As we arrive at the tenth anniversary of Operation Iraqi Freedom, several things are apparent today that were not so clear a decade ago—and a few things are actually less clear today than they were back then.
Among the things that have come into focus:
Iraq was broken long before March 19, 2003.
Those who say the U.S. “broke Iraq” and pushed it into failed-state status by intervening in 2003 fail to recognize that Iraq was a failed state long before Operation Iraqi Freedom. As the Hoover Institution’s Fouad Ajami has observed, when the coalition entered Iraq, they found “a country wrecked and poisoned.” Gen. Ray Odierno adds, “What I underestimated when I got there was the societal devastation that was occurring in Iraq—the fact that education really had stopped for about 20 years, the fact that investment had stopped, the fact that people were being brutalized.” In short, Iraq was not broken because outside powers intervened. Rather, outside powers intervened because Iraq was broken.
Iraq really was part of a wider war on terror.
With tentacles stretching out to the 1993 World Trade Center bombers, Abu Nidal and Palestinian suicide bombers, Saddam Hussein’s Iraq was part of a constellation of nation-states, transnational groups and individuals that view terrorism as a normalized, legitimate tool for achieving political ends. Moreover, although Saddam Hussein’s Iraq was not connected to al Qaeda’s 9/11 attacks, Saddam Hussein’s Iraq was connected to Abu Musab Zarqawi, the al Qaeda lieutenant who ignited Iraq’s postwar civil war. As Tony Blair revealed in his memoir, Zarqawi traveled to Iraq in May 2002, met “senior Iraqis” and established a presence in Iraq six months before the U.S.-led invasion.
What Saddam Hussein failed to grasp in such risky dealings was that 9/11 had changed the very DNA of U.S. national-security policy. “Any administration in such a crisis,” as historian John Lewis Gaddis concludes, “would have had to rethink what it thought it knew about security.” Was deterrence possible? Was containment viable? Was giving Baghdad the benefit of the doubt responsible? The Bush administration’s answer to each question was “no,” which led to war.
Finally, as historian Paul Johnson observed, by overthrowing the terror regime of Saddam Hussein, “America obliged the leaders of international terrorism to concentrate all their efforts on preventing democracy from emerging in Iraq.” Fighters from al Qaeda’s ranks were drawn to Iraq like moths to light. Indeed, Iraq would prove to be a key battlefield in the wider war. By all accounts—including al Qaeda’s—the U.S. surge dealt bin Laden’s terror enterprise a significant strategic defeat in Iraq.
Operation Iraqi Freedom lived up to its name.
The war liberated 24 million Iraqis. Iraq is anything but perfect today, but its people are free—free from tyranny, free from being required to pledge their “souls and blood…for Saddam,” free from the vast torture chamber Saddam turned Iraq into, free from his omnipresent terrors. As Odierno recently reflected, “It’s hard to describe to somebody what an awful dictator Saddam Hussein was unless you were there in Iraq.” Iraqis held their first post-Saddam election in 2005, when 75 percent of eligible voters walked, marched, limped and ran to the polls to prove they belong in the democratic family.
The world is better—and America more secure—without Saddam Hussein.
“If nothing else, Iraq is not a destabilizing factor,” Odierno observes. It pays to recall that during Saddam’s reign, which began in 1979, Iraq made war against virtually all of its neighbors: Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Israel. Saddam used chemical weapons against his own people and against Iran. Long before Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm, he was racing to join the nuclear club. After Desert Storm, the U.S. tried to contain Saddam by enforcing no-fly zones—at an annual cost $13 billion—and by garrisoning troops in Saudi Arabia. The presence of foreign troops in the Muslim holy land incensed Osama bin Laden, who set about the task of expelling the Americans from the “land of the two holy places.” Thus was born a fringe terror group known as al Qaeda, which launched a global guerilla war against America, which triggered America’s global war on terror, which led, inevitably, back to Iraq.
It was inevitable because Saddam Hussein’s associations, behavior and record with weapons of mass destruction fueled a presumption of guilt that, when mixed with America’s profound sense of vulnerability after 9/11, created a deadly combination. This is perhaps the most fundamental way 9/11 is linked to Saddam Hussein’s Iraq: The latter did not perpetrate the former, but the former taught Washington a lesson about the danger of failing to confront threats before they are fully formed. In the same way, the appeasement of Hitler at once had nothing and yet everything to do with how America waged the Cold War against Moscow.
President Bush did make mistakes.
All wartime presidents make mistakes. The major mistake President Bush made was not in going to war, but in how he went to war. By not going heavy into Iraq and by disbanding the Iraqi military, a postwar insurgency became inevitable. The Bush administration’s rationale that a lighter footprint would be better suited to a limited war focused on regime change may have made sense on paper. But a force built to move fast across the desert proved insufficient for occupation and rehabilitation of Iraq’s poisoned politics. The result: a costly postwar war.
That brings us to the things that remain hazy, even a decade after the beginning of the Iraq War:
Was it worth it?
Like a Rorschach inkblot, to some Americans, the Iraq War looks like a necessary but costly effort to protect U.S. interests—and to others, like a fiasco. The war’s critics cannot overlook the costs: 4,500 Americans killed and $880 billion spent. The defenders of the war counter that the success or failure of America’s wars is not determined by casualty counts.
Interestingly, a decade after the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom, America’s opinion of the controversial war is starting to coalesce around a surprising consensus: Today, 55 percent say the war was “very successful” or “somewhat successful,” up from 43 percent in 2008, according to an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.
What about those WMDs?
President Bush’s decision to launch a preventive war in Iraq was primarily based on worries that Baghdad would use or lose its WMDs. But the invasion revealed only the skeleton of a WMD program.
Some observers—including President Obama’s director of national intelligence, James Clapper—contend that Saddam spirited his WMDs off to Syria for safe keeping. Clapper was head of the National Imagery and Mapping Agency during the Iraq War and concluded that Saddam had “unquestionably” moved his WMDs into Syria, using converted civilian airliners and truck convoys to haul the contraband out of Iraq in late 2002 and early 2003. Those assessments are being revisited today in the mainstream press and in military circles, as Syria implodes and the world wonders if Bashar Assad will turn his WMD arsenal on his own people. If /when Assad falls or flees, lots of people will be scouring Syria’s WMD stocks for Iraqi markings.
The irony is that President Obama, intent on avoiding another Iraq, has stayed out of Syria, which has increased the likelihood that Damascus might use or lose its WMDs.
What lies ahead?
As Frederick Kagan, one of the architects of the surge, explained in late 2011, President Obama’s own military officials wanted to keep more than 20,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. But President Obama undercut the delicate negotiations with Baghdad and proposed a force so small that it would be unable even to protect itself. When Baghdad balked, as Kagan reported, the White House “decided instead to withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq…despite the fact that no military commander supported the notion that such a course of action could secure U.S. interests.” The result: Washington has no leverage with Baghdad; Iraq is scarred by renewed sectarian war; Iran is moving arms and fighters into Syria via Iraq; and al Qaeda is making a comeback in Iraq.
Just as President Bush’s decision to invade Iraq opened the door to uncounted unknowns, so did President Obama’s decision to withdraw from Iraq.
Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.
Well, as terrorized as Iraqis were under Saddam, surely being a handmaiden to Iran is not any better, perhaps it is worse. And the fact of the matter is that entering Iraq, without "taking care" of Iran, was a fool's errand. Not only that, but attempting to import western democracy into the entire region was a disaster.
Muslim majorities mainly adhere to Sharia Law and one cannot get away from that fact. And when elections take place, surely we have seen that they choose Sharia as their guide. Therefore, since Sharia Law is incompatible with democracy, then what has happened is Islamism has become empowered, and the people are less free!
http://adinakutnicki.com/2012/09/23/when-is-it-ho…
Adina Kutnicki, Israel http://adinakutnicki.com/about/
We were turning things around, too bad Obama surrendered and left in retreat.
Iran knew our schedule and hasn't missed a chance to take over there.
Thank God Obama did the right thing. A situation where we pay an enormous price in order to babysit a country because we failed to plan for the power vacuum is a ridiculous one. Blow the damn place up, or get out.
After all we did to free that country, for Obama to schedule the withdrawl for all to know about and plan around, that was slapping the face of every wounded and dead service member who fought to give that country a chance at freedom.
That's a mere quibble, and it's not for you to predict the feelings of individual service members. Whether it's "We're leaving in two months at 11:30 am" or it's "Hey, wait a minute…where did all the Americans go?" you're just quibbling. One way or another, it was past time to go, and our enemies will have another day to plan.
I agree that we did the best we could, and what our service members achieved went above and beyond what they are trained to do. We paid a terrible price, but this is a military that returns to the full respect and admiration of their country and will doubtless give us better civilian leaders in the future.
It isn't a quibble. Had we notified the Japanese of the day we would give up, do you think it might have influenced their struggle at all? Obama did that.
And I have two family members that served in Iraq, for you to tell me I can't speak for them is absurd.
You're a paid hack troll who demands the murder of children. You have no family.
Roger 169p · 23 hours ago
The Almighty gives life and it's His place to take it away. You can't show those Egyptians were perfect and didn't deserve it.
The account shows God gave them several times to do the right thing
I admitted the Almighty acted on His own, He's powerful enough to do that.
And you, you're the admitted paid hack here.
6 minutes ago @ Breitbart.com – Protests to greet Ahma… · 1 reply · 0 points
I'm like jesus, I'm gonna chase you money changers out of the temple and out of town and of course out of this forum. Me and ohsoquiet and a few other REAL AMERICANS who are being PAID to be here like you Israeli PR men. I'm here to chase you filth out.
You're a paid hack troll who demands the murder of children. You have no family.
Roger 169p · 23 hours ago
The Almighty gives life and it's His place to take it away. You can't show those Egyptians were perfect and didn't deserve it.
The account shows God gave them several times to do the right thing
Nope, and not in the quote you just posted hundreds of times.
You're just not used to a God that can act on His own. You're used to that weak and helpless allah that sends out jihadists to do everything.
Did we give up in Japan? No, they did. Why? Because we nuked the place. Blow the place up, or get out. We're not there to babysit. We put the time, effort, expense and blood into the training and preparation of Iraq. If they can't prepare to that timetable as well as our enemies, tough luck, we did our part. Time to GO.
You can speak for your two family members if that is indeed their opinion, but speaking for everyone else is presumptuous.
Are you complaining because we won that time?
For you to tell me that I'm wrong for everyone else is presumptuous.
You're the one complaining, Rog, talking about the timetable like it's a big deal, and presuming getting out of Iraq was a "slap in the face." It's your talking point, and you're sticking to it, no matter how insubstantial it is.
Truth is, getting out was the right thing to do, and you know it–the only problem is, it was big bad Obama who did the right thing. And you can't handle the truth.
It was when it came to Iran and knowing when to move in.
That's why Bush opposed it so strongly.
Getting out, and advertising when the enemies could move in are entirely two different issues.
Roger, you clearly don't even believe your own nonsense.
The enemy knew that ultimately we were going to leave. It was a question of when (and actually when within a pretty narrow window of time). There was NOTHING that a longer stay could have accomplished, except more dead Americans.
Do you think that without announcing that we were going to stick to Bush's timetable for departure we could have some how surprised the enemy with our departure, that it would have taken them a long time to figure out that the bases were all empty?
It takes maturity and balls to recognize failure and correct it, which is why you don't understand.
I do believe what I said, because I was watching carefully as things unfolded. Bush had it set to 'benchmarks' not a timetable, and part of that was how well they were ready to defend themselves.
It's not nonsense, it was a straight forward approach designed for success on the part of Iraqi forces.
I think that announcing any retreat is stupid in that it lets the enemy know how to plan, that's something you don't want to give to the enemy.
Yeah because Bush and Cheney were more in favor of invading Iran the same way they did Iraq.
If they had wanted to invade, Iran would be recovering still.
They wanted to invade. Bush ran out of time.
