Speculate with me about the Iraq war...

[TheOldSchool]

I know, I know that asking folks to speculate is always a risky business.....But give it a try....

Have we NOT had the invasion in Iraq:

Would we have the current fear of Iran with the potential nukes? (bear in mind that prior to 2001, Iran had zero centrifuges)???

Would we have the brutal rise of ISIS???

Would we have the civil war in Syria and the tragedy of hundred of thousands of refugees???

Would we have the plight of Jordan and Lebanon???

Would we have the messes that now exist in Egypt and Libya???

If you care to honestly speculate, then think of the tragedy that was the Cheney-Bush administration.

All that...and if we hadn't opposed Hitler just think...a world without Jews.

And if lunatics hadn't started WW1, maybe there would never have been a Hitler.

 

[deltex1]

And if humans had stayed in the trees and not come down to the ground....

 

[Mac1958]

I know, I know that asking folks to speculate is always a risky business.....But give it a try....

Have we NOT had the invasion in Iraq:

Would we have the current fear of Iran with the potential nukes? (bear in mind that prior to 2001, Iran had zero centrifuges)???

Would we have the brutal rise of ISIS???

Would we have the civil war in Syria and the tragedy of hundred of thousands of refugees???

Would we have the plight of Jordan and Lebanon???

Would we have the messes that now exist in Egypt and Libya???

If you care to honestly speculate, then think of the tragedy that was the Cheney-Bush administration.

Our invasion and occupation of Iraq clearly (a) further destabilized an already explosive region and (b) emboldened Iran by taking out their most important military foe.

And gee, all it cost us was a couple of trillion dollars and the lives, limbs and minds of a few thousand of our brave young military.

Bargain.
.

 

[Freewill]

I know, I know that asking folks to speculate is always a risky business.....But give it a try....

Have we NOT had the invasion in Iraq:

Would we have the current fear of Iran with the potential nukes? (bear in mind that prior to 2001, Iran had zero centrifuges)???

Would we have the brutal rise of ISIS???

Would we have the civil war in Syria and the tragedy of hundred of thousands of refugees???

Would we have the plight of Jordan and Lebanon???

Would we have the messes that now exist in Egypt and Libya???

If you care to honestly speculate, then think of the tragedy that was the Cheney-Bush administration.

Our invasion and occupation of Iraq clearly (a) further destabilized an already explosive region and (b) emboldened Iran by taking out their most important military foe.

And gee, all it cost us was a couple of trillion dollars and the lives, limbs and minds of a few thousand of our brave young military.

Bargain.
.

What destabilization are you speaking of? What we are seeing today? Saddam was someway able to keep the other ME countries in check? Maybe I am wrong but the current humanitarian crisis didn't originate in Iraq or Iran. And what good was there to Iran and Iraq having a war every few years? All his neighbors were glad to see the butcher of Baghdad gone. He was a threat.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Can you prove one way or another what the outcome would be today if there was no Iraq invasion? I can't and neither can those who speculate based on their own partisan politics doing so might give people a false sense of superiorty but other than that it accomplishes nothing.

Yes, that is why I have in the thread's title the term "speculate"....and speculation may seem like a waste of time but it does serve to avoid making the same mistakes.....

Since I NEVER personally agreed to the moronic idea that we should invade Iraq, my conscience is perfectly clear and clean........
Is yours...or don't you give a shit?

Your agreement wasn't necessary.

 

[Freewill]

I know, I know that asking folks to speculate is always a risky business.....But give it a try....

Have we NOT had the invasion in Iraq:

Would we have the current fear of Iran with the potential nukes? (bear in mind that prior to 2001, Iran had zero centrifuges)???

Would we have the brutal rise of ISIS???

Would we have the civil war in Syria and the tragedy of hundred of thousands of refugees???

Would we have the plight of Jordan and Lebanon???

Would we have the messes that now exist in Egypt and Libya???

If you care to honestly speculate, then think of the tragedy that was the Cheney-Bush administration.

All that...and if we hadn't opposed Hitler just think...a world without Jews.

And if lunatics hadn't started WW1, maybe there would never have been a Hitler.

