Not because Saddam was a bad man, but because we gave him weapons and Intel that kept him in power. I don't know that we gave aid to ISIL. Nice try.
Sure, but it was just a couple of days ago that Denny was defending the Iraq war. Call me a cynic, but I don't think he's evolved since then. barfo
I am not convinced you can undo prior interventions by suddenly bailing on the situation. My theory is if you install a brutal dictator, you undo it by removing him. Then throw a lot of cash at the people as reparations and to build good will. Like taking out Noriega then giving the Panama Canal to the people there.
Re: The USA is Bombing Iraq Again. http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...494df2-3e85-11e4-b0ea-8141703bbf6f_story.html
No, it's not what we did in Iraq. Try again. Hint: Did I say we should occupy the place for years after? No.
No, sorry Denny, that is exactly what we did in Iraq, and exactly what you supported. And it most definitely was a disaster. Saying, oh, if we'd only pulled troops out a few years earlier everything would have been great is fantasy on a grand scale. barfo
You should be sorry, you got it wrong, just plain wrong. It is not exactly what we did in Iraq. The war was won. W made his victory speech. That was when we should have left. The guy I voted for would have brought the troops home right away. The guy you probably voted for wanted to increase the size of the military by a brigade, if not more. I don't know what would have happened in Iraq. What I do know is they would have determined their own destiny. And that is the point.
No, we shouldn't have gone there in the first place. Leaving when W made his mission accomplished speech would have been better (for us), but not going at all would have been better for everyone. That might be the point, but that's not the reality. They would have had a better chance of determining their own destiny if we hadn't invaded. We didn't 'set things right' by getting rid of Saddam. We just made a much bigger mess. barfo
All I'm saying is that the popular rebellion against Assad, which was a direct result of the Arab Spring, aren't ISIS/al-Qaeda.
>The President says he doesn't need congressional action. And the very same Democrats that demanded that Bush needed congressional action....they are silent. Why? Is this President's foreign policy so outstanding that we should just trust him not to start a world war on our behalf?< I'm glad you can see the hypocrisy. I don't think it is clear that he doesn't need congressional action for limited air strikes, the question is does he need it for a sustained air assault role. I mean, he did this so well in Lybia, why not give it another shot. As far as this not being war: I think it's safe to say it's war, unless you want to continue to argue semantics. Not seeing the President going back to Congress, as you suggest. >Still no coalition....just some lip service to it.< At the time that I wrote my post, there was no coalition. At that point France was talking about making its first reconnaissance flight. >Still no blessings from the UN.< Why no comment on this? Didn't the D's demand that Bush get the UN's blessing before going into Iraq, giving them an additional 40 days notice we were coming? >Isn't this what you D's were worried about with Bush? That he would go to war without these things in place? Where are you guys now? Why is it different now? How can you call Bush a war monger, and be silent about President Obama?< I guess I understand why you would see it that way. 12? 198? 10,000? I give up. How many? (with a citation, please.) They're in Syria. Assad is using them to gas his people. >What it appears like is that the Democrats are happy to let their guy go to war wherever and however he wants. They also seem quite content to let this administration cover up the use of the IRS to attack his opposition. Seems pretty hypocritical to me. And, damned dangerous.< Go Blazers
You are continually wrong on this. Go read up on oil for food and how many children's lives it cost trying your failed way. We didn't set it right by simply toppling Saddam, but it was the best thing we could have done. But surely it didn't matter if Saddam butchered the people there. Let them eat cake.
>No Blood For Oil! Given that we imported somewhat more that 100 million barrels of crude from Iraq last year, I'm not sure I'm following you. Do you think the US will punish Iraq by reducing the amount of oil that we buy from them at the same time we are trying to help them militarily? >Go Blazers< I think I'll not take the bait here, except to say I've ended my posts with "Go Blazers" for about 15 years now, no matter the topic. Go Blazers
They were better off before Obama's foreign policy failures than when Saddam ruled. They're still better off, but less so. By death toll alone. 500,000 children (not even talking about adults here) died under your preferred program over 10 years, per UNICEF and two Lancet surveys. Contrast that with 145,546 high end estimate of Iraq Body Count since 2003 (12 years). But death toll alone doesn't tell the whole story. Your question suggests that the slaves in America were better off as slaves. Well, the Iraqis are actually free. to vote. For girls to go to school. To grow dates in the south. The Kurds don't have to fear whole towns being gassed from helicopters, and are thriving. About Obama. Iraq Body Count site said 107,594 at the high end through 2010. The monthly death toll there has increased 10x since (from 200/month to 2000+). Republicans (and the media, yeah right) should pin this on Hillary. Her foreign policy was disastrous. Though she's already distancing herself from Obama's foreign policy.
So, the fact that this whole thing was caused by Bush (I know, I know.."Blame Bush") kind of actually puts the blame on him instead of the Obama. Not saying he is blameless, but it's like saying someone with an already existing case of Aids moves into a hospice house, and then all the sudden gets really sick (say, pneumonia) because of a mistake made by the hospice. And then the person dies. Sure, it's not like the new hospice is completely blame free..but seriously, the person was already at deaths door.
