Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Jim Noble

“Oh, I care, all right.

Anyone who would use the US armed forces to “enforce UN resolutions” is unfit for office. “

Even IF, and that’s a true IF Saddam had WMD’s, why is it American soldiers who are tasked with their removal? Why was it up to America to build a coalition to topple Saddam. If we’re ok with that, then we can’t criticize Obama when he tries to topple other heads of state.

It wasn’t ok. I was for supporting the troops and not blaming them for the fiasco. It wasn’t their fault and I think we were sold a FALSE pretense in order to go into Iraq. I defended Bush because I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt and Security Briefings. I think he blew it. I didn’t think so at the time, but looking back, it was not right, going into Iraq. We are not the world’s policeman.

What other way is there to say that the Towers fell under Bush’s watch without it sounding inflammatory? It is exactly what happened.

Lowry needs to read some of the personal, hateful venomous comments on FR to get some perspective on what ‘unhinged’ really means.


154 posted on 02/14/2016 5:58:57 AM PST by austinaero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies ]


To: austinaero; nathanbedford
I've "evolved" on the question of Iraq, and on the related question of Bush as a war leader.

Here's a prediction I wrote on September 13, 2001 about what was going to happen. I didn't know Vietnam II would be fought in Iraq, but I was pretty sure that we would blow sh*t up, demonstrate we could take casualties (so we looked serious) without conquering the enemy (so we didn't look mean) and wind up worse off, which is exactly what happened.

A punitive expedition (which is how Afghanistan started) was the minimum acceptable response. IF we had killed Bin Ladin and his team at Tora Bora in December 2001, success could have been declared and it would have been over.

The necessary for victory was the conquest of Arabia and Pakistan. Sounds big, I know, but certainly smaller than the conquest of Japan and Germany. Yes, the Soviets did a lot to Germany, but we could have had India's legions for the Pakistan part.

But a 80-division expeditionary force, mostly white and all Western, grinding little brown men to dust and re-educating their children was always beyond the imagination of the Bush family and their crew.

That left him with the need to do "something" bigger than Special Forces on horseback chasing out the Taliban and smaller than a war to extirpate the cancer that is politicized Sunni Islam.

Saddam WAS wearing a sign that said "kick me", and had been for years, but he was an entrepreneur of brutality with a keen sense of survival, so it's certain he and his army could have been bought for the march on Riyadh.

Bush thought small at a time when big thinking was a necessity, and the subsequent disasters are entirely the result of this failure. His pathetic embrace of "enforcing UN resolutions" as casus belli only made failure more certain.

It disgusts me that there are Republican candidates who are not made physically ill by the magnitude of our sacrifices for nothing in Iraq.

For after all, even if the fantasy of a multicultural, peaceful, feminist Iraq and Afghanistan had come true (impossible though that was), our real enemies in Riyadh and Islamabad would still sleep soundly in their beds, as they do to this day.

172 posted on 02/14/2016 6:27:07 AM PST by Jim Noble (I won't be laughing at the lies when I'm gone, and I won't question what or when or why when I'm gon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson