Posted on 03/14/2017 5:29:03 PM PDT by Roman_War_Criminal
Sounds like a good idea.
“Is it likely to invade Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, or Israel? It has attacked each of them.”
So has ISIS. What’s your point?
“Are it’s people in fear of being lined up and shot dead into a ditch?”
Sure are. Ever hear of ISIS?
“Are the current leaders and their family abducting women, doing as they please with them, and killing their husbands for kicks?”
Sure are. See above.
Nuff said.
L
“Is it likely to invade Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, or Israel? It has attacked each of them.”
So has ISIS. What’s your point?
“Are it’s people in fear of being lined up and shot dead into a ditch?”
Sure are. Ever hear of ISIS?
“Are the current leaders and their family abducting women, doing as they please with them, and killing their husbands for kicks?”
Sure are. See above.
Nuff said.
L
Sorry, that post really doesn’t address the leadership of Iraq and if the nation is better off today or not.
It’s not Iraq’s fault that it was invaded by a terrorist surge. It is not threatening it’s neighbors, and the leadership of Iraq is not terroristic in nature at all.
Iraq is in the process of kicking ISIS off it’s soil. That’s a good thing.
What’s my point? Why do I have to explain this to you? You should be frank enough to admit things are better there.
ISIS is not the leadership of Iraq, and Iraq is driving ISIS our of Iraq.
Nothing of value said there.
There is a leadership problem in the middle east and Russia is filling the vacuum.
They are on the right track. Obama was imo pro caliphate while Putin is secular. Hopefully so is Trump.
Why don’t we have all the geniuses in our academia grade all of the leaders in the world. Those with failing grades will be immediately deposed by our military. If Putin gets a passing grade we should nuke him anyhow. The world must conform to our values. We know what is best.
Actually Kadaffi, Husain and Assad were and are not nice people. Who is? They were secularists that permitted a certain amount of diversity (sacred diversity). They were replaced by chaos. The information coming from this region is 100% bogus. The Iraqis threw babies out of incubators in Kuwait, Assad used poison gas, etc., etc., etc. Afghanistan will be Afghanistan after the U.S. forces leave. Good Americans have died for nothing.
The Muslims are going to blow each other up. I want to be a witness and not a participant given where Obama and Hillary put us.
It’s an Islamic ritual blood letting - nothing we can fix and Russia will be sorry for getting involved.
If true, this is just a typical Russian/Soviet move into any opening in the West and the Middle East/Africa, that they can make.
It is also a stick in the eye of the U.S.
This is what happens why a fool/traitor/asshole (take your pick) like Obama played with his putter and his balls on golf courses all over the world while our enemies plotted and attacked.
But killing Khadaffi simply sent the message to dictators that there's no reason to make nice with us.
Ping
LOL! You are incorrect.
Filling the vacuum....and being cheered on by some.
The isolationist have been getting it wrong since that little conflagration that started in the 1930s and ended in the 1940s. Still, they re-write history and presto they’re the wise ones.
Yup
I understand your object lesson, at least I think I do.
The point I think you were trying to make is, “We should leave other nations alone, even if their leadership is problematic to the extreme. It’s none of our business and it doesn’t affect us.”
If a nation’s leader is problematic, but they are not threatening other nation’s around them, you’d have a much more sound case with that argument.
Khadafi and Assad were problematic. At the time in question, when people sought to remove them from power, they were not threatening other nations. I would have left them alone. It was a mistake to get involved and encourage others to take action.
I’m not sure that Khadafi was being problematic towards his people, other than trying to stave off the overthrow of his government. The same could be said in Egypt and Syria, although Egypt was clearly more of an ally of the U. S. than Libya or Syria.
Assad may have used chemicals. In the last claims of use of chemical weapons in Syria, it may have been the terrorists who used them. In the other case, it may have been Assad.
As for Hussein, he was a problem for a number of reasons.
He had invaded two nations, Iran and Kuwait, and attacked two more.
He had used chemicals on the Kurds.
