Posted on 04/27/2015 7:35:18 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Edited on 04/27/2015 10:05:42 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
No (according to these guys)
Dick Cheney would disagree with you
That would be his problem.
no.... I think it would be your problem
They would not have collapsed anyway, that is why it is so hard to find those predictions before the media created them, and many of us thought in the late 70s that they would make their big move in the mid 1980s.
Some of us were very thankful for Reagan fighting them in Afghanistan, it really messed with them.
No, it wouldn’t be my problem. I’d tell him to his face.
Actually, it was a mistake for Bush’s father to not topple Saddam in 1991 when it would have been a lot easier and the population — including the Ba’athist regime itself — was ready to accept it.
There are accounts that, after having been defeated, when Saddam and his general staff were told that they would be permitted to retain their dictatorship, they were incredulous.
In the immediate aftermath of the 1st Gulf War, there were several uprisings amongst the population and our vaunted victorious coalition stood idly by as mass-graves were filled with men, women and children.
So when US forces came in a 2nd time a dozen years later, the local population was ambivalent about it at best. Also, terrorist groups had time to fester and grow while Saddam brutalized and neglected his own people. Hence, what was possible in victory was significantly diminished in 2003 from what it was in 1991.
When a democracy goes to war against an aggressive regime, you don’t leave it in power. In war, there are only three possible outcomes: defeat, victory or a continuation of war. [Compare the result of WW2 with that of Korea; the latter war is still ongoing and the Pyongyang regime has been a threat to world peace ever since.]
In his pursuit of international approval by subordinating American strategic objectives to despotic regimes in the Saudi Peninsula, Bush’s father — whose Presidency was a disaster in many ways — chose the third option and thus guaranteed that a war left unfinished would have to be picked up later.
And indeed, it still continues there with no end in sight. That is what happens when a war is left half-done. If you’re not going to finish a war, don’t start it in the first place.
Starting around 1984 Bin Laden donated money through Maktab al-Khidamat. It went for plane tickets, lodging, paperwork and similar ends. Bin Laden split to form al Qaeda in 1988. The Mujahideen-USSR war ended in 1989. It seems exaggerated to portray him as a major player.
“I believe, but we will never know, that had we not armed the Mujaheddin we would not be having the problems we are having now.”
Considering that we were helping Moslem Mujahideen defeat Soviet occupiers your guess seems to turn logic on its head. You’d have a better argument if you said that the Kuwait war had something to do with it. Bin Laden was angry about the presence of infidel American troops on sacred Saudi soil.
Islamic radicals think Saudi Arabia is an infidel regime. The Saudis are our allies for the oil. Al-Qaeda and other Qutb heirs are angry with us for supporting the Sauds and Israel.
You may have a point there. However, it's all up to what the commanders of a given base/unit thinks worthwhile. The troops will follow orders. If you're former military, you know what is ingrained from "basic training" and on.
That said, I don't believe the the regular Armed Forces nor the nationalized National Guard (officer and enlisted) would wage war against Constitutionally armed citizens of America in case of peaceful "civil disobedience". We may see some time soon.
Just hope it is not some dumbass milita or individuals that can easily be painted as terrorists. What we need is a million strong decent law-abiding citizens open carry to the Capitol (without ammunition) in a peaceful demonstration to make a HUGE point. Hell, maybe just a few thousand could make the DC elite re-think their Constitutional oaths. See my tagline.
There is no way the DC nor the Park Police could arrest everyone. They may try to make an example of a few, but it's time for our side to spend a night in jail for our rights like the left does all the time. Those arrested would have such financial support. I'd do it if not so old.
The TEA Party with their huge demonstration (without a show of force) got some Constitutional patriots to increase the House and take the Senate. Don't bother with the Repub leadership not following the mandate - I know that, and now we need more assertiveness.
Just saying, I believe at the edge of the abyss, the regular military and NG would just stand by and watch all those good citizens with small arms at their sides protest against the tyranny of the Fedgov.
When good decent citizens of our Country have large protests in DC, the cops often smile because they agree and we treat them with respect, not to mention we clean up after ourselves. I know this for FACT, because I was the lead coordinator for the first FR protest called, "The March for Justice". There were report after report how the DC and Park Police were pleased with our behavior.
Just next time...carry without ammo. Remember the USSC ruled in the Heller case that CCW is now legal in DC, but didn't address open carry. However, that ruling and further rulings about open carry are still in dispute, if I remember correctly.
Sorry to get off point.
He has only a slightly better chance of winning than someone who isn't running ... fortunately.
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.