Majority of the 9/11 hijackers where Saudis. Why didn't we invade them? Besides, "their butt" could belong to any group of terrorist in the entire planet. We could invade a vast amount of countries off this idea. Iraq has costed us hundreds of billions of dollars. Does fighting an ideology need a vast amount of troops sent to a particular country? I don't think so. So to answer your question, no we don't sit back, but we do need to ask how do we go about it. Our plans so far have failed.

 

So you say we don't sit back. Obama's policies have made matters worse. Yemen's government was just overthrown by radicals. It would really help if he would call terrorism and Islamic extremism what it is instead of trying to appease them. It's not working.

 

He is fiddling while the world is burning.

It would be nice if he called it what it was. Like I said, we don't need to send a huge surplus of troops to every country that has a problem. To do so would require many years of troops dedicated to a country requiring an incredible amount of resources. The US cannot afford to do so. Because it is obvious that Bush's policies don't work either.

Majority of the 9/11 hijackers where Saudis. Why didn't we invade them? Besides, "their butt" could belong to any group of terrorist in the entire planet. We could invade a vast amount of countries off this idea. Iraq has costed us hundreds of billions of dollars. Does fighting an ideology need a vast amount of troops sent to a particular country? I don't think so. So to answer your question, no we don't sit back, but we do need to ask how do we go about it. Our plans so far have failed.

 

See I hate these comments .

 

Yes a majority were Saudi born , but non were directed by Saudio leaders or funded by Saudi Leaders.

 

We know they were directed and funded by Al-Qadea far away from Saudia Arabia .

 

Saudia Arabia royal family aren't the greatest people in the world and I hate how they treat women . But if we are going to discuss squashing large terrorist organzation first we must be truthfull in who they are.

It would be nice if he called it what it was. Like I said, we don't need to send a huge surplus of troops to every country that has a problem. To do so would require many years of troops dedicated to a country requiring an incredible amount of resources. The US cannot afford to do so. Because it is obvious that Bush's policies don't work either.

 

And who said that in this thread , about a surplus of troops. It's obvious that as bad as you want to paint Bush's policy that his foreign policy was much more successful.

 

Most of Al qadeas leadership was on the run and they were in a financial chokehold . They had driven the TalIban out of Afghanistan. Sure Iraq didn't get results they wanted.

 

But through PC leadership on Guantanomo Bay and the inability to call out a terrorist for what he is and neutralize a target we have seen this countries foreign policy slip.

It would be nice if he called it what it was. Like I said, we don't need to send a huge surplus of troops to every country that has a problem. To do so would require many years of troops dedicated to a country requiring an incredible amount of resources. The US cannot afford to do so. Because it is obvious that Bush's policies don't work either.

 

If Obama had have kept some troops in Iraq, like the generals requested, it would be a far different situation. He sure didn't try very hard to negotiate a SFA with Iraq.

 

When you are the strongest free nation in the world, the world looks to you to be the leader.

 

Clinton did a much better job at foreign policy than Obama. He understood his job as a leader.

And who said that in this thread , about a surplus of troops. It's obvious that as bad as you want to paint Bush's policy that his foreign policy was much more successful.

 

Most of Al qadeas leadership was on the run and they were in a financial chokehold . They had driven the TalIban out of Afghanistan. Sure Iraq didn't get results they wanted.

 

But through PC leadership on Guantanomo Bay and the inability to call out a terrorist for what he is and neutralize a target we have seen this countries foreign policy slip.

Iraq will go down as one of the greatest foreign policy blunders in the history of this country.

Iraq will go down as one of the greatest foreign policy blunders in the history of this country.

 

It didn't have to be if Obama had a well thought out exit strategy.

 

But looking back was going into Iraq the best decision , nope. Were there many reasons to go at the time , yes. See unlike Obama who creates new laws without any bipartisan support , Bush had Bi-partisan support for the Iraq war. So if going into that war is a blunder it's on both parties.

 

What we do know today and there is little debate. In almost every area in the Middle East is worst off today than when Obama took office.

It didn't have to be if Obama had a well thought out exit strategy.

 

But looking back was going into Iraq the best decision , nope. Were there many reasons to go at the time , yes. See unlike Obama who creates new laws without any bipartisan support , Bush had Bi-partisan support for the Iraq war. So if going into that war is a blunder it's on both parties.

 

What we do know today and there is little debate. In almost every area in the Middle East is worst off today than when Obama took office.

 

Please, enough of this nonsense. It was failure because Bush didn't listen to his advisors. He went in there and underestimated the opposition. He thought he could go in there and we would be greeted as liberators. He went in there with a short term goal of "kicking butt" and obvoiusly didn't have a long term goal . We should not have gone in there it was a blunder and a failure.

