BruceVC

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks A very significant day, some denied it was real and still do but it changed the world forever What were you doing at the time? The events that passed have made the world stronger but we also face a real threat from Islamic extremism The invasion of Iraq was a mistake but we cant now dismiss everything else. Its funny but in SA most of the Muslim community on these radio stations think the USA did 9/11 to themselves ....its such an irritating and utterly stupid thing to still believe but some people still do Anyway we have had our first ISIS arrests in SA......I never thought SA Muslims would align to that ideology but it happened. Now we have to get SA Muslims to believe its real as they have to be the ones to expose it ?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/aug/15/iraq-bomb-blast-deaths https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/24_January_2011_Iraq_bombings http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/meast/08/15/iraq.violence/index.html This is not about being right, this is about historical fact. I was intermittently involved in the invasion of Iraq and I followed the events of the Iraq invasion since 2001 The violence and instability is documented and understood. Iraq was not stable when the USA pulled out in 2011

It is simply untrue that Iraq was stable when the USA wanted to pull out Sorry but this is fundamental to this debate, Iraq was never stable because the USA was fighting either Shia militia or Iraq Sunni. As the war dragged on you also had Al-Qaeda in Iraq who were supported by many Iraq Sunni, then you had the civil war in Syria start in March 2011, the USA pulled out of Iraq end of 2011 So that meant the Sunni forces were growing more and more powerful but there focus was initially Syria But there were constant bomb blasts and attacks against the USA and Shia government. This escalated when the USA pulled out The Iranians wanted the USA out because they thought there influence over the Iraq government would be more effective without the USA but more importantly the USA was tired of being blamed and criticised by both sides ....they had NO friends in Iraq But now look, in the 2016 they are respected and are part of the coalition against ISIS ..this is the way the West should operate in the ME.

I agree that had the US stayed in Iraq, it may have turned out better. They were working towards it. Afghanistan is a lost cause. The kinds of people who want Afghanistan to be a modern prosperous country are few and far between, while people grasping at power are much more common. This is where me and Bruce differ on what makes a good leader. Democratically elected is not a prerequisite for a good leader. A dictator can be a good leader if he keeps the wellbeing and prosperity of his country and people at the forefront. Democracy can be disasterous with an uninformed illiterate population. Sometimes it takes a literate informed dictator to prepare a people for democracy. Why in the name of all that is reasonable should the USA have stayed in Iraq? Iraq was a disaster for them, they were being attacked and hated by both Sunni and Shia. Iran was suing this opportunity to kill Western troops and the whole ME blamed them Leaving Iraq was absolutely the right thing to do

I am talking about people who come from Muslim countries like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, Eritrea, Sudan , Libya and Nigeria and want to immigrate to Western countries like the EU

I was intimately involved in the Iraq invasion, I admit I naively thought the Iraqs after living under the brutal dictatorship of Saddam would welcome the benefits of a Democracy....it was a lesson I will never forget Yes the USA made a mistake but they did try to fix Iraq but it wasnt obtainable, so al-maliki wanted the USA to leave and remember this http://www.nbcnews.com/id/27198274/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/pact-sets-limits-iraqi-prosecution-troops/#.V9RS9fl94b0 The thing with Democracy is that you can't force it on people. It needs to come organically. Europe had the idea of democracy from a very early stage, with the greeks, but it wasn't until the enlightenment that it really started taking hold. Other things needed to take root before democracy could. The British for instance developed ideas such as common law, a parliament of peers, etc. long before the vote was given to the common people. Rule of law and equal administration of the law was important, as was a free press and a cultural disdain for corruption. Britain had a head start on all of this as well, due to the magna carta, which is why the countries founded by British settlers went on to be stable and prosperous nations. If you take a culture with no history of democracy, a largely illiterate population, and a culture based on a violent anti-democratic religion like Islam, and try to force democracy on them, democracy will not thrive. TL:DR - It took Europe thousands of years to develop functioning democracy, beating it into a barbarian culture in a few months is obviously not going to work. Yes I understand you cant force the concepts of Western democracy but end of the day all Western democracies have the same themes and rules that include Democratically elected governments that can be criticised Free media Human rights are respected and things like womens rights and gay rights are enshrined in law Freedom of religion I am supportive of these things and Western countries have overall the happiest citizens and offer there citizens the best quality of life...you also find most Western countries have very strong economies Most Muslim countries follow Sharia law, I have never agreed with it but I always thought " if they happy lets leave them " But now we are seeing mass immigration to Western countries from some Muslim countries which has unintentionally proven the advantages of our laws and culture over Sharia. So people need to adopt to our laws and respect our way of life.....I think it can be done with a little effort