And you know this because…..?
Because I read the news and follow the facts.
And then follow the talking points of your iranian handlers.
Actually we wanted japan to unconditionally surrender. Japan wanted to keep their emperor and their government and were willing to negotiate a treaty. But the jews that created the Nuclear bomb wanted to try it out on someone. Germany was their first choice but they already surrendered, so they went with japan.
It's always the Jews with you Iranian muslims, isn't it?
Oppenheimer was not Muslim. Neither was Richard Feynman.
And you're not a thinking person here to discuss anything.
6 minutes ago @ Breitbart.com – Protests to greet Ahma… · 1 reply · 0 points
I'm like jesus, I'm gonna chase you money changers out of the temple and out of town and of course out of this forum. Me and ohsoquiet and a few other REAL AMERICANS who are being PAID to be here like you Israeli PR men. I'm here to chase you filth out.
traitorhere,
Harry Truman was not a Muslim either.
Other than your hooded head, what is your point?
Harry truman was a bagman for the rothchilds.
And you a bagman for the clerics in iran.
No I'm not. Why do you always say that?
Because you are.
6 minutes ago @ Breitbart.com – Protests to greet Ahma… · 1 reply · 0 points
I'm like jesus, I'm gonna chase you money changers out of the temple and out of town and of course out of this forum. Me and ohsoquiet and a few other REAL AMERICANS who are being PAID to be here like you Israeli PR men. I'm here to chase you filth out.
Uh, you lost me at "jews."
He's a paid hack.
6 minutes ago @ Breitbart.com – Protests to greet Ahma… · 1 reply · 0 points
I'm like jesus, I'm gonna chase you money changers out of the temple and out of town and of course out of this forum. Me and ohsoquiet and a few other REAL AMERICANS who are being PAID to be here like you Israeli PR men. I'm here to chase you filth out.
Roger 169p · 23 hours ago
The Almighty gives life and it's His place to take it away. You can't show those Egyptians were perfect and didn't deserve it.
The account shows God gave them several times to do the right thing
More mindless repeats?
From a mindless troll, I expect it.
You're evil
Did they pay you well to say that?
Yes, another mindless repeat from a mindless paid hack.
Can't your handlers come up with new material for you?
That's what YOU said.
Yes, and you haven't shown it was wrong, just that you can mindlessly accept orders to keep repeating it.
hey patriot, go take a nice hot dump in your koran
Still paid to be a rented mouth?
Not on your life.
Oh come on, why deny it?
6 minutes ago @ Breitbart.com – Protests to greet Ahma… · 1 reply · 0 points
I'm like jesus, I'm gonna chase you money changers out of the temple and out of town and of course out of this forum. Me and ohsoquiet and a few other REAL AMERICANS who are being PAID to be here like you Israeli PR men. I'm here to chase you filth out.
Boy, the clerics still can't give you enough new talking points, can they?
Yet you're the one with all the talking points.
Another talking point from the paid troll hack.
6 minutes ago @ Breitbart.com – Protests to greet Ahma… · 1 reply · 0 points
I'm like jesus, I'm gonna chase you money changers out of the temple and out of town and of course out of this forum. Me and ohsoquiet and a few other REAL AMERICANS who are being PAID to be here like you Israeli PR men. I'm here to chase you filth out.
Still love that quote, don't you?
I hate it.
Of course you love it, and you know it's true too.
You probably just wish allah wasn't so weak and helpless compared to the Almighty.
Still amazed by a God that's real and powerful enough to act on His own?
I'm amazed your god doesn't outlaw cruelty to children, genocide and slavery.
You go ahead and pretend that your allah has the same values my real Almighty.
But my God doesn't want those things like sharia does.
My god condemns cruelty to children, slavery, and genocide. Unlike your stupid god.
Your god demands it, surah 9.
Besides, I thought you always claim to be an atheist.
So, you admit you're a bald faced liar. Finally.
And the Almighty is still that powerful today. That's why they can't drive Israel into the sea.
Powerful enough to be cruel to children, demand genocide and slavery.
like allah? Not even.
Islam forbids the killing of women and children.
Roger 169p · 23 hours ago
The Almighty gives life and it's His place to take it away. You can't show those Egyptians were perfect and didn't deserve it.
The account shows God gave them several times to do the right thing
Tell that to the guy who wrote surah 9.
Of course it doesn't , it demands it. Why do they park car bombs in market places?
Islam forbids the killing of women and children. Anybody who says otherwise is a fat, ugly, white trash, zionist stooge who live with his moth… Oh wait, never mind.
No, it doesn't.
Ask Neda.
Islam forbids the killing of women and children. Anybody who says otherwise is a fat, ugly, white trash, zionist stooge who live with his moth… Oh wait, never mind.
Ask rachel corrie.
Then you're all really lousy muslims because you do it all the time.
They're not muslims when they kill children and women. They're neanderthals AKA jews.
Surah 9 mandates dont' give you a lot of wiggle room, do they?
6 minutes ago @ Breitbart.com – Protests to greet Ahma… · 1 reply · 0 points
I'm like jesus, I'm gonna chase you money changers out of the temple and out of town and of course out of this forum. Me and ohsoquiet and a few other REAL AMERICANS who are being PAID to be here like you Israeli PR men. I'm here to chase you filth out.
And what part of that don't you think is accurate?
None of it accurate. The word your looking for is evil. E-V-I-L
Nope, and it's certainly not 'rented mouth' like it is for you.
It's evil.
Tell that to the guy who wrote surah 9.
Islam forbids the killing of women and children
Then Iran has bad muslims, since they murdered Neda.
Unicorns murdered neda.
Just like unicorns make Racheal lay down in front of a moving bull dozer.
Just like god made you stupid.
And ugly.
Do you blame your ugly and stupid on allah?
Do you have an ugly face? Yes.
Do you have ugly handlers using your 'rented mouth'?
Tell that to Rachel Corrie
If she had only learned not to lay down in front of bull dozers.
Can I ask Daniel Pearl or Neda, or that rape victim in Somalia that was stoned?
If she only had a country that didn't grovel to jewish savages who brutally murdered her.
She went of her own free will. She knew the chance she was taking, and she lost her gamble.
Her death should have been avenged!
If you barbaric muslim activists would spend half as much energy at living instead of dying it wouldn't be an issue.
What does that have to do with the jews murdering rachel corrie?
What does it have to do with her committing suicide by bulldozer?
Still the cut and paste troll?
What part of that don't you think is accurate?
Or are you just here trying to get blocked from the site?
It's inaccurate and evil. There is no god.
Why are you a muslim paid hack if there is no allah?
There is no god. That is one of the many reasons why it is inaccurate.
You silly paid hack.
Your handlers can't get your talking points straight.
You stupid inbred hick.
Says the 'rented mouth'?
hahahahahaha……
Oh hadji, you're just almost but not quite special.
You're still an inbred hick
And you were paid to say that.
So I don't take it personally.
Well, you should take it personally because I meant it.
You're ugly too.
From you that's not going to make me lose sleep.
You say that but I know you are already dead inside.
Nope, I'm not muslim.
Still trying to get blocked by just clogging up the threads like your agenda explained?
'Paid to chase filth out…', that sounds so sharia somehow….
Still shocked a real God is powerful? Unlike that allah you bow too of course.
Still shocked that you would defend the slaughter of children.
I'm shocked that you think I do.
And you can't believe someone has a powerful 'real' God, is that it?
I don't believe in that evil. You do!
If you think the Almighty is evil, you must really have a low opinion of allah that demands market place car bombs.
More cut and paste to get banned?
Still trying to get banned? Can't the handlers let you post someplace less stressful?
Still working on getting banned?
That cut and paste is about the only thing you have going for you, how sad.
If they'd just ban you then you wouldn't have to face so much mockery here at this site.
Can you taste it you want it so bad? Just to have them block your profile so you wouldn't have to face people mocking your pathetic tries here all the time?
Poor little troll, they don't give you much of a leash to say things, do they? Those mean handlers.
Still the cut and paste troll just looking for an excuse to be banned here.
I a realist, so your islamic talking points and propaganda just don't fool me much.
No, you're a rented mouth paid hack troll.
6 minutes ago @ Breitbart.com – Protests to greet Ahma… · 1 reply · 0 points
I'm like jesus, I'm gonna chase you money changers out of the temple and out of town and of course out of this forum. Me and ohsoquiet and a few other REAL AMERICANS who are being PAID to be here like you Israeli PR men. I'm here to chase you filth out.
You're an inbred hick.
Such as yourself?
I said YOU are an inbred hick
The rented mouth says lots of approved talking points.
They don't have much connection to the reality everyone else lives in.
Says the paid hack troll? Is that what your handlers want you to pretend now?
You are an inbred hick
What's wrong, copying and pasting shorter comments now?
It doesn't matter. I can stop posting altogether and you would STILL be an inbred hick.
I was never an inbred hick, even though you posted that approved talking point over and over. So, why don't you quit and that still won't change.
Nope, you're a paid propagandist.
6 minutes ago @ Breitbart.com – Protests to greet Ahma… · 1 reply · 0 points
I'm like jesus, I'm gonna chase you money changers out of the temple and out of town and of course out of this forum. Me and ohsoquiet and a few other REAL AMERICANS who are being PAID to be here like you Israeli PR men. I'm here to chase you filth out.
You are a paid inbred hick.
Like you? Nope.
And you're also a 50 year old loser with nothing to show for.
How old are you as a 'rented mouth' loser with nothing to show for? Actually, I have a lot to show for, it's just nothing I'd brag about to a paid troll here on this forum.
That's all you have. Cut and paste.
Then why even pretend you're part of the debate? You're not fooling anyone.
More 'please ban me' comments. It's all you have.
You many not like this comment, but it driving you nuts because you know it shows the differences between the Almighty and the fake allah.
"I a realist, so your islamic talking points and propaganda just don't fool me much. "
This is probably your best work. Proof you are an inbred hick.
Proof that you're not effective here any more.
Does that mean you'll have new handlers assigned?
You're an inbred hick
Short copy and paste seems to be easier for you….
And a 50 year old loser. Do you know how pathetic your life really is?
I can imagine your handlers are making all that up now for you, the 'rented mouth' to lie about.
Yeppers, and you can't do anything to make it look bad. Even if you cut and paste it hundreds of times.
Still true.
And still drives you nuts when your allah is a fake and can't do his own dirty work.
Still evil
Only if you're a muslim who doesn't like the fake god allah to come up against a powerful real God.
And it's still a great comment.
Still a great comment, I'm surprised a paid hack would keep putting it out there!
Cut and paste. Are you handlers too drunk to give you any more material?
Still all you have going for you, more cut and paste?
You still only have cut and paste working today? Those silly iranian pc's may need a boost from http://www.stuxnet.org/upgrades
Another great cut and paste. How many times now? About 200?
Did the cut and paste button get stuck on your keyboard?
Just another typical cut and paste.
You proved that quote correct, you add nothing and just try to drive people away.
A God powerful enough to act on His own.
You muslims wouldn't know about that, you have to car bomb market places since he's a fake.
A god that demands the murder of children and genocide
Nope. that's allah. Ask the Copts about that one.
Still an accurate and great comment.
Still upset because it points out how weak your allah is?
Still upset that evil hateful monsters exist.
Upset? Not really, but I do face the reality you are out there and want us in that surah 9 kind of way.
I'm telling you that I am still upset to know that there are hateful monsters out there.
I'm upset you stupid moron inbred hick.
A paid hack it sent to give a message from it's masters.
And I spit on them too.
God isn't all knowing and all powerful because PEOPLE are not all knowing and all powerful.
Unlike allah, our God is the Almighty.
God allows genocide, or he is not almighty.
That's His call. Not yours.So, why don't you have your buddies put down their suicide bombs?
Still putting out that great quote? Why? Do your handlers like it that much?
I think I get it.
Everytime you irritate your handlers they punish you by making you post this showing the God of Abraham, the Almighty is powerful.
