I think the Iraq war was a good decision.
I think Saddam obviously had wmd.
I think the pullout of troops obviously led to the creation and growth of ISIS.
The anti-American war movement is a serious ongoing threat to our security.
No million man marches in Europe over Russia in Syria....They are scared SL of Putin...
*I think the Iraq war was a good decision.
I think Saddam obviously had wmd.
I think the pullout of troops obviously led to the creation and growth of ISIS.
The anti-American war movement is a serious ongoing threat to our security.*
I tend to agree with you. It put us right in the middle of the hornets nest to really shake them out, but the ROE hurt us, the nation building, etc., really hurt us and then zero pulling out and creating a vacuum was the icing on the cake.
Bush signed the agreement setting the pullout date:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.%E2%80%93Iraq_Status_of_Forces_Agreement
Big mistake.
OBAMA IS TO BLAME SOLELY FOR ISSA....when he gave notice of our pulling out of Iraq and the deadline. OBAMA'S SOLELY TO BLAME for what is happening now.
What is needed now is the solution, and Russia so far is providing some of that. Strange turn of events, but elections do have consequences and we are reaping the consequences of electing this Kenyan Muslim President of the United States of America and his religions beliefs.
We knew who he was from the gitgo.....7 years ago. turn to your friend or neighbor and ask them what part they played in bringing ISSA to the forefront, in other words "did you vote for Obama?"
This is not helping.
Remember that the UN passed 17 resolutions against Iraq. Seventeen resolutions!
It is clear that if and when Iran violates its agreements on nuclear weapons, that our leaders will NOT act and may God helps us all.
Yes. Saddam had wmd, was supporting jihadist terrorists including al queda. What destabilized the ME was soetoro’s support of the Muslim Brotherhood run “Arab Spring” islamist revolutions that deposed strong allies, abandonment and surrender of Iraq and Afghanistan, overthrow of Kadaffi and direct funding, arming and support of isis and al queda in Syria.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/07/iraq.uranium/
Bush and the Obama pull out:
xnews.com/politics/2014/09/11/bush-in-2007-delivered-eerily-accurate-warning-about-iraq-unrest/
Obama took credit for the Iraq Victory until he lost the Peace:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/06/19/president-obama-took-credit-in-2012-for-withdrawing-all-troops-from-iraq-today-he-said-something-different/
Obama and the SOFA negotiations:
http://www.floppingaces.net/2015/05/19/the-truth-about-the-status-of-forces-agreement/
I supported going in. We didn’t know what Saddam had, and it was better to be safe than sorry. But I never supported spending trilions on Bush’s harebrained scheme to bring liberty and democracy to the muslim world. We should have gotten out fast and gone on to deal with Iran. Instead we got so bogged down that we lost any chance to do anything about the mullahs. The result is Iraq allied with a nuclear soon to be nuclear armed Iran.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Saddam had poison gas, undoubtedly.
He did not have BW, and did not have nukes.
What was it about his military gas capability that justified the current end state on the territory of the former state of Iraq, an end state BTW that was perfectly predictable right after 9/11?
The war was a good decision.
Saddam was openly supporting terrorism by paying the families of suicide terrorists.
He was bragging in his state papers about his nuclear mujadeen, and they did find plenty of yellow cake uranium.
It’s the reconstruction/nation building/democracy fits all that was the problem. He should have installed a dictator like the British did and focused on culture building and Christianization.