F*ck this shit! I want George Bush back!

[PatsFan1283 3,005]

ISIS wouldn't be doing much in Iraq if Saddam was there because he was a brutal dictator that didn't play that shit. His military was ruthless and suppressed any insurgent activity with an iron fist.

Whether you think removal and the cost/benefit analysis was worth it is an issue that can be debated, but the inmates would not be running the asylum with Saddam.

 

[Enfuego 1,975]

ISIS wouldn't be doing much in Iraq if Saddam was there because he was a brutal dictator that didn't play that shit.

Whether you think removal and the cost/benefit analysis was worth it is an issue that can be debated, but the inmates would not be running the asylum with Saddam.

AQ operated in Iraq when Saddam was in power without interruption. They didn't run the asylum with him in charge but they maintained the asylum grounds if you know what I mean.

 

[PatsFanatic 3,215]

ISIS wouldn't be doing much in Iraq if Saddam was there because he was a brutal dictator that didn't play that shit.

Whether you think removal and the cost/benefit analysis was worth it is an issue that can be debated, but the inmates would not be running the asylum with Saddam.

Yup! He would still be robbing/raping/killing Iraqi's, but now ISIS is taking care of that for him.

 

[PatsFan1283 3,005]

The idea that they would have oil fields in a Saddam Hussein country is impossible to fathom. They just wouldn't be as significant of a problem in a country without a massive power vacuum.

Terrorists are kinda like whores, they need a pimp to keep them in line.

 

[vitterd 0]

And I can guarantee you I know more on this topic than yourself Vit. But, do or say whatever makes you happy.

ISIS is AQ. Nothing has changed. Nothing will ever change in the region as far as fanatical terrorism goes.

Thats your opinion but I'm comfortable being on the same side as retired govt and military personnel.

i don't know if you know more than me but I know you don't know more than them.

 

[PatsFan1283 3,005]

Yup! He would still be robbing/raping/killing Iraqi's, but now ISIS is taking care of that for him.

What point are you trying to make? Say what you want about Saddam but he kept a lid on instability. Unfortunately he had delusions of grandeur when it came to geopolitics.

It isn't palatable to most idealistic Westerners but the ideal gov't setup for a lot of these ME countries is a dictator that has no grand plans beyond his own country. Atleast in the short-term. Maybe they will be ready for democracy in 2000 years or so though.

 

[PatsFanatic 3,215]

What point are you trying to make? Say what you want about Saddam but he kept a lid on instability. Unfortunately he had delusions of grandeur when it came to geopolitics.

It isn't palpable to most Westerners but the ideal gov't setup for a lot of these ME countries is a dictator that has no grand plans beyond his own country. Atleast in the short-term. Maybe they will be ready for democracy in 2000 years or so though.

My point is Saddam wasn't good to "his" people, now ISIS is not good to Iraq.

And I agreed with you that with Saddam around half this terrorist shit wouldn't be going on. Got rid of one evil for another clearly.

 

[PatsFan1283 3,005]

Yeah, there isn't as easy of a solution as people think.

Iran has a pretty young population that wants to be Westernized. Maybe there is some hope for them.

Syria is a mess. Assad is a maniac but you would have to be to run that place.

 

[PatsFanatic 3,215]

Yeah, there isn't as easy of a solution as people think.

Impossible situation IMO

 

[PatsFan1283 3,005]

Let's say North Korea couldn't defend themselves as well as they can and you invaded there tomorrow, you could probably install a Democracy pretty fast. Those people are just suppressed. They don't have Middle Ages primitive views. They might not be as progressive as US or Europe tomorrow but they aren't animals either.

Why we should've invested more in nuclear power in the 70's, because without a massive footprint in global energy supply, these ME countries would not have the leverage they do. Yeah, that means we would have to kill more civilians but sometimes you have to break a few eggs to make an omelette.

 

[MikeB 2,240]

ISIS wouldn't be doing much in Iraq if Saddam was there because he was a brutal dictator that didn't play that shit. His military was ruthless and suppressed any insurgent activity with an iron fist.

Whether you think removal and the cost/benefit analysis was worth it is an issue that can be debated, but the inmates would not be running the asylum with Saddam.

Very accurate....

Wait, isn't ISIS "the JV Team"?....I think I heard that somewhere before....

 

[TomGshotput 0]

ISIS is AQ. Nothing has changed. Nothing will ever change in the region as far as fanatical terrorism goes.

The last 15 years of war fighting accomplished what?