Just more cut and paste?
How 'rented mouth' can you get?
If they'd just ban you and get it over with…. you never add anything anyhow.
You don't have handlers that are up to it.
Still answering to a lame handler?
The paid hack troll realizes quoting someone else makes more sense than trying to use his handlers comments…
Yeppers!
Just more cut and paste to follow his agenda.
6 minutes ago @ Breitbart.com – Protests to greet Ahma… · 1 reply · 0 points
I'm like jesus, I'm gonna chase you money changers out of the temple and out of town and of course out of this forum. Me and ohsoquiet and a few other REAL AMERICANS who are being PAID to be here like you Israeli PR men. I'm here to chase you filth out.
Another cut and paste, the height of the rented mouth duties.
You know, you don't have to reply.
You know, you can go get a better job.
You know if god was almighty he could stop war and genocide. Either he condones genocide(which he does) or he is not almighty and just made up.(also true)
If allah was almighty he wouldn't use terrorist jihadists.
The rented mouth must be working through his handler's lunch. Aren' t you left with talking points before they go?
If I'm a rented mouth what does that make you?
btw, for the record, I am NOT a paid hack troll like 50 year old roger russell loser boy.
Perhaps as this current troll assigned to this profile you do it for free, but since you're using this profile you get the baggage that comes along with it.
And you're going to lie and say you're not a paid hack. I understand that too.
But since both counts say you're stuck on a dead end profile saying things handlers give you, you're a paid hack troll. A 'rented mouth'.
If I'm a rented mouth what does that make you?
btw, for the record, I am NOT a paid hack troll like 50 year old roger russell loser boy.
Did they put a new person on this old profile and then think you could deny everything used on it up to this point?
Still in that same rut?
Can't find the next page of propaganda points?
I'm not the 50 year old loser who wakes up and posts on this site non-stop. That's you !
So are you 55 years old and a loser that wakes up and reports to work and has clerics assign talking points as a rented mouth?
Your god is not almighty. He is made up. If he was real he would be strong enough to stop genocide
That's you allah. You silly paid hack. Didn't your handler see that one coming?
The rented mouth must be paid well to copy and paste things.
It's probably all you can do when the handlers are out to lunch.
Yeppers, the handlers let you use it again?
Where they busy with your goats?
Since my God is all Powerful, I can say that.
You can't about allah.
I guess you're god isn't that powerful according to your other comments.
"And as for death, Adam is responsible, along with Eve. Not God."
poor little paid troll.Did they pay you for that comment?
I guess you're god isn't that powerful according to your other comments.
"And as for death, Adam is responsible, along with Eve. Not God."
I guess it's too hard for a paid hack to get comments approved about anything complicated.
And I'm still smiling when it bothers you that your allah isn't able to do anything on his own. The Almighty can.
He's not almighty now is he?
"And as for death, Adam is responsible, along with Eve. Not God."
God is, and He also isn't like allah that demands unthinking robots.
He's not almighty now is he?
"And as for death, Adam is responsible, along with Eve. Not God."
I guess your handler hasn't figured out anything that might make sense yet?
You finally got the cut and paste button working again. Those cranky iranian computers sure do cause problems….
You not only got the cut and paste buttons working again, but remembered how to use it, after what…. 10 hours?
Did the handler tell you to use that quote about 100 times tonight?
You know, as a rented mouth you really don't have much choice, do you?
The rented mouth must have really mean supervisors at the troll patrol. Do they scan your posts to make sure you use the approved talking points the right way?
It must really 'suck' to be a 'rented mouth'. No, I'm not saying you have to do that too, but still… all these really dumb tactics must even make a muslim activist troll ashamed.
The rented mouth spews another cut and paste.
I bet you're almost hoping the cut and paste button dies again.
Yeppers.
Still doing the cut and paste while your handlers struggle to sober up?
Still more cut and paste. It's your best work, this quote actually makes sense still!
The cut and paste routine. Need more money and can't get any approved talking points?
More cut and paste. I'd expect it from a paid hack.
Still more cut and paste. The paid hack must have a discount coupon for approved talking points tonight.
Call a spade a spade. Oppenheimer was jewish. Richard Feynman was jewish. Albert Einstein was jewish. The only person that wasn't jewish was fermi.
So what?
If it was Muslims it would matter?
Do Jews use suicide vests?
Yes.
beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2012/08/the-jewish-suicide-bomber..
Like I said, they don't use suicide vests.
Want to show where they do and claim it's for religious reasons as demanded by their Almighty?
I didn't think so. Maybe your clerics can make up another web site for you to refer to.
traitorhere, You pals have killed 70,000 in Syria.
Who? Americans?
Is that the approved talking point your handlers gave you?
No it's facts. the US is supporting the rebels.
Saudi oil money is.
And why wouldn't they? You in Iran are arming the Yemen rebels. Tit for tat.
Americans buy saudi oil and protect it.
And your point is?
They fund terror.
Iranian oil isn't something we buy.
They fund terror. America buys saudi oil and they use it to fund terrorists in syria.
Iranian oil isn't something we buy.
The Saudi's are just better muslims, that's why you hate them.
America buys saudi oil and they use it to fund terrorists in syria.
You're just mad because the terrorists Iran pays for it being tossed.
And by better muslims too! That must smart.
Are these terrorists imaginary?
Are you imaginary?
Are you a 50 year old loser? Yes.
Are you a paid hack told to say so? Yes.
And my success doesn't depend on you admitting it.
If god was almighty he would stop genocide.
If allah was almighty he wouldn't need car bombs.
http://www.deliberation.info/the-jewish-suicide-b…
Ah, aren't you just special.
Would the muslims wait until they were so desperate to defend themselves? Nope, their religion demands jihad even in the times of peace.
LOL!
Roger 169p · 23 hours ago
The Almighty gives life and it's His place to take it away. You can't show those Egyptians were perfect and didn't deserve it.
The account shows God gave them several times to do the right thing
Still the paid hack rented mouth.
Yet you're the one with the talking points.
Says the paid troll.
6 minutes ago @ Breitbart.com – Protests to greet Ahma… · 1 reply · 0 points
I'm like jesus, I'm gonna chase you money changers out of the temple and out of town and of course out of this forum. Me and ohsoquiet and a few other REAL AMERICANS who are being PAID to be here like you Israeli PR men. I'm here to chase you filth out.
traitorhere,
Fermi? What about Truman, Groves, Morrison?
You truly are an imbecile.
What about Einstein?
And Einstein keeps you from being an embecile?
LOL! HAHAHAHAHA!!
Did you do that on purpose? Are you trying to be Ironic?
Lemme try.
My brillients iz farr supeerer thun yerz!
You're paycheck for propaganda is. I don't get paid to stop debate and distract from the important issues.
6 minutes ago @ Breitbart.com – Protests to greet Ahma… · 1 reply · 0 points
I'm like jesus, I'm gonna chase you money changers out of the temple and out of town and of course out of this forum. Me and ohsoquiet and a few other REAL AMERICANS who are being PAID to be here like you Israeli PR men. I'm here to chase you filth out.
traitorhere,
Remember, mecca is smaller than Israel.
We won the war but lost the peace, we should have put Saddams Gernerals in charge and called it a day, that way they would have kept out the mullahs of Iran and got rid of that little savage Sadr.
Oh, things were' going LOVELY until that evil ol' Islamist devil Barack Obama broke it. Just like we coulda won Vietnam if it wasn't fer all the hippy protesters.
You pathetic ass.
Things got a lot worse when the marxist of muslim heritage deliberately gave the writhdrawl date to the enemies of a free Iraq.
You're the pathetic donkey here, if you aren't here to seriously discuss things then just go away.
Everything would have been fine if we didn't sanction Iraq for 10 years before invading for the second time.
(And if Israel was pushed off into the sea.)
How much of your muslim talking points are you allowed to use this time? Just on Iraq?
It is a fact that we sanctioned Iraq for 10 years killing in the process half a million children. We turned Iraq into a third world country.
It's a fact that sanctions didn't hurt the regime, only the weakest in society.
Iraq had been a third world country almost as long as Iran has been one.
Sanctions hurt the people. Sanctions killed half a million Iraqi children. Sanctions never hurt the regime. Sanctions never help anything. Sanctions are evil.
And that's why we had sanctions, to hurt certain people and punish bad behaviors. But those weren't the ones harmed by them.
Sanctions only hurt the children and the civilians. It never hurts the people it intends to hurt.
But yet it left Saddam with less choices on how to react.
Bad leaders do bad things, shoot, look at the short and stinky president of Iran, see how lousy he is?
Bad leaders like clinton and bush 1 and 2 who attacked Iraq for 20 years.
The paid hack thinks he can be taken seriously….
6 minutes ago @ Breitbart.com – Protests to greet Ahma… · 1 reply · 0 points
I'm like jesus, I'm gonna chase you money changers out of the temple and out of town and of course out of this forum. Me and ohsoquiet and a few other REAL AMERICANS who are being PAID to be here like you Israeli PR men. I'm here to chase you filth out.
How is Dr. A lousy? By telling the truth? Standing up to world jewish power?
By hiring really dumb hacks like you to put out his talking points.
What talking points? You're the one with the talking points.
I like Dr. A. So what? You're gonna burn me at the stake for liking a real brave leader?
Yes talking points.
6 minutes ago @ Breitbart.com – Protests to greet Ahma… · 1 reply · 0 points
I'm like jesus, I'm gonna chase you money changers out of the temple and out of town and of course out of this forum. Me and ohsoquiet and a few other REAL AMERICANS who are being PAID to be here like you Israeli PR men. I'm here to chase you filth out.
Need a tissue? Eff theirs and love ours, it is that simple, so if you love those effing savages so much go bloody well live there!
He does, or he's paid by them. Either way his loyalties are pretty clear.
I love peace. I love justice and the truth.
You love the paycheck for spewing the propaganda.
6 minutes ago @ Breitbart.com – Protests to greet Ahma… · 1 reply · 0 points
I'm like jesus, I'm gonna chase you money changers out of the temple and out of town and of course out of this forum. Me and ohsoquiet and a few other REAL AMERICANS who are being PAID to be here like you Israeli PR men. I'm here to chase you filth out.
Yet, you are the one spewing propaganda and talking points.
No, I'm not. If you're going to play off my comments for your income, then I ought to get a share of it.
Socialists have killed half a million Iraqi children.
And 70,000 in Syria.
Iran has been sanctioned since 1979! It was sanctioned and fought an 8 year war with Iraq at the same time and is still standing. People in government need to think about that when they call for war.
Iran and Iraq fought an 8 year war that was supported by America. America funded both sides of that war.
And yet they keep paying for nuclear tests in North Korea.
No China does that. North Korea does that. North korea shows that any poor country can have nukes if the will is there.
Iran would have thousands of nukes if it wanted to. But they don't want them. Iran is against nukes. Netanyahu has been saying Iran is a year away from a nuke since 1993! If they wanted nukes they would have them by now. They don't. It's just war propaganda.
Iran does that. Don't think the world hasn't figured out the game plan Iran is using.
China is north koreas biggest trading partner.
Yes, and they no doubt knew about Iran having the nuclear tests.
You mean North Korea. Iran has never conducted a nuclear bomb test.
Oh come on, Iran had people in N Korea and funded the nuclear tests.
Iran has never conducted a nuclear bomb test like North Korea has. Iran will do business with anybody but israel.
So what? What north korea decides to do with the money they get from china and others is their business.
Of course they did.
You can deny it, but the rest of the world isn't so fooled.
Iran has never conducted a nuclear bomb test ever. North Korea has.
They funded it and had personnel there.
No they did not. They did not have personnel there. China helps North Korea.
Of course they did.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/02/28/is-iran-o…
No they're not. fox news gets it wrong again.
Of course they did, and Fox was spot on. How many other sources would you like?
Fox news asked a question. They have no evidence or proof.