I had a delicious 1.2 kg of ribs, Portuguese flavour

Yes but the USA didnt want to go back to Iraq, I dont blame them The problem was the Al-Malaki government failed to take the advice of the US when they left Iraq and incorporate the Sunni minority in the new Iraqi government. The Iraq Sunni felt marginalized in the new Iraq and aligned with the Sunni fighters in Syria and basically ISIS was formed, ISIS went into Iraq as well as fighting Assad and routed and easily defeated the badly disciplined Iraq army The USA must have felt a sense of responsibility and commitment and only intervened to prevent the massacre and slaughter of the Yadizs by ISIS http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/08/07/iraq-christian-villages-flee/13710265/ The USA operates in Iraq but its more involved in the airstrikes and has special forces and advisors There are no " boots on the ground " Soldiers of Task Force Spartan, 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit would like to have a word with you. Well except for Staff Sgt. Louis Cardin, 27. Seems he was killed in a rocket attack at Fire Base Bell ​in Northern Iraq. The team fired more than 2000 rounds in 400+ attacks at ISIS positions. And the special forces units would seriously like to discuss exactly what your definition of "boots on the ground" is. You're smoking WAY too much ganja. You are being pedantic now I mentioned special forces and there are US forces advising the Iraq army (advisors ) and obviously there is some US presence in Iraq as they have an embassy but there isnt a US infantry battalion engaging with ISIS http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/03/20/us-sends-more-support-troops-to-iraq-after-isis-rocket-kills-marine.html So again this is not considered " boots on the ground " in the normal sense ...you want some weed ?

Well I consider Afghanistan a success because Bin Laden was eventually killed? But I agree, its time to pull out of Afghanistan ....I predict it will fall apart once the USA leaves but that cant be helped as the current government is very dysfunctional But dont think the last 15 years was a waste, not at all. These are some of positive points The USA and its allies have refined and improved there military and strategies....they are a very effective military and very well trained due to years of combat The USA has developed strong new alliances around information gathering The USA has learnt new tactics like drone strikes and is very active in places like Africa You can never completely defeat groups like AQ as they are an ideology but the US did kill many AQ leaders ISIS made AQ redundant as extremists flocked to ISIS....and ISIS will be defeated eventually So dont think since 9/11 the USA wasted 15 years as it does face several threats but there is no point allowing US or Western troops to die in ground battles in the ME as the sacrifice is not appreciated ...so let the Russians sort things out ( what a joke that has been, I thought Putin would at least send ground troops )

Yes but the USA didnt want to go back to Iraq, I dont blame them The problem was the Al-Malaki government failed to take the advice of the US when they left Iraq and incorporate the Sunni minority in the new Iraqi government. The Iraq Sunni felt marginalized in the new Iraq and aligned with the Sunni fighters in Syria and basically ISIS was formed, ISIS went into Iraq as well as fighting Assad and routed and easily defeated the badly disciplined Iraq army The USA must have felt a sense of responsibility and commitment and only intervened to prevent the massacre and slaughter of the Yadizs by ISIS http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/08/07/iraq-christian-villages-flee/13710265/ The USA operates in Iraq but its more involved in the airstrikes and has special forces and advisors There are no " boots on the ground "