It didn't have to be if Obama had a well thought out exit strategy.

 

But looking back was going into Iraq the best decision , nope. Were there many reasons to go at the time , yes. See unlike Obama who creates new laws without any bipartisan support , Bush had Bi-partisan support for the Iraq war. So if going into that war is a blunder it's on both parties.

 

What we do know today and there is little debate. In almost every area in the Middle East is worst off today than when Obama took office.

Six years later and the current administration is still cleaning up the mess left behind by the cowboy foreign policy of Bush-Cheney.

And who said that in this thread , about a surplus of troops. It's obvious that as bad as you want to paint Bush's policy that his foreign policy was much more successful.

 

Most of Al qadeas leadership was on the run and they were in a financial chokehold . They had driven the TalIban out of Afghanistan. Sure Iraq didn't get results they wanted.

 

But through PC leadership on Guantanomo Bay and the inability to call out a terrorist for what he is and neutralize a target we have seen this countries foreign policy slip.

 

No it wasn't. Not even close. It has cost us hundreds of billions and wasted thousands of lives. It did not protect our freedom in any way. Also, I didn't say anyone said we need a surplus of troops. I said it myself because it is obvious that was our plan in Afghanistan and Iraq since we rotated tens of thousands of troops. I'm also not a bush basher, I'm not a big fan of Obama either, but to act like Bush was better in his policy is laughable at best. It is obvious that Iraq and Afghanistan are failures. Also, they didn't drive the Taliban out of Afghanistan, they drove them out of power. That didn't require 100,000 troops either.

Edited January 24, 201511 yr by jrfrank56

If Obama had have kept some troops in Iraq, like the generals requested, it would be a far different situation. He sure didn't try very hard to negotiate a SFA with Iraq.

 

When you are the strongest free nation in the world, the world looks to you to be the leader.

 

Clinton did a much better job at foreign policy than Obama. He understood his job as a leader.

 

Please, then tell me how long must we stay in those countries then? Say we stayed a couple years. Who is to say that after we left with this plan that another terrorist group doesn't enter Iraq?

Please, then tell me how long must we stay in those countries then? Say we stayed a couple years. Who is to say that after we left with this plan that another terrorist group doesn't enter Iraq?

 

Having long term bases worked in Europe afterm WW2.

No it wasn't. Not even close. It has cost us hundreds of billions and wasted thousands of lives. It did not protect our freedom in any way. Also, I didn't say anyone said we need a surplus of troops. I said it myself because it is obvious that was our plan in Afghanistan and Iraq since we rotated tens of thousands of troops. I'm also not a bush basher, I'm not a big fan of Obama either, but to act like Bush was better in his policy is laughable at best. It is obvious that Iraq and Afghanistan are failures. Also, they didn't drive the Taliban out of Afghanistan, they drove them out of power. That didn't require 100,000 troops either.

 

We will just disagree . Iraq was filled with blunders and could of been handled much better. That we agree.

 

Afghanstain was a success when handed to Obama and he ruined it. Iraq while filled with blunders was in a good position when handed to Obama and again his policy led to failure .

 

What we do know is under Bush terrorist organzations were being crippled both physically and emotionally and financially.

 

Under Obama terrorist organzations have grown not only in size but sheer power. All this can be traced back to decisions of his own foreign policy.

 

I won't say Bush was perfect he made many mistakes obviously. I'm not in his fan club. But understanding foreign policy it's night and day.

 

It's one thing to argue if Iraq helped defend our freedom but to act like Afghanstan was a legit war to fight the war on terror shows a lack understanding of global terror.

Having long term bases worked in Europe afterm WW2.

 

That was fighting an actual army. This is fighting an ideology.

We will just disagree . Iraq was filled with blunders and could of been handled much better. That we agree.

 

Afghanstain was a success when handed to Obama and he ruined it. Iraq while filled with blunders was in a good position when handed to Obama and again his policy led to failure .

 

What we do know is under Bush terrorist organzations were being crippled both physically and emotionally and financially.

 

Under Obama terrorist organzations have grown not only in size but sheer power. All this can be traced back to decisions of his own foreign policy.

 

I won't say Bush was perfect he made many mistakes obviously. I'm not in his fan club. But understanding foreign policy it's night and day.

 

It's one thing to argue if Iraq helped defend our freedom but to act like Afghanstan was a legit war to fight the war on terror shows a lack understanding of global terror.

 

Afghanistan was not a success when handed over to Obama. It was failing because after we went into Afghanistan, all attention went to Iraq. Then once Iraq went down it went back to Afghanistan. Terrorist organizations grew stronger under Obama?

The Terrorist Notches on Obama?s Belt - ABC News

I agree that Afghanistan was the right place to be but it was not a success when it was handed over.