So much for Trump's foreign policy accomplishment

[Cancel 2020.1]

ISIS militants hold up their weapons and wave its flags on their vehicles in a convoy on a road leading to Iraq,
in Raqqa, Syria.

Yeah - I'm sure action there would have stopped terrorism for all time.

[sear]

"you blithering idiot.
Qadafi was a member in international good standing" n #133 blithered

Perhaps you might wish to learn something about a subject before making declarations about it.

A bombing of a nightclub used by US soldiers in Berlin in 1986, blamed on Libyan agents, proved a decisive moment.

The bombing of Pan-Am flight 103 over the Scottish town of Lockerbie in 1988 was the next significant escalation, causing the deaths of 270 people in the air and on the ground, the worst single act of terrorism ever witnessed in the UK.

Gaddafi's initial refusal to hand over the two Libyan suspects to Scottish jurisdiction resulted in a protracted period of negotiations and UN sanctions, finally ending in 1999 with their surrender and trial. One of the men, Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, was jailed for life, but the other was found not guilty.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-12688033

There's more.

After the incident the US administration, under the presidency of Ronald Reagan, regarded Gaddafi as "public enemy number one".

Mr Reagan dubbed the Libyan leader the "mad dog of the Middle East" and sent US jets to bomb his compound in the Libyan capital Tripoli.

Libya became an international pariah in the aftermath of the 1988 Lockerbie airliner bombing ...

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-02-2...-siege/1951956

n embellishes:

"Virtually your entire post is a revisionist lie." n #133

You take us for fools. - dandy -

But if you had a valid point to make, then you could quote ONE alleged lie, correct it, exposing me as a liar.
Instead you call me names, and make vague, unspecified dismissals.

When you get serious about addressing substance, be sure and let me know.

Until then, you're weakening your case. You accept language like calling Obama a warmonger. Yet when the Republican demigod Reagan initiated hostility against Quadaffy, instead of neutralizing Quadaffy, Reagan elevated Quadaffy.
Obama took care of Quadaffy, somewhat the way Obama also took care of UBL, fed him to the fish.

[cancel2 2022]

North Korean summit off due to half cocked rhetoric.

Guess that's what happens when you count your chickens before they even fuck and crow like a rooster before you've actually done anything, right stupid Republicans?

Oh well, maybe Trump can dismantle a real accomplishment like President Obama's in Iran, maybe destabilize another region and claim some sort of victory to
Trump's ignorant loser lemmings in the Fox News bubble who will so willingly support their dictator.

You stupid fucking losers.

McSquawker, demonstrating once again what a prize arsehole he truly is, 24 carat in fact.

N. Korea says it's still ready to talk to US 'at any time, in any way'

https://www.rt.com/news/427714-north..._notifications

[katzgar]

Not doing something is what is called a fail trump is a fail.

[dukkha]

Yeah - I'm sure action there would have stopped terrorism for all time.

It would have stopped ISIS blitzkrieg from Syria into Iraq. ISIS lightening fast advance it spooked the Iraqi army into abandoning it's armor and uniforms



Iraqi army jackets. fleeing from Mosul, most of soldiers were ordered to simply leave their units

[dukkha]

Perhaps you might wish to learn something about a subject before making declarations about it.

I just covered the Lockerbie bombing,the Berlin discoteque too in that I told you Reagan bombed his compound in reply I told you Qadafi made reparations. He gave up his nukes to get in good standing with the USA

Condi Rice historic Tripoli visit as Sec of State
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-l...38196320080905

There's more.

we all know the history, you seem to want to stop with Reagans bombing and ignore Qadafis "rehabilitation"

You take us for fools. - dandy -

don't act the revisionist, and you won't be taken as such

But if you had a valid point to make, then you could quote ONE alleged lie, correct it, exposing me as a liar.
Instead you call me names, and make vague, unspecified dismissals.

you post is a pile of fabrication.
You claimed he was a fugitive. he was fleeing for his life after we made him a military target
I reject your premises entirely that removing Qadafi was in any manner whatsoever justified-
I'm not going to critique that.

When you get serious about addressing substance, be sure and let me know.

when you look at events from the contemporary set up of 2011 -likewsie

Until then, you're weakening your case. You accept language like calling Obama a warmonger. Yet when the Republican demigod Reagan initiated hostility against Quadaffy, instead of neutralizing Quadaffy, Reagan elevated Quadaffy.
Obama took care of Quadaffy, somewhat the way Obama also took care of UBL, fed him to the fish.

Obama was pushed into not only joining the UN resolution ( no fly) he accepted Hillarys demand he remove Qadafi. Unjustly, on made up "evidence" by the now rejected "Responsibility to protect" Albright doctrine

[floridafan]

Angry? Why should they get angry over a joke?

The joke is your kind demanding the Nobel for trump and then coining those Trump/Kim commemorative coins. The entire world laughs at you

[floridafan]

LOL
you are hilarious. The reason they gave it to him was for what he was GOING to do. They even said it. Google it.
https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_pri...009/press.html

Then Obama went on to bomb wedding parties with drones. Hooray. Nobel peace, muthafuckas!

But of course, trump bombing innocent women and children is just fine with your kind.

[cancel2 2022]

But of course, trump bombing innocent women and children is just fine with your kind.

Where did he do that?

[Darth Omar]

Do I have to remind you again that you were a huge supporter of the Iraq invasion?

I’m reminding you that the Nobel people gave their Peace Prize to a warmonger in Obama.

