Lyndon Baines Obama and HIS War.

[Casull]

The Taliban was funded by Bush One and Reagan, when Reagan was President and the Soviet Union was occuping Afganistan. When the Soviet Union collasped due to that war, and a failing economy (like ours) the Taliban moved into power. That's history, not me makin it up, it was on the news constantly.

Nobody is disputing this.  What is your point in bringing it up?

[Dee]

I would suppose it would be the whole point of me starting this thread. The parallels of Obama and Johnson and their wars, and their handling of them, and the history apparently being repeated.
I was stating historical facts of the two, and you came in saying my opinion wasn't considered by you as fact. I don't think I was really giving opinions, I think I was comparing historical FACTS.
Are you just needing to argue?

[Casull]

Quote
The Taliban was funded by Bush One and Reagan, when Reagan was President and the Soviet Union was occuping Afganistan. When the Soviet Union collasped due to that war, and a failing economy (like ours) the Taliban moved into power. That's history, not me makin it up, it was on the news constantly.

Nobody is disputing this.  What is your point in bringing it up?

I would suppose it would be the whole point of me starting this thread. The parallels of Obama and Johnson and their wars, and their handling of them, and the history apparently being repeated.

So, you're saying that the North Vietnamese, while fighting an invading country that happened to be a US enemy, were funded by a Presidential predecessor of Johnson?  

[Redtail1949]

where they were born is really irrevelent. their ideology was what drove them. as far as giving help to those that now oppose us. so what, we furnished russia munitions planes tanks artillery you name it. we knew all along that russia was not going to be a great partner when WWII was over. yet we needed them as much as they needed us at the time.

Without question if russia had not been an ally we probably would have stood a real good chance of loseing the war. only because of the outright stupidity of hilter attacking russia ,his ally, did he seal his fate and the fate of germany.

so after the war russia and the us were bitter enemies until the wall fell. i guess you can say that the enemy of my enemy is my friend . that is and was the way it is all throughout history.

right now the afghanistan people really do want us there. they do not want taliban or al quieda rule. yet they make no bones about it they want us out when the job is done. they do not want our democracy nor our modern ways. same goes for pakistan. they want and need us to kill or destroy a common enemy thats all after thats done they want us out.

but as some suggest we more than likely will start involving ourselves, like we have allways done, in trying to change them or mold them in our form of what we want. thats where we will fail like we always have.

the way i look at it we, rightfully so, have chosen to use their countries as the battle ground not LA or New York. unfortunately we will fail in that endeavor and the war will come here soon.

[Dee]

Quote
The Taliban was funded by Bush One and Reagan, when Reagan was President and the Soviet Union was occuping Afganistan. When the Soviet Union collasped due to that war, and a failing economy (like ours) the Taliban moved into power. That's history, not me makin it up, it was on the news constantly.

Nobody is disputing this.  What is your point in bringing it up?

I would suppose it would be the whole point of me starting this thread. The parallels of Obama and Johnson and their wars, and their handling of them, and the history apparently being repeated.

So, you're saying that the North Vietnamese, while fighting an invading country that happened to be a US enemy, were funded by a Presidential predecessor of Johnson?  

I have no idea where you got that. It seems you merely want to argue. No thanks.

[billy_56081]

What someone like DEE or anyone else who has never been to the middle east does not understand is. There are many people that are "Saudi Nationals", these people are the poor nothings of the world. Unless you are part of the Royal Family over there you are less than nothing. They have nothing and are nothing, the only way they become someone or something is by going to a foreign country and becoming a Jihadist. These cockroaches went to bocome heros and to upgrade their status. Yes Saudi Money and tons of other muslim money was sent to support these animals. Just because an American citacen sends money to a pro gun group does not make America liable for "right wing radicals". I said several years ago that the war should have been a WAR and we should have whacked all of the middle east but some rude old feller told me I was just a armchair warrior. ISLAM in its most fundamental farm is all controlling and all encompassing, if the tinfoil hat crowd wants to see a NWO conspiracy they need only to look at ISLAM and see what is not a religion, but and all encompassing ONE WORLD CULT. There is no tolerance in ISLAM, only SUBJEGATION or DEATH. If you want to see NWO, wake up ISLAM is NWO.

[teamnelson]

Bin Laden is a Saudi National, member of a particular tribe but not the Saud family. The Saud family is the royal family of SA, and they get all the wealth, which they proportion out to the other SA families/tribes as determined by tribal politics. The Wahabia tribe is the single most conservative Islamic tribe in the world, very anti-west, and even racist against other Muslims, considering themselves to be the purest Muslims. They are the bureaucrats of SA, they run all government positions at all levels, and control the flow of money. They funded Bin Laden's construction company all over SA properties for decades, and funnelled monies to his illigetimate activities even after the Saud family rejected Bin Laden's proposal to stand up an army to liberate Kuwait from Iraq.

Americans want to believe that nationality is important to these folks, but its not. Tribal/Family identity is all that matters. The Wahabi routinely run against the Saud family, but since they run everything and the Saud family enjoys all the benefits, they are never stopped. They got the Saud family to fund $1 billion a year in Muslim missions activity around the world, which they used to send Wahabi trained (anti-US) teachers to 2nd and 3rd world countries to make converts. In Africa they use our US $ to build the buildings, and buy the books, and use the Wahabis as the teachers, so we're paying for the next generation of US haters to learn how to be Wahabi ... thank you Clinton. Of course we're also paying Ethiopia to grow narcotics to sell to the Arab Peninsula ... thank you Bush.

I see the parallels from the OP as it relates to our President and his actions, but once it sets foot on the ground, the comparison stops. This is a COMPLETELY different thing that Vietnam.

[Casull]

Dee, just trying reading my last post in order.  I had no idea where you were finding similarities in that first line to Vietnam.

[ironglow]

TN;
  As I have stated before, most folks try to consider enemies/allies by the old, geographical boundaries philosophy of the 20th century.
  This struggle is idealogical and we can have both friends and enemies living near/among each other. Do you agree with the basics of what I said TN ?

  Guys;
  In WW2 we had fairly clear cut boundaries of where our enemies were located and who they were. As Billy said, we knew the Soviet Union was in an empire building mood, planning on expansion, but the Nazis were the big, bad guy on the block in 1941 when we entered WW2. We were not in a deluded state then, and that's the reason Gen Patton was all for taking the USSR as soon as we were done with Nazi Germany.
  To spurn Soviet cooperation and help would have been foolish. The Soviets laid down much treasure and millions of lives cooperating in th defeat of the third reich.
   Perhaps some have very short memories, but by the time the early 80s had rolled around, Iran was on the rise after Carter had allowed the Wahabists to take over there. The Wahabists of Iran then set their sights upon their neighbor Iraq. If they could take over Iraq, they could control a good share of the world's oil and blockade much more of it at the straights of Hormuz. For the low cost of some weapons, the US used Iraq as "cat's paws" to effect our will and prevent Iranian expansion. It was Iraqi, not American lives lost in that war.
  Anyone who doesn't understand the effective use of cat's paws in international struggles, had best study up.
  Today,  some folks bemoan the saving of American lives by allowing the Iraqis to do the fighting against Iranian expansion...yet these are often the same folks who are watching a president of Muslim heritage destroy our way of life , and go to Copenhagen with the expressed intention of selling out our national soveriegnty.
   No logic with some...just gripes..