- Joined
- Sep 14, 2011
- Messages
- 26,629
- Reaction score
- 6,661
- Location
- Florida
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
They are never going to be better off, regardless of anything that we, or other nations-with-good-but-misguided-intentions, do, until they stop fighting amongst themselves, and figure out how to get along with each other. As far as I am concerned, we should never have gone there at all.
Nope. We really screwed the pooch. The middle east wasn't Eden before the war, but it's really a mess now.
Bush's legacy will be the war and the mess it created.
What happens after Isis. How do they die?
I think we're in what amounts to a 30 year war now.
I suppose we would all be better off with Saddam back in power...
Wasnt that the intent of the OP...to play the shoulda woulda coulda game?
There is no doubt things could have been handled better. There is no doubt things would have turned out better had both major political parties sold out the Soldiers in theater in the name of politics. There is no doubt our enemies would not be emboldened if they knew we were unified in kicking their ass.
Fairer question:
Is there a chance in hell these overpopulated, misapportioned, dictator lead, lands would be better off from 2000 to 2015 with or without anyone else's involvement?
There's babies galore, and No food or Jobs, just bigger tribes in fake borders.
Shi'ite was Going to happen.
if we had real strong leadership instead of a dickless muslim dog.
I think even the neo-con war mongers realize this now. Not all of them, but enough to make sure we don't pull another ****-up like we pulled in Iraq.
Sadam would likely have continued open conflict. He had already had invaded multiple nations and gased his own people. Imagine the chaos when he died? Plus he was an embodiment of cia/American intervention. Now he is gone and we are going hand off.
Is it better off after the obama administration removed every soldier from the country?
Since the question is worded in that particular manner, one is left to wonder why Hillary supported it.
So since the invasion approved by Hillary and a majority of democrats, things are much worse, especially after Obama, where they are 1,000 times worse
Ignoring any role by the GOP in charge of the Commander-in-Chief's chair--how unsurprising .
Which is why 47 GOP Senators signed a letter penned by Cotton who openly calls for bombing Iran.
Everyone voted on it and supported it...right up until the 2004 election cycle. You REALLY want to claim they were unified? You arent that stupid. You may be that dishonest but you arent that stupid.Don't Republicans keep claiming that Democratic Senators like Kerry and Clinton voted for the Iraqi War?
So you can flush the unified thing where it belongs.
What should concern you is Rumsfeld's claims about how short the war would be.
Not to mention how ill-prepared the Bush administration shorted the VA in handling the aftermath of this war .
I don't Have to Have a solution because I identified the Problem.Since you complain about these overpopulated lands and babies galore, how would you deal with this problem you have identified ?
I think we're in what amounts to a 30 year war now.
I agree with you here--we killed a problem we created .
Sadam would likely have continued open conflict. He had already had invaded multiple nations and gased his own people. Imagine the chaos when he died? Plus he was an embodiment of cia/American intervention. Now he is gone and we are going hand off.
The question isn't was "Iraq" a bad idea. It wasn't "is it justified." The question was "is the me better off?"
We know this:
Saddam DID have WMDs at one point. Chemical weapons are WMDs. Do you think that is a dangerous thing for someone like saddam to have had? Remember that he used them. He launched scud missiles at Israel. He invaded Kuwait. He started a war with Iran. As far as "potential impact" goes...saddam had a lot. I realize didn't state that before. I should have added "potential." 14% of European oil for a start. Israel too.
Isis isn't really gaining much support. They are dying. Wouldn't you agree? They certainly aren't the 3rd largest army in the world. Iraq was.
Are you really calling yer President a "dickless muslim dog" ?
Iraq wasn't the 3rd largest army at the time of Operation Iraqi Freedom. The first Gulf War crippled Saddam's regime pretty well. He wasn't going to invade anyone. All of these events you are mentioning happened before Kuwait. The world was certainly better off after Desert Storm. There was no compelling reason to go in again, and it's pretty clear the second invasion had very little positive effects.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?