What does Iraq have to do with it? My point is Trump is the least warmonger-ish of the last several presidents. And that—if—Trump pulls it off with NK, they could bring some much-needed legitimacy back to the Peace Prize by giving Trump one.

[Cancel 2020.1]

I’m reminding you that the Nobel people gave their Peace Prize to a warmonger in Obama.

What does Iraq have to do with it? My point is Trump is the least warmonger-ish of the last several presidents. And that—if—Trump pulls it off with NK, they could bring some much-needed legitimacy back to the Peace Prize by giving Trump one.

Iraq has everything to do w/ your previous comment. It's hypocritical for you to criticize what happened w/ Libya.

And that "if" above is turning into a pretty huge "if".

[sear]

"I just covered the Lockerbie bombing,the Berlin discoteque too in that I told you Reagan bombed his compound in reply I told you Qadafi made reparations. He gave up his nukes to get in good standing with the USA" n #141

Correct. Thus you have corroborated my position.

"you seem to want to stop with Reagans bombing and ignore Qadafis "rehabilitation"" n #141

You grotesquely misrepresent my position. You accuse me of taking a position I've never either asserted nor implied.

I'd have thought Quadffy's "rehabilitation" as you call it, was common knowledge, UTTERLY uncontroversial, vastly beyond dispute.

I've NEVER questioned it. I've NEVER denied it. I'm far too sophisticated and compulsively truthful and accurate to resort to such pointless antics.

Instead, my knowledge of law, clearly substantially superior to yours, demonstrates unmistakably that despite Quadaffy's "rehabilitation", there is no statute of limitations on mass murder. And a detailed investigation of the Lockerbie crash site demonstrated Quadaffy's connection to that mass murder.

I have NEVER denied your point. Instead, I acknowledge that even though true, gaining favor is not the same as being tried for mass murder and exonerated.

"don't act the revisionist" n #141

Please notify us the very first revision I post. Many thanks.
And don't you turn into a Martian, and gush vanilla ice cream out one ear, and chocolate ice cream out the other.

"You claimed he was a fugitive. he was fleeing for his life after we made him a military target" n #141

My point precisely.
The difference between you and I on it is, I'm intelligent enough to understand that those are in absolutely no way whatsoever mutually exclusive. BOTH are true.

But since you pretend to be such an authority on it, please explain to us in detail Quadaffy's successful negotiations with the International Criminal Court at the Hague, which freed him from all charge of terrorism. Our thanks to you in advance for providing the details including the times, dates, and addresses.

"I reject your premises entirely that removing Qadafi was in any manner whatsoever justified-" n #141

Reject it all you like. It's not my premise. I recounted history some of which you contradict, but none of which you have persuasively refuted.

[Darth Omar]

Iraq has everything to do w/ your previous comment. It's hypocritical for you to criticize what happened w/ Libya.

And that "if" above is turning into a pretty huge "if".

Last I heard Kim wants to come back to the table. He was apparently caught off guard by Trump’s willingness to walk away from the deal. And you ignored my point about the Nobel Peace Prize going to a warmonger.

If you want to harp on the only subject you’re interested in debating, start a thread on it.

[floridafan]

Where did he do that?

The liar in chief has been bombing Syria and killing innocent civilians. You are so well informed-

[Truth Detector]

Do I have to remind you again that you were a huge supporter of the Iraq invasion?

So were these Democrats:

Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade and much of his nation's wealth not on providing for the Iraqi people but on developing nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them."
-- President Bill Clinton (State of the Union Address), Jan. 27, 1998

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"No one has done what Saddam Hussein has done, or is thinking of doing. He is producing weapons of mass destruction, and he is qualitatively and quantitatively different from other dictators.""Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"I mean, we have three different countries that, while they all present serious problems for the United States -- they're dictatorships, they're involved in the development and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction -- you know, the most imminent, clear and present threat to our country is not the same from those three countries. I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country."
-- Sen. John Edwards (D, NC) Feb. 24, 2002

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power. We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." "
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed. We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Edward Kennedy (D, MA) Sep. 27, 2002

"Now let me be clear -- I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him."
-- State Senator Barack Obama (Democrat, Illinois) Oct. 2, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"My position is very clear: The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction."
-- Senator John Edwards (D, NC), Oct. 7, 2002

"We stopped the fighting [in 1991] on an agreement that Iraq would take steps to assure the world that it would not engage in further aggression and that it would destroy its weapons of mass destruction. It has refused to take those steps. That refusal constitutes a breach of the armistice which renders it void and justifies resumption of the armed conflict."
-- Sen. Harry Reid (D. NV) Oct. 9, 2002


"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"I come to this debate, Mr. Speaker, as one at the end of 10 years in office on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, where stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction was one of my top priorities. I applaud the President on focusing on this issue and on taking the lead to disarm Saddam Hussein. ... Others have talked about this threat that is posed by Saddam Hussein. Yes, he has chemical weapons, he has biological weapons, he is trying to get nuclear weapons."
-- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D. CA) Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

"People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons."
-- Ex President Bill Clinton, Jul. 22, 2003 (Interview with CNN Larry King)

I asked very direct questions of the top people in the CIA and people who'd served in the Clinton administration. And they said they believed that Saddam Hussein either had weapons or had the components of weapons or the ability to quickly make weapons of mass destruction. What we're worried about is an A-bomb in a Ryder truck in New York, in Washington and St. Louis. It cannot happen. We have to prevent it from happening.
-- Rep. Richard Gephardt (D, MT) Nov. 2, 2003