Why did it take 5 years for the US to stop arming Jihadis in Syria and Iraq?

And why do you think CNN, the Washington Post, the NYT, and the USA Today are calling this a win for Russia, Iran and Syria rather than a win for the USA?



I guess another question is has it stopped? We've heard this stuff before and seen that the CIA & Pentagon keep funding/arming people even when the President orders them to stop.



http://fair.org/home/media-end-cia-training-syrian-rebels-al-qaeda/

Why are they calling it a win for Russia and not the US? It's quite simple: Trump.



They think by calling it a loss for the US it hurts Trump. They are not going to give him credit. Ever. For anything.

I don't buy it. The headlines would have been similar for Obama.



He got the same treatment for the Iran treaty. We're listening to the mouthpieces of the filth of the Washington swamp in CNN and the other outlets.

SpiffCoug wrote:
Why are they calling it a win for Russia and not the US? It's quite simple: Trump.



They think by calling it a loss for the US it hurts Trump. They are not going to give him credit. Ever. For anything.

Agreed.

jvquarterback wrote:
I don't buy it. The headlines would have been similar for Obama.



He got the same treatment for the Iran treaty. We're listening to the mouthpieces of the filth of the Washington swamp in CNN and the other outlets.

Sorry, disagree. Everything Obama did was either covered up, not reported, or made to look rosey. Even his touch could cure cancer according to them (of course that cure was take two aspirin and die in the morning).

I'm more surprised this took more than 5 minutes to show up on a Cougar sports message board.

imuakahuku wrote:

I don't buy it. The headlines would have been similar for Obama.



He got the same treatment for the Iran treaty. We're listening to the mouthpieces of the filth of the Washington swamp in CNN and the other outlets.

Sorry, disagree. Everything Obama did was either covered up, not reported, or made to look rosey. Even his touch could cure cancer according to them (of course that cure was take two aspirin and die in the morning).

Obama took a lot of heat for the Iran nuclear treaty as well as holding off on war with Syria. Nobody takes any heat for supporting Saudia in Yemen, Syria, Qatar or anywhere else. And you can tear up the 1st amendment if it helps Israel get a few more missiles. This isn't about Trump. It's about the military and its suppliers.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:



Yep. Our 1st Amendment protections are ENTIRELY dependent on the size of Israel's missile arsenal.

jvquarterback wrote:

jvquarterback wrote:
I don't buy it. The headlines would have been similar for Obama.



He got the same treatment for the Iran treaty. We're listening to the mouthpieces of the filth of the Washington swamp in CNN and the other outlets.

Sorry, disagree. Everything Obama did was either covered up, not reported, or made to look rosey. Even his touch could cure cancer according to them (of course that cure was take two aspirin and die in the morning).

Obama took a lot of heat for the Iran nuclear treaty as well as holding off on war with Syria. Nobody takes any heat for supporting Saudia in Yemen, Syria, Qatar or anywhere else. And you can tear up the 1st amendment if it helps Israel get a few more missiles. This isn't about Trump. It's about the military and its suppliers.

I'm still a little confused. I don't watch much MSM but I thought the only "heat" came from conservative outlets. Everything I heard from the MSM regarding it was that he had stopped Iran from ever getting Nukes, and that we are now friends, and that Iran's people loved Obama, but not much on the payout for the hostages, nor that the accord actually paid Iran billions up front, and that it almost guaranteed that Iran will have "the bomb" within the next 10 years. I also didn't hear the MSM explain how any visits had to be scheduled no less than 48 hours before the inspectors showed up and that Iran would determine where any visits were made. That didn't seem tough to me. As for Israel, there has never been a US pres that was as antisemitic as Obama (Carter might be in the same stratosphere). He actually used our tax dollars to try and affect their elections for a new PM. I don't follow military suppliers but it seems to me that demand already our paces supply. And if you want to look into some serious arming, just look into Benghazi. If that ever gets uncovered, you will see some real interference and plain stupidity by Obama and his administration. Just a whole cabal of criminals.