[dp0622]

had this debate with another freeper, about 30 back and forths. I said no it was not worth it. He made good case and I am a lousy debater.
I will say, even if it was right to go in, it was wrong to go in with less than half a million men and seal everything tight. Our soldiers did not deserve to get blown up by IEDs every day.
Also, when you invade under the “liberation” theme it's hard to instill order because you can't be as harsh as you need to be.
but I could be wrong and will probably get toasted in 3....2....1

[Theodore R.]

I definitely remember on more than one occasion that one GWB vowed this would “not be another Vietnam.” And, no, I am not for GWB’s brother for President.

[Republican Wildcat]

I agree with that...the surge indicated the administration eventually did as well. Had enough troops gone in to begin with to be able to hold territory once it was taken from the terrorists rather than “moving on” and then allowing the terrorists to come back and retake prior territory when they were being repelled elsewhere, things would have stabilized years before and many of the problems in the aftermath would have never occurred.

That said, Rand Paul is blaming decisions made by Obama on Bush that have caused some of the problems he highlights that a Bush administration would have never made...certainly would have never allowed ISIS to march as long as it did entrenching in one city after another to where it is now a much more difficult task to remove them - should have been stopped in their tracks when they first started their march into Iraq.