Fox news explained what was on several other sources too.You just can't get Al Jazeera to cover for you on this one.
It's their funeral.
It's also your stupid.
Hate to break this to you, Roger, but both Iran or Iraq have been part of the modern, developed world for a very long time now.
Hate to break it to you, but ask the women, or the goats how far advanced they are.
They were untill the mullahs took over.
The blood of literally millions of Iraqis is on the hands of every American Tax Payer.
Of course not, it's on the dead hands of a lifeless Saddam,
No, are sanctions led to the deaths of over half a million Iraqi children.
You're insane. That's like shooting somebody and blaming the person you shot for being shot. You shot the guy! You're to blame.
Repeat that a little louder and more frequently, wouldja?
Our sanctions against Iraq led to the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children.
Roger blames saddam.
I wonder who he blames for 9/11? Bin laden or US foreign policy?
I think queen was being 'rhetorical' which means something entirely else for paid trolls.
I think you are evil.
Who was responsible for 9/11?
No kidding, you're so subtle about it, and your handlers are so vocal about it too.
Yet, here you are the mindless drone paid to post anything and everything… just a rented mouth.
Who was responsible for 9/11?
You have seen a list on this thread.
How many times will they pay you to ask that question?
So Americans weren't responsible. Just like saddam wasn't responsible for the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children.
Why do you think anyone should take a paid hack troll seriously?
Americans weren't responsible. Just like saddam wasn't responsible for the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children.
And why did you ignore my point?
Why should an admitted paid hack troll be taken seriously?
What point is the handlers of the rented mouth trying to make?
That he doesn't pretend to make any sense?
Are you going to shift gears and pretend to make sense at some point?
Quit trying to stifle meaningful discussion!
With you? You don't know what those words mean, 'meaningful discussion' isn't something I'd expect from a paid hack anyhow.
Oh oh let me answer that, MUSLIM JIHADIST!
AMERICAN AIRLINES #77
BOEING 757
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/history/famous-cases/…
1) Khalid Almihdhar – Possible Saudi national
2) Majed Moqed – Possible Saudi national
3) Nawaf Alhazmi – Possible Saudi national
4) Salem Alhazmi – Possible Saudi national
5) Hani Hanjour –
AMERICAN AIRLINES #11
BOEING 767
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/history/famous-cases/…
1) Satam M.A. Al Suqami- Possible Saudi national
2) Waleed M. Alshehri – Possible Saudi national
3) Wail M. Alshehri
4) Mohamed Atta – Possible Egyptian national
5) Abdulaziz Alomari – Possible Saudi national
UNITED AIRLINES #175
BOEING 767
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/history/famous-cases/…
1) Marwan Al-Shehhi
2) Fayez Rashid Ahmed Hassan Al Qadi Banihammad
3) Ahmed Alghamdi
4) Hamza Alghamdi
5) Mohand Alshehri
UNITED AIRLINES #93
BOEING 757
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/history/famous-cases/…
1) Saeed Alghamdi
2) Ahmed Ibrahim A. Al Haznawi – Possible Saudi national
3) Ahmed Alnami
4) Ziad Samir Jarrah
What to do….. they just can't make those names sound Jewish.
Just like with the sanctions against Iraq. WE were responsible. Not Saddam. Just like those people that flew planes into the towers were responsible. Not America and her foreign policy. They may have been motivated by our foreign policy, but they are to blame for the attack.
You are a paid hack. It's hard for me to take you seriously, why don't you have your handler post his own comments?
6 minutes ago @ Breitbart.com – Protests to greet Ahma… · 1 reply · 0 points
I'm like jesus, I'm gonna chase you money changers out of the temple and out of town and of course out of this forum. Me and ohsoquiet and a few other REAL AMERICANS who are being PAID to be here like you Israeli PR men. I'm here to chase you filth out.
Numbnuts – oh excuse me, "Serious Mind,' – Obama was simply following the already-established withdrawal date set by Bush and Co.
Try again.
Of course not, Bush had a set of benchmarks for withdrawal.
So, how does it feel to be so brain numbed?
Yeah right, the same Iran that fought a bloody war with Iraq for 8 years never giving up an inch of territory. Maybe the pentagon should think about that when drawing up their war plans?
Iran, the people paying Syria to support terrorists during the reconstruction of Iraq? That Iran?
No, America and Saudi arabia are funding the al quaeda rebels.
But facts don't interest you.
Roger 169p · 23 hours ago
The Almighty gives life and it's His place to take it away. You can't show those Egyptians were perfect and didn't deserve it.
The account shows God gave them several times to do the right thing
Really? Facts don't agree with you.
It's true that the marxist president of muslim heritage did give them libya, but the blame rests on him since he did it outside of any authority given him.
Yes really. America and Saudi Arabia are funding the al quaeda rebels.
Yes, so complain about your marxist president of muslim heritage, not America in general.
You paid iranian loyal hacks just can't get the nuances of things.
Why? He is just working for the same special interests that Bush worked for.
You iranians just don't get our subtle differences and nuances in politics.
Did the handlers tell you to pretend you did?
That is where half a million Iraqi children died.
Iran is the larger threat, true. I supported Bush's wars. I was not enthusiastic about the Iraqi scheme, though Bush and his surrogates made a compelling case for invading Iraq. I was not prepared to second guess him. I supported toppling the Taliban-al-Qaeda regime in Afghanistan. I did not support nation-building or "winning hearts and minds." I did not support Bush's democratization scheme in the Muslim world; a part of the world that is not prepared for democracy. Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism (therefore a legitimate target I suppose), though Bush officials were not able to make a compelling case Iraq had a hand in the 9/11 attacks. Saudi Arabia, Pakistan (our "allies") perhaps a little less so Iran, actually were tied to the September attacks. Bush covered up Saudi complicity. President Bush told one untruth after another untruth about Islam in his September 20, 2001 speech before a joint session of Congress and the American people. He continued to mislead the American people about the religion of peace. In early October 2001 Bush publicly made the establishment of a Muslim-terror state in Israel's heartland a formal goal of U.S. policy. After these things, I lost confidence and faith in George W. Bush who I voted for in 2000. I considered what Bush did a huge betrayal. I was lukewarm about Bush's wars thereafter.
I see there is not a word about all the cowards in the Democrat Party who voted twice to send our troops to Iraq, most gave floor speeches better than an GW speeches supporting the war. Before the ink was dry on their signatures they began to stab the Commander in Chief and the brave men and women sent to Iraq in the back with their bloody political knives. They make me sick to my stomach, every last one of them. The war would have ended much more quickly if the cowards in the Democrat Party hadn't give full support and hope to the very jihadist we were fighting. Just as John (Hanoi) Kerry betrayed every American who served in Vietnam, the Democrats, including Kerry, betrayed every American soldier who fought in Iraq. Obama fought GW every step of the way. Seventy-five per cent of the Iraqi who dipped their finger in the purple ink should have flipped the bird to the cowards in the Democrat Party. Now we have Democrats supporting a hopeless war in Afghanistan, a war we will never win, a country that will never be more than a 7th century opium den. Talk about a waste of tax payer money, Afghanistan is the highlight of waste.
There is not a single thing that those Democrats who reconsidered their original support did or could have done to have changed the outcome of Bush's war. How pathetic you are to try to blame "libruls!" for this epic disaster. How typical of the morons on this board.
Because you say so? Yeah, right.
Tell me why I'm wrong, Roger, and drop the "time table" nonsense, which you know is nonsense.
During the war effort just before Petraus was hired and put into place things were going badly, Kerry was saying stupid things like "if you can't learn you'll end up in Iraq". It eroded support and in the end made it possible for Obama to announce a timetalbe for retreat and for Iran to plan on how to pick their bones clean.
Is that enough explanation or do you want smaller words?
70% of the American public were against the war. WTF are you talking about?
70% were agains the way it was being fought to lose.
You're just like john "let's occupy Iraq for 100 years" Mccain.
Are you going to pretend that makes sense?
Americans know there are times you have to fight, we don't like our diplomats making us fight without trying to win anything.
Even McCain.
John "I don't care if we're in Iraq for 100 years" Mccain.
Or how about john "bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran" Mccain?
You might want to ask that handler to double check this approved comment, it's not making a lot of sense.
Diplomats bring peace. Diplomacy saves lives and preserves freedom! Or how else would you explain the US avoiding nuclear war with russia?
Diplomats buy tyrants time to finish nuclear weapons.
"The war would have ended much more quickly"
You are not just stupid–you're irresponsibly stupid. Take charge of your life, crack a book, teach yourself about something, and grow up.
Almost as much as you are.
Aren't you being presumptuous to speak for everyone?
Speaking for everyone is not what I am doing.
I know.
You're talking out both sides of your mouth. You're stating that the Iraq project was doomed because it is a fool's errand to attempt to import Western democracy, but also are suggesting we had gone further and "taken care of" Iran, i.e., at the very least obliterate it's leadership and let the country unravel, if not fully invade, occupy and attempt to transform it, i.e, engage in the "fool's errand."
He's making perfect sense. Something you never quite manage.
I was responding to Adina, a "her," not a "he."
Since she never actually responds to a post here, would you like to help her out? You'll notice she gets one thing right, that it was a fool's errand to attempt to export democracy to Iraq, but in the same paragraph decides we should have "taken care of Iran."
So, what does "taken care of" mean? A.) Drop nuclear bombs on it; B.) Bomb it conventionally; C.) Attempt to dismantle the ruling mullahs' regime; D.) Invade and occupy and try to remake Iran?; E. foment revolution, or: F.) some combination of B – F?
And how isn't any of this the same notion as Bush's Iraq debacle? Wanna take a stab at where she was going with that?
Wanna take a stab and not misrepresent what Bush was working towards with a bench mark set of withdrawal goals?
The muslim world is either run by a dictator or a theocracy, I prefer a nice General in charge that is a little friendly to us. As for Iran, take out their holy city of Qom and make it a nice urban renewal project, take out electricity,oil,gas and they are as good as being in the dark ages, if the so called people take over, well whooopy for our side, if not, it will be a lesson to whoever does take over that we can do it again, the lesson learned from Iraq and Afghanistan is don't put infidel troops into a muslim nation unless you are willing to do what is neccessary to keep your gains.
https://twitter.com/RogeRrussellass
That's all.
Still running fake impersonation accounts?
No, never. Do you still have a gay twitter account?
Only if you pretend the one you set up is mine.
But we both know it's not.
I think it's yours, it has your name and picture, and says gay comments.
That's a tip off you put effort into it.
Im sure it only took you 5 minutes to set up the account after you closed your last one.
The only reason you know the time it took is because you did it.
This is why you don't know how much time it takes to have sex with a woman, you never did it.
Do you really think I would discuss any personal issues with a sexually deviant stalker who wants my head chopped off so he can keep in a basket?
who asked you for a discussion? I was stating a fact.
You still want personal information and can't understand why hiding behind a photo of me with family would make you a stalker.
That's a fact. And you don't need an invite to start a discussion, so why bring that up?
Do you know how long it takes to have sex with a woman…no.
That's all.
Would I discuss it with a sexually deviant stalker?
Nope, that's all.
And you have never mentioned having a girlfriend to anybody else.
That's all.
And I won't with a sexually obsessive stalker lurking.
That's all.
And not with anybody for some reason.
That's all.
You're not a 'just anybody' that's all.
You want to use me an excuse. that's what virgins do.
I want you to just go away.
But you won't, that's what stalkers do.
Stop stalking WeeTodd, and I me, and what do you have in your life?
Nothing.
That's all.
What's wrong loser, did you pull your latest twitter account? Usually you wait and make them suspend it. Did you almost have your IP traced back or something?
What a coward you are, no wonder you're scared of navy.
And I won't with a sexually obsessive stalker lurking.
And you won't mention a girlfriend with anybody…ever.
That's all.
Not with you lurking about.
That's all.
I like that you are scared of me, or is that just an excuse, because you never mentioned it for years before you knew me.
