Posted on 05/02/2015 4:02:29 PM PDT by WilliamIII
On Monday, presidential hopeful Rand Paul had this to say to a group of Orthodox Jews in Brooklyn: "All the way back to the Iraq War, I think it was a mistake to topple [Saddam] Hussein." The Kentucky senator continued:
Hussein was the bulwark against Iran. The Sunnis didn't like the Shiites, now Iraq is a vassal state for Iran. I'm worried [Iran] is twice as strong as it was before the Iraq War. [Rand Paul]
I'm no dove. But I must admit: Rand Paul has a point.
(Excerpt) Read more at theweek.com ...
You are correct.
America is not good at setting up kings any more (the Shah of Iran wasn’t that bad as kings go).
Apple doesn’t fall far from the tree.
Something has to follow a war. An anarchy in the Middle East is asking for jihadism.
So busy at personal attacks on folks that we are failing to notice when someone actually makes a good point?
One could technically fault the lack of a good follow up plan rather than the toppling of Saddam, but in the end the issues are connected.
We should’ve taken out Saudi Arabia too, carpet bombing both countries.
I never knew Rand Paul was the son of Ron Paul.
While I disagreed with the later, I respected him.
I now have very little respect for his son.
And leaving an anarchy in Islam’s holy land... no thanks.
I have more respect for his son, he is thinking through long term consequences, not just gut level ME HATE MUSLIM, ME KICK MUSLIM ASS, ME LEAVE ANARCHY, ME GO HOME
Infinitely better than what followed.
Taking out Saddam was the right thing to do. But from the day we invaded and the MSM announced we were in a quagmire, the day Harry Reid said ‘the war is lost’ was the true effect of the battle. We learned there will NEVER be another conflict as long as there are ‘Progressives’ you must fight at home.
Shoulda learned that lesson after Vietnam, I guess.
We see what happens when anarchies fill vacuums in Muslim land.
There needed to be will to ignore the progressives (assuming there was a sane follow up plan, otherwise it is a question about what flavor of hell you want, vanilla or chocolate).
Electing Baraka Hussein twice is THE MISTAKE.
Rand Paul is a creepy enigma.
Hate to say it, but I don’t necessarily disagree.
Paul is not always practical. We can’t ignore the rest of the world as conveniently as we did in the days of the founding fathers. I disagree with Paul that we can act as though those oceans do now what they did then.
BUT. I can respect when he thinks through consequences.
The father is ethical, although it implies some kooky positions. The son will forego ethical decisions for politically acceptable positions without wherewithal.
No it doesn’t, people don’t remember that Rand Paul was trying to make his dad president, as part of the libertarian party.
In this case, I believe Rand Paul is speaking the truth, but not because he believes it or cares about it but because he correctly perceives that the 2003 invasion of Iraq is looked on negatively by a lot of voters in America and -- lying opportunist that he is -- he's trying to capitalize on that.
But... forgetting all about Rand and Ron for a minute... I do believe it was a colossal mistake -- a blunder of the highest order -- to invade Iraq in 2003.
In 2003 we had the best of all possible worlds in that region: We had our foot on Saddam's neck with our overflights and other controls in place. Saddam was still a very, very effective block against Shiite expansionism both internally and from Iran. Saddam actually kept a lid on Islamic fundamentalism with his semi-secular communist Baathist system, a system which allowed Christians to remain alive in Iraq (unlike now) and allowed women to walk around without the worst of the chains of islam around their necks (unlike now).
Bush had good intentions. He wanted to take the war on terror to the home ground of the terrorists, and I think he was successful at doing that. I think over the years in Iraq, the battlefield was a flytrap that resulted in the killing of a large number of terrorist creeps.
But it wasn't worth the sacrifice of the control of the region that we had in 2003 prior to the invasion and which we have completely lost today.
And to those who say we lost that control because Obungler pulled out, well, yes, of course that's true, but it's also obviously true that Obungler was elect precisely because of the invasion of 2003.
No invasion of Iraq in 2003, no President Obama.
It was the biggest blunder in American history, even greater than Jimmy the Cockroach giving Iran to the ayatollah.
And it goes without saying that Bush's belief in his ability to bring democracy to Iraq is probably the most naive belief of any President of the United States ever.
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.