He sent SCUDS into Saudi Arabia and Israel.
He was extricated from Kuwait. He was put under restrictions. He would not abide by them.
He was constantly moving troops to areas near his borders with other nations. He was constantly mouthing off about helping terrorists. He was constantly mouthing off about his military capabilities. His bluster was to the effect he was developing weapons that would teach the great Satan lessons.
In this climate, the U. N. tried to make inspections in Iraq, to verify he was WMD free. He did not comply. U. N. inspectors came to the conclusion he probably did have WMDs. And for the U. N., that’s a pretty bold statement. They generally don’t come out with much of anything conclusive against nations, much less sign on to military action against them. (unless they are allies of the U.S., that is)
The U. N. inspector’s opinions came during a time when it was being decided to go into Iraq or not. They did not object.
Hussien was paying the families of suicide bombers in Israel $25,000 dollars.
He was feigning action against his neighbors.
He was not honoring the restricted zones where he was not to send troops.
He was blustering about helping terrorists around the world.
He was either claiming to have WMDs, or simply not allowing us to confirm it. Either way, he was up to no good.
His sons were killing people on a whim. He’s Republican Guard was abusive of the Iraqi people.
Should we have gone in? I have made the case that we should have. You and others disagree. (lumping you in because that’s what your comments meant to me - not trying to put words in your month)
If we adopt the isolationism that some folks seem to want these days, we would not have involved ourselves in the European conflict during WWII.
I shudder to think of the outcome if we had implemented a plan like that then.
There is going to be a global cop. It may not sit well with many of you, and in fact I know it doesn’t. The question is, “Is that global cop going to be the U.S., Russia, China, or someone else.”
Some folks will say, “But China doesn’t insert itself in global affairs, with other nations.” If we withdraw and signal that we’re done on the global stage, Russia and China will step into the void.
Folks, sometimes the only thing worse than policies we don’t like, is doing away with those policies.
The world is a stable as it is today, because we have been willing to step up in place like Iraq and Afghanistan.
We’ll continue having to step up.
A world without a strong U.S. around the world, is a world that will soon threaten us at home.
We have made it clear we won’t put up with nonsense. When other nations get the slightest idea we will, all hell will break lose globally.
Haftar is as close to a good guy as you can find in the Libyan mess so he should be supported. The fact that he doesn’t think Libyans are ready for Western style democracy is a plus, not a minus.
Yes we should not interfere in other nations affairs unless they are attacking us. They can even threaten their neighbors. “Khadafi and Assad were problematic.” Do you believe that Libya is now better off than under Khadafi? Will Syria be better off without Assad? When Mubarak was overthrown the Copts were at risk of being wiped out. These secular leaders were all relatively tolerant.
Hussein was invited into Kuwait by the U.S. ambassador. “He was constantly mouthing off.” Is that a capital offense? “Hussien was paying the families of suicide bombers in Israel $25,000 dollars.” I think Israel should have dealt with that. “He’s Republican Guard was abusive of the Iraqi people.” How many militaries abuse their people? Our military will be very busy if we want to correct situations like this. “If we adopt the isolationism that some folks seem to want these days, we would not have involved ourselves in the European conflict during WWII.” There is no way to know what the world would have been like without the massive destruction of WWII.
Why do we need a global cop? “The world is a stable as it is today, because we have been willing to step up in place like Iraq and Afghanistan.” The U.S. will leave Afghanistan. The minute the last American leaves Afghanistan will revert to what it was before all those billions and lost American lives were spent.
“It’s not Iraq’s fault that it was invaded by a terrorist surge.”
Nope. That’d be our fault.
“Iraq is in the process of kicking ISIS off it’s soil.”
Which it will be doing for the next decade at the very least.
“You should be frank enough to admit things are better there.”
You’re delusional.
L
Libya isn’t better off. I didn’t advocate we go in and I spelled out why. In addition I do not support funding and arming terrorist groups.
As for the rest of it, you’re welcome to your opinion.
I haven’t changed mine.
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.