And you checked, which proves my point.
Not with you lurking about.
You asked me to quote you, so Iu went through every one of your comment, comments years before you knew me,and NO MENTION OF A GIRLFRIEND>>>>>>EVER!!!!!
That's all.
Not where a sexually deviant stalker is involved.
That's all.
It also has one of your home movies
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3k9vvJ2A0AY
You still project. Did the helmet bother you a lot as a kid?
You can't run away from your home movie with one of your "I know you are but what am I : homo comebacks.
Owe it r e t a rd boy. He looks just like you…HHAHAHAAH!!!!
That's all.
Did it take you long to shoot that movie?At least you had lines you could remember.(barely)
Now you are going to deny that's you in the video? Come on.
That's all.
I'll trust people to both consider the source and to realize my profile pic is the real Roger, not your version.
I trust them more to know that's you.
You are wrong every time, how many of your impersonation accounts are still open? Just this one so far? How long do you think that will last?
I can see why you would want to blame your gay twitter accounts on me.
Yes, you use them impersonating me.
Nope.
That's all.
Of course you are. Why not man up and admit it, it would seem to me unless you were a total and complete coward you would brag about the things you spend that much effort on.
I didn't do it, and I don't talk about my personal life.
your gay twitter is your own business.
Of course you did it. What's wrong, do you realize how stalker'ish it makes you look?
I won't talk about personal issues.
Not with me you won't?
So, it's not a personal issue with you when you want to chop my head off and screw my dead eyes?
1 week ago @ http://912wolverines.com/ – growl · 26 replies · -9 points
That;s right!! There ill be blood you fuckers!!!!
When you try to make people slaves, you soon find your head in a basket.
Then I will fuck you in your dead eyeball.
And not with anybody else ….ever.
That's all.
Yes, because there are sick deviant stalker types about.
That's all.
What would a stalker do if he knew you were in a healthy relationship with a woman…NOTHING,.
There is absolutly NOTHING they could do.
your excuse just proves you really don't have a girlfriend.
Sad little virgin Roger, only can stalk me.
That's none of you concern.
And sad little stalker had to pull his latest twitter account, like a coward that was about to be caught. Is that why you're scared of navy?
Why don't YOU go occupy Iraq for 100 years roger. Have fun.
If that's what it takes to win the war, and leave as a winner, why not?
Obama sneaking out like a loser has only left a mess.
Go do it! See ya chicken hawk!!!
You'd rather see other people go and fight your wars for israel! And you wonder why people hate jews!
It's because they are traitors!
SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS!
Find a new handler with fresh talking points?Too bad he's still just as senseless as the others.I wonder, have you ever used a suicide bomb vest yet?
http://beingliberal.tumblr.com/post/45835296198/t…
Best letter about the war ever.
A true American.
Was it written by one of your handlers?
You don't handle me.
Not even with double rubber gloves.
Why you have to make sexual advances on me?
Quote me.
Roger 169p · 43 minutes ago
Not even with double rubber gloves.
I don't handle you. That would be the opposite of an advance.
You really are a fixated stalker.
you bring up sex, and sexual imagery when it wasn't called for.
That's a gay advance.
Why is everything about sex with you?
I realize you're a cowardly sexually deviant stalker, but get real. Surgeons use double layers of latex gloves to maintain sterile fields.
But that's way beyond the thinking abilities of the guy putting up fake profiles.
You were talking about medical treatment? you would let me die? Typical christian.
Was I?
You don't know that. You don't understand how normal folks think. You just know you crave my attention and want it to be about sex.
You're a deviant stalker type.
That's what I thought, you were talking about sex as usual.
You always hope guys will talk sex with you.
I wasn't.
But you were, and proof of that is that you won't say what you were talking about.
But I wasn't. The fact you are stuck on it proves you're just a typical garden variety sexually deviant stalker.
But you were.and you still won't say what you were referring to , if not sex.
Because you can't, and you are in shut down mode once again after being exposed for sexual advances.
Why should I have to? You hoping it was about sex says all that needs saying.
You're just a deviant stalker.
I seriously doubt that anything of substance was accomplished with our war in Iraq. Iraq was a very dangerous place for Westerners prior to the war – it remains so, today.
Certainly the Iraqis are better off, and we can take a degree of pride in that. Iran's strategic position has improved, and we can take no pride in that….but rather feel foolish.
Domestically, the war cost America the lives of 4400 of our best and bravest, over 30,000 injuries, thousands of others suffering PTSS……and a cool trillion dollars plus. Add to that the war created domestic conditions that secured the nomination and subsequent election of one Barry Obama,….and I'd say you'd be very hard pressed to claim America is better off today.
As you say, the cost of occupying Iraq was unsustainable. At the time of the invasion, Daniel Pipes recommended the U.S. replace Saddam with America-friendly strongman – presumably a Baathist Sunni leader to offset any gains Iran might obtain. Had the U.S. gone this way, there might have been no need for a costly occupation as the infrastructure was already in place for such a leader. Reading Spencer's Jihadwatch and other alternative media, I do not think Christian minorities in Iraq are better off post Saddam, as bad as he was.
We didn't invade and occupy Iraq for the sake of Christian minorities.
As I told the state guys after we won the war, is that we should put Saddams Generals in charge and that would have solved the problem and got out nice and clean. We would have had tha added benefit of them keeping the mullahs at bay.
War is delightful for those not involved-Erasmus.
It's time for some truth and the truth is that the Iraqi invasion was a catastrophic mistake.
Bush believed that if one dictatorship in the Middle East could be taken down and replaced with a democratic government then the other tyrannies would collapse like dominoes and be replaced by democratic regimes. He chose a weakened regime that no one liked and that could pose few surprises since it had been under continuous aircraft based surveillance for over a decade.
Surprisingly, this strategy worked perfectly with one small unexpected development. When you establish a democracy in a region dominated by tribal warfare and clan loyalties the result is rule by the lowest common denominator and that denominator is as low as denominators can get – religious fanaticism.
Within 10 years of the invasion we see theocratic democracies taking over in Egypt, Libya and soon in Syria and Lebanon. Countries that were nominally Islamic but still retaining some sensible secular principles have deteriorated into full fledged Islamist states. Having turned a basically secular dictatorship into an Islamist free-for-all the US now must contend with the deranged Islamist thugs that have risen to power in the surrounding region.
We have gone abroad in search of monsters to destroy but their destruction merely resulted in new and worse monsters.
Please stop with the Bush blaming.
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear.
We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.Constitution and Laws, to take necessary actions, (including, if appropriate,air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction
programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, John McCain and Joseph Lieberman. Oct. 9, 1998
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program.
He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force– if necessary– to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"By not going heavy into Iraq and by disbanding the Iraqi military, a postwar insurgency became inevitable."
The "post war insurgency" didn't begin until the adoption of the new Iraqi constitution. The front end of that constitution had two main clauses. One was that no law may violate the "undisputed" tenets of Islam. The second clause was that no law may violate the principles of democracy. Combined they meant that any "disputed" Islamic principles would be settled "democratically".
Iraq was 80% Shia and 20% Sunni. It meant that the Sunnis would soon be voted out of existence. That was when the civil war started. The Sunnis knew that they faced extermination especially since Saddam's Sunni thugs had terrorized the country for years leaving many wounds to be avenged.
Bush's people produced the blueprint for the government which was not a government with checks and balances. No bicameral legislature, no really independent judiciary, no meaningful division of power and a "Bill of Rights" so watered down as to be meaningless. Progressives, like Bush and Obama, want unfettered democracies so the Iraqi government was a single parliamentary system unlimited in its power. All natural resources were placed under the control of the government.
Keep this model in mind because that is the model that Bush and Obama favor for America.
"Keep this model in mind because that is the model that Bush and Obama favor for America."
It's the model the jihadis favor for the unconquered world. Who do you think they consulted other than "moderate Muslims?" You know, like the "moderate" Saudis…and those handpicked by the Saudis.
IF ONLY SADDAM HAD STAYED IN POWER
with his WMD and nuclear scientists continuing on his payroll; with his WMD and nuclear production facilities which could have made biological and chemical weapons on short notice (and nukes in the long term); with his 550 metric tons of radioactive yellow cake uranium that Iraq sold to Canada in 2008; with his growing billions in oil revenues used in part to train, arm and fund anti-US/Western terrorists. If only we hadn't deposed Saddam so that his murdering insane son Uday could succeed him and Iraqis suffer a more terrifying degree of brutal oppression. If only Saddam and the Baathists had stayed in power the Iraqi petroleum industry wouldn't now be enriching the Iraqi people, nor would there be an Arab Spring across the Middle East creating illiberal Islamist democracies (a crude start); nor would there be an anti-Baathist uprising in neighboring Syria threatening Iran's mullah regime and their regional proxies: Hezbollah, Hamas, the Sadrists of Iraq, etc.
continued
If only Saddam had stayed in power Barack Obama wouldn't have said in his Cairo speech that Iraq and the region were better off without him. History is vindicating the Iraq War and Bush Doctrine. Those with nostaligia for the good old days of Saddam raise your hands.
Pay attention:
There is not a single person on this board who is going to say that the removal of Saddam and his evil family was not a good thing in and of itself. The problem is the way we went about it and the enormous price we paid and are still paying.
You're not saying it? I'm surprised.
I will. The removal of saddam and his family was not a good thing. Saddam was the boogey man the west created. America went to WAR with Saddam, right after the iran-iraq war. If Iran had come out in better shape than Iraq than they would have gone after Iran right away. Now they're going after Iran with full force but Iran is not Iraq.
Patriot, if you can't celebrate the removal of that truly evil man, in isolation, you're so blinded by your anger over the war that you're not seeing straight.
I too am angry at it, and the unwillingness to seriously grapple with the massive failure and crime of that war by so many on the right, but I can at least see that ending Saddam's reign was a good thing.
He wasn't evil. Was the soviet union evil for being surrounded and challenged at every point? No. Saddam was antagonized for years. We created this boogeyman.
He was evil, ask the women who knew his rape rooms.
Your god is evil. Ask the Egyptian children.
Roger 169p · 23 hours ago
The Almighty gives life and it's His place to take it away. You can't show those Egyptians were perfect and didn't deserve it.
The account shows God gave them several times to do the right thing
My God the Almighty fights His own battles. allah is evil, he demands you guys blow yourselves up to fight his.
You would be very surprised what a little HE and napalm will do.
"removing Saddam Hussein’s terror regime was still the right thing to do". I have not a slightest doubt about it – but I do also think that it was the ONLY right thing done by the United States. President Bush's idealistic efforts to grow in Iraq a Western-type democracy just couldn't be successful with the Islamic kind of demos. It would be much cheaper for your taxpayers (and safer for your armed forces) to let Iraqis leisurely grow another despot of their own during the next 30-40 years, with another lightning operation in case of the Saddam-level danger. In any case, both strategies wouldn't change their general attitude to the US even a bit, I have no doubts about it too – but getting into the bottomless swamp of a long "humanitarian" war is (and always will be) a sure way to turn any quick victory into torturous failure. Rostislav, Saint-Petersburg, Russia.
The whole war was based on lie after lie.
First it was said Saddam was involved in 9/11…..This was proven to be a lie.
Second it was claimed he had WMDs. This was a lie.
Then, thirdly, it was decided that the people of Iraq needed "democracy" which was basically the final and greatest of all lies told.
In the meantime, Corporations, which Cheney had links to, were making Millions of dollars from the misery and the evil that the U.S and U.K brought upon the people of Iraq….And make no mistake IT WAS EVIL!
As for the article…..Could it be crammed with any more lies!?!
