Replies

I've been attacking the article as anti-western propaganda, which it is. It's obviously an article that you believe is accurate. I get that. We disagree.

Isn't it funny that I can provide other information that cororberates the information in it, but you can't provide one bit of information that counters it? So far that hasn't dawned on you at all.

But where were was putin in recent months when the US was taking out ISIS in Misrata? Now, like the jackal he is, he rushes in to save the day.

Yes, I get that you hate Putin with a passion. I'm not all that fond of him either, but some of this Putin buggie-man talk is just nonsense.

You know what esle doesn't dawn on you? It doesn't dawn on you that the destabalization in Libya has given Russia another opening. If we had kept our damned noses out of there, we wouldn't be seeing Putin interested in Libya. The same is true about Syria. We had no business getting involve in either situation.

George Sorus funded the unrest in Tunisia
George Sorus funded the unrest in Lybia
I suspect he funded groups in upwards of 13 nations in the Middle-East to foment destabalization (chaos) in the region
The Muslim Brotherhood proliferated because of us
We armed and funded them
The stable Libya was destabilized
Khadaffy was killed
There's now civil unrest and waring factions there vying for power
The people of Libya are undeniably exposed to extreme danger
Our Ambassador Stevens and three of his staff were killed in Libya, almost certainly because of unrest we supported / funded / armed
Egypt was destabilized
Hosni Murbarak was ousted from power, and this long term ally of the U. S. was abandoned by us and incarcerated
The Muslim Brotherhood took over
The Muslim Brotherhood was given the boot
Then we took the magic to Syria.
There we funded "the good al Qaeda" and the fledgling ISIS, althought I don't know how much of the latter was intentional. None the less, it happened.

So Russia entered Syria and now seems poised to enter Libya. And of course, to you this is all Putin's fault.

Not once have you said one world about Obama, Clinton, McCain, Graham, and Rubio policy preferences. Not once! That is frankly startling.

The dictators, like Kaddafy, have made peaceful change and transition impossible.

Dictators like Khadaffy are none of our business. If change were the goal, well we've got it. We've got an extreme mess in Libya, a simmering coldren in Egypt, and the same thing in Syria and the expanded region. Why?

That region was essentially very stable. Libya was peaceful. Egypt was peaceful. Syria was peaceful. All of a sudden the Muslim Brotherhood got Soros funding, and the region turned into a powder keg.

Who came up with the policies that followed up Soros funding and resulted in this? Obama, Clinton, McCain, Graham, and Rubio...

Did Putin have anything to do with this up front? NO! None the less, you focus on trashing him and let some of our worst leaders in our nation's entire history off without so much as a mention.

You still don't get any of this.

And any social spending now championed by the article is similar to the propaganda used to glorify Castro.

You are living three decades in the past. Funding to Castro was cut off in the early 90s. The bombing of Khadaffi took place in 1986. That's over three decades ago.

Also, keep in mind that Kaddafy supplied and trained various terrorist for years to attack US and European interests. His country, like Iraq and Syria, became fertile breeding grounds for Islamist terrorists. Was he better than the chaos that exists right now? Yes, but only because, like Assad he made the choice him, ISIS, or chaos.

Here's some light reading for you. LINK I know it's a waste of time to provide it to you, but others may drop by and want to know the real scoop. For them this will have meaning.

Khadaffi had a come to "whatever" momment in 1986. Reagan made it perfectly clear he had had enough, and Khadaffi's antics would not be allowed to happen without pay-back any longer.

The information at the link describes some of Khadaffi's actions in the 90s and 2000s. Tony Blair and George Bush recognized major changes in his demeanor. They openly praised him for it.

This is not to say he was a perfect angel, but he had come a long way toward cleaning up his act.

I know you blame everyone else for ISIS but ISIS, and McCain in your mind is more responsible for them than Assad, Saddam, of Kaddafy. That theme is contrary to what I've seen in that part of the world.

Saddam was dead when ISIS rose up. Khadaffy may have been. Assad was fighting off rebels in his easter provinces. What would happen in the U. S. if Arizonans armed and marched toward Washington, D. C.? Would you label the armed people from Arizona freedom fighters? Would you expect the U. S. Government to surrender at once? Look, I'm not trying to be mean to you, but it is frustrating as can be to watch you twist everything to exhonerate the real culprites here, and place blame on a guy that didn't come onto the scene until the real people responsible had really screwed things up.

ISIS are the ones responsible for their actions and the dictators in that region made them who they are.

