Posted on 09/18/2014 7:53:44 AM PDT by ComtedeMaistre
Americans have to face the painful reality that Arabs are, when judged by 21st century Western Standards, a crazy people. This is not meant as an insult. Early this year, the Iraqi parliament proposed a law that would permit men to marry 9 year old girls. The law had the support of a majority of parliament. The law would also permit men to beat up and rape their wives, and prevent women from leaving the house without the permission of the husband. These SOBS are supposed to be the allies of America in the fight against ISIS. The Shia regime that rules Iraq, is made up of people who are just as crazy as ISIS.
http://www.sfgate.com/world/article/Iraq-law-would-allow-9-year-old-girls-to-marry-5319224.php
Imagine what Americans would do to a congressman who proposed that 9 year old American girls be married off. Wouldn't he be put in a straight jacket?
Islam makes Arabs crazy. Islam has the same impact on Arabs, that the pre-Christian religion of the Danish people had on the Danes. The pre-Christian Vikings specialized in the rape of nuns in convents. The miracle that Christianity has performed, in civilizing the barbarian Danish Vikings, has simply been amazing.
Saddam Hussein was a crazy dictator, who ruled over an even more crazy people. Saddam's craziness enabled him to understand the crazy people that he ruled, which enabled him to keep the most extreme forms of craziness in check. This enabled the Christians and Yazidis to practice their religion.
Let me add one point.
If the U. S. refuses to be the agent of change in instances like this, sooner or later another nation will start to take over resolving these sorts of situations.
Will you honestly agree that it is better if the U. N., Russia, or China become that agent?
Do you really want these or another entity to replace us as the world’s conscience?
We either engage, or someone else eventually will. And this will mean they had to gear up to do things like this, and have become a greater threat to us in the process.
No one said Saddam was "angelic." The question was, "would he do a better job fighting radical muslims than America," and as pertains to Iraq, the answer is "yes."
Makes one wonder why Bush 1’s administration loved him so much.
Frankly, at this juncture I think Russia would be better at handling thugs like ISIS, than we would.
You are letting facts get in the way of a good narrative...
Bush 1 strengthened him and Bush 2 took him out. The family should make up their minds.
Excepting that he was financially supporting acts of terrorism in at least one other nation, bragged about by him in public, that sort of puts a big pin in your thought bubble.
How can he be considered controlling the terrorists, when he’s contributing to acts of terrorism outside his own borders?
We loved Saddam when he was fighting the Iranians. He was our guy. He never expected us to oppose him when he invaded Kuwait. He turned to more radical terrorism in response to Gulf War I,
Had we left him alone to take Kuwait (what’s another Arab country to us anyway?), he would have left his shenanigans to other Muslims/Arabs. Why is it our business with Arabs/Muslims do to each other?
We only fought Saddam over Kuwait, because of Bush’s Saudi “friends.”
Exactly.
I have no doubt the Saudis pulled George Bush strings and then obama’s to oust the “non-observant” strongman dictators .Khaddafi was better than the mess there now.Saddam regime less bloody than ISIS.The Shah of Iran regime had a more modern state and only a tiny fraction of the deaths ordered by the ayatollahs who took over.
The SAUDIS are our enemies;the SAUDIS bankroll mosques all over the world using the money from oil sales.SAUDIS blew up the Towers and killed 3,000 people.Yet only SAUDIS were allowed to fly out that night.
I agree. Those should have been stated reasons, along with others.
Think about that $$$ comment for a moment.
Do you think it would have impacted the United States negatively if Hussein had attacked Saudia Arabia and the other oil producing nations in the region?
Of course it would. So when you comment about the $$$ interests, it’s also your $$$ interests. The Bush family weren’t the only ones with vested interests in that region.
Saddam was a radical Muslim, and was writing the Quran in his own blood, and seeking to become the leader of Islam.
People are rewriting him.
Saudis are every bit our enemy as Saddam was. They just do a good job of pretending they are our “friends.”
The Baathist Party was a secular socialist party. Saddam only used Islam when it suited him.
Anything that promotes Russian military capabilities should be avoided IMO. Right now we are seeing a clear reason why. You have a leader that has manipulated things so that he can stay in charge for sixteen years and counting. He has invaded a neighbor nation.
Granted our leader and his crew refuse or are incapable of managing a situation like this, but don’t wish for something that will make our adversary look stronger on the world stage.
Using military force causes the chain of command and the support systems to project it to become more functional, more coordinated. Do we really want Russian projecting force into the Middle-Eastern region?
I don’t.
I hate it when I do that...
:^)
“It is interesting for me to realize there are people out there that actually think leaving Hussein in power would have been a good idea.”
Yes, it’s idiocy.
And he did not do a better job fighting radical Muslims.
He allied with radical Muslims and supported radical Muslims, actually giving monetary rewards to their families for their suicide bombings.
To me Islam is a much more dangerous enemy than Russia will ever be.
Ha! With about 100% collateral damage
“Freepers have bought into revisionist history.”
Yes, but even worse, some spew forth and seem to believe leftist talking points, eg from post 18
“To bad none of those were the reason W took him out. Saddam was removed to protect the almighty $$$ connection to oil. Oh and “Hey, he tried to kill my Dad!” “
Saddam had bigger plans and wanted to become the leader of Islam and commissioned a Quran to be written in his own blood.
I don’t really care about whether you think his faith was pure enough, he was a threat, and a growing threat, he had to be removed.
Some here confuse the original plans and goals of civilization invading Iraq with Obama’s reversing them, and then blame this chaos on the world getting involved in the heart of Islam in the first place.
The Middle East needed, and needs intervention, to keep it from becoming united against the world, which was Saddam’s goal.
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.