"Those who say the U.S. “broke Iraq” and pushed it into failed-state status by intervening in 2003 fail to recognize that Iraq was a failed state long before Operation Iraqi Freedom. As the Hoover Institution’s Fouad Ajami has observed, when the coalition entered Iraq, they found “a country wrecked and poisoned.” Gen. Ray Odierno adds, “What I underestimated when I got there was the societal devastation that was occurring in Iraq—the fact that education really had stopped for about 20 years, the fact that investment had stopped, the fact that people were being brutalized.” In short, Iraq was not broken because outside powers intervened. Rather, outside powers intervened because Iraq was broken".
Iraq's education system and health care system was the envy of the Arab world. It should also be pointed out, contrary to Adina's insane ramblings, that Iraq was the most secular of the Arab states.
When did all this start going to pot…..after the first gulf war and the evil sanctions imposed on Iraqis, sanctions, sponsored by the U.S and U.k, which were responsible for the deaths of up to half a million Iraqi children.
So please, spare this nonsense about how the people of Iraq, who are still dying brutally each day by the score, are better off than what they were before March 2003.
A question that you people should be asking,
What was so special about the people of Iraq that the U.S and U.K decided that they, above all others, deserved "Freedom" and "Democracy"?…..why not the people of Saudi Arabia [where the 9/11 hijackers came from] why not the people of Darfur or any of the many others whose lives were much more miserable than those of the people of Iraq?
Trevor,
You are right to be outraged by the Iraq War, the lies, and Adina's lies. But this was a common and fallacious pre-War argument:
"…why not the people of Saudi Arabia [where the 9/11 hijackers came from] why not the people of Darfur…"
Because nobody, not even the neocons, pretended that Iraq was a fully humanitarian mission. It was a strategic one. However arrogant, deluded, incompetently imagined and executed, however wrong to begin with, it WAS an attempt to remake the dysfunctional Middle East for both the sake of its inhabitants and the world.
Great fantasy, for sure.
He's what? Oh, you're still here pretending that our influence is a bad thing around the world.
I get it, Roger. You supported the war in Iraq, and you are seeing conservatives all over the place now admitting it was a bad idea, or ill-conceived, or poorly executed. They're finally doing the right thing, the principled thing–and this is hard for you to process.
And it irks you that your imagined political "enemies" were right all along–that invading Iraq was not worth it. So you pick little fights with us, rather than do the right thing, the hard thing–admit you were wrong about it. Will you do the right thing, Roger? Do you just want to score snark points, or do you want to have principles?
I was not a strong war supporter in Iraq.I feel we shouldn't go to war unless we are willing to fight as if winning is important. Something that is handled on the battle field and not the pervue of the diplomats.
You evaded the question entirely, Roger. I'll help:
I was very skeptical of the whole "mushroom cloud," "WMD" and "links to 9/11" thing. But when the shooting started and MY fellow Americans were trying to take out an evil regime, I was fully behind it and wanted nothing but 100% success. I saw that it was an audacious strategy to change the whole Middle East (see my posts below).
At some point early I realized what a terrible thing it was, and for years I grudgingly defended it against "leftists," and eventually it got me to completely question many of my once dyed-in the-wool Republican conservative notions.
The Iraq War is why I have broken with what "conservatism" is today – not just the degenerate madness of the Tea Party wing – but the immaturity of too many people like you to grapple with how terrible that war was, and to just blithely root for another such adventure in Iran.
And people like you were why I didn't support it more fully.
Do you understand the defeat of the enemy is the only way to establish lasting peace?
You may have wanted a more tolerant, more elegant treaty or some such. Diplomacy may buy time, but historically that works against decency not for it. It allows evil like Hitler to gather strength before they show the world how little they care about our values.
http://frontpagemag.com/2013/david-horowitz/why-w…
Mr. H. gave us a new venue to hash out the old Iraq debate. Let's see if these lily-livered leftists will show their faces.
That isn't correct. Defeat of the enemy is the only way to win. It is the only way to achieve an objective.
MacArthur wanted to nuke China. That would have defeated the enemy but would have started WW3.
Have I ever mentioned you're a moron?
I hope so, because it's true.
I'm factual.
You're factually a 'rented mouth' paid to say what ever your handler thinks is amusing at the moment.
6 minutes ago @ Breitbart.com – Protests to greet Ahma… · 1 reply · 0 points
I'm like jesus, I'm gonna chase you money changers out of the temple and out of town and of course out of this forum. Me and ohsoquiet and a few other REAL AMERICANS who are being PAID to be here like you Israeli PR men. I'm here to chase you filth out.
Facts are stubborn things
Even when a rented mouth tries to abuse them.
I abuse them by using them all the time.
No, that's not what you do.
Your handlers must have laughed for hours thinking that one up.
No, you're in fact a rented mouth.
6 minutes ago @ Breitbart.com – Protests to greet Ahma… · 1 reply · 0 points
I'm like jesus, I'm gonna chase you money changers out of the temple and out of town and of course out of this forum. Me and ohsoquiet and a few other REAL AMERICANS who are being PAID to be here like you Israeli PR men. I'm here to chase you filth out.
I'm factual
No, you're a cheap rented mouth.
Not yet you're not.
Not when you're on the clock here as a rented mouth you're not.
Iraq was never a threat to the United States and should have never been invaded.
We should have cut and run. Damn straight. Nobody gives a damn about viet nam nowadays. The sooner we get out of Iraq the better.
Iraq shouldn't have crossed the line into casus belli.
And then you were reincarnated as a rented mouth….
Unless you want to follow the tyrants plan of occupying mid-east countries for israels sake and sacrificing the blood and treasure of Americans.
Unless you wan tot follow the tyrants of occupying iranian controlled terrorist territory…
sacrificing the blood of Iranian soldiers to prop up the syrian regime.
Isn't that precious? People like Early Bird, who didn't fully support the war, were why Roger didn't fully support the war!
Ah, principles. maybe some day you'll find 'em, Roger.
I have, maybe some day you'll recognize them. When people like him keep us from fighting to win, then I am wary about being in a fight.
Are the shorter words helpful for you?
"People like him." Did he plan the war? Did he execute that plan? Did he say we'd be welcomed as liberators? I guess there's something to be said for saying "Hey, maybe a war that not everyone thinks is a great idea isn't really a great idea," but you have to say so in order for it to be principled.
I was on this site 10 years ago. I remember those being called "traitor" routinely for saying Iraq was folly. Now that Obama's president, it's become "safe" for conservatives to agree with that opinion. But not exactly principled.
When there are people that undermine the will to fight, it's bad for morale and it shapes the politicians, politicians that don't understand that war or how to fight one.
I don't care where you were for ten years.
When there are people that undermine the constitution like George Bush, it's bad for the country.
When you start pretending to make sense then you'll deserve to be almost taken seriously.
http://frontpagemag.com/2013/david-horowitz/why-w…
For those other than Trevor who think they can read. Le'ts just see who isn't a lost cause.
"Because nobody, not even the neocons, pretended that Iraq was a fully humanitarian mission. It was a strategic one."
Correct. Consensus must be built in a democracy. You can build a larger consensus when the motives are more varied and verifiable. Obviously all non-leftist Americans would like our form of government available to the world. It would be irresponsible to try to do that without any practical considerations.
Just because something is in one's own interest doesn't make it ipso facto immoral. It's certainly acceptable or even helpful to question motives, but when you lunatics ignore the rational answers it gets tiresome.
"However arrogant, deluded, incompetently imagined and executed, however wrong to begin with, it WAS an attempt to remake the dysfunctional Middle East for both the sake of its inhabitants and the world."
You can't make up your mind. You concede it was in our strategic interests and that we had just motives. The failure was trying too hard to build consensus by trying to use Iraq as a military laboratory to prove how quickly and cheaply we could build a democracy with little visible blood.
That's delusional. But that was not what came from conservatives. That was how it was pitched to the world at large in order to get leftists on board. They betrayed the coalition before the war started so it was hardly worth it.
Having said that. Bush is accountable for falling in to that trap. It was failed leadership, but that is nothing compared to the failed leadership we see from every last DP POTUS since Truman. RP POTUSs fail, but DP POTUSs fail much due to communist leftist infiltration and a tendency to be somewhat delusional anyway.
The essence of my point is that it is leftist ideology that enables evil factions to divide our resources and our focus. Leftist ideas enable our enemies.
You defend leftist ideas. You enable our enemies.
"When did all this start going to pot…..after the first gulf war and the evil sanctions imposed on Iraqis, sanctions, sponsored by the U.S and U.k, which were responsible for the deaths of up to half a million Iraqi children."
Better to let Saddam take over the whole region. That way we have one big tyrant who has a monopoly on the region's oil.
Anyone can find criticism about any war. Is it valid just because you make emotional appeals? Only if you live in an alternative universe where it's an option to freeze time or even travel back.
Time marches forward and solutions must be proposed and executed. The leftist critics never have a lucid alternative suggestion about what could be done or what could have been done.
Never.
You sure do type a lot without actually saying anything.
It's nice to know though that you hold Oil above human life.
What oil did we get from Iraq?
Oh Roger, do try and keep up.
So, can't answer it? Can't refute that point?
I don't mind keeping up Trevor, but keep up with what? Your latest revisionary history? I don't think so.
Roger, Roger, you really are the silliest sausage in a sea of silly sausages…aren't you!?!
I didn't bring "oil" into the conversation….Mkay!
Dullards will be dullards…eh, Rog!?!
Actually, you're doing a bang up job of it.
You said lie after lie. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/12/leadu…
Normally with a non thinking drone repeats those talking points they are aware that it's not new ground and others have gone there before them.
So, you can't keep up. You don't pretend to keep up and being the nasty little thing you are, you lash out when someone beat you to the punch.
Most consider oil a lie that brought us to Iraq, just because you couldn't focus long enough to complete the list of lies doens't mean I haven't heard that mantra and that I didn't address something that's out in the liberal chatting coffee caches.
"You sure do type a lot without actually saying anything. It's nice to know though that you hold Oil above human life."
Tally another leftist who can't read well.
The proper–and only legitimate–role of an army is to "break things and kill people." It is NOT "nation-building," latrine-digging, hospital- and school-building, or teaching moslems to vote and stop beating their wives.
Every time we've tried any of those things among savages, we've failed utterly; let me know if you can think of even a single exception since WW II. We should have learned by now that we cannot "build" a "nation" where there's never been one in any recognizable sense of the word and the natives have an incurable glandular inability to understand, much less to value, the concept–and return our well-meaning efforts with intensified hatred for us.
So from now on let's settle for leaving the enemy naked, bleeding, starving, and unable to do us any further harm. That should be enough.
I totally agree, especially as it pertains to the Taliban.
I remember distinctly, days before any real military action took place in Afghanistan, some bleeding heart viral email was going around about "We can't bomb them back to the Stone Age, they're already there.." which was actually veiled, pre-emptive slander against the United States.
Instead, we went in there SO lightly, and tried to do SO much for that poor country. I worked with a pharmacist whose family came to the US from Afghanistan when he was twelve. Referring to the enormous humanitarian undertaking there, he said "9/11 was the best thing that ever happened to my country."
The US can be proud of its decency in response to such an evil attack. But unfortunately misplace compassion doesn't work.
Japan and Germany were first defeated before we reconstructed them.
And if Iran had been planting IED's in Japan McCarthur would have put a stop to it.
Shut up. China was giving solace, weapons and money to the Viet Cong and the north Koreans and America didn't do diddly squat!
Talking about "democracy," "checks and balances," and "moderates" with regard to these countries has an air of absurdity because the context (historical, social) is so different. You have to almost look at those words metaphorically. Is there a way to turn things in our favor, to effect and empower something LIKE these things? And how much can be achieved by force?
In Saddam, we had two things: 1. One of most ruthless, cruel, ambitious, power-mad tyrants in the world; 2. A guy who kept the oil flowing and the Islamists at bay. Getting rid of #1 was in our interests; getting rid of #2? not so much. That's what we failed to account for. Perhaps the biggest conceptual error was in assuming that a "democratic" government would be in our interests, when what it really means is that Islamists get elected.
