Iraq / Saddam Hussein / and the gotcha question
- Thread starter texan
- Start date
MrFedEx
Engorged Member
What you seem to be conveniently forgetting is that the UN went-in after most of these statements and couldn't find any WMDs. The GOP used Colin Powell to get their way. This is obviously a cherry-picked piece that is fairly meaningless.
realbrown1
Annoy a liberal today. Hit them with facts.
Invading would be a use of force.
No declaration of war needed.
Just like Korea and Vietnam.
Exactly. The authorization was a political smoke screen. Democrats could put up a vaguely unified front and still oppose the foolish decision to invade. It's always been the "Decider's" war.
realbrown1
Annoy a liberal today. Hit them with facts.
That he was winning.
And that President Odumbo lost.
By the time Obama leaves office ISIS will have all of Iraq, all of Syria, all of Yemen and part of Saudi Arabia.
Face it, Obama is sitting this war out.
No matter what the future consequences are.
And good for him. It's about time the middle east sort it's mess out. I'm just wondering when Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and the Kurds are going to get serious. Probably only when they realize Washington isn't coming to the rescue this time.
realbrown1
Annoy a liberal today. Hit them with facts.
In a few years Jordan and Israel may be the only countries not controlled by ISIS.
Good thing we don't need their middle east oil anymore.
Bottom rung
Well-Known Member
Wmd's? You must not know if the al qaim rail depot. The troops who spent time there now have radiation poisoning among other issues. He had them, we couldn't find them.
DriveInDriveOut
Inordinately Right
We weren't winning, because there was nothing to win.
Permanent occupation of a foreign country is not victory.
Don't you find it curious that Bush planned the withdrawal of troops for a date when he would be out of office?
Any time frame short of forever would be a failure, passing the buck onto the next guy wasn't coincidental.
realbrown1
Annoy a liberal today. Hit them with facts.
The country was improving.
The new Iraqi military was being trained.
Obama pulling our troops out was a death sentence for a free Iraq.
ISIS will take the middle east.
But they won't stay in the middle east.
More countries will fall to ISIS unless they are stopped.
Obama can't stop them.
He's the JV team of a President.
DriveInDriveOut
Inordinately Right
Bingo. The president cannot stop unrest in the middle east.
What he can do is stop the deaths of, and at the hands of, American soldiers.
Unfortunately, Obama has been a terrible leader in that regard. The murder of civilians by drones has continued and increased under his presidency, and that's all on him.
Last edited:
realbrown1
Annoy a liberal today. Hit them with facts.
I never said a President couldn't end ISIS.
I said Obama couldn't stop them.
Learn the difference DIDO.
It will be interesting to see if the Republican nominee runs on a platform of reinvading Iraq.
Why would they?
wkmac
Well-Known Member
What if a stable and forward moving Iraq is not in the interests of some of our "Allies"?
What if ISIS was in fact enabled by some of our "Allies"?
And what if we flat out know this and yet do nothing about it because too much money is being made by certain vested economic interests?
Does the benefactor suggest the instigator?
What if ISIS was a creation of "our Arab Sunni Allies" for the purpose of maintaining their own power, religious and political, which in the Arab world in little difference?
What if a US Army General suggested ISIS was a creation of some of our allies?
What should we think of another Army General who said, “by any measure the U.S. has long used terrorism. In 1978-79 the Senate was trying to pass a law against international terrorism – in every version they produced, the lawyers said the U.S. would be in violation.”?
If the US knows its allies are behind ISIS and the US is fully behind our allies, one can only conclude that the US fully supports ISIS and its current purpose and mission.
What if ISIS was in fact enabled by some of our "Allies"?
And what if we flat out know this and yet do nothing about it because too much money is being made by certain vested economic interests?
Does the benefactor suggest the instigator?
What if ISIS was a creation of "our Arab Sunni Allies" for the purpose of maintaining their own power, religious and political, which in the Arab world in little difference?
What if a US Army General suggested ISIS was a creation of some of our allies?
What should we think of another Army General who said, “by any measure the U.S. has long used terrorism. In 1978-79 the Senate was trying to pass a law against international terrorism – in every version they produced, the lawyers said the U.S. would be in violation.”?
If the US knows its allies are behind ISIS and the US is fully behind our allies, one can only conclude that the US fully supports ISIS and its current purpose and mission.
realbrown1
Annoy a liberal today. Hit them with facts.
Isn't that a little problematic though? The reason the US wouldn't back the rebels in Syria was because they are what we now call ISIS, no?
