I know what you folks think about that. I know what Trump thinks about it.
Folks, Iraq is more stable and at peace with it’s neighbors than it has been in at least 30 years.
If we had left Iraq with a contingency force as was planned, ISIS would never have been able to do what it did. We should have taken it out.
The Kurds were happy. The Sunnis were happy. The other sect in country was happy.
Hussein had attack four of it’s neighbors. He had attacked Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Israel.
He would not stop threatening his neighbors. He would not stop saying he supported terrorist acts against the U. S. He was paying the families of suicide bombers in Israel.
He would move his troops up to the borders in violation of the understanding after the first gulf war.
Then 09/11 came along, and we decided to make an example of him.
I have never disagreed with that, and I never will.
There is no terrorist type activity directed against the U. S. in Iraq.
That is an accomplishment.
> Folks, Iraq is more stable and at peace with it’s neighbors than it has been in at least 30 years.
I don’t know where you got that illusion from, but Iraq is a complete mess and is not even at peace internally. And parts of it are now owned by ISIS.
> If we had left Iraq with a contingency force as was planned, ISIS would never have been able to do what it did. We should have taken it out.
That’s irrelevant as ISIS is a US government (Clinton/McCain) creation.
> The Kurds were happy. The Sunnis were happy. The other sect in country was happy.
Get me some metrics on this one and I’ll consider its validity.
> Hussein had attack four of it’s neighbors. He had attacked Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Israel.
He attacked Iran because he was armed and supported by the United States. He attacked Kuwait because the Bush administration gave him the green light to do so. Israel attacked him first. And Saudi Arabia was only attacked in the most marginal way, while they were hosting a half-million invasion force. Please don’t rely on this silly, discredited argument.
> He would not stop threatening his neighbors.
Propaganda. Any nation on earth with the capacity to defend itself from invasion could be accused of this.
> He would not stop saying he supported terrorist acts against the U. S.
Did that bad man hurt you with his words?
> He was paying the families of suicide bombers in Israel.
Israel’s business, not America’s.
> He would move his troops up to the borders in violation of the understanding after the first gulf war.
Not America’s business. If not for the Bush admin invitation to invade Kuwait, would never have been our business.
> Then 09/11 came along, and we decided to make an example of him.
And lo and behold, it turns out in the end that the perpetrators of 9/11 were Saddam’s biggest enemies. Great move, I’m sure it will look fantastic on those geniuses’ resumes.
> There is no terrorist type activity directed against the U. S. in Iraq.
> That is an accomplishment.
There wasn’t any to begin with (but there actually is now). Going from zero to zero at the cost of innumerable lives and trillions of taxpayer dollars is not an accomplishment; it is a crime against Americans, a crime of massive proportions.