It's a mixed bag but it definitely had some positive outcomes for us and for the Iraqis. I give Pres. Bush a lot of credit for thinking big in terms of his overhaul of foreign policy. I think he got the big picture right in some ways. But it was simply not worth the price WE paid.
I never believed Bush did Iraq for any other reason than that he thought would be best for America, Iraq and the world. His plan was a hugely ambitious attempt to remake the Middle East and completely redraw America's relationship with it.
Sadly, the cassus belli ("WMD, 9/11") was a lie, the entire concept was a fantasy, and it was made far worse by planning it by way of fantasy, i.e, quick and on the cheap with no Plan B.
At some point a nation built on the notion of "small government" is going to figure out that the concept should also apply to foreign interventions.
No it wasn't. If you want to pretend you understand Casus Belli, then you should understand the attempted assassination of his father in Kuwait was casus belli.
LOL! That is unconstitutional.
Casus belli has been around a lot longer than our constitution, and congress authorized hostilities, that complied with the constitutional limitations – unlike obama with libya.
It's against the law. If that is why bush went to war, which he didn't, then he would be behind bars right now.
You don't know what casus belli is, or how long it's been around.
It doesn't matter. Eye for an Eye has been around a long time but if Bush went to war for it he would be in prison right now. Bush did not go to war for that. Moron.
It does matter, if you understood Casus Belli, you'd understand that.
You don't understand our constitution.
Not Irans. And I don't pretend to.
You don't understand out constitution.
Why do I care what Iran's constitution says?
Sharia is so boring and barbaric.
I don't care about Iran's constitution.
You never have fixed the typo in that cut and paste. It shows up every time you use that one.
Oh, Roger, stop digging. There were no WMD, there was no link between Saddam and 9/11, and not even Bush pretended that he invaded because of Saddam's plot of assassinate George, Sr.
"There were no WMD, there was no link between Saddam and 9/11"
Not finding something is not proof it doesn't exist. The case should not have been explained publicly as it was. That was stupid. Really I thought people were more intelligent but even ten years later….
Did you read the article?
"In Saddam, we had two things: 1. One of most ruthless, cruel, ambitious, power-mad tyrants in the world; 2. A guy who kept the oil flowing and the Islamists at bay. "
3. Serious ambitions to rule the region.
Or did you forget that part?
"I give Pres. Bush a lot of credit for thinking big in terms of his overhaul of foreign policy. I think he got the big picture right in some ways. But it was simply not worth the price WE paid."
There's nothing wrong with debating that question. You need a comprehensive understanding of our budgets to answer that question with any real sense of perspective. How much is our security worth?
What could we have done to keep the price a lot lower? A lot. My refrain is always pointing out that we had citizens mobilized against our success even before the deadline passed for Saddam to give up. We'll never know if those protesters further emboldened him, but I can list many reasons why it was wrong to act up that way and I can't think of any justification for "peace marches" funded by foreigners at that time or most other times during war. To take your case directly to the press when you have no inside information, you just want to emote, that is destructive to our interests.
It's par for the course on the left.
"How much is our security worth?" Yes, that is the question.
Are we safer now that Saddam is gone? Did you, like Mr. Cheney and Rumsfeld, immediately think "Invade Iraq" on Sept. 12, 2001, like they did?
So a trillion $, 4000 soldiers (who are averaging a suicide a day) and the families living with that, and a bitterly divided country: and you think that's worth it? You're actually going to whine about war protests in light of this?
"Or did you forget that part?"
Did you forget the state Saddam's Iraq was in after the Gulf War? Unbelievable you imagine you're making a point, here. So at this point what would you rather: A secular strongman selling us oil and killing Islamists, or a bunch of Islamists rushing in to fill the vacuum?
Now that obama withdrew and gave iraq over to chaos it's not a better place.
Thank you very much Obama.
Way to dodge all the points I made.
OK, Roger, let's keep an entire generation of our young men over there for 25 years. What a brilliant idea.
Way to dodge history. And having our bases in Korea has saved a lot of lives and preserved freedom in South Korea.
Yes, and how long was that conflict? And what price did we pay? And doesn't South Korea actually like having us there? Didn't they fight alongside us in that one?
Fight to win, sure: but tell that to the guys who planned the war.
Jim, you are proof there is a 'blame America first' crowd.
Why do you assume the women that had faced being raped wanted us gone?
"Jim, you are proof there is a 'blame America first' crowd."
And he thinks this is called "realism."
Because he really believes these delusions.
"Fight to win, sure: but tell that to the guys who planned the war."
You typically defend those who prevent us from doing that. It's like you don't actually get it. What else can anyone conclude?
"Yes, and how long was that conflict? And what price did we pay? And doesn't South Korea actually like having us there? Didn't they fight alongside us in that one?"
What was your plan Jim? More peace marches? Let any belligerent take over anything they want as long as US forces don't pay any costs?
What's our security worth to you? Apparently nothing.
"OK, Roger, let's keep an entire generation of our young men over there for 25 years. What a brilliant idea."
No, it's about sequence. Without leftists Bush would have been able to pull out before a traitor like 0'Bama was even able to deceive so many people. You get the job done and THEN you leave. That's the job of the POTUS.
Leftists love to pretend the options are limited to those that they can imagine. It's all about delusion to them. Facts don't matter unless they can be peppered in to their lunatic narratives.
"A trillion dollars"
"Bush lied people died"
Oh whatever. Pull your heads out of your GI tract.
OK. No more war. Melt all of the guns. Visualize world peace and kill the conservatives for failing to visualize Utopia.
"Are we safer now that Saddam is gone?"
Yes.
"Did you, like Mr. Cheney and Rumsfeld, immediately think "Invade Iraq" on Sept. 12, 2001, like they did?"
I was working so I probably didn't get around to that until the first weekend but certainly before say, the end of September. I understood quite well what it meant. I may have been surprised by the details, but I understand very well what technology means to global politics.
Losing control of nuclear technology changed the world forever in a bad way. It forced us to make compromises that left a lot of evil residual players standing. We're still mopping up from a cold war that isn't actually over the way people think it is. It just cooled off quite a bit and got more complicated.
Only fools think the fight with communism is over. Islamic supremacists know that score much better than most Americans.
"So a trillion $, 4000 soldiers (who are averaging a suicide a day) and the families living with that, and a bitterly divided country: and you think that's worth it?"
1) Those are not net costs.
2) The fact that we're bitterly divided should be blamed on the liars who caused these divisions
3) Some times war is the worst choice only if you ignore all of the others. It had to be done. You can argue over the details and you'll probably be wrong. What's your suggestion other than pulling a turtle head?
"You're actually going to whine about war protests in light of this?"
Because they are culpable for the extraneous costs and the bitter division you refer to. They are the liars and traitors.
"Did you forget the state Saddam's Iraq was in after the Gulf War? "
No. What is your point?
"Unbelievable you imagine you're making a point, here. So at this point what would you rather: A secular strongman selling us oil and killing Islamists"
He was only killing the Islamists that threatened him, not those that threatened us. He collaborated with them against us. That makes a slight difference to the false equation you suggest.
"or a bunch of Islamists rushing in to fill the vacuum?"
That's a false dichotomy. But if forced I'll take B because it's called flushing out the enemy. That part worked.
On the whole we're better off, and if leftists hadn't been fighting against our vital wartime interests, the costs would have been a mere fraction of the net costs that we will end up paying.
Place the blame where it's due. Don't forget to look in the mirror for being such a dupe.
I'm not in the habit of defending Pres. Obama. But his decision on wholesale withdrawal quickly followed the Iraqis' insistence on trying American servicemen in Iraqi courts. Obama properly said Nyet.
The liberating of Iraq was the right thing to do, but its effectiveness has been mitigated by not invading Syria and not destroying Iran's military capabilities. The Second Iraq should have been one part of a larger regional effort. This then would have made the post-war effort in the region better/easier. In addition, since we incurred the cost in lives and treasure, we use revenue from the region's oil to pay for our effort. Taking control of the oil would then allow us to control the politics of the region.
You really don't get it, do you?
We failed in Iraq because we could not actually achieve the mission, which was to transform an alien society at the point of a gun. We'd have more success building Disneyland on Mars.
But you're suggesting that we didn't bite off enough with Iraq? We killed hundreds of thousands of people including 4,400 Americans, obliterated a country and created an Islamist terrorist playground, and added $1 trillion dollars to the national debt. And you're suggesting we should have done that three times over!
You can't make this stuff up, folks!
"We failed in Iraq because we could not actually achieve the mission, which was to transform an alien society at the point of a gun. We'd have more success building Disneyland on Mars."
Just like we failed in Japan.
"But you're suggesting that we didn't bite off enough with Iraq? We killed hundreds of thousands of people including 4,400 Americans, obliterated a country and created an Islamist terrorist playground, and added $1 trillion dollars to the national debt. And you're suggesting we should have done that t
three times over! "
I have no reason to think that by repeating myself yet again that you will finally understand.
"You can't make this stuff up, folks!"
You sure do well in fantasy land.
Can you really be comparing a country with an ethos like Japan's with the loose colonial cobble of sectarianism that is Iraq?
Talk about fantasy land.
No, it's actually spot on.
We took Japan with the shinto ethos and converted it into what it is today.
And if we had the will to 'win' militarily we might have been able to in Iraq, but islamic activists bow only to superior force, not nice guys.
Yeah, you just want to nuke the arab countries like we did Japan. I get it. Brilliant!
Quote me.
You paid hacks will say anything for a buck.
You imply it all the time.
So, I caught you in a lie and you can't quote me.
No, like I said. You imply it all the time.
Yes, I caught you in a lie and you can't quote me.
You get quoted, either I said something or I didn't.
Like you saying this!
6 minutes ago @ Breitbart.com – Protests to greet Ahma… · 1 reply · 0 points
I'm like jesus, I'm gonna chase you money changers out of the temple and out of town and of course out of this forum. Me and ohsoquiet and a few other REAL AMERICANS who are being PAID to be here like you Israeli PR men. I'm here to chase you filth out.
You can't point to a single time I have.
You're just a rented mouth. Why do you think you have any credibility to make any claims here at all?
Every time. Every time you lie about muslims and say how evil they are, you are just implying that they need to be fought and nuked.
Am I? Only if I had the violent barbaric mind set that you as a muslim have.
And I don't.
Yes you are. You have the zionist troll chicken hawk mind set.
Do people get killed over it? Y-E-S!
Ask the neocons that engineered the Iraq war fiasco. Millions of human beings died because of lies.
As opposed to the muslim terrorist mind set?
"Yeah, you just want to nuke the arab countries like we did Japan. I get it. Brilliant!"
No, we want to impose a secular constitution that is more in line with our stated objectives. You must hate that.
Neo-liberalism? What gives any country the right to tell another country how to govern?
I don't know, what gives Iran the right to tell Israel they should be erased?
The right of human decency. Something israel knows nothing about.
Coming from an iranian that's funny.
You won't get it, but ask Neda.
Ask rachel corrie about israels human rights. Or Baruch goldstein.
Racheal committed suicide by bull dozer, people that stupid don't have a lot of credibility.
Neda Committed suicide by lollipops. See, I can make stuff up too.
And that doesn't make Neda any less dead due to barbaric muslim leaders.
Ask Rachel corrie who is barbaric.
She'd say Neda's motorcycling murderous cowards.
No she wouldn't say that because she's dead. She was murdered by Israeli savages. You know who else was murdered by israeli savages? Furkan Dogan. You know else was an israeli savage that led to the deaths of hundreds of Americans? Jonathan Pollard.
Yes, Neda is dead due to the muslim terrorist. Neda, a poor innocent student slaughtered in the streets of Tehran by a religion that didn't care if she lived or died.
What you imagine we "might have been able to do" in Iraq is unrealistic. People on this site, conservatives, every day, now talk about how we can't change these people.
