Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Saddam would be arming these insurgents with nuclear, chemical and biological weapons if Obama had first been elected in 2000.
nope
you need to take a bazooka to your face. Seriously stop it with the Assad crap.
No this isnt about loving Saddam, its about realities, and that means facing the truth that Saddam didnt let this happen, you were told this would happen if you removed him. You didnt listen as usual, and now you have this mess.
fuck off.
Plas you are so testy. The enema didn't work?
bazooka to your face
How long were we occupying Japan before we left them to administer themselves, how long did we occupy Germany before we left them to administer themselves, we are still occupying S. Korea to maintain their existence....WE should have occupied Iraq, after Gulf War I, let the Kurds have their territory, and took Iraq's oil CONTINUALLY for payment of our services, our continued protection of their people, and payment to the multiple thousands of families that lost loved ones fighting for that people freedom. All other details could have been worked out, and with our presence on ALL ME borders, and our sophisticated spy system, in place, OBL would have been a footnote in history, as well as Al Qaeda!
Saddam would be arming these insurgents with nuclear, chemical and biological weapons if Obama had first been elected in 2000.
nope
Was Saddam a 20 yr state supporter of terrorism? Yes.
Did Saddam have a WMD program? Yes.
Did Saddam have ambitions to be like Saladin? Yes.
So why do you think (and I use the term loosely as normal cogitation is beyond you) he would have been content to sit in Baghdad?
How long were we occupying Japan before we left them to administer themselves, how long did we occupy Germany before we left them to administer themselves, we are still occupying S. Korea to maintain their existence....WE should have occupied Iraq, after Gulf War I, let the Kurds have their territory, and took Iraq's oil CONTINUALLY for payment of our services, our continued protection of their people, and payment to the multiple thousands of families that lost loved ones fighting for that people freedom. All other details could have been worked out, and with our presence on ALL ME borders, and our sophisticated spy system, in place, OBL would have been a footnote in history, as well as Al Qaeda!
We could not have occupied Iraq after the first war; the Arab allies would have abandoned us, period.
We could have after II, but the Bushies did not commit the resources to do that.
False equivalency, little buddy.
Do some research.
Translation: I'm a dick.nope
Was Saddam a 20 yr state supporter of terrorism? Yes.
Did Saddam have a WMD program? Yes.
Did Saddam have ambitions to be like Saladin? Yes.
So why do you think (and I use the term loosely as normal cogitation is beyond you) he would have been content to sit in Baghdad?
neat....why dont you go over to Iraq then.
The biggest problem in Iraq today is a lack of unity. The government is spitting apart at the seams which was certainly not the case when Saddam was in power. He ruled that country with an iron hand. He would have wiped those insurgents off the map along with with the towns they occupied.If Saddam was the leader in Iraq today, it's very unlikely terrorist would be marching toward Baghdad and the US would be faced with the choice between another major military commitment or another Islamic terrorist state.
Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator who ruled the country with an iron fist. Through force he was able to control if not unite the dissent elements. His Secret Service infiltrated every political group and movement in the nation.
Today the central government is a weak coalition of political forces more interested in human rights, appeasing various politic factions and rebuilding the nation than defense. The Secret Service whose primary objective was to prevent and insurgence is essentially gone. The military is ill equipped to deal with the attack and the central government doesn't have the power to united the nation.
Elimination of Saddam may have been morally the right thing but a disaster in all other ways. What is happening today is exactly what so many opponents of the war predicted.
You're right, that does seem unlikely. More likely that he would be the aggressor, invading his weaker neighbors like Kuwait. Power hungry megalomaniacs tend to do that. It's unclear whether that would have been preferable.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Saddam was a megalomaniac who used his Secret Service and Royal Guard to root out insurgents and any challenge to his authority. His Ba'ath Party was secular in nature and he had no liking for Islamic fundamentalist.Saddam would be arming these insurgents with nuclear, chemical and biological weapons if Obama had first been elected in 2000.
