Rand Paul says it was a "mistake" to oust saddam hussein

[Thrilla]

You can't just force a governance on people that they don't want or happen to be ready for. Before any real efforts are made on their choice of governance they need to experience a cultural revolution that changes their way of thinking for the better.

you would have made a fine loyalist to the Crown back in the day

 

[Chagos]

Well let's see.....Saddam started a war with Iran ....................

Let's just not forget that we (US administration of the time) were fairly pleased with that one, just didn't say it out loud.

 

[Chagos]

In principle, I agree the world is better off without murdering ideological tyrants like Saddam Hussein. Our problem is Rand Paul makes several good points, all with realized implications.

Knowing how terrible Saddam was to his enemies there was a reality from his rule. His methods made it where just about everyone in the nation was terrified to make too much trouble for anyone else, usually with the understanding that Sunnis and Shiites did not have the room to exploit their differences. One ruled, the other was terrified.

Now that Saddam is gone, the installed government is too weak managing a military that is far too weak to control all of their nation. Part of the reason that ISIS was successful in getting such a foothold in Iraq was because of this weakened condition we are responsible for. A strong argument could be made that ISIS would not have the ability to make such a mark in Iraq if Saddam (or someone like him) was in charge. Does not mean we would be able to escape Syria's weakness, but it still makes a statement about how power is better ensured.

What we know is ideologically most of the region subscribes to a religion (some splinter of) that has a baked into the text method of social control and order. Or, the merger of a government ideology with a religious ideology where strong "authority" becomes hallmark. And usually with a rather restrictive tone. It is a core reason that western governmental ideologies have challenges handling conditions in the Middle East, I would argue the people themselves ideologically do not have the aptitude for "freedoms" or "tolerances" as we would describe them. A theocracy of some degree ends up what runs these nations.

What we see today is a perfect example of what weakness in that region of the world yields. A hotbed for even more extreme ideologies to bully their way into power, because at the end of the day there is no one else strong enough (and/or willing enough) in the region to stop it. Been that way for a very long time.

Consider those we are allied with, in the region with similar ideologies based on a flavor of the same religion. Anyone really want to make the argument that Saudi Arabia is not a theocracy? Not a strong organizational government with that merger of "religious authority" with strong social controls? That truth, if Saudi Arabia did not have that form of government they would end up in chaos. Shuffle on over to Turkey and try to convince us those are not strong centralized ideological and authoritative nations. Perhaps to a lesser degree but still, a flavor of the same religious ideology that is anything but tolerant or a "free" society. We going to try to say Afghanistan was successful with a strong new government when pockets of the nation still lean Taliban?

Expand out that consideration for those we are not allied with (or if so, with real conditions.) Like Egypt, or Libya, or Syria, or Iran, or the Palestinians, or Yemen. Again, without a strong hand running those nations then someone else takes charge (or tries to) usually to problematic results. Anyone really think we would not come to Syria's aid if they were not aligned with Russia?

This is one of the many reasons I harp on our hypocritical and confusing foreign policy, if you look at the chain of who likes who and who hates who in the region it really is an epic disaster. But, the nations that are most calm odds are have a strong ideological government keeping it that way. Some how. There may be an exception here and there, but it is a sad reality given what we are really talking about in social dynamic in these nations.

Best (most pertinent) post of the lot as far as I can see so far.

IMO deserving far more likes than the single mine.

 

[MildSteel]

Our foreign policy should be MYOFB.

Hmmm...

Amazing that a politician of his stature would be brave enough to tell the truth in that regard. Too bad he is a Republican or I could consider voting for him.

 

[Henrin]

you would have made a fine loyalist to the Crown back in the day

Me? Dude, I would be leading the revolution.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

It was a mistake to invade the country period.

 

[TextDriversKill]

I agree with Paul. In fact I think our intervention in Iraq was a mistake from top to bottom. Iraqis had a bad government and probably have a worse one now. We wasted American dollars and blood for nothing.

Like all wars it was about profiteering. The bankers got rich and so did Bush and his cronies.

 

[TextDriversKill]

Hmmm...

Amazing that a politician of his stature would be brave enough to tell the truth in that regard. Too bad he is a Republican or I could consider voting for him.

It is a surprisingly bold statement. Too bad randy isn't equally forthright re illegal aliens. He knows they are destroying america but won't say it.

Be nice if he'd tell the truth about 911 also.

 

[TextDriversKill]

I'm not into revisionist history, sorry.

I'm with you. The gover-media would never flat-out lie to us.

 

[OrphanSlug]

Best (most pertinent) post of the lot as far as I can see so far.

IMO deserving far more likes than the single mine.

Clearly, most people really do not want to discuss this.

 

[Dragonfly]

Be nice if he'd tell the truth about 911 also.

Ummmm........what "truth"?

 

[Ikari]

well, admittedly, I take the long view on such things...

it would be seriously niave to believe it would be rainbows and puppy dogs the minute a tyrant meets his maker.... there's generally crap to work through.

True, but after, what...14 years, you'd think we were on a road to recovery. But it's not, it's in fact getting worse. So how many more decades is this "long view"? How much more of our lives and money must we spend as America itself degrades and rusts?

 

[MildSteel]

It is a surprisingly bold statement.

Indeed it was. Actually if he keeps on telling the truth I will be forced to consider voting for him, despite him being a Republican.

 

[LeoVlaming]

Rand Paul sometimes says sensible things. This isn't one of them.

 

[OrphanSlug]

Ummmm........what "truth"?

Don't go there... just don't do it. The whole thread would end up derailed and probably moved to 'Conspiracy Theories.'

 

[soot]

Did I say directly anywhere?