I actually get what you are saying but there really is a world of difference: Japan has a deeply rooted ethos that worked very well to give us what we have today (they are relatively s-cialist, though). Islam, unfortunately, and I suppose Arab culture does not have that. It just doesn't. I once thought the "Quietist" branch of Islam of whom Al-Sistani is representative might present a workable "separation of church and state"-sort of solution to modernization and secular government but it doesn't seem to have paned out that way.
Japan had a deeply rooted ethos that it was better to kill oneself then to have dishonor by not serving the emperor.
"Can you really be comparing a country with an ethos like Japan's with the loose colonial cobble of sectarianism that is Iraq?"
In the context of this conversation, I certainly can.
"Talk about fantasy land."
Your confusion is not evidence of my delusion.
"Can you really be comparing a country with an ethos like Japan's…"
Tell me about the "Japanese ethos" that made their transition easier than it would be among any other group of elites who believed they were (racially or religiously) superior and intended to rule the world.
It was rule-of-law that facilitated the success of peaceful pragmatic leaders. It was initially imposed by us. They're doing well because we did it right then. If FDR hadn't died, who knows what would have happened instead. Japan would probably be a Soviet client state.
To the contrary…some of the price paid in Iraq was because we didn't expand the effort. For example, there would not have been a jihadi rat-line from Syria because Syria would not have been able to do so. Our losses in Iraq would have been less as a result. I agree with a comment below that we have a good history of converting crappy cultures into Western democracies but that certainly was not on the table in Iraq. We compromised that objective by assuming that Islam is compatible. It isn't. That is analogous to us allowing the Nazi Party to exist in West Germany after we conquered them. But more realistically, we should have been far more forceful with our conversion efforts. In any event, Obama and the Democrats again surrendering our gains will bring worse consequences in the years to come.
"We compromised that objective by assuming that Islam is compatible. It isn't."
Correct Neither is Shinto.
"That is analogous to us allowing the Nazi Party to exist in West Germany after we conquered them."
Right. But people will say that we need to be "sensitive to freedom of religion" and yet we already demonstrated how to handle that issue successfully. Freedom of religion and freedom to commit treason under the guise of religion are 2 entirely different things.
"Obama and the Democrats again surrendering our gains will bring worse consequences in the years to come."
Their undermining efforts began long before Saddam's deadline even ran out. They were out for revenge for "stealing the election from Gore" which became just a pretext for ratcheting up dirty politics to see what they could get away with. And we let them.
What a bunch of dirty traitors.
Dowd has a couple of things right:
- Iraq was, indeed, already broken prior to the US invasion. The UN "no-fly zone" was being aggressively challenged on a near-daily basis, and the 12 year long sanctions regime had fallen apart, with the usual suspects double-dealing for Iraqi oil. Something "needed to be done" about Saddam and Iraq, clearly.
But lets not fool ourselves: it was the neocons' rejection – not absence – of meaningful intelligence that allowed them to ignore how broken Iraq was, and therefore the scope of what they were undertaking. The Bushies were shocked to discover how degraded the basic infrastructure of Iraq was, but shouldn't have been, and immediately had to add billions to the bill.
"But lets not fool ourselves: it was the neocons' rejection – not absence – of meaningful intelligence"
So the conservative talking parrot now says that really the conservatives caused all of the problems. The leftist globalists knew all along that its plan was the only plausible option.
What was their plan again?
– Dowd is still grasping at straws to draw some – any – connection between Saddam and INTERNATIONAL Islamist terror, though at least he doesn't try to pin 9/11 on him.
Yes, the whole project was a well-intended response to 9/11. Iraq was seen as an opportunity to remake the dysfunctional Middle East and America's relationship with it. To his credit, Bush openly and repeatedly talked about American complicity with Arab autocrats for short-term security and how that exploded in our face with 9/11.
Iraq was to become a benign, pro-American democracy in the heart of the Middle East, a base from which the US could project regional power. It would allow us to remove our troops from the "sacred" Saudi Peninsula (which we quietly did), which was among the chief complaints of OBL. And from there Iraq would be the model for the rest of the Arab world, whose people would spontaneously demand their own freedom. And the US would be aiding and leading those revolutions, not attempting to squash them like the fascist idiots on this board demand Obama does.
"Dowd is still grasping at straws to draw some – any – connection between Saddam and INTERNATIONAL Islamist terror, though at least he doesn't try to pin 9/11 on him."
American Army special forces discovered mansions (in residential neighborhoods) converted in to factories for building terror devices. There was umbrellas with C4, and other "ever day" items rigged to explode.
I have the video. You can argue that Saddam was not a bona fide "Islamist" but his aims, interests and tactics were nearly the same. And add to that the fact that Bush made it clear that it had nothing to do with Islam in his mind.
OK. And?
And the propaganda machine press hides any evidence or simply ignores it.
It seems to me that the yellow cake shipped to Canada was conveniently explained away but they never did say why Saddam needed that huge amount of yellow cake unless there was nuclear ambitions.
"OK. And?"
Really? You don't get it? These facilities were equipped with finite element analysis and 3D solid design workstations, CNC machinery and sophisticated fabrication stations to make just about anything a passenger or civilian might be carrying. These was no last moment Jerry rigged effort.
This is conclusive evidence of the Iraqi global terror nexus. And all the leftists act like such evidence doesn't exist even when they accidentally allow some editor to slip it in to the end of a mainstream "educational" video. This was broadcast on National Geographics "Inside Special Forces." You can even watch it on youtube. It comes some time after 45 or 50 minutes. Buried.
Willful blindness. Just like you.
"OK. And?"
It's HILARIOUS when anyone can see you've been proved wrong and just like any other leftist you pretend the evidence doesn't exist.
Nobody is discussing the First Gulf War. Did Ambassador April Glaspie tell Saddam Hussein it was OK to invade Kuwait because of something that G.H.W. Bush had said to her? Did Old Bush know that Glaspie was partially responsible for the invasion? If the U.S. wanted the invasion to take place as a device to get rid of Saddam, then why did we let him recover? Was there a reason that we didn't say a word when Saddam began to massacre Kurds in northern Iraq and marsh Arabs in southern Iraq?
Many people disapprove of the policies of either Young Bush or Obama–or both. On the other hand, the whole world loves Old Bush. I am puzzled.
Bush, Sr. clearly wanted an uprising to take place against Saddam after the Gulf War. He was wise not to commit ground troops to occupy the country, however, since that would have merely led to the Bush, Jr. debacle only sooner.
After there not being a successful revolution, the place simply fell apart under relentless sanctions. The only part of the government which really "ran" effectively was Saddam's police and torture apparatus, and military. Anything that did come in went to that.
If he wanted it so badly, why didn't he back the kurds when it would have made it possible?
You're a strange one, so many flawed positions just oozing at every comment.
The kurds were not going to lead to any sort of revolution, just like arming the Rebels in Syria is not going to bring about nothing but violence.
Did you know two days ago was the anniversary of the gassing attack on a kurd village?
The kurds were not going to topple saddam. Sanctions neither. Sanctions have been put on Iran since 1979 and the government has only gotten MORE power and support from its people. Sanctions don't work.
"Sanctions don't work"
Should apply to iran too.
That was Saddams WMD – poison gas.
An inconvenient truth the fascist left wants to forget.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_a…
The Syrian "rebels" are no doubt just as evil and dangerous as Assad, like the ones we've already seen (and helped win) in Egypt and Libya. I think the best solution (albeit a cynical one–oh dear!) is to feed them just enough materiel to keep this pot at a simmer for as long as possible, with neither side outright winning but both still killing one another–like two scorpions together in the same jar.
Even so, we could still play the Good Guy, maybe by expressing our "deep, humanitarian concern" about the ongoing slaughter at the U.N., right? Maybe even introduce a U.N. Resolution or two "condemning," or "viewing with disapproval," the "needless loss of innocent life." Any objections?
The best solution is to meet diplomatically with Iran, Russia, China and all other allies of Syria to negotiate a cease-fire like Kofi Annan tried to do in the Beginning. It's Americas refusal to meet with Iran that is causing all this bloodshed.
What's gonna happen instead of peace is war. Chemical weapons have been used by the rebels, Obama is already going to israel where they will demand that Obama invade and occupy syria or give his group of thugs the green light to do it, and then iran gets sucked into it and we have a wider regional conflict instead of peace.
And what if our good friends, the mad-dog ayatollahs of Iran, the Soviets, and the Red Chinese, "just say no"…?
All three are now hostile enemies of ours, not friends, allies, or (as Bill Clinton bizarrely called Communist China) "our strategic partners." Why in the world should they help us, or want peace? They could, but never have, and won't; they don't see any reason to, and aren't incumbered by our Western idea of "fairness" or "decency." Beijing could shut down North Korea and its nuclear weapons program in five minutes, but chooses not to. Why should they? It keeps us worried and off-balance, which is exactly what they want. They won't even give us the meaningless "support" of a toothless U.N. Security Council resolution.
Soviets? What Soviets? Red Chinese? WTF?!?! This isn't 1950's. Get into the 21st century.
Everybody wants peace. Who wants to be in a foxhole when they can be in a hot tub drinking some wine with some big booty ho sitting on their face?
No, not everyone wants peace. Your handlers in Iran for example don't want peace.
It's not Iran threatening to launch PRE-EMPTIVE strikes on sovereign soil!
America and israel hate peace.
Oh, they just want to erase Israel and provide Hezbullah with the munitions to do it?
They don't want to attack any country. They haven't attacked a country in 400 years. You can't say the same for israel.
Of course they do. That's why they fund terror all around the region and even places like Venezuela. The government of Yemen just called Iran on it this last week.
They haven't attacked a country in 400 years and haven't since.
Of course they have. So, they pay you to lie and you're not brave enough to escape.
They have not. You are a liar. They have not attacked a country in over 400 years.
They wage war constantly.
They're just too much a coward to attack in the light of day. Ask the Yemenese.
Where?
"Yemenese"?
HAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! LOL!!! ROTFL!!!!!!
You don't know english well as a second language do you. China has Chinese, Yemen has Yemenese. It may be slang, but because you didn't get it, it exposed your cultural background.
The government of yemen is a dictatorship manned by a western backed stooge. Just like Maliki in Iraq.
And that justifies Iran supporting terror?
They don't support terror.
Of course they do, ask who sends weapons and money to Hezbullah.
Hezbollah is not a terrorist organization. They are a democratically elected representation of the people living in southern Lebanon. They have members that sit in the Lebanese parliament.
Of course they are. A nice group doesn't fire thousands and rockets at civilians and hope to kill as many as possible while ignoring the arabs within Israel.
You don't want peace.
Not pieces, I have no intention of ending up like Daniel Pearl.
Ask Rachel corrie
Last I heard, she was still a little down…
Can I ask this girl instead?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7708169.stm
Rachel Corrie was murdered by jewish savages.
Baruch Goldstein would know a thing or two about being a savage.
She's still a bit down in the mouth.
And when you lay down in front of an Israeli bulldozer, it's suicide.
"It's Americas refusal to meet with Iran that is causing all this bloodshed."
Oh stop. This is overblown. The United States may be a super power, but it does not have super powers. We are not omnipotent. A civil war exists in Syria because of Syrians, not the United States.
It's not overblown. If you want peace and stability in Iraq, you have to work with Iran. If you want peace and stability in Afghanistan, you have to work with Iran. It's that simple.
Iran should be a major US ally. Not some made up boogeyman!
Kofi Annans proposal in the UN failed because the US failed to work out a cease-fire with Russia and Iran.
You paid hacks say the darndest things.
"If he wanted it so badly, why didn't he back the kurds when it would have made it possible?"
I explained why: because it would have led to the debacle his son created. Get it?
Adults "want" all sorts of things, but deal within the bounds of reality. Bush, Jr. did not.
Yeah but why did saddam have all of those police and "torture" apparatus' ? It's because Saddam had threats from every corner. Iran was a threat, The gulf countries were threats. The british, the french, the germans, the Americans etc.
If you were threatened day and night by