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 ...
Way I see it the invasion of Iraq was the act of setting up a bug zapper. All the folderol about freedom, and draining the swamp was all well and good, but a simple glance at the logistics of fighting a war in Afghanistan dictates that it’s bloody stupid to make that a big focus. Hence you pick another location to draw off the jihadis where you get to pick the battlefield. Logistically Iraq was a piece of cake with plenty of ability to ship equipment and supplies and an already established forward post in Kuwait.
After 9/11 the jihadis were on the march. Sure we toppled the Taliban pretty quickly, but eventually they would have filtered into there and made a big mess. Instead we diverted them into Iraq which for the purposes of slaughtering them was pretty ideal.
The very act of basically planting a flag in the Arabian peninsula and saying, ‘come and get it’ meant we were able to slaughter the jihadis from all over in droves. Had we not done it in Iraq do you think they would have just gone home and played cards?
The mess there, as said by many others, is a product of the traditional Democrat means of losing a won war. You pull out prematurely, and abandon an ally and you will get a mess. This is not exactly rocket science.
Ok, and on the WMD issue, if someone is going to try and argue they weren’t there, the NYT (Yes, that bastion of conservatism</sarc>) basically came out with a story confirming the existence of WMD in Iraq and that W had covered it up to protect the troops. You can google that up. The story only came out last year or the year before.
OK, let me explain the difference in history about Korea, Germany and Iraq.
Korea: There is no 1400 year religious in Korea. Ther eis no hatred of Christians, or other religions in Korea.
Germany: Germany is a basically Christian nation, and do not have any long term hatred of the United States.
Our brave young soldiers in both countries are not subject to killings by suicide bombers. We can keep our troops there till the cows come home, and American public has no problem with it.
Iraq is a Muslim country. That is a religion whose holy book proclaims destruction of non believers of prophet Mohammad. Non-Muslim soldiers are not welcome in middle-east. The sooner we learn this better off we will all be.
See, I don’t drive my car to the Israel beat because it is horribly biased. Nice folks and all but God’s chosen believe in Jesus as the Son of the living God.
Getting rid of Sadaam wasn’t the problem...failure to leave a handful of military there when we left was...
Do you really believe that we would attempt an invasion and occupation of Iran. Have you ever looked at a map and seen the topography of that country, plus the size of its population. Do you believe that the American people, in light of the last decade, are willing to take KIA’s in the tens of thousands. It would be outright madness. I hope you are just spewing barroom banter and really don’t believe it should be done.
Of all the Bushes, W did the best impression of a patriotic American. Jeb is showing us the wheels and levers behind the curtain: a naked tool of the NWO and the Revolution. Jeb is even more honest about it than Hussein is.
Not having any plan on what to do after the invasion did not help either.
I am by no means a pacifist. Military careers are a long tradition in my family. If attacked, I believe in a brutal response. Japan attacked us in Pearl Harbor. Japan deserved a mighty military response.
Wars in middle-east on the other hand are a sure losing proposition in the long term. It is a predominantly Muslim region. It can not be democratized or pacified by external forces. Only way those countries will become peaceful is internally by Muslims themselves.
So what can we call those people who want us to start wars in the middle-east? The term neocon suits them perfectly.
Theology matters. The large dispensational branch of US Christendom sees them as destined to be believers in Christ in the future. Certain straightforward readings of the New Testament corroborate this.
Oh brother, yes, there were WMD's there and they had used them on the Kurds...poison gas is an official wmd........in all probability, they were very active in seeking nuclear weapons and I'd guess their facilities were quickly moved to Jordan as the invasion became imminent.Saudi arabia is, in theory, allied with us....I do think that they are directly to blame for much of what is going on in the middle east today.
The entire answer to solving the middle east situation is to take out Iran...and if we don't hurry up and do it, Israel will....they cannot coexist with a nuclear Iran.
Thank you, for having a brain!
Many here have lost them to propaganda. Critical thought is not allowed.
Rand Paul is confused. He makes sense in many ways, but not this. There would still be enormous problems if Saddam remained, different, but still dangerous.
In my opinion, Obama is at fault for creating the vacuum that exists. I think he has as much blood on his hands as Saddam, and probably more at this point.
The problem intensified as the MSM took sides, reporting the democrat talking points as fact, first allowing the election of Reid/Pelosi, then the nightmare of the bamster.
These people will keep the world on fire with their Alinsky tactics, and those here that sucker for the Rand Paul version of "Bush's fault" should be tarred and feathered.
And treating Musharraf as an ally rather than an enemy to be occupied and de-nuked. And not killing Al Sadr. And putting Paul "Pussy" Bremer in charge. And....it's a very long list.
Nope. Israel took care of that.
Your father said dumb stuff too?????
I disagree.
All under that same umbrella.
Yes, it did.
However, the "nation building" fiasco after the defeat of Saddam's army, and the neglect of national finances lead to economic conditions that made the first election of Barack Hussein Obama possible. Without Bush II's blunders, Obama would not have been elected.
RE: There were no WMD and Iraq had zero to do with the World Trade Center.
There WERE WMD’s.
See here:
And here:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/10/ny_times_admits_saddam_had_wmds.html
and here:
and here:
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.