Iraq / Saddam Hussein / and the gotcha question

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by texan, May 23, 2015.

  1. texan

    texan Well-Known Member

    As a Veteran of the 1st Gulf War era. Served from 1974 to 1996.

    It has bothered me so much with the second guessing gotcha question of the main steam media to include Fox News.

    Least we forget the history of what the left openly said early on to include Hillary...

     
  2. MrFedEx

    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.
     
  3. bbsam

    bbsam Moderator Staff Member

    Remember, authorizing the use of force is not a declaration of war. W chose to invade.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
    • List
  4. realbrown1

    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.
     
  5. bbsam

    bbsam Moderator Staff Member

    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.
     
  6. realbrown1

    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.
     
  7. bbsam

    bbsam Moderator Staff Member

    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.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • List
  8. realbrown1

    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.
     
  9. Bottom rung

    Bottom rung Active 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.
     
  10. DriveInDriveOut

    DriveInDriveOut The One Who Knocks

    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.
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
    • List
  11. realbrown1

    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.
     
  12. DriveInDriveOut

    DriveInDriveOut The One Who Knocks

    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: May 24, 2015
  13. realbrown1

    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.
     
  14. bbsam

    bbsam Moderator Staff Member

    It will be interesting to see if the Republican nominee runs on a platform of reinvading Iraq.
     
  15. Baba gounj

    Baba gounj pensioner

    It will be interesting to see if the Democrat nominee runs on a platform of liberating Iraq .
     
  16. bbsam

    bbsam Moderator Staff Member

    Why would they?
     
  17. wkmac

    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.
     
  18. realbrown1

    realbrown1 Annoy a liberal today. Hit them with facts.

    They won't put it that way because it is not true.

    It would be to destroy ISIS.
     
  19. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    The evidence grows that ISIS isn't a manifestation in and of itself. If we want to destroy the root at the heart of ISIS, maybe we shouldn't be looking in the Middle East at all.


     
  20. bbsam

    bbsam Moderator Staff Member

    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?