Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: eCSMaster
I don't think we should have gotten in Iraq -- not in the 90s, nor in the 2000s -- Saddam was a threat to the region, to Iran and Saudi arabia which is why Bush senior went after him

If Bush I had not interfered then Saddam would have used his robbings from Kuwait to fund a new war with Iran, possibly defeating it (with the USSR out of the picture)

He would also have held the Saudis to ransom

Oh and finally, the Islamic jihadis hated him, so they would have tried to get him and he would have used his characteristic mustard gas attacks on them

And there would still be 2 million Christians in Iraq living safely rather than 200,000 and dropping under danger from jihadis

65 posted on 05/08/2014 9:56:10 PM PDT by Cronos (ObamaÂ’s dislike of Assad is not based on AssadÂ’s brutality but that he isn't a jihadi Moslem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]


To: Cronos
Semi-secular Arab strongmen/dictators are sadly what is best for that region. They scare the Saudis (Which is fine by me), keep Iran in check (UN screwed the pooch in the '80s by holding Hussein back when Iraq gained the strategic advantage) and tend to keep "religious order" better than any Western "infiltrator" trying to "establish democracy" and nation build.

Muslims are a counter-hegemonic force that the West tries to desperately tame, but their "good intentions" make the situation far worse in the long run.
72 posted on 05/09/2014 8:23:50 AM PDT by rollo tomasi (Working hard to pay for deadbeats and corrupt politicians.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson