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

To: ZULU
Taking out Hussein was a good idea.

I even wonder about that. After Gulf War I Saddam was too weak to threaten his neighbors, but he was a counterbalance to Iran. Now that counterbalance is gone.

The Iraqi people certainly suffered under Saddam. But their suffering was also great in the chaos after Gulf War II. And it's not nearly over yet. I fear a civil war will break out in Iraq after we leave.

58 posted on 12/14/2011 8:53:16 AM PST by Leaning Right (Why am I carrying this lantern? you ask. I am looking for the next Reagan.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies ]


To: Leaning Right

Well, actually, I though we took him out because he was bankrolling terrorists in Israel and we thought he had nuclear weapons and had already invaded and tried to take over Kuwait as well as violating a no-fly zone and trying to take down allied jets attempting to enforce it.
But you can make arguments both ways.

I think Bush really scared the locals when we went in and took him out. We should probably have taken out the Iranian Mullahs and then the Syrians and then just puilled out. Message delivered.

Where we screw up is trying to make these people “civilized”. Impossible as long as they are Muslims.

As for being concerned about the Iraqi people - the very ingrates who are acting oout against us now, the people who exercized their new found “freedom” by sucking up to Iran, threatening Israel and driving out the Chaldean and Assyrian Christians, they can all rot in the Hell they belong in as far I am concernded.

My sole interest in that part of the globe circles around our oil supplies. The rest is irrelevant.


65 posted on 12/14/2011 9:26:15 AM PST by ZULU (Anybody but Romney or Huntsman)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | 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