Comments by "" (@badluck5647) on "The Global War on Terror: Saving the World or Fighting Fire with Fire?" video.

@Hegde- I assume you are just trolling, because it is difficult to believe one is this clueless. National security is more than protecting the homeland which America will always have enough weapons on hand to do. However, America military doctrine is to be prepared for multiple conflicts at once. That means America is supposed to have enough resources to protect Korea from an invasion, while still having the firepower to stop Iran from cutting of the Strait of Hormuz. Unfortunately, the attrition rate of weapons sent Ukraine is putting jeopardy America's ability to fight multiple conflicts.
10
@Hegde- That has actually become a national security concern for NATO countries as they deplete their stockpiles without the capability to replenish them in a reasonable time frame. However, they continue to send weapons anyone because a victorious Russia is a even bigger national security threat.
8
To be fair, this playbook worked wonders for Germany and Japan. It is hard to believe the Iraqi and Afghan populations was more obsessed with genocide than the WW2 Germans.
6
If the objective was to stop foreign terrorists from reaching America's shores, then the track record is pretty good.
6
Do you really think the world isn't better with a flawed Iraqi democracy instead of genocidal Saddam Hussain? As ruthless as Gaddafi and Assad were during the Arab Spring, Saddam would absolutely worst.
5
@reconsoldier135 You said they died for nothing. I would argue their sacrifice has made the world a better place even if the reasoning for invasion was misplaced. Removing Saddam in any other way would turn out like Libya or Syria which is significantly worst off than Iraq.
4
@Hegde- Artillery shells are cheap, easily produced, and made by multiple nations in the same caliber. That is hardly comparable to the high tech equipment like stingers, javelin, HIMARS, etc You can also see statements from defense contractors who say they are not capable of filling the military's orders as they have scaled down production too much during peacetimes.
4
@sharonrigs7999 That is because ISIS was anti-Shiite murders, while Saddam was Sunni ruling over a Shiite apartheid. If anything, Saddam would have been a more ruthless Assad if he was still around during the Arab Spring.
4
Even with the conflicts in Ukraine, Africa, and the Middle East, this has been the most peaceful time in world history. America's overwhelming military power has scared off most nations from using their military outside their borders like Saddam did in 1991.
2
@tastymochalatte7699 Because Afghanistan is full of oil? That is even a stupid argument for Iraq whose sells very little oil to the US and US oil gaints have very little involvement compared to European and Asian oil companies. There also isn't enough oil production in Iraq to ever make up for the $trillion+ spent by American taxpayers to build Iraq's institutions and infrastructure.
2
@maplesyrup7959 Your ignorance and gullibility is awe-inspiring.
2
@Black-Sun__x Iraq was hardly stable with wars with Israel, Iran, and Kuwait. Let's not forget the multiple ethnic rebellions. Syria and Libya were also stable under their dictators -- until they weren't. Saddam was governing a powder keg and American nation building was only thing that prevented the country from being a worst version of Libya or Syria. Even the issue with ISIS was cleared up in a relatively short time.
2
@Hegde- Your Ukraine comment doesn't even make sense. The weapons sent to Ukraine are just old stockpiles and the defense industry seems incapable of scaling up to even fill up a fraction of the current demand. Like most conspiracy theories is obvious bull to anyone who has a little bit of common sense.
2
@tastymochalatte7699 I present facts and your counterpoint is "Trust me bro that CIA is doing something that I don't understand"?
1
@tastymochalatte7699 Did the CIA and the Illuminati tell you that too?
1
@tastymochalatte7699 Your confidence in your conspiracy is based on other people agreeing with you. That is a fallacy. Four out of ten Americans believe ghosts are real, but doesn't mean their stupid belief is correct or even has merit.
1
@tastymochalatte7699 Most free democracies are freeloading off the American security blanket. While Europeans have non functioning militaries, American tax dollars are protecting their energy suppliers and attacking ISIS fighters in Syria before they return to Europe to commit terrorists attacks. Just look at Germany who had to use broomsticks during the last training NATO drill because they did have enough working guns. They only get to spend their tax revenue on expensive healthcare because Americans are protecting them from Russia and defending their interests overseas.
1
@bigsprucerabbitry6238 Rare earth minerals weren't discovered until more than 10 years into the conflict. Try another stupid conspiracy
1
Article 5 isn't voluntary. Otherwise it would be pointless.
1
Bush handed over an administration that crushed Al-Qaeda in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan. Obama decided that if we ignore the counties, then everything will be fine. We have been dealing with those consequences ever since.
1
@jetcitykitty Obama's poor policies that lead to the rise of ISIS and the re-emergence of the Taliban are often ignored because Obama took credit for the intelligence agents finding Osama.
1
@Theobserver6897 BS. All the Allies plans made prior to occupation were abandoned to deal with the new realities of the Cold War.
1
Because destabilizing a nuclear Pakistan would have made the world more secure?
1
ISIS was able to form due to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Obama abandoned all interests in Iraq, so there was little pressure to stop Shiite al-Maliki from heavily discriminating against the Sunni minority. This is heavily discrimination pushed thousands of recruits to the Al-Qaeda (later to become ISIS). Remember Al-Qaeda in Iraq was pretty much powerless by the time Bush left office.
1
Anyone who says the world would have been safer with Saddam Hussein instead of a flawed Iraqi democracy is too dumb to think of the implications of what Saddam would have done to dissent during the Arab Spring. With Iraq's population being much bigger than Iraq and Libya and Saddam's unparalleled cruelty, the bloodbath would have put Assad and Gaddafi to shame.
1