Say what? Certainly seems like we should have stayed out of Libya and Syria but we did not. We meddled just enough to destabilize the region and cause a humanitarian crisis. Iraq and Iran has nothing to do with what is going on.

 

[healthmyths]

And all you Bush bashers, Iraq Liberation detractors seem to be totally ignorant of the FACTS.
1) Desert Storm was never over. There was a "1991 Cease Fire". A cease fire means no firing. Saddam broke the cease fire. That meant "Desert Storm" continued.
2) The 1998 Liberation of Iraq authorized by Congress' Resolution of 2002 (Public law 107-243, 116 Stat. 1497-1502) "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq " "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 SIGNED by Clinton....is a United States Congressional statement of policy calling .
"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."
On December 16, 1998, President Bill Clinton mandated Operation Desert Fox, a major four-day bombing campaign on Iraqi targets.
In spite of that Saddam allowed In five years 576,000 children to starve BECAUSE SADDAM refused to certify WMD destruction!
Iraq Liberation Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
And these democrats endorsed the resumption of "Desert Storm"!

"Together we must also confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons, and the outlaw states, terrorists and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade, and much of his nation's wealth, not on providing for the Iraqi people, but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them."
President Clinton, Jan. 27, 1998.

"It is essential that a dictator like Saddam not be allowed to evade international strictures and wield frightening weapons of mass destruction. As long as UNSCOM is prevented from carrying out its mission, the effort to monitor Iraqi compliance with Resolution 687 becomes a dangerous shell game. Neither the United States nor the global community can afford to allow Saddam Hussein to continue on this path."
Sen. Tom Daschle (D, SD), Feb. 12, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeleine Albright, Feb. 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb. 18, 1998.

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeleine Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored away secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"My position is very clear: The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. I'm a co-sponsor of the bipartisan resolution that's presently under consideration in the Senate. Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave threat to America and our allies..."
John Edwards (D, NC), Oct. 7, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years .... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002.

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members.... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct. 10, 2002.

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime .... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction .... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

Reasons for War: Things you might have forgotten about Iraq.

Now the primary reason ISIS was created in Iraq was the SOFA agreement was not negotiated well by Obama as he had to keep his political promise.
We still have 170,000 troops in Asia/Europe 70 years after WWII... why?

 

[Mac1958]

I know, I know that asking folks to speculate is always a risky business.....But give it a try....

Have we NOT had the invasion in Iraq:

Would we have the current fear of Iran with the potential nukes? (bear in mind that prior to 2001, Iran had zero centrifuges)???

Would we have the brutal rise of ISIS???

Would we have the civil war in Syria and the tragedy of hundred of thousands of refugees???

Would we have the plight of Jordan and Lebanon???

Would we have the messes that now exist in Egypt and Libya???

If you care to honestly speculate, then think of the tragedy that was the Cheney-Bush administration.

Our invasion and occupation of Iraq clearly (a) further destabilized an already explosive region and (b) emboldened Iran by taking out their most important military foe.

And gee, all it cost us was a couple of trillion dollars and the lives, limbs and minds of a few thousand of our brave young military.

Bargain.
.

What destabilization are you speaking of? What we are seeing today? Saddam was someway able to keep the other ME countries in check? Maybe I am wrong but the current humanitarian crisis didn't originate in Iraq or Iran. And what good was there to Iran and Iraq having a war every few years? All his neighbors were glad to see the butcher of Baghdad gone. He was a threat.

Iraq has essentially disintegrated with Saddam's demise and is now occupied by any number of terrorist groups and largely under control of Iran, Iran-backed influencers, or both.

Iraq & Syria have essentially become a borderless, lawless version of the Wild West.

Millions are fleeing the chaos and butchery, creating a massive problem for Europeans.

It doesn't appear that anything is going to either stop or slow this down any time soon.
.

 

[Rotagilla]

I know, I know that asking folks to speculate is always a risky business.....But give it a try....

Have we NOT had the invasion in Iraq:

Would we have the current fear of Iran with the potential nukes? (bear in mind that prior to 2001, Iran had zero centrifuges)???

