aHA...you have nothing to report on ANY terrorist incidents on US soil sponsored, supported and funded by Saddam. That is EXACTLY why George Bush is easily the dumbest republican president in a century. $6,000,000,000,000 borrowed to fight wars in Iraq and collateral wars, thousands of brave and young American soldiers killed or maimed, all for the purpose of revenge on Saddam. That Iraq war started by GWB was unnecessary and way premature at best. We lost tons of treasure and blood and gained NOTHING except more chaos in middle-east.
I never said Saddam was a nice guy. But facts are there was no ISIS during his reign. And Al Qaeda operated from Afghanistan, NOT Iraq. $25000 prize to anti-Israeli terrorists? That is a piddly small amount, even in Iraq. Name ONE terrorist who committed terror on US soil, whom Saddam sent a $25,000 check. You can’t.
Again, Saddam was trying to survive with hostile neighbors. Iran & Israel were his mortal enemies. Can you blame Saddam for encouraging terrorists operating in those countries?
So yes, George W. Bush was the dumbest and worst republican president in 10 years. But I hold no grudge against Bushbots like you. Because I actually like GWB sa a person. I met him in a line and shook his hand in 2001 in Portland, OR.
I am losing faith in the ability to have an honest, objective discussion with you on this topic, but I’ll give it one last attempt.
You said that “If only Bush-43 had NOT attacked Iraq, we would have no ISIS, Sadddam and sons would be keeping all radical Muslims where they belong, in prisons doing hard labor.”
I gave you ample information about the wide extent of Saddam’s cultivation and sponsorship of radical muslim terrorist ideology and organizations. Without acknowledging that fundamental error on your part, you (apparently rhetorically, to avoid conceding, or perhaps avoid admitting to yourself) you shifted the standard to “Name a few terror incidents on US soil linked to Saddam.”
So I named the Oklahoma City Bombing (then the biggest mass casualty terrorist attack in US history), and 9-11 (now the biggest). Your response: “aHA...you have nothing to report on ANY terrorist incidents on US soil sponsored, supported and funded by Saddam.”
It is as if you simply refuse to register any facts or arguments contrary to your dearly held (but poorly supported) prejudice.
You continue to cling to that prejudice (that Saddam was in opposition to islamic extremist terrorists), by saying “I never said Saddam was a nice guy. But facts are there was no ISIS during his reign.” It is true that the ISIS name was adopted later, but fundamentally, the core of the organization was initially established and nurtured under Saddam, as his Government’s deliberate policy.
The religious authorities of ISIS including their top leader, the Caliph) were predominately trained and educated in the Iraqi institutions established by Saddam, for just that purpose, rather than in Saudi universities or al Azhar. The initial cells that became al Queda in Iraq (whose remnants later formed ISIS), were established by, and as part of, Saddam’s own Ba’ath party, under his direct command and on his payroll.
The military command of ISIS was led by former Ba’athist officers, who had been trained under Saddam for just such an insurgency (along with the Fedayeen Saddam) as a “poison pill”, in event that the country was conquered, or the Ba’ath Government overthrown. Ba’ath doctrine was that they would covertly organize a coup to reclaim power (which they had previously done twice before - three times if you count ISIS).
You seem emotionally vested in your opinion that Bush was the sole or the overwhelming problem, and seem willing to go to great lengths to avoid recognizing any facts that weaken that narrative. You say: “My point remains, the loss of blood & treasure by United States due to invading Iraq by George W Bush has proved to be catastrophic in de-stabilizing middle-east and Trillions borrowed to fight Iraq war.”
OK, but the Middle East was unstable before Bush, and leaving Saddam in power would itself have been a catastrophe. Not removing Saddam could well have been worse, in the long run. Like Iran, the number one enemy for which Saddam preached destruction, was the United States of America. The largest of all the extremist mosques that he commissioned for building (left unfinished, due to the invasion and his overthrow) was the colossal Victory Over America Mosque. You ignore his essential anti-Americanism, aspirations of regional dominance/superpower status, and the huge resources (as one of the World’s great oil powers) that he poured into cultivating the professional military capability of the modern jihadi movement. That is why his regime was designated the World’s largest State Supporter of Terrorism in his day. I also don’t believe you appreciate the fundamental heinousness of the ideology of the Ba’ath Party itself (the Nazi model of socialism based on race rather than class).
So things didn’t turn out well in the Middle East (as is usually/always the case), but there are many reasons why, and many bad actors doing their damnedest to make it so. My point is that Saddam was not some benign dictator, in terms of US interests - he was in fact among the most dangerous world leaders, in terms of US interests, and one of the greatest enablers of of Sunni islamist terrorist organizations worldwide. It is not simple to make peace in the Middle East, or to contain its many bad actors.
It is the preferred narrative of the Left to re-write the history of the region in the simplistic terms that everything would have been fine, if not for the sheer stupidity of George Bush. Saddam was one of the great monsters of the 20th century, and his regime was a significant threat to America and American interests.