Well, why did we abandon the Mujaheddin the first time if we wanted all those minerals? Didn't we go into Iraq the second time for all that oil? "No blood for oil".Why did we leave that? Did the US actually support ISIS? As I recall, there were several anti- Assad resistance groups, some *good* some *bad*. We didn't know which to support. Maybe Obama has been letting the world go- in- a- hand basket while cutting defense, letting the military industrial complex stock values decline in order to buy at a low price, knowing we would have to rev it up in the future and watch it's value increase. Buy low , sell high! There are boogeymen everywhere!
On Tuesday, September 9, 2014 9:12 AM, "Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net [FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> wrote: The US funded the Mujahideen to fight against the Russians in Afghanistan. Why? Because greedy US businessmen wanted their hands on the recently revealed to the public rich resources in the Afghanistan (which was why Russians were there in the first place). Then the Mujahideen because Al-Qaeda and a new boogeyman to get the American people in a "war mood" and support spending heavily on defense which of course profited the military industrial complex. Then the US supported ISIS to help overthrow the Syrian government. Now they are the new boogeyman to drum up more defense spending. Best way to defeat ISIS was to not support them in the first place. On 09/08/2014 07:34 PM, jr_...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: >It's the formation of a new government in Iraq, according to Kerry. IMO, this >indeed is the most reasonable of all approaches, along with the necessary >support from world governments to defeat ISIS. > > >https://news.yahoo.com/kerry-heads-mideast-talks-islamic-state-180834352.html >