Would we have the brutal rise of ISIS???

Would we have the civil war in Syria and the tragedy of hundred of thousands of refugees???

Would we have the plight of Jordan and Lebanon???

Would we have the messes that now exist in Egypt and Libya???

If you care to honestly speculate, then think of the tragedy that was the Cheney-Bush administration.

Our invasion and occupation of Iraq clearly (a) further destabilized an already explosive region and (b) emboldened Iran by taking out their most important military foe.

And gee, all it cost us was a couple of trillion dollars and the lives, limbs and minds of a few thousand of our brave young military.

Bargain.
.

What destabilization are you speaking of? What we are seeing today? Saddam was someway able to keep the other ME countries in check? Maybe I am wrong but the current humanitarian crisis didn't originate in Iraq or Iran. And what good was there to Iran and Iraq having a war every few years? All his neighbors were glad to see the butcher of Baghdad gone. He was a threat.

don't forget, the "butcher" was OUR butcher as long as he was killing iranians in the '80's...we gave him weapons and intel...but then he went after kuwait...which iraq had a historical claim to anyway...after one of our ambassadors said with a wink that we didn't intend to interfere in the mideast...saddam thought that was an "ok"

so then we spend billions fighting "for" kuwait.. not even a democracy...an emirate who doesn't have equal rights for women.

of course the reason the iranians hated us was because we installed the shah and supported HIS murderous regime for decades...then when the iranians were about to revolt he ran away to the u.s. to hide...which pissed off the iranians so they overran our embassy..

which goes back to why saddam was a murderer and a thug...but he was OUR murderer and thug and as long as he followed directions he was ok with us.

fuck the M.E....the jews believe we are "unclean", "goyim" and "shiksas" and the muzzies believe we're infidels...let them work it out on their own...may the best man win..

 

[Freewill]

I know, I know that asking folks to speculate is always a risky business.....But give it a try....

Have we NOT had the invasion in Iraq:

Would we have the current fear of Iran with the potential nukes? (bear in mind that prior to 2001, Iran had zero centrifuges)???

Would we have the brutal rise of ISIS???

Would we have the civil war in Syria and the tragedy of hundred of thousands of refugees???

Would we have the plight of Jordan and Lebanon???

Would we have the messes that now exist in Egypt and Libya???

If you care to honestly speculate, then think of the tragedy that was the Cheney-Bush administration.

Our invasion and occupation of Iraq clearly (a) further destabilized an already explosive region and (b) emboldened Iran by taking out their most important military foe.

And gee, all it cost us was a couple of trillion dollars and the lives, limbs and minds of a few thousand of our brave young military.

Bargain.
.

What destabilization are you speaking of? What we are seeing today? Saddam was someway able to keep the other ME countries in check? Maybe I am wrong but the current humanitarian crisis didn't originate in Iraq or Iran. And what good was there to Iran and Iraq having a war every few years? All his neighbors were glad to see the butcher of Baghdad gone. He was a threat.

don't forget, the "butcher" was OUR butcher as long as he was killing iranians in the '80's...we gave him weapons and intel...but then he went after kuwait...which iraq had a historical claim to anyway...after one of our ambassadors said with a wink that we didn't intend to interfere in the mideast...saddam thought that was an "ok"

so then we spend billions fighting "for" kuwait.. not even a democracy...an emirate who doesn't have equal rights for women.

of course the reason the iranians hated us was because we installed the shah and supported HIS murderous regime for decades...then when the iranians were about to revolt he ran away to the u.s. to hide...which pissed off the iranians so they overran our embassy..

which goes back to why saddam was a murderer and a thug...but he was OUR murderer and thug and as long as he followed directions he was ok with us.

fuck the M.E....the jews believe we are "unclean", "goyim" and "shiksas" and the muzzies believe we're infidels...let them work it out on their own...may the best man win..

Yeppers, Saddam was not a good guy and it took awhile for us to realize it. Or more likely he was like our last few presidential elections, the best we had to choose from.

