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

To: NorseViking

May be so, but Saddam held off much bigger Iran for 10 years. It was Bush-43, using American military for his own reasons (most likely revenge for purported attempt on his father by Saddam, which never succeeded if true) invaded Iraq and DESTABILIZED ENTIRE MIDDLE_EAST.


13 posted on 10/20/2017 7:11:00 PM PDT by entropy12 (LEGAL immigrants are sponsored by a relative. Almost all are low skill & low wealth. So stupid!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]


To: entropy12

> “It was Bush-43, using American military for his own reasons (most likely revenge for purported attempt on his father by Saddam, which never succeeded if true) invaded Iraq and DESTABILIZED ENTIRE MIDDLE_EAST.”

Destabilized? When was it ever stable? Israel hasn’t really been at peace since it was established. Saddam killed hundreds of thousands within Iraq, and over a million died in his wars against Iran and Kuwait. Also 9-11 — an attack on the United States that killed more persons than at Pearl Harbor — happened BEFORE the invasion of Iraq. (The United States has been better off since the invasion of Iraq. How many American casualties have we had since then, compared with 9-11? It’s been many years, but I doubt that we’ve accumulated the number we lost on that one day.)

Before the invasion of Iraq the situation in the Middle East was producing all kinds of harmful — and in the future possibly even more dangerous (e.g., from nuclear weapons) -—consequences. The fact that things were screwed up afterwards doesn’t change that.


17 posted on 10/20/2017 9:18:38 PM PDT by GJones2 (Is isolationism safe -- should Saddam have been overthrown?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]

To: entropy12

” for purported attempt on his father by Saddam”

A very bad reason for a war.

“Also 9-11 — an attack on the United States that killed more persons than at Pearl Harbor — happened BEFORE the invasion of Iraq. “

And what exactly ít has to do with Saddam?

“Before the invasion of Iraq the situation in the Middle East was producing all kinds of harmful — and in the future possibly even more dangerous (e.g., from nuclear weapons) -—consequences. The fact that things were screwed up afterwards doesn’t change that.”

Before which invasion? In 2003 Iraq wasn’t in a position to cause big troubles. It wasn’t that much a deterrent against Iran though. Although it is rumored chemical weapons were moved to Syria no traces of nuke program were shown ever.


19 posted on 10/20/2017 9:44:41 PM PDT by NorseViking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | 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