*BREAKING* Al Queda has taken over Tikrit and Samarra. 500,000 Iraqis have fled !

All that proves is that Jefferson and Adams maintained formal diplomatic relationships with these Islamists, even inviting their emissary to stay in the nation's capital, where he attended numerous local parties and events. And you neglect to mention that there was no attempt by any US President to export "stability" or democracy to these foreign peoples. Whenever force was required, they simply sent the navy to make a targeted and temporary strike with marines. No nation-building efforts back then.

 

Actually, it nicely proves serfin isn't aware. Which is exactly what it was presented for.

And back in the 1800s, a bunch of Islamic fundamentalist filled with the spirit of allah in North Africa were no threat to the US. In the modern, much smaller world of 2014, they very much can be. They were a threat to the US on 9/10/2001 in Afghanistan as welcomed guest of the Taliban government, in one of the most impoverished, resource poor nations in the world and would be an even bigger threat as THE government of Iraq, Syria or some portion of either or both. And nation building is better than the alternative of a brutal dictator to keep them in check.

 

Why wouldn't they be a threat? They had explosives and firearms back then, and travel across the ocean was a common enterprise. Getting into America would have been much easier than it is now, as there were almost no federal immigration laws at the time.

The only reason they occupy Iraq and Syria is because western powers destabilized both countries with military intervention.

 

1000s of miles of distance.

 

Interesting.... This honestly makes me more supportive of intervention in the Middle East when considering how long this has been a problem.

 

I can't agree with your last sentence. Dictators generally handle this better than nation building.

Saddam kept Iraq stable, and the no fly zone kept him from doing anything more to his neighbors. At the same time, Saddam was a favorable counterbalance to Iran's power. Now, Iran is essentially Iraq's protector.

Similarly, Assad is a better leader for Syria than the radical rebels that are trying to take over.

The Shah was better than the Ayatollah in Iran.

The list goes on and on. Democracy only makes sense when a population reaches a certain level of education and social advancement.

- - - Updated - - -

Syria's destabilization is partly because of us, but Saudi Arabia started that mess.

 

The west and Asian world must stand against those evil Arab terrorists..
Fire at will !!!
No mercy !!

 

With the price of 9/11.

 

Yeah, let's just ignore the thousands of people the Butcher gunned down in the first few months of the revolution.

 

Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11.

If you want to attribute anything to 9/11, it's easier to suggest that our help for the mujahideen in Afghanistan against the Soviets was to blame for the country eventually turning into a haven for all sorts of terrorists.

In addition to that, we didn't apprehend OBL back when we first had a chance to do so.

- - - Updated - - -

He's less of a butcher than ISIS and Al Nusra.

 

Read up on what happens in Syria's detention facilities, and maybe you'll have a different perspective.

Don't be fooled by the shaved face and nice suit.

 

I'm not saying he's a nice guy. He's a lot like Saddam. However, also like Saddam, he's essential to maintaining order. It's pretty clear what Syria is going to look like if ISIS and Al Nusra win.

A dictator might be oppressive, but the alternative is an Islamist state that harbors terrorists against the West.

 

There are other alternatives- one is splitting the damn country up. If the ISIS and the other Islamists prove to be to brutal, then the Sunni will rise against them, as they did in Iraq.

If the Alawites and other minorities want to live under their cult leader, then they should be free to do so.

 

Splitting Ukraine is a possibility, but splitting Syria would just further empower ISIS and Al Nusra.

Honestly, Western intervention in Syria is more justified there, but in favor of Assad rather than in favor of the rebels.

 

Then they should be next on the list to go. This whole mentality of either chaos or a tyrant needs to be buried. It won't get the Arabs anywhere.

The West should have armed the FSA from the beginning. If they had done so, the FSA would not have had to rely on foreign fighters. Both the terrorists and Assad are evil, and I refuse to side with evil.

But the regime is already toast. Syria will never go back to what it was, and Assad will eventually fall.

Michael Young put it nicely:

http://dailystar.com.lb/Opinion/Col...ndations-for-postwar-syria.ashx#axzz34ALtEzpn

 

I would believe that Iraqis preferred this or that if there were more of them fighting. I see a nation of 32.5 million people that consists of only a few thousand who are using violence. I see 32M + other people not willing to use violence. This isn't like the US civil war, where millions were instantly and actively involved. In the US civil war, you could say that the "people" wanted this, or wanted that. But in Iraq, with only a few thousand causing chaos, I would hold off on judging what the Iraqi "people" want.

 

Really doesnt matter what you think. For Al Qaeda Iraq had everything to do with 9/11. Along with every other dictator in the region we have supported.

 

It's all here:


http://www.truth-out.org/buzzflash/...citing-terrorism-to-create-permanent-conflict



Republican neocon treason is the real answer.

 

Interesting reading and pretty much how I see it.

- - - Updated - - -

Based on what, your Opinion?

 

No, based upon THEIR opinions.

 

Let see them, Pony Up slick.

 

Well, all the writings of Al Qaeda are too numerous to post here, but already provided this.

If you have something that indicates otherwise, and you can locate your nads, PONY UP slick!

 

Silly boy those statements were not made by Iraqis but a terrorist organization, there were no terrorists associated with 9-11 that were from Iraq, Saddam did not trust terrorists and usually had them murdered if he found them in his country.

 

To review for the silly boys who cant keep up with the topic of discussion.

 

For the slow of mind, there was no such thing as Al Qaeda Iraq at the time of 9-11.