Assad did not start ISIS. Khadaffy didn't start ISIS. Hosni Mubarik didn't start ISIS. U. S. funding funnelled through the good al Qaeda gave ISIS the start up money to proliferate rapidly. Think abou it. Did ISIS focus on al Qaeda and the "Freedom Fighters" in Syria? No. So you're trying to peddle the idea that Assad started ISIS, to leave al Qaeda and the "Freedom Fighters" alone and attack others. What kind of sense does that make to you? It makes literally no sense at all.

If the Libyans want to fall under putin's empire, that's their problem, but how will we know this? Will there be a vote. I suspect they won't ever agree to it and that his support for another non-democratic strongman will lead to only more chaos and civil wars, in which we can only hope that many Russians are killed trying to build putin's empire.

Please remind me of the date when Syrians voted to allow U. S. funding of the good al Qaeda there? We have had advisors in the region. Who voted for them to come in? Obama, Clinton, McCain, Graham, and Rubio were smarter than everyone else, so they didn't need no stinkin vote. BIG MISTAKE. If you want to cry in your beer, there's your reason.

I do accept the differences we have on these issues as a difference in how we view the rights of humans.

NO YOU DO NOT! You couldn't care less about the plight of the Libyans now. You don't care what caused it. You exhonerate some of the most evil men our nation has known as leaders. God? WOW!

I believe God didn't just give the inalienable right of freedom to Americans. It's a right he desires for all humans.

It's really unfortunate that you have taken this approach, because I have laid it out for you what the plight of the Libyian people is right now, and it made absolutely no impact on you. You ignored it completely. Now all of a sudden you seek to act as if you care for argument's sake. I don't respect that AT ALL.

Libya was a stable place before we armed and funded the Muslim Brotherhood. The Muslim Brotherhood was is and always will be a terrorist group. The MB took down a stable government and created a cauldren of death and destruction. They couldn't have done it without our help. The people in our government that did help them, are listed in this response to you. I have listed them for you before. You absolutely refuse to accept any culpabilty for them, for the destabalization, death, and destructin that resulted and is still ongoing. At the same time, you level criticism at Putin. Tell me, what are the safest places in Syria right now? It's in the region held by the government, supported by Russia. To this minute, you still adovcate for those who have created the most unsafe zones in Syria.

I could accept a dictator, like Franco or the ones in Latin America, who assume power to transition a nation back to order, freedom, and a justice before the law. But these pro-Russian dictators have not been interested in transitioning. Assad is the son of a dicatator, and no doubt if he survives his son will rule Syria.

This is nothing but full blown frothing blather. Libya, Egypt, and Syria were peaceful places before the terrorist insurgencies. Were they paradises by our standards? I don't believe they were. They were still far and away better than they are right this very minute. And in the case of Egypt, we sent a devistating message to anyone stupid enough in the region to be an ally of the U. S. We refused to stand up for our ally. In fact, we actaully funded and armed the terrorist insurgency. Think how Jordan and the Arab Emerate states viewed that.

I believe many posters on this subject are being short sighted and expedient in dismissing freedom for others and making a faustian pact with anyone who will run a police state that protects the West. That model cannot be sustained since the people of those countries are not stakeholders in the fate of their nation. They too will want a say in their government. Destroying ISIS and al Qaeda are good things. Propping up more strongmen who desire, like putin, to be president for life, makes no sense.

More rambling rubbish...

There are different ways of being free. I don't think Khadaffi was preventing commerce in Libya. People were earning a living. He wasn't going out and killing his citizens on a whim. The same was true in Egypt and Syria. Assad wasn't killing off Syrians on a whim. Unrest crept up in the East and he delt with it. Assad has never been one of my favorites. He was not the pariah leader that Hussein was in Iraq. My one big beef with him was his allowing Hesbollah to be armed in Southern Lebanon. Israel and he had a level understanding other than that. He wasn't intent on pending action against Israel.

So no, I'm not for destabalizing regions using terrorist groups to implement our foreign policy desires. That's why I have been trashing Obama, Clinton, McCain, Graham, and Rubio since the inception of these flawed operations four to five years ago. It was a massive mistake then and it remains a massive mistake.

By the way, the US South was much poorer for a long time after slavery and the US Civil War. Should the damn Yankees allowed the Union to bust and slavery to prevail so that the South would experience no disorder?

You have one twisted thought process. Terrorism okay. Destabilization okay. Death and destrucion okay. Obama, Clinton, McCain, Graham, and Rubio, okay. Putin, the great Satan.

Putin stepped in to clean things up. He shouldn't have had to. So far that is lost on you.

I am a firm believer in Bible Prophecy, and creating destabilization in the Middle East is the last thing I want to see, and particularly if it results in Russia entering the region again.

And yet, you still can't admit to yourself or be honest with yourself what actions precipitated Putin's current actions.