Posted on 08/11/2014 7:23:47 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Nothing Will
“Looking back at it now, with all the hind site available to us, containing Saddam Hussain would probably have been a better policy rather than removal.”
It always was the best choice.
There were no Iraqis involved in 9-11. There no Iraqis known to have belonged to any of the active terrorist cells. Saddam’s support for terrorism was marginal at best, mostly donating some money.
His WMDs consisted of poison gas in artillery shells. It was a threat to the Kurds or the Iranians, but not to anyone outside of cannon range.
Bush 41 was a realist who wasn’t interested in knocking off Saddam. In contrast Dubya appears to have believed in the messianic power of democracy, so naturally he thought it was A Good Idea to knock off the Iraqi dictator; then peace, happiness, unicorns and rainbows would come to the Middle East.
I still question the First Gulf War....Saddam worked with us throughout the 80s under Reagan..Then Bush gets into office and all Hell breaks loose.
That’s a good point and I’m still curious to know if there was a motive beyond the goal of driving Saddam out of Kuwait.
I know the Saudis were nervous, thinking that they would be next.
Two words, “James Baker”.
Two words, “James Baker”.
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.