Posted on 10/24/2015 8:29:04 PM PDT by DaveinOK54
Well I mean you are right. Although Sadam I think was keeping a finger on the rest of the Middle East. I think we should have completed Afghanistan and then go into Iraq maybe in 2007 or something. Doing both was dumb and a waste of money. Our debt went up so much which is a shame. During his Presidency I thought he was great, but looking back now, he was probably the President to do more damage to our country then all the rest combined.
This.
The Iraq war killed thousands of U.S. soldiers, and drained $1.7 trillion from our treasury.
It goes beyond “mistake”.
The left is delusional. Ousting Saddam Hussein was such a bad idea that Obama and Hillary ousted the leader of Libya, Egypt and are attempting the same in Syria. Completely delusional fools being used and abused by their oligarchical masters
After he was released, he and others would organize an insurgent group that operated in western Iraq, which was composed of die hard al queda, sunni tribesmen, and ex bathists.
After the civil war heated up in Syria, large sums of money from the Gulf Sunni states began flowing into Syria to support the rebel groups trying to overthrow Assad. al Baghdadi would split his forces and send half into Syria to join the civil war against Assad and get his share of that money.
Meanwhile, Bush put al Maliki(Shia) on the throne in Iraq and Maliki swore to Bush that he would share power and the Iraq oil revenue with the Sunni and Kurds. Which he did for a while, but eventually he began purging Sunni/Kurds from the Iraq govt and military, and began cutting the oil revenue pay-outs.
That led to the Iraq Sunni protesting against Maliki and the Shia controlled govt, who would eventually brutally put down the Sunni protests.
This set the stage for Baghdadi/ISIS to start a war against the Shia govt in Iraq, to rectify the Sunni's problem in Iraq. Baghdadi/ISIS had the support of the Iraq Sunni.
The problem with ISIS in Iraq is an underlying political problem in Iraq.
Obama/US forced Maliki from office and the parliament would appoint a new prime minister, Abadi, who said he would share power and oil revenue with the Sunni/Kurds. And Sunni/Kurds have been given key ministerial positions in the govt. Based on these political reforms or promised reforms, the US began aiding, retraining, and arming the Iraq military and began the air campaign against ISIS
But, Abadi has not been able to solidify his power/authority in Baghdad because the Shia militias have more loyalty to Iran and are opposed to sharing anything with the Sunni and Kurds.
FU And the LIBOR financed progressive jackwagon you wobbled in on Blair.
Your right about leveling them. I think we lost it when the political correctness began. Remember the noise over the underwear on their heads etc brought on by the anti war people. Then zero came in to office and that polished off any chance of winning this mess. People forget the the outrage after 9/11. There were screams for W to do something! Most of these people who are damning the decision to go into Iraq are the kids who weren’t even around or babies in 2001.
Insanity is believing you can set up a democracy in places like Iraq by invading and splintering power.
Absolutely. We created a vacuum by leaving Iraq when we did, the way we did. If you've made a decision to topple a government you think is a significant threat, you have to have a long-term plan as to what is going to replace that government.
It was very basic - with only three categorical possibilities. Hussein's government would be replaced by one that was better, or the same, or worse than his. It was our responsibility to ensure that the first option happened. I believe Bush had a vision of sorts regarding a path to this. It did not include pulling out troops early and allowing radical terrorists worse than Al Qaeda to make Iraq their home.
Regarding whether or not we should have gone in initially, hindsight is 20/20.
Let’s not forget the Iraq sanctions under Clinton that killed a UN estimated 500,000 children and teenagers, also over those WMDs.
We would still have the same problem. Saddam was never going to nuke the USA. It was lunacy.
Same to be said at home. Obama.
The left ruined the war by making us play patty-cake instead of wiping out the Islamofascist nests throughout the region.
We know how to really win wars and how to really win the peace. Bush did neither in Iraq and Bush was warned by his top general that it was a mistake to go into Iraq with to few troops to occupy Iraq. The Bush/Blair Iraq war destabilized the entire region thereby setting the middle east and north Africa on fire cause millions to flee/invade Europe. Bush was a disaster as president. Bush was so bad candidates for POTUS are STILL running against him. Even his own brother admitted the Iraq war was a mistake.
I'm sure all those Europeans living in countries being invaded by Muslims think the Iraq war was a mistake too.
Please read reply 64.
You are right, Bush had a plan in Iraq. Bush said that the US could not let Iraq become partitioned into northern Iraq controlled by Kurds, western Iraq controlled by Sunni, and southern Iraq controlled by Shia. Because that partitioning would also partition the oil and the oil revenue, which would mean endless war as all 3 fought over the oil.
Bush said there had to be a single country, a democracy with an elected leadership that would share power and the oil revenue.
Bush thought Maliki was the man and Maliki swore to Bush that he would share.
But when the election was held, the Sunni boycotted the election and started a civil war. Bush would send 65,000 more troops to Iraq and begin the surge to put down the Sunni revolt. Which he did and implemented the Sunni Awakening. So in the end the Maliki govt was established.
And for a while Maliki did honor his commitment to bush but he eventually began purging the Sunni and the Kurds. It was this purging of Sunni from the govt and the military that opened the door for ISIS, to come in a protect the Iraq sunni from Maliki's Shia dominated govt.
As for the troop pull-out. The withdrawal timetable was written into the SOFA that Bush signed in Dec 2008 and that was a legally binding agreement. The SOFA was approved first by the Iraq parliament, after which Bush and Maliki signed it.
Many have said that Obama should not have pulled out the last of the troops but Iraq had no interest in that. After 9 years, they wanted the US out. If Obama had chosen to not honor the binding agreement that Bush signed, there would have been another uprising in Iraq.
People lose sight of the fact that in 2011 when the last of US troops were pulled out, Maliki's purges were minor, but would become more severe in the coming years. Also, in 2011, the insurgent group that would later become known as ISIS, was a nobody. It was not until 2013, in Syria, that ISIS became a major player.
So Maliki has been replaced and Abadi, the new PM, is attempting to establish a consensus govt, but he faces opposition from the Shia militias.
All of that list can be laid to the feet of Obama and Hillary.
None of those are the result of what Bush did, but of what Obama did afterward, in particular Libya was Hillary’s War.
Had Obama continued Bush’s policies and deployments with the same ROEs, then Iraq would likely be stable and not under Iranian control. Gaddafi would still be around as would Mubarak.
Syria has always been within Russia’s sphere of influence if for no other reason than Antioch where Russian Orthodox began.
Trump is absolutely wrong. Both of you are buying into the liberal meme.
I hope Saddam Hussein gets skin cancer.
Thanks for these references.
A BB gun in America is an ASSAULT WEAPON aka WMD.
Toast in America is also an Assault Weapon to these idiots.
ISIS.....sorry bout that, but I think you knew what I meant.
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.