Missing Saddam Hussein
- Thread starter What Would Jesus Do?
- Start date
Don't forget about the genocides. And don't forget about the decision to go to war was bipartisan.
Last edited:
If by "bipartisan" you mean one party overwhelmingly supported it while a majority of the other party opposed it, you are correct.
But even if you were correct, so what? It was still a mistake - in both moral and pragmatic terms.
Obama claimed stability in Iraq when he campaigned on, promised and unilaterally decided to withdraw.
It was the crown jewel in his first term.
Was he wrong?
I also blame most of the media who were on the bandwagon to go to war. Some people like Newsweek got it right, exposing the WMD propaganda for the exaggerations and outright falsehoods that it was. People can't make an informed decision unless the media does their job. A scary thought with legitimate news organizations dying out.
So what? Look at who the liberals are putting out there as their leaders-- Biden, Clinton, Kerry, and Reid--- all of whom voted for the war.
Did you read you initial post? You're pinning it on one person instead of everyone. So if you're that upset about W for this then I fail to understand how you can turn around and support others who sided with him.
It also leaves out very important facts about Hussein that don't make him sound like such a good guy (as your OP attempts to do). Such as genocides and chemical weapons-- which are WMD by the way.
Quit making ish up. The Power players in your party were the ones that helped create the WMD lies. This was a team play, and there is no denying that. Simply not voting for it, but making sure you vote just enough to make it happens, makes the Democrats guilty. They knew exactly what they were doing.
His point is that your point is invalid. You can not like it all you want, but you're smart enough to know that you're wrong here.
I can't believe some people still believe that Iraq was ever really about WMD. That was never the real reason they went in there, it was just an excuse to sell the public. If Obama would have been president then, we still would have went in and removed Saddam.
Sometimes it's easier to deflect and not answer the question but instead ask a question as your answer... WWJD
So how many other wars would Saddam have started? How many more Kurds would he have slaughtered? How many more normal Iraqis' would his sons have raped, tortured and murdered?
If Obozo would have simply kept a force there, would ISIS be in Iraq? Sometimes you have to set aside your ideology for the greater good.
If Obozo would have simply kept a force there, would ISIS be in Iraq? Sometimes you have to set aside your ideology for the greater good.
None of that stuff mattered. We didn't care about all that stuff. Only one thing mattered for that war, the dollar.
Agreed and the voting would have been the same only the teams would be flipped. Did he still have WMD? I don't think you or I will ever know for sure-- we just know he had them at some point and used them. Did we really care if he had them? Doubt it.
I absolutely agree on the failure of the media (in general, the MSM in particular).
I had to google the Newsweek bit because I didn't recall them getting it right.
Turns out they did publish an article on a report that Saddam had destroyed all weapons and materials after the Gulf War.
http://www.newsweek.com/exclusive-defectors-secrets-132803
They published it in the March 3, 2003 issue - which apparently came out on Feb 27, or about 3 weeks before the invasion.
I'll give them credit for that. But they underplayed it and certainly didn't suggest we shouldn't go to war. More like a raised eyebrow. The strongest concern expressed was this: "the defector's tale raises questions about whether the WMD stockpiles attributed to Iraq still exist."
All that mattered was that he was selling his oil for a currency other than the dollar. The decision to remove him was made from far above the president's pay grade.
I'll just leave this here.
Bernie's right. That's why we shouldn't have just pulled out Willie Nillie.
Unless you are pro-genocide.
We should have never inserted all Willie Nillie. Now we have the gift that keeps on giving.
...and if we're going to start doing drive by Bernie meme's then I'll just leave this here.
Fewer than are being slaughtered and raped, tortured, murdered now.
You can keep going back to point blame at somebody over the last 30-40 years. 5 years ago the argument was about whether the war was right or wrong, and how long we would stay. But bottom line is the decisions made in the past 5 years contribute more than anything. We could have chosen to remain and have more of an influence, we did not. We could have acted more than once in the past couple of years in many places, but haven't. It took until now, and the French, to make some move against the proclaimed capitol of ISIS?
We are now on our 15th year of total executive branch incompetency in the Middle East. I don't think history will look too kindly on either of the last two administrations foreign policy decisions. Its kind of like how the eight presidents between Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln are generally viewed as among the worst in our history and major contributors to the Civil War. Hopefully we don't go on a losing streak like that before getting someone competent in the White House again.
Saddam Hussein was a monster. And yet....
Saddam had terrorists under total control? Like Bin Laden??
By the way - how many of these terrorists in France came from Iraq? Seems to me that has to be part of the implication here if you are using Saddam as your savior.
Probably ought to add the 2 administrations prior to those, as well.
We tend to think of the Gulf War as the good one. Strong coalition; didn't overreach. But it also gave us the sanctions and no-fly zone that harmed so many and set the tone. Especially when Clinton put them on steroids.
To think, that this entire mess might have been averted if the George HW Bush team had just made it perfectly clear that we didn't want Saddam to invade Kuwait. Hard to know, of course, but we let Saddam think we'd look the other way, and we know how that worked out.
What mess are you referring? What specifically are you trying to say was caused by bush sr?
The rise of ISIS in Syria would not have happened because Saddam and the controlling government in Iraq were Sunni. ISIS is Sunni, and basically the outcast of Saddam's revolutionary guard, among others. So I can't for the life of me understand what you're basing your comment on.
The "entire mess" is what's going on now in the Middle East and going back to the Iraq War. GHWB set it all in motion by mishandling Saddam when Saddam expressed interest in appropriating Kuwait. It all went south from there, exacerbated by Clinton, fanned into full-blown war by W, expanded to additional fronts by Obama.
It's what we get for electing war criminals. Why are we surprised when the chickens come home to roost? Not that they have made it home yet. If I were French, I'd be really complaining about ISIS's bad aim.
Most people have said it was probably a mistake but will you admit that what this POTUS has done in Libya and Syria Are equally as bad? Those were the events that have unleaded the mass of refugees we are seeing today. HRC still defends deposing the Libyan regime.
Actually it all goes back to Cater's original sin of withdrawing our support of the Shad of Iran because he ruled his people so ruthlessly. If that had never happened the mullahs do not come to power and the whole equation changes
Again you're wrong about WMD. As has been stated before almost every pol on both sides thought it was certain he did have them( he had to at one time, he gassed his own people) the biggest perpetrator of the myth however never gets the credit he deserves. That was Saddam him self. He kept denying inspectors the fight to inspect every where and kept the myth alive. The fact is if he would have Come clean and allowed UN inspectors the right to inspect they would have no reason to invade
What I find amazing is that so many people continue to believe the islamic extremist activities that largely originate in the middle east are somehow the fault of everyone else - and not the fault of the radicals themselves.
ISIS, or at the time, AQ in Iraq, was flat on its back when Bush left office. The Sunni Awakening and the Surge had taken their toll.
Obama created the vacuum by pulling out and walking away.
I will say the mistake that both Bush and Obama made was letting Maliki run Iraq. His actions against the Sunni minority kept ISIS on life support until Obama pulled out. After that, ISIS was able to get up off the table and gain strength.
I see your point.
I don't believe that the rise of ISIS was due to Saddam's overthrow. It was due to the US leaving Iraq too soon after AQ in Iraq had been beaten down and defeated (by the Sunni Awakening and the Surge). After the US left, AQ in Iraq (renamed ISIS) was able to build strength.
You're right that ISIS probably would not have existed with Saddam in power, but they didn't need to rise and become as powerful as they are now simply because Saddam was removed from power. This could've been prevented by the US and by the Shi'ite government in Iraq.