But look at the posts, and my reason for what I post, Saddam is gone 10 years and there are those who apparently are claiming, still, that he wasn't the butcher of Baghdad. That he didn't engage in wars with Iran. That he did't use WMD against the Kurds. That he didn't invade Kuwait and when he was kicked out caused an environmental disaster. Now they are portraying him as the sherriff of Baghdad ruler of the ME.

 

[nat4900]

so then we spend billions fighting "for" kuwait.. not even a democracy...an emirate who doesn't have equal rights for women.

of course the reason the iranians hated us was because we installed the shah and supported HIS murderous regime for decades...then when the iranians were about to revolt he ran away to the u.s. to hide...which pissed off the iranians so they overran our embassy..

which goes back to why saddam was a murderer and a thug...but he was OUR murderer and thug and as long as he followed directions he was ok with us.

“Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.”
― Edmund Burke

 

[Rotagilla]

I know, I know that asking folks to speculate is always a risky business.....But give it a try....

Have we NOT had the invasion in Iraq:

Would we have the current fear of Iran with the potential nukes? (bear in mind that prior to 2001, Iran had zero centrifuges)???

Would we have the brutal rise of ISIS???

Would we have the civil war in Syria and the tragedy of hundred of thousands of refugees???

Would we have the plight of Jordan and Lebanon???

Would we have the messes that now exist in Egypt and Libya???

If you care to honestly speculate, then think of the tragedy that was the Cheney-Bush administration.

Our invasion and occupation of Iraq clearly (a) further destabilized an already explosive region and (b) emboldened Iran by taking out their most important military foe.

And gee, all it cost us was a couple of trillion dollars and the lives, limbs and minds of a few thousand of our brave young military.

Bargain.
.

What destabilization are you speaking of? What we are seeing today? Saddam was someway able to keep the other ME countries in check? Maybe I am wrong but the current humanitarian crisis didn't originate in Iraq or Iran. And what good was there to Iran and Iraq having a war every few years? All his neighbors were glad to see the butcher of Baghdad gone. He was a threat.

don't forget, the "butcher" was OUR butcher as long as he was killing iranians in the '80's...we gave him weapons and intel...but then he went after kuwait...which iraq had a historical claim to anyway...after one of our ambassadors said with a wink that we didn't intend to interfere in the mideast...saddam thought that was an "ok"

so then we spend billions fighting "for" kuwait.. not even a democracy...an emirate who doesn't have equal rights for women.

of course the reason the iranians hated us was because we installed the shah and supported HIS murderous regime for decades...then when the iranians were about to revolt he ran away to the u.s. to hide...which pissed off the iranians so they overran our embassy..

which goes back to why saddam was a murderer and a thug...but he was OUR murderer and thug and as long as he followed directions he was ok with us.

fuck the M.E....the jews believe we are "unclean", "goyim" and "shiksas" and the muzzies believe we're infidels...let them work it out on their own...may the best man win..

Yeppers, Saddam was not a good guy and it took awhile for us to realize it. Or more likely he was like our last few presidential elections, the best we had to choose from.

But look at the posts, and my reason for what I post, Saddam is gone 10 years and there are those who apparently are claiming, still, that he wasn't the butcher of Baghdad. That he didn't engage in wars with Iran. That he did't use WMD against the Kurds. That he didn't invade Kuwait and when he was kicked out caused an environmental disaster. Now they are portraying him as the sherriff of Baghdad ruler of the ME.

as long as we kept the shah in power, iran was stable and more or less predictable...as long as we kept saddam in power iraq was stable and more or less predictable...

that's part of the reason the whole region hates us...that and the zionists in our infiltrated gvt blind support for israel.

 

[CowboyTed]

Certainly Obama was a fool for involving us in thousands year old religious nonsense in a bunch of desert wastelands. But whatever he's added to the avalanche, it was Dubya that set it off in the first place.

No.

Obama did not have to overthrow Qaddafi leading to Benghazi and thousands fleeing across the Med Sea to Italy. He did not have to support ISIS in it's efforts to overthrow Assad, resulting in terrible human suffering.

