Skip to comments.America Should Stay Out Of Iraq's Revived Killfest: Only Iraqis Can Save Their Country
Posted on 06/25/2014 3:30:07 PM PDT by right-wing agnostic
The uber-hawks and neocons like Richard Cheney who led America into the disastrous invasion of Iraq are campaigning for a repeat. If only the U.S. will go to war along the Euphrates a second time, they promise, everything will turn out well.
Americans should ignore these Sirens of Death. Attempting to forcibly transform Iraq never was Washingtons responsibility. Having botched the job once, U.S. policymakers should not try again. There certainly is no public support for new military adventures in Mesopotamia.
There was much to despise about Saddam Husseins Iraq. He was a murderous thug with outsize ambitions, but he helped constrain Iran, Americas and Israels more feared nemesis. Hussein also enforced an ugly stability at home: he held his fractured country together, suppressed sectarian violence, allowed Christians and other religious minorities to live in peace, and kept al-Qaeda out of areas under his control.
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
So, if war was Islam’s goal, we opened a whole can of worms by declaring war?
How about only people who live in that general area of the world should be duking it out to see which of them gets which parts.
I have also said Saddam being left alone could have prevented the rise of ISIS, but perhaps that isn’t correct. Would he have fared much better than Gadhaffi during the Arab Spring? Not without Assad-esque tactics I think.
Exactly. Should NEVER have gone in and have made it an unmitigated disaster.
Isn't that pretty much what has been going on over there for the last Billion(sarc/)years?
Are only option is drones with “super sense”. These can distinguish between ISIS, Iraqi regular Army, Iranian Quds Forces, Kurds, Sunni civilian, Shiite civilian...miscellaneous goat hearders and Christians. In order of importance -of coarse.
Gaddafi would be alive and well to this very day if his enemies were not armed and supported by NATO. He was denied the sky to fight his opposition; he was denied weapons. But his enemies were given weapons, and NATO airplanes attacked Gaddafi's troops on the ground. Now we have ruins in Libya, another lawless country, just like Afghanistan, where the real fight for power is yet to begin. Gaddafi was a strongman... in a country that can be held together and in peace only by a strongman. Gaddafi was done with his terrorist past; he gave up WMD; he, apparently, became an enlightened, benevolent dictator. What good was accomplished by removal of Gaddafi?
Indeed, how hard would that be, considering that (aside from Christians) they aren't even sure what group they associate with on any given day :-)
As an example, Iraqi soldiers turned into Shiite civilians in minutes. But generally, it is common in Middle East for citizens to exist in two quantum states: a civilian and a jihadi. You can resolve this duality by turning your back toward them. If they stab you, they were a jihadi.
“....September 11, 2001 allowed us to see what really was Islam’s goal.”
It didn’t show us crap.
Our eyes are still closed as shown by the many muzzies that daily come into this country, to stay.
The result will be another, but much bigger, September 11.
>Would he have fared much better than Gadhaffi during the Arab Spring?<
The Arab Spring was fed and promoted by the Obama administration and NATO.
I never thought I’d read so much drivel from people pining for the good ol’ days of Saddam Hussein
“yes he was a genocidal madman but at least the trains ran on time..”’
They also applaud Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and Pol Pot to name a few, for the order they implemented. It’s strictly a logistical thing!
I was thinking the same thing.