 

[Acebb 2,175]

ISIS wouldn't be doing much in Iraq if Saddam was there because he was a brutal dictator that didn't play that shit. His military was ruthless and suppressed any insurgent activity with an iron fist.

Whether you think removal and the cost/benefit analysis was worth it is an issue that can be debated, but the inmates would not be running the asylum with Saddam.

ISIS wasn't doing much in Iraq while GWB was President. In fact, Obama described Iraq as "stable and self-reliant" in 2011.

ISIS is now rampaging through the Middle East because of the disastrous decisions by President Obama and Hillary Clinton.

This whole "Bush created ISIS!!" talking point is a preposterous lie.

 

[PatsFan1283 3,005]

ISIS wasn't doing much in Iraq while GWB was President. In fact, Obama described Iraq as "stable and self-reliant" in 2011.

ISIS is now rampaging through the Middle East because of the disastrous decisions by President Obama and Hillary Clinton.

This whole "Bush created ISIS!!" talking point is a preposterous lie.

They hadn't emerged because we had a huge troop presence there. If we kept the same troop count there then they still wouldn't be doing much.

But for how long? 30 years? forever? It was far more ambitious to try to do what we tried than people thought.

If you're going to wait to withdraw troops until there is a stable democracy in Iraq, you're probably going to be waiting a long time.

 

[PatsFan1283 3,005]

And I don't think we should've withdrawn when we did fwiw. Just saying this was not a matter of "A few more years and everything would've been OK."

 

[bilbal 1,865]

Impossible to be worse. ISIS is a direct result of the Iraq war. Bush signed an agreement to pull the troops and leave no forces behind. His decisions have cost thousands of American lives.

Imagine that leading a total economic collapse isnt even the worst part of his presidency.

Scary what he did to this country.

even a quarter wit such as yourself should know that useless, unenforceable, ridiculous "agreement" wasn't worth the paper it was written on. face)(*^%

Annual economic growth under Bush was a pathetic 2.1%. You'd have to be a clueless, stupid, brain dead, naive, simpleton to wind up with a growth rate less than that. The annual growth rate under Obama is 1.3%. face)(*^%

Bush warned Obama not to leave early or let Iraq "call the shots", but D'OHBama was far too concerned with his Nobel Peace prize and naively declared Iraq "sovereign, stable, and self reliant" and then the buffoon called ISIS a "JV Team". O'Bozo spent his entire campaign promising an end to wars and has spent his entire presidency at war (even longer than Bush), recklessly invading countries without Congress' approval and leaving a trail of destruction and power vacuums in his and Hilarity's wake. And no president has ever fought harder for the mass release of captured terrorists than Obama. That will be his legacy, freeing the terrorist who pulls off the next 9/11 on us. Scary what he did to this country...

 

[Enfuego 1,975]

Thats your opinion but I'm comfortable being on the same side as retired govt and military personnel.

i don't know if you know more than me but I know you don't know more than them.

This is what I do for a living. Is it what you do for a living?

 

[vitterd 0]

This is what I do for a living. Is it what you do for a living?

No....but based on your comments....maybe you should do something else. Because it seems like those involved in national defense and high level personnel disagree with your take on the situation. I tend to side with those in the know.

 

[Enfuego 1,975]

The last 15 years of war fighting accomplished what?

I don't think I said that fighting accomplished anything.

 

[vitterd 0]

even a quarter wit such as yourself should know that useless, unenforceable, ridiculous "agreement" wasn't worth the paper it was written on. face)(*^%

Annual economic growth under Bush was a pathetic 2.1%. You'd have to be a clueless, stupid, brain dead, naive, simpleton to wind up with a growth rate less than that. The annual growth rate under Obama is 1.3%. face)(*^%

Bush warned Obama not to leave early or let Iraq "call the shots", but D'OHBama was far too concerned with his Nobel Peace prize and naively declared Iraq "sovereign, stable, and self reliant" and then the buffoon called ISIS a "JV Team". O'Bozo spent his entire campaign promising an end to wars and has spent his entire presidency at war (even longer than Bush), recklessly invading countries without Congress' approval and leaving a trail of destruction and power vacuums in his and Hilarity's wake. And no president has ever fought harder for the mass release of captured terrorists than Obama. That will be his legacy, freeing the terrorist who pulls off the next 9/11 on us. Scary what he did to this country...

Of course you'll see the agreement didn't mean anything. It shows Bush agreed not to leave any forces behind....it's easier to blame Obama. This was in place before Obama was president. Unfortunately Obama wasn't president in 2001....he was against the Iraq war....if he was president then...very unlikely we have the massive terrorism problem we have now.