Saddam would be arming these insurgents with nuclear, chemical and biological weapons if Obama had first been elected in 2000.
nope
Was Saddam a 20 yr state supporter of terrorism? Yes.
Did Saddam have a WMD program? Yes.
Did Saddam have ambitions to be like Saladin? Yes.
So why do you think (and I use the term loosely as normal cogitation is beyond you) he would have been content to sit in Baghdad?
If Saddam was the leader in Iraq today, it's very unlikely terrorist would be marching toward Baghdad and the US would be faced with the choice between another major military commitment or another Islamic terrorist state.
Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator who ruled the country with an iron fist. Through force he was able to control if not unite the dissent elements. His Secret Service infiltrated every political group and movement in the nation.
Today the central government is a weak coalition of political forces more interested in human rights, appeasing various politic factions and rebuilding the nation than defense. The Secret Service whose primary objective was to prevent and insurgence is essentially gone. The military is ill equipped to deal with the attack and the central government doesn't have the power to united the nation.
Elimination of Saddam may have been morally the right thing but a disaster in all other ways. What is happening today is exactly what so many opponents of the war predicted.
No doubt life in Iraq has improved. However, the ability of the government to deal with the situation seems very limited without US involvement.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You can make the argument that if Saddam was still ruling Iraq we wouldn't have the situation we have today you can also make the argument if we had worked out a deal to extend the status of forces agreement we wouldn't have it either.
An interesting look at Iraq would be to look at the number of suicide bombers or car bombs during the last 6 months that Saddam ruled (prior to the invasion) and the last 6 months now that "democracy" has taken hold.
Something tells me that there wasn't any suicide bombings when Saddam was still in power. And in the last 6 months there has been many many suicide or car bombings.
But some of us Americans still think that the Iraqis are better off after we invaded and destroyed their country.
I doubt most Iraqis feel that way.
Eventually the Iraqi's will find ANOTHER Saddam. That is the type of leader the Iraqis deserve and need from what I can tell. They hate each other.
If Saddam was the leader in Iraq today, it's very unlikely terrorist would be marching toward Baghdad and the US would be faced with the choice between another major military commitment or another Islamic terrorist state.
Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator who ruled the country with an iron fist. Through force he was able to control if not unite the dissent elements. His Secret Service infiltrated every political group and movement in the nation.
Today the central government is a weak coalition of political forces more interested in human rights, appeasing various politic factions and rebuilding the nation than defense. The Secret Service whose primary objective was to prevent and insurgence is essentially gone. The military is ill equipped to deal with the attack and the central government doesn't have the power to united the nation.
Elimination of Saddam may have been morally the right thing but a disaster in all other ways. What is happening today is exactly what so many opponents of the war predicted.
I find it hard to believe how racist are some people. People who are outright saying that ME people can't live under freedom as if too backwards to want to live at least with the freedom to vote. Seems a bit racist to me that some people have absolutely no problem dropping bombs on brown skinned people at the whim of the CIA nor that they think enough of them that they don't want to live free.
If Saddam was the leader in Iraq today, it's very unlikely terrorist would be marching toward Baghdad and the US would be faced with the choice between another major military commitment or another Islamic terrorist state.
Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator who ruled the country with an iron fist. Through force he was able to control if not unite the dissent elements. His Secret Service infiltrated every political group and movement in the nation.
Today the central government is a weak coalition of political forces more interested in human rights, appeasing various politic factions and rebuilding the nation than defense. The Secret Service whose primary objective was to prevent and insurgence is essentially gone. The military is ill equipped to deal with the attack and the central government doesn't have the power to united the nation.
Elimination of Saddam may have been morally the right thing but a disaster in all other ways. What is happening today is exactly what so many opponents of the war predicted.
Yep.
It would also be unlikely that Iran would be flexing its muscles as it is.
We ignored the unintended consequences of our military actions, again, and it has cost us dearly.
.
