Posted on 06/11/2014 3:22:33 PM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
I don't know why, but this whole thing seemed so obvious to me back then and I didn't understand why so few good people here didn't see it the same way.
“His name was Saddam Hussein.”
I agree, and I am highly regretful for ever having supported that mistake of a war. Bad as it was, the Ba’ath Party was the only entity that could that country together.
This is the reason I was against the war in Iraq. Muslims cannot be overcome and then befriended like the Germans and Japanese.
It is useless to try to replace oppressive Muslim regimes in places with a 95% or better Islamic population. They will eventually revert to barbarians.
Let them kill each other
Iraq burns and all Obama can do is play with his putter and balls.
YES HE CAN!
To #31: Who is who in this picture?
Fluke wants to f*ke all the time and Obama has screwed America. Doesn’t seem to be much difference between them.
that’s what i’m thinking
Don't feel too bad about it - with the greatest of respect, I don't think you're right.
Saddam was a Soviet client until well into the Iran/Iraq war, when the CIA occasionally bought his cooperation with intelligence information on Iranian troop dispositions (one of which resulted in a poison gas attack - oops). He was not, at any point, a reliable ally. He did not get a "go-ahead" to invade Kuwait from the State Department, much as I wouldn't mind seeing April Glaspie left holding the bag. His was a direct threat to confiscate Kuwaiti oil assets, which he did, and continue on to the confiscation of Saudi assets, which he did not. The potential effects on the world energy economy of the time were catastrophic and he was rightfully opposed.
Our presence in Saudi Arabia for the next decade proved bin Laden's casus belli, as mentioned in the 1998 fatwa. They were still there because both Clinton and GW Bush were happy with the stasis they'd inherited. If ever we had the potential to turn our erstwhile enemy into a client, it was then. Neither man elected to, and I think I understand why although I do not necessarily agree with it.
Saddam the strong man in control of the militants is, in my opinion, a hindsight illusion. He looks good now because we've forgotten how ruthless and treacherous he really was. Anyone who thinks that he would not happily deal with ISIS, who are, after all, fellow Sunni, should reconsider. He was perfectly happily giving formal support to terrorist training camps in Samara, Ramadi, and Salman Pak prior to the invasion, after all.
I am certain mine is a minority view in these emotional times, but there it is. Best to you.
But.....but.....the Obama Administration keeps telling us they decimated “Core Al Qaeda”, so there’s nothing to worry about, right?
If we bomb anyone it should be the Iranians and we should nuke them. Time is not on our side.
Correct. At the time, I thought it was insane to enshrine Islam in the Constitution.
I am certain the evil leftists in the State Department convinced the clueless Bush to go along.
Oh, yeah, and he also was wheeling and dealing with other Muzzies...and yes, he was dangerous...TO US!
why don’t you join all the Libs that say Bush Lied. Why don’t you Monday Morning quarterback that there really wasn’t any danger...YOU knew that he wasn’t a worry and our good friend...of course, even though the whole world believed he had WMD’s.
Go SUNIS GO
POPCORN TIME
WHEN the Sunis get to Baghdad, Iran will come in and then the real show starts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.