Why is it some people can only see the wrongs committed by the political party they oppose and ignore the wrongs by the party they approve of? Partisanship apparently makes some people dumb.

You're right Obama fucked those things up. But you'll never convince me there's any comparison between how he handled those situations and the absolute disaster that Bush unleashed on the world.

There is no doubt bush was a disaster, but so is Obama.

And then there is this...
During the George W Bush administration, the US conducted around 50 drone strikes to kill suspected terrorists. The Obama administration, however, has ordered around 500 strikes, according to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, which tracks the use of drones by the US military and CIA.
Deadly US drone programme still controversial - FT.com

I'll never be as angry about drone strikes as I was about Bush sending our brave soldiers to die by the thousands for nothing in the sand on the complete other side of the planet. I'm all for improving drone technology.

Yes, it is important to note that drones did not really come into their own until fairly late in the game, Bush did not have a lot of time or the strategic vision to use them effectively instead of flesh and blood soldiers.

Obama has use drone strikes far more effectively... He is no boy scout, he want certain Militants taken out... He did that with far less civilan casualties...

If this was a GOP President record you would be having a parade...

Again his hit to miss is far higher...
The problem here is Obama is a far better war president than Bush... He is a lot smarter, taking a lot less risk with US military lives and killing a lot less Civilians...

The laugh is that Obama has lifted sections of the Powell doctrine (not all of it) and used it... Libya for example, The people want a change in government, all he did is take out the anti aircraft and provided intelligence and some training.
Yes, Libya is struggling, but all changing countries suffer this. The big thing it is not US baby... There is no ISIS, the civil war has been actually been put on hold to fight ISIS.
Two Main Libyan Militias Are Maintaining a Truce to Battle Islamic State

And guess what we will be helping them there too....

What I am amazed about is how little the Right knows about the Middle East... They don't really see past the brown people thing... They think they are all muslims and all muslims are the same. They don't know the damage they caused the region supporting every crook in the region.
In westpoint they teach you to know your enemy, the right know jackshit... Read Robert Fisk book on the region and comeback...

 

[Freewill]

I know, I know that asking folks to speculate is always a risky business.....But give it a try....

Have we NOT had the invasion in Iraq:

Would we have the current fear of Iran with the potential nukes? (bear in mind that prior to 2001, Iran had zero centrifuges)???

Would we have the brutal rise of ISIS???

Would we have the civil war in Syria and the tragedy of hundred of thousands of refugees???

Would we have the plight of Jordan and Lebanon???

Would we have the messes that now exist in Egypt and Libya???

If you care to honestly speculate, then think of the tragedy that was the Cheney-Bush administration.

Our invasion and occupation of Iraq clearly (a) further destabilized an already explosive region and (b) emboldened Iran by taking out their most important military foe.

And gee, all it cost us was a couple of trillion dollars and the lives, limbs and minds of a few thousand of our brave young military.

Bargain.
.

What destabilization are you speaking of? What we are seeing today? Saddam was someway able to keep the other ME countries in check? Maybe I am wrong but the current humanitarian crisis didn't originate in Iraq or Iran. And what good was there to Iran and Iraq having a war every few years? All his neighbors were glad to see the butcher of Baghdad gone. He was a threat.

Iraq has essentially disintegrated with Saddam's demise and is now occupied by any number of terrorist groups and largely under control of Iran, Iran-backed influencers, or both.

Iraq & Syria have essentially become a borderless, lawless version of the Wild West.

Millions are fleeing the chaos and butchery, creating a massive problem for Europeans.

It doesn't appear that anything is going to either stop or slow this down any time soon.
.

A free Iraq put Saddam on trial, and he got is justice. The fighting we are seeing in Iraq from ISIS has come from the outside. There is no saying that given the same conditions that ISIS would still not have attacked Iraq. Since I am not hearing a lot of news from Iraq it seems that the government you think very poorly of is apparently doing OK with some help for the US.

Again, how would Saddam have stopped the Libyan and Syrian violence?

 

[CowboyTed]

I know, I know that asking folks to speculate is always a risky business.....But give it a try....