Let me guess....the people who claim she is unqualified are......Trump and GOP supporters ? clinton has experience. is not same as being qualified. to once again mention the foreign policy blunders o' the obama administration would be a d HA! Good Fun! ps if kgambit or others wanna fight with bruce 'bout US foreign policy mistakes o' the last 8 years, so be it, but we has done the groundhog day shtick too many times for it to be funny. Guys please lets not be worried about discussing US foreign policy, I am very comfortable having this debate yet again. Some of you guys feel Obama failed or made several blunders, I know some but what exactly would you guys say are " failures of the US foreign policy " ...just make bullet points if you want so I get the general idea, because i can't be bothered to review the half dozen fruitless and previous incarnations of the foreign policy debates that exist on this board. fixed HA! Good Fun! Thats fine, I understand if you dont feel comfortable discussing this You normally are prepared to debate points for days so I'm surprised you cant just list a few points that highlight the Obama blunders? Because as GD stated quite clearly, the bullet point list has been done ad infinitum and you always dismiss the points raised out of hand. Why should anyone bother jumping thru that hoop again with you? You know the definition of insanity Bruce? Repeating the same actions over and over again and expecting a different result. PS: I'm surprised GD even bothered. You mistaking the fact I dont agree with you with the fact I am ignoring your views I stand by my view that Obama has taken the USA in the right direction on foreign policy, if you disagree then make your case Nope sorry - that's not correct. I never expected you to agree with me and I never said you ignored my views. What I said was that you dismissed the facts and your reply at the time indicated that you hadn't even read some (if not all) of the links. I made my case some time ago; you posted a reply, I replied to that and that was the extent of the "discussion". If you feel the need to rehash the same ground yet one more time, please feel free to do a search of past posts to find the appropriate posts. I am not going to waste time doing it because it isn't going to serve any useful purpose. . FWIW any discussion of Obama's foreign policy record in this thread is irrelevant except to the extent that one expects Hillary to follow the same course. Most experts think she is much more of an interventionist (or "Hawk" if you prefer) than Obama. So if you are voting for her because you expect to get Obama 2.0 you might be seriously disappointed.* http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/3/2/1494896/-Remember-Hillary-differed-with-Obama-on-foreign-policy​ http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/what-sort-of-foreign-policy-hawk-is-hillary-clinton http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/29/hillary-clinton-will-reset-syria-policy-against-murderous-assad/ *Past policy stances are no guarantee of future decisions. But since we can't predict what crises might arise, past performance / decisions should matter and might be a reasonable predictor of future behaviors, right Bruce? Or is this another case where historical performance isn't important? Well Hilary has changed her mind about troops being sent to Iraq and Syria, this is the correct decision. And no historical performance isnt always relevant....the West should not get involved in the ME under any circumstances unless absolutely critical despite past examples http://www.thenigerianvoice.com/news/228583/us-will-not-ever-again-send-ground-troops-to-iraq-hilary.html

?? Did you invest in the first private security firms handed no-bid government contracts, such as AEGIS? Not me but I did have people I knew and some cousins who were part of the military contractors in Iraq helping the USA, after Apartheid ended they left SA My interest was more from a work perspective but I was a junior then and had little interaction in projects http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=12061

I was intimately involved in the Iraq invasion, I admit I naively thought the Iraqs after living under the brutal dictatorship of Saddam would welcome the benefits of a Democracy....it was a lesson I will never forget Yes the USA made a mistake but they did try to fix Iraq but it wasnt obtainable, so al-maliki wanted the USA to leave and remember this http://www.nbcnews.com/id/27198274/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/pact-sets-limits-iraqi-prosecution-troops/#.V9RS9fl94b0

Here is an interesting question, in certain cases like this Syria example why should the USA not look for a way out ? Kerry didnt expect the other option but when he was questioned the Obama presidency took the non-intervention option http://www.reuters.com/article/us-syria-crisis-kerry-idUSBRE9880BV20130909 Imagine if the USA had decided to "keep its word " and invade that hellhole

Let me guess....the people who claim she is unqualified are......Trump and GOP supporters ? clinton has experience. is not same as being qualified. to once again mention the foreign policy blunders o' the obama administration would be a d HA! Good Fun! ps if kgambit or others wanna fight with bruce 'bout US foreign policy mistakes o' the last 8 years, so be it, but we has done the groundhog day shtick too many times for it to be funny. Guys please lets not be worried about discussing US foreign policy, I am very comfortable having this debate yet again. Some of you guys feel Obama failed or made several blunders, I know some but what exactly would you guys say are " failures of the US foreign policy " ...just make bullet points if you want so I get the general idea, because i can't be bothered to review the half dozen fruitless and previous incarnations of the foreign policy debates that exist on this board. fixed HA! Good Fun! Thats fine, I understand if you dont feel comfortable discussing this You normally are prepared to debate points for days so I'm surprised you cant just list a few points that highlight the Obama blunders? Because as GD stated quite clearly, the bullet point list has been done ad infinitum and you always dismiss the points raised out of hand. Why should anyone bother jumping thru that hoop again with you? You know the definition of insanity Bruce? Repeating the same actions over and over again and expecting a different result. PS: I'm surprised GD even bothered. You mistaking the fact I dont agree with you with the fact I am ignoring your views I stand by my view that Obama has taken the USA in the right direction on foreign policy, if you disagree then make your case

Thanks, in response Pulling out of Iraq before the government was stable which directly led to ISIS becoming a thing. Nope it really was time to pullout, the USA wasnt wanted....or so al-maliki claimed https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/may/04/iraq-usa-urban-troop-withdrawal Telling Assad he would intervene if the Syrians used chemical weapons. Then not doing it when they did. Then doing it later but half assed.You of all people really think the USA should have attacked Syria with the complications of the Russian connection and the different extremist groups...I thought you always believed in non-intervention? Interventions in Libya, and especially YemenThe USA did what was asked, it provided airpower to help the Libyan rebels Not using the CIA to support the Green Revolution in Iran.Iran is not a weak country as far as there control of the military and secret police is concerned ...besides there is now a moderate leaders in Iran now and people like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are gone Bowing and groveling before foreign bad mouthing his own country every time he left our shores.Examples?

