Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In the first Gulf war, with very few American and ally casualties, we contained Saddam. He knew that, if he got out of line, that our bombs would seek him out. He was aware of our close surveillance and had a passion to live and continue his reign. He also hated Iran. Of course he would have pushed his boundaries - but we had him on a short leash.
There was absolutely no reason to go back in to Iraq - other than falling Presidential opinion in our own Country. We forfeited thousand of Americans and countless Iraqis for politics.
What did we accomplish? How is Iraq better off today than it was under Hussein? Is the world safer? Look at the casualties in Iraq because of our involvement and the turmoil that we created - then tell me who the real monster is. War does not create friends - it creates enemies that cooperate, through fear, only until they see an opening for revenge.
The primary concern for US Policy in the Middle East is the security of Israel. Even the oil is not as important as the US can now produce or access as much as it really needs from far more secure sources. Even in the event of a nuclear holocaust the oil will be unaffected as most of it is still underground and we know where it is.
We might actually prefer a full blown cultural breakdown and near total anarchy in the Middle East except for the threat that anarchy presents to Israel. A total war in the Middle East will prevent an unified Islamic world for the foreseeable future. Unfortunately for US desires that level of chaos will undoubtedly destroy Israel as a state, a society and probably as a population. Even if Israel uses its nuclear weapons they will and cannot win the long term conflict. Even if we use nuclear weapons against their enemies. They probably cannot even survive it. .
Maybe a solution to the problem is to offer the Israeli citizens a new "promised land". I suggest West Texas and South East New Mexico. The population already there is very low, the climate is about the same and this place still has some oil reserves. This would at least eliminate the Islamic but not the Christian threat to Israel. Sort of anyway.
And what did we accomplish by "getting" Saddamn Hussein? Because i damn sure can't figure it out. He definitely wasn't worth 4500 American troops.
For killing hundreds of thousands of his own people. For bombing the Kurds with chemical weapons. Saddam was a bad, bad dude. Anyone that tries to deny that is just full of it. The U.S. getting involved in Iraq was not a good decision, but I'm not going to sit here and shed alligator tears for a brutal tyrant that murdered his own people wantonly. I was in Mosul the day that it was announced that Saddam had been captured and I've never seen cheering or celebration like that in my life before.
In the first Gulf war, with very few American and ally casualties, we contained Saddam. He knew that, if he got out of line, that our bombs would seek him out. He was aware of our close surveillance and had a passion to live and continue his reign. He also hated Iran. Of course he would have pushed his boundaries - but we had him on a short leash.
There was absolutely no reason to go back in to Iraq - other than falling Presidential opinion in our own Country. We forfeited thousand of Americans and countless Iraqis for politics.
What did we accomplish? How is Iraq better off today than it was under Hussein? Is the world safer? Look at the casualties in Iraq because of our involvement and the turmoil that we created - then tell me who the real monster is. War does not create friends - it creates enemies that cooperate, through fear, only until they see an opening for revenge.
The Kurds have a free and largely stable society. They have been able to prosper without the presence of Saddam. The Shi'ites which are a majority of the country are no longer antagonized and brutally repressed. Ultimately the solution for Iraq is that the country was a flawed creation to begin with. The Brits pulled a complete Operation FUBAR. You can't just lump people with thousands of years of history, varying interests and loyalty and tell them all to play nice, sooner or later they will come to blows.
There is no Iraq. If you need a brutal megalomaniac killing people off left and right to keep the country together, perhaps it really shouldn't be together. The only stable, and long-lasting solution for Iraq is to divide it in to three separate states. The Kurds are already pretty much completely autonomous, the Shi'ites are fairly entrenched in the southern part of the country and directly bordering Iran, the main remaining issue is determining the land for a separate Sunni state. along the central and western border areas.
For killing hundreds of thousands of his own people. For bombing the Kurds with chemical weapons. Saddam was a bad, bad dude. Anyone that tries to deny that is just full of it. The U.S. getting involved in Iraq was not a good decision, but I'm not going to sit here and shed alligator tears for a brutal tyrant that murdered his own people wantonly. I was in Mosul the day that it was announced that Saddam had been captured and I've never seen cheering or celebration like that in my life before.
110k civilians killed since the Iraq War. How long would it take Saddan to make that body count? Women lived largely like Western Women in Saddam's Iraq. Saddam also kept the religious extremists at bay. That ship has sailed. The US should not have taken over Iraq. There's a reason why the first Bush didn't do it.
It has destabilized the region, enabled Iran and will ultimate end up costing the United States $4,000,000,000,000.
Hussein was a bad guy, but it takes a bad guy to keep the different factions in that country from civil war. How safe do you think that people in Mosul feel now?
Thanks for agreeing. People can spin this however they like, the end result is, Saddam was still a bad guy. Not even slightly sorry that he's gone. The people living in Iraq mostly just want to be left the heck alone and be able to live a life of peace, not under the hand of a brutal dictator. The sooner the nation divides into three separate states, the better it will be.
The Kurdish north is largely peaceful and stable. The Shi'ite south is largely peaceful and stable. There's a world of difference in an armed insurrection and living under the iron first of a dictator.
This will pass. Between the Kurds, Iran, Russia and the Iraqi forces, the ISIS will end up losing in the long run. I don't see the need for the U.S. to have any further involvement in this situation or to be sending more troops there.
Thanks for agreeing. People can spin this however they like, the end result is, Saddam was still a bad guy. Not even slightly sorry that he's gone. The people living in Iraq mostly just want to be left the heck alone and be able to live a life of peace, not under the hand of a brutal dictator. The sooner the nation divides into three separate states, the better it will be.
It's great unless you're one of the minorities in a state like that. It's a mess with no clean resolution. It's a sad experiment by a bunch of people who got in office by bible thumping and should never have been there in the first place.
The Kurds have a free and largely stable society. They have been able to prosper without the presence of Saddam. The Shi'ites which are a majority of the country are no longer antagonized and brutally repressed. Ultimately the solution for Iraq is that the country was a flawed creation to begin with. The Brits pulled a complete Operation FUBAR. You can't just lump people with thousands of years of history, varying interests and loyalty and tell them all to play nice, sooner or later they will come to blows.
There is no Iraq. If you need a brutal megalomaniac killing people off left and right to keep the country together, perhaps it really shouldn't be together. The only stable, and long-lasting solution for Iraq is to divide it in to three separate states. The Kurds are already pretty much completely autonomous, the Shi'ites are fairly entrenched in the southern part of the country and directly bordering Iran, the main remaining issue is determining the land for a separate Sunni state. along the central and western border areas.
You did not answer my post. Did we send thousands of our own troops to their deaths simply for politics?
Let's go back to the Iranian hostage crisis. President Carter had mounting pressure to either negotiate with the Iranians or to take military action. Almost daily the nightly news broadcasted how may days our 52 captives had been held. Our President eventually ordered the rescue mission into Iran - two aircraft were lost and eight service men dead in Operation Eagle Claw. It was an American embarrassment and further eroded Presidential support.
To me, the question still remains: Could our military have planned the operation better without the political pressure?
Then we have other questions such as: Why did we attack Afghanistan; when Osama was hiding in Pakistan? Another war, with many dead and disfigured, and no true reason for our involvement - other than the political pressure to take action.
When we call Saddam evil; we have to look at the fatalities and the injustices. Then we have to look at the fatalities and injustices because of our involvement. Do the math and then see who is evil - or are we both?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