Have we NOT had the invasion in Iraq:

Would we have the current fear of Iran with the potential nukes? (bear in mind that prior to 2001, Iran had zero centrifuges)???

Would we have the brutal rise of ISIS???

Would we have the civil war in Syria and the tragedy of hundred of thousands of refugees???

Would we have the plight of Jordan and Lebanon???

Would we have the messes that now exist in Egypt and Libya???

If you care to honestly speculate, then think of the tragedy that was the Cheney-Bush administration.

Our invasion and occupation of Iraq clearly (a) further destabilized an already explosive region and (b) emboldened Iran by taking out their most important military foe.

And gee, all it cost us was a couple of trillion dollars and the lives, limbs and minds of a few thousand of our brave young military.

Bargain.
.

What destabilization are you speaking of? What we are seeing today? Saddam was someway able to keep the other ME countries in check? Maybe I am wrong but the current humanitarian crisis didn't originate in Iraq or Iran. And what good was there to Iran and Iraq having a war every few years? All his neighbors were glad to see the butcher of Baghdad gone. He was a threat.

don't forget, the "butcher" was OUR butcher as long as he was killing iranians in the '80's...we gave him weapons and intel...but then he went after kuwait...which iraq had a historical claim to anyway...after one of our ambassadors said with a wink that we didn't intend to interfere in the mideast...saddam thought that was an "ok"

so then we spend billions fighting "for" kuwait.. not even a democracy...an emirate who doesn't have equal rights for women.

of course the reason the iranians hated us was because we installed the shah and supported HIS murderous regime for decades...then when the iranians were about to revolt he ran away to the u.s. to hide...which pissed off the iranians so they overran our embassy..

which goes back to why saddam was a murderer and a thug...but he was OUR murderer and thug and as long as he followed directions he was ok with us.

fuck the M.E....the jews believe we are "unclean", "goyim" and "shiksas" and the muzzies believe we're infidels...let them work it out on their own...may the best man win..

Yeppers, Saddam was not a good guy and it took awhile for us to realize it. Or more likely he was like our last few presidential elections, the best we had to choose from.

But look at the posts, and my reason for what I post, Saddam is gone 10 years and there are those who apparently are claiming, still, that he wasn't the butcher of Baghdad. That he didn't engage in wars with Iran. That he did't use WMD against the Kurds. That he didn't invade Kuwait and when he was kicked out caused an environmental disaster. Now they are portraying him as the sherriff of Baghdad ruler of the ME.

as long as we kept the shah in power, iran was stable and more or less predictable...as long as we kept saddam in power iraq was stable and more or less predictable...

that's part of the reason the whole region hates us...that and the zionists in our infiltrated gvt blind support for israel.

NO NO NO

Saddam would have got his coming uppings if you stop selling him arms and imposed a serious no fly zone (down to helicopters)... Support the people.... If they rise, even the playing field... US has just to take out Anti Aircraft, provide intel and some training.....

 

[nat4900]

The fighting we are seeing in Iraq from ISIS has come from the outside

ISIS is MOSTLY Iraqi Sunnis.....

 

[Freewill]

I know, I know that asking folks to speculate is always a risky business.....But give it a try....

Have we NOT had the invasion in Iraq:

Would we have the current fear of Iran with the potential nukes? (bear in mind that prior to 2001, Iran had zero centrifuges)???

Would we have the brutal rise of ISIS???

Would we have the civil war in Syria and the tragedy of hundred of thousands of refugees???

Would we have the plight of Jordan and Lebanon???

Would we have the messes that now exist in Egypt and Libya???

If you care to honestly speculate, then think of the tragedy that was the Cheney-Bush administration.

Our invasion and occupation of Iraq clearly (a) further destabilized an already explosive region and (b) emboldened Iran by taking out their most important military foe.

And gee, all it cost us was a couple of trillion dollars and the lives, limbs and minds of a few thousand of our brave young military.

Bargain.
.