You conflating issues, I wont just call anyone a liar until I am comfortable with the facts How is my view of Hilary related to this " obvious failures\blunders of US foreign policy " ?

Let me guess....the people who claim she is unqualified are......Trump and GOP supporters ? clinton has experience. is not same as being qualified. to once again mention the foreign policy blunders o' the obama administration would be a d HA! Good Fun! ps if kgambit or others wanna fight with bruce 'bout US foreign policy mistakes o' the last 8 years, so be it, but we has done the groundhog day shtick too many times for it to be funny. Guys please lets not be worried about discussing US foreign policy, I am very comfortable having this debate yet again. Some of you guys feel Obama failed or made several blunders, I know some but what exactly would you guys say are " failures of the US foreign policy " ...just make bullet points if you want so I get the general idea, because i can't be bothered to review the half dozen fruitless and previous incarnations of the foreign policy debates that exist on this board. fixed HA! Good Fun! Thats fine, I understand if you dont feel comfortable discussing this You normally are prepared to debate points for days so I'm surprised you cant just list a few points that highlight the Obama blunders?

am with you on this. am not getting how the "goldman-sachs" response became the reflexive argument to counter trump's reluctance to provide tax returns. trump supporters wanna see transcripts? ok. fine. how on earth does that diminish the value and relevance o' trump's tax returns? why don't trump supporters wanna see his tax returns? got a businessman with no political experience running for President. so... tax returns. HA! Good Fun! Trumps refusal to release his tax returns should be one of the biggest issues his supporters have as this demonstrates something he is prepared to hide Its such a contradiction, Trump is constantly claiming he is a '' successful businessman " yet he cant even produce something as fundamental as this

Don't wrestle a pig. You both get dirty and the pig likes it! Why is telling the truth not considered good etiquette? Hmmm, maybe Hillary should try it sometime. ​

Let me guess....the people who claim she is unqualified are......Trump and GOP supporters ? clinton has experience. is not same as being qualified. to once again mention the foreign policy blunders o' the obama administration would be a d HA! Good Fun! ps if kgambit or others wanna fight with bruce 'bout US foreign policy mistakes o' the last 8 years, so be it, but we has done the groundhog day shtick too many times for it to be funny. Guys please lets not be worried about discussing US foreign policy, I am very comfortable having this debate Some of you guys feel Obama failed or made several blunders, I know some but what exactly would you guys say are " failures of the US foreign policy " ...just make bullet points if you want so I get the general idea

Let me guess....the people who claim she is unqualified are......Trump and GOP supporters ? Not necessarily I do see some Trump supporters say she is unqualified but most of the people I've seen that argue against her experience don't do it to say she isn't qualified. It's more just they don't like some of the things she'd done or the stances she'd previously taken Terrible example time - Take a politician you don't like and agree with, let's say Putin. Tons of experience but do you actually like his record? Do you agree with the things he's done? No I think Putin has made numerous bad decisions .....there is no reason Russia has to feel the West wants to undermine them For me there are several things a good leader has to demonstrate like The person must be democratically elected and be accountable to the people and media The leader must consider the overall welfare of his citizens and ensure economic growth Putin is none of these so for me he is a bad leader

Don't wrestle a pig. You both get dirty and the pig likes it! Why is telling the truth not considered good etiquette? I watched someone on CNN being very critical of what Hillary said and yes she embellished the overall number but I have seen examples of groups of Trumps supporters being very offensive

Let me guess....the people who claim she is unqualified are......Trump and GOP supporters ? Well, I'd imagine Chrs Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods, & Glen Doherty might claim she is unqualified. But they can't because they are dead. She ignored them, left the to die and then lied to their families and the whole country (but not to her daughter, the President, or her inner circle apparently) about what happened. But you don't want to hear about that do you Bruce? Wouldn't be "balanced" after all. Thats a cheap shot .....uncalled for and not relevant

Let me guess....the people who claim she is unqualified are......Trump and GOP supporters ?