You can deny all you want, that the removal of Saddam did not set in motion certain things that has resulted in the chaos in Libya, the rise of ISIS and other radical Islamists and the spread of radical Islam into places it was not before.. including Yemen.

Yeah.

I guess if you're not really interested in saying anything directly you could also blame the Last Common Ancestor between Archaea and Eukarya on the Phylogenetic tree.

After all, if it weren't for the nuclear envelope there would never had been a Saddam Hussein or a George W. Bush!

You can entertain any wild ass fantasies you want, and make any assumptions you want, but if you can't substantiate them then what you're saying is pretty much useless as a point of discussion.

 

[Dragonfly]

Don't go there... just don't do it. The whole thread would end up derailed and probably moved to 'Conspiracy Theories.'

 

[MAGAnificent]

Except when it isn't, because at least with Saddam Iraq functioned and had stuff, and now it's just a bombed out **** hole.

So was Japan and Germany until they were rebuilt. What's your point?

 

[MAGAnificent]

Let's just not forget that we (US administration of the time) were fairly pleased with that one, just didn't say it out loud.

Yes....at the time, we were as it was in the time period where the Iranian nutjobs seized our embassy and held our people hostage for 445 days. However how we felt at the time does not justify the behavior of the regime or the war it started with Iran.

 

[Chagos]

Yes....at the time, we were as it was in the time period where the Iranian nutjobs seized our embassy and held our people hostage for 445 days. However how we felt at the time does not justify the behavior of the regime or the war it started with Iran.

Oh yeah?

I suppose that's why the US, alongside regional and international powers, supported Iraq with loans, military equipment and satellite imagery during Iraqi gas attacks against Iranian targets.

And that directly engaging Iranian forces in battle was a sign of displeasure at Iraq.

The Tehran embassy was incidentally seized almost a year before the Iraq-Iran war began, hostages freed about 4 months after the war's beginning.

Support for Iraq commenced then.

Did I mention support by delivery of chemicals? Furthering Iraq's chemical and nuclear weapons development and its missile delivery system development programs?

Below, not what the meeting was about I'd hazard a guess, but you get the general atmosphere?

 

[Thrilla]

True, but after, what...14 years, you'd think we were on a road to recovery. But it's not, it's in fact getting worse. So how many more decades is this "long view"? How much more of our lives and money must we spend as America itself degrades and rusts?

it could be tomorrow.. or 50 years.. or even 100 years.... my crystal ball doesn't work very well.

I'm perfectly fine with extricating ourselves from the region right now... if another tyrant pops up, i'm fine with taking them out too.
I'm more of a fan of taking out tyrants than I am of forcing some notion of stability on a region....

 

[Ikari]

So was Japan and Germany until they were rebuilt. What's your point?

Oh yes, touting the last time we declared war, yeah? Probably a reason we should require a Declaration of War. But how long did that go? And without America, would Japan and Germany tear itself apart? No. Because the conditions in those countries was radically different than what existed in Iraq. So yes, go ahead and point to the last time we officially declared war as a highlight, but that was how long ago? And how long did that take? 14 years plus of continued warfare? Hardly think so.

 

[Ikari]

it could be tomorrow.. or 50 years.. or even 100 years.... my crystal ball doesn't work very well.

Exactly the point. You don't know. There's no plan. No way to get to where we need to be and our continued interventionism has just made things worse.

There's nothing good about Forever War.

 

[MAGAnificent]

Oh yeah?

I suppose that's why the US, alongside regional and international powers, supported Iraq with loans, military equipment and satellite imagery during Iraqi gas attacks against Iranian targets.

And that directly engaging Iranian forces in battle was a sign of displeasure at Iraq.

The Tehran embassy was incidentally seized almost a year before the Iraq-Iran war began, hostages freed about 4 months after the war's beginning.

Support for Iraq commenced then.

Did I mention support by delivery of chemicals? Furthering Iraq's chemical and nuclear weapons development and its missile delivery system development programs?

Below, not what the meeting was about I'd hazard a guess, but you get the general atmosphere?

View attachment 67183745

You are missing my point entirely. I really do not care what the US or any other nation supported about the Saddam regime at any point in time. It does not justify any of the regimes crimes much less it's authoritarian existence. As for the alleged delivery of materials for chemical weapons, I don't buy it. Nothing that the US approved for private sale to Iraq was weapons grade. And the anthrax weapons they developed were developed in Iraq. And I have seen the picture you posted with Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam many times over the years by left wingers who think it proves some kind of point It does not. It's common diplomacy even to shake hands with foreign heads of state during visits....even the despots. The father of modern Islamic terrorism, Yasser Arafat shook Bill Clinton's hand on at least a few occasions. And I am sure that Britain's Neville Chamberlain shook the hands of at least a few Nazis when he traveled to Germany to sign his ill fated peace accord.

 

[Chagos]

You are missing my point entirely. I really do not care what the US or any other nation supported about the Saddam regime at any point in time. It does not justify any of the regimes crimes much less it's authoritarian existence. As for the alleged delivery of materials for chemical weapons, I don't buy it. Nothing that the US approved for private sale to Iraq was weapons grade. And the anthrax weapons they developed were developed in Iraq. And I have seen the picture you posted with Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam many times over the years by left wingers who think it proves some kind of point It does not. It's common diplomacy even to shake hands with foreign heads of state during visits....even the despots. The father of modern Islamic terrorism, Yasser Arafat shook Bill Clinton's hand on at least a few occasions. And I am sure that Britain's Neville Chamberlain shook the hands of at least a few Nazis when he traveled to Germany to sign his ill fated peace accord.

You pointed out what you wanted, I pointed out what I wanted, I guess we can leave it at that.