What destabilization are you speaking of? What we are seeing today? Saddam was someway able to keep the other ME countries in check? Maybe I am wrong but the current humanitarian crisis didn't originate in Iraq or Iran. And what good was there to Iran and Iraq having a war every few years? All his neighbors were glad to see the butcher of Baghdad gone. He was a threat.

don't forget, the "butcher" was OUR butcher as long as he was killing iranians in the '80's...we gave him weapons and intel...but then he went after kuwait...which iraq had a historical claim to anyway...after one of our ambassadors said with a wink that we didn't intend to interfere in the mideast...saddam thought that was an "ok"

so then we spend billions fighting "for" kuwait.. not even a democracy...an emirate who doesn't have equal rights for women.

of course the reason the iranians hated us was because we installed the shah and supported HIS murderous regime for decades...then when the iranians were about to revolt he ran away to the u.s. to hide...which pissed off the iranians so they overran our embassy..

which goes back to why saddam was a murderer and a thug...but he was OUR murderer and thug and as long as he followed directions he was ok with us.

fuck the M.E....the jews believe we are "unclean", "goyim" and "shiksas" and the muzzies believe we're infidels...let them work it out on their own...may the best man win..

Yeppers, Saddam was not a good guy and it took awhile for us to realize it. Or more likely he was like our last few presidential elections, the best we had to choose from.

But look at the posts, and my reason for what I post, Saddam is gone 10 years and there are those who apparently are claiming, still, that he wasn't the butcher of Baghdad. That he didn't engage in wars with Iran. That he did't use WMD against the Kurds. That he didn't invade Kuwait and when he was kicked out caused an environmental disaster. Now they are portraying him as the sherriff of Baghdad ruler of the ME.

as long as we kept the shah in power, iran was stable and more or less predictable...as long as we kept saddam in power iraq was stable and more or less predictable...

that's part of the reason the whole region hates us...that and the zionists in our infiltrated gvt blind support for israel.

Iraq attacked Iran repeatedly. Iraq attacked Kuwait. Saddam was killing the Kurds with WMD. Saddam didn't get the nick name the Butcher of Baghdad for nothing.

Besides, the destabilization that is occurring is in Libya and Syria and has nothing to do with Iran or Iraq, except for Iran sponsoring terrorism and the violence spilling out into Iraq..

 

[healthmyths]

I know, I know that asking folks to speculate is always a risky business.....But give it a try....

Have we NOT had the invasion in Iraq:

Would we have the current fear of Iran with the potential nukes? (bear in mind that prior to 2001, Iran had zero centrifuges)???

Would we have the brutal rise of ISIS???

Would we have the civil war in Syria and the tragedy of hundred of thousands of refugees???

Would we have the plight of Jordan and Lebanon???

Would we have the messes that now exist in Egypt and Libya???

If you care to honestly speculate, then think of the tragedy that was the Cheney-Bush administration.

Our invasion and occupation of Iraq clearly (a) further destabilized an already explosive region and (b) emboldened Iran by taking out their most important military foe.

And gee, all it cost us was a couple of trillion dollars and the lives, limbs and minds of a few thousand of our brave young military.

Bargain.
.

What destabilization are you speaking of? What we are seeing today? Saddam was someway able to keep the other ME countries in check? Maybe I am wrong but the current humanitarian crisis didn't originate in Iraq or Iran. And what good was there to Iran and Iraq having a war every few years? All his neighbors were glad to see the butcher of Baghdad gone. He was a threat.

don't forget, the "butcher" was OUR butcher as long as he was killing iranians in the '80's...we gave him weapons and intel...but then he went after kuwait...which iraq had a historical claim to anyway...after one of our ambassadors said with a wink that we didn't intend to interfere in the mideast...saddam thought that was an "ok"

so then we spend billions fighting "for" kuwait.. not even a democracy...an emirate who doesn't have equal rights for women.

of course the reason the iranians hated us was because we installed the shah and supported HIS murderous regime for decades...then when the iranians were about to revolt he ran away to the u.s. to hide...which pissed off the iranians so they overran our embassy..

which goes back to why saddam was a murderer and a thug...but he was OUR murderer and thug and as long as he followed directions he was ok with us.

fuck the M.E....the jews believe we are "unclean", "goyim" and "shiksas" and the muzzies believe we're infidels...let them work it out on their own...may the best man win..

