to disparage the OP from 2005. Way to go there.
Good luck with the OP though, there is room for everything here.

I would like to point out that was directed at the journalist who wrote the book the OP was quoting it wasn't directed at the OP. I'll make that clear in the other thread. I Apologise for not making that clear.

And my point is it was blatantly obvious back then things were heading to where they are now. That would suggest to me current events weren't just allowed to unfold, as apposed to being encouraged.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing is it not? I know I often find myself wallowing in my reticence to have shown the world the truth...before anyone else was aware of it.
Anyway, a President SHOULD know of the possible moves in a chess game, that a normal person can almost win the game 10 years in advance well...

originally posted by: Jonjonj

originally posted by: sg1642

originally posted by: sg1642

originally posted by: Jonjonj
a reply to: sg1642
The post to which you responded was written in 2005, Ex-President Bush's quote in this post is from what...2007? And yet you used Ex-President Bush's quote as a way to disparage the OP from 2005. Way to go there.
Good luck with the OP though, there is room for everything here.

I would like to point out that was directed at the journalist who wrote the book the OP was quoting it wasn't directed at the OP. I'll make that clear in the other thread. I Apologise for not making that clear.

And my point is it was blatantly obvious back then things were heading to where they are now. That would suggest to me current events weren't just allowed to unfold, as apposed to being encouraged.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing is it not? I know I often find myself wallowing in my reticence to have shown the world the truth...before anyone else was aware of it.
Anyway, a President SHOULD know of the possible moves in a chess game, that a normal person can almost win the game 10 years in advance well...

perhaps you don't understand what I meant by my post in the other thread. It wasn't intended to take anything away from the author or the foresight he had shown. What I mean is if the signs were all there then why (unless current events were desired or sought after) weren't the people in a position to read them doing anything to stop this happening? Rather than encouraging and nurturing it?