Posted on 04/27/2015 7:35:18 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Edited on 04/27/2015 10:05:42 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Interesting, not because it’s a surprise that Ron Paul’s son feels this way — remember this? — but because this is a subject that every Republican in the field, Rand included, would probably prefer to avoid during the primaries.
Or am I wrong about that? Could this be a smart play for Paul, especially given how it’ll make Jeb Bush squirm?
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
I do agree with a lot of this. 20/20 is easy and yes, blood and treasure was spent. On the other hand, why do the Kurds like us? Saddam was convicted of genocide against the Kurds, most likely he killed 30,000, might have been a lot more.
Nope.
The mistake was in electing the feckless Bill Clinton.
Maybe he was negligent — or maybe he was bribed — but Clinton did not enforce the terms of the ceasefire which ended the first Gulf War.
Eight years late, Saddam was once again a threat to the region — and YES a supporter of terrorism.
What exactly did I “want us to do?”
Bin Laden was an extremely marginal player in the Afghan war against the USSR. He basically provided a very small bit of financing at the very end. His role has been greatly exaggerated by those who want to believe that we created him. It’s manure.
What does that post say that you wanted to do?
Why do you keep pretending that the sentence doesn’t exist?
Well you are certainly effective at peddling the debunked, but still peddled by the MSM and liberal commentators, Obama talking points, but withdrawing the combat forces and completely abandoning the place are two different things and was not on the radar and would not have occurred but for Obama’s policies. For you to sit here and argue otherwise is completely false. It was not a disaster when Bush left office, and had the policy been seen through, would likely still be as stable and improving as when he left it.
Your whole post actually reinforces Rand's point. A nation that can't establish any continuity between one administration and the next has no business waging military campaigns all over the world that are immediately put at risk every Election Day.
I’m with you
Then why are you denying reality? There would have been no détente or ceasefire between actual enemies for twelve years, as there was prior to 2003.
Right that Bin Laden Reagan thing is the left’s creation fantasy.
Well, let's see ...
It seems that we did what you wanted to do ...
I see no mention here of anything in particular. Don't waste my time. I've finally recognized you as someone who was at the other end of a similar idiotic discussion some weeks ago.
The ones that were not the Islamic Dawa Party leadership. Plenty of news articles still online that details which Iraqis wanted US troops still in there after 2011, even well after.
But that’s OK, because “Al-Qa’eda in Iraq” were “on the run” towards turning themselves into ISIS afterwards. Just had to have that, didn’t we?
LOL, this is too weird, you look at that one little sentence over and over and over, and keep claiming that it doesn’t exist.
Childish, and freakishly bizarre.
Actually, what I posted there was a set of pretty solid facts.
It's worth noting that the Obama administration was negotiating an extension of the U.S. military presence in Iraq through 2010, but ended up walking away from the negotiations under pressure from senior U.S. military leaders who were adamant that they would never allow U.S. military personnel to remain in Iraq unless they were given full immunity from prosecution in Iraqi courts. This was a point that Iraq's leaders would not accept, so the U.S. left them to deal with their own sh!t-hole.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/380508/no-us-troops-didnt-have-leave-iraq-patrick-brennan
When that nonsense was first peddled by the left that you are now recycling to defend Obama, it was debunked. Here is a good article outlining how this talking point of left-wing was being used and the complete falsity of it exposed.
In 1991, Bush should have ousted him then.
Paul can shove it up his ass. It is BECAUSE we did not finish the job the first time that we saw the aftermath. I guess he doesn’t remember Powell going all pussy at the U.N. over the “highway of death” calling operations off.
The problem was, we let up too early. We should have finished things off while we had a heavy armada and not just Iraq. and on our way out, mopped up those fucking Saudi’s that came back and attacked our trade centers. I can’t wait to see those assholes fall, and hung, stoned, beheaded, etc. They can eat a bag fatwa.
Okay, I will face it.
You are a friggin lunatic and seed of your father...
Are you sure? I remember talks about a certain amount being withdrawn over time, but my failing memory tells me it was Obambi who pulled everyone out beforehand and notified the world before hand. If I'm wrong, then it's Bush's fault. It's Obambi's fault for not insisting on his watch a Status of Forces agreement.
As I mentioned in this or another thread, Rand Paul is correct that we shouldn't have deposed Saddam nor Kaddafi and left vacumns for ISIS. Kaddafi was under control. We could have also controlled Saddam without total warfare. Of course, both caused the so-called Arab Spring. Now the ME is exploding and our Resident and SOS claim we have a good "deal" with Iran, as they deny it every day.
“I’m with you”
Me too. It was a stupid idea that had nothing to do with punishing jihadi Islam. It grew out of the crackpot utopian idea that democracy is a cure-all for every ill in the world and can be easily implanted in cultures that haven’t got any of the civil society that makes democracy work in the West.
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.