You were right about Saddam as our "proxy"!
Russia/USA were at "war"... cold war. Proxy states like Iraq (US proxy) fighting Iran (USSR proxy) was the reason we supported Saddam and at the time
he was well thought of in world circles. It wasn't till Reagan proposed an economic impossibility to USSR (star wars) that the "cold war" was over.
As a result Saddam went rogue.

 

[Rotagilla]

No.

Obama did not have to overthrow Qaddafi leading to Benghazi and thousands fleeing across the Med Sea to Italy. He did not have to support ISIS in it's efforts to overthrow Assad, resulting in terrible human suffering.

Why is it some people can only see the wrongs committed by the political party they oppose and ignore the wrongs by the party they approve of? Partisanship apparently makes some people dumb.

You're right Obama fucked those things up. But you'll never convince me there's any comparison between how he handled those situations and the absolute disaster that Bush unleashed on the world.

There is no doubt bush was a disaster, but so is Obama.

And then there is this...
During the George W Bush administration, the US conducted around 50 drone strikes to kill suspected terrorists. The Obama administration, however, has ordered around 500 strikes, according to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, which tracks the use of drones by the US military and CIA.
Deadly US drone programme still controversial - FT.com

I'll never be as angry about drone strikes as I was about Bush sending our brave soldiers to die by the thousands for nothing in the sand on the complete other side of the planet. I'm all for improving drone technology.

Yes, it is important to note that drones did not really come into their own until fairly late in the game, Bush did not have a lot of time or the strategic vision to use them effectively instead of flesh and blood soldiers.

View attachment 49716

Obama has use drone strikes far more effectively... He is no boy scout, he want certain Militants taken out... He did that with far less civilan casualties...

If this was a GOP President record you would be having a parade...


View attachment 49717
Again his hit to miss is far higher...
The problem here is Obama is a far better war president than Bush... He is a lot smarter, taking a lot less risk with US military lives and killing a lot less Civilians...

The laugh is that Obama has lifted sections of the Powell doctrine (not all of it) and used it... Libya for example, The people want a change in government, all he did is take out the anti aircraft and provided intelligence and some training.
Yes, Libya is struggling, but all changing countries suffer this. The big thing it is not US baby... There is no ISIS, the civil war has been actually been put on hold to fight ISIS.
Two Main Libyan Militias Are Maintaining a Truce to Battle Islamic State

And guess what we will be helping them there too....

What I am amazed about is how little the Right knows about the Middle East... They don't really see past the brown people thing... They think they are all muslims and all muslims are the same. They don't know the damage they caused the region supporting every crook in the region.
In westpoint they teach you to know your enemy, the right know jackshit... Read Robert Fisk book on the region and comeback...

oh..well....the "bureau of investigative journalism" .... LMAO

Former Washington Post publisher Philip Graham "believing that the function of the press was more often than not to mobilize consent for the policies of the government, was one of the architects of what became a widespread practice: the use and manipulation of journalists by the CIA"

As terrible as it is to live in a nation where the press in known to be controlled by the government, at least one has the advantage of knowing the bias is present, and to adjust for it. In the United States of America, we are taught from birth that our press is free from such government meddling. This is an insideous lie about the very nature of the news institution in this country. One that allows the government to lie to us while denying the very fact of the lie itself.

operation mockingbird.

 

[Freewill]

The fighting we are seeing in Iraq from ISIS has come from the outside

Ihttp://abcnews.go.com/WN/fullpage/isis-trail-terror-isis-threat-us-25053190SIS is MOSTLY Iraqi Sunnis.....

ISIS saw a series of successes as it has cut its way from Syria into Iraq and towards Baghdad using a combination of military expertise and unimaginable brutality. Social media accounts associated with ISIS have published disturbing videos purportedly showing ISIS fighters taunting, torturing and executing scores of unarmed prisoners. In addition, former senior U.S. military officials who served in Iraq and helped train the Iraqi security forces said that ISIS has been able to take advantage of government forces who lack the motivation to put up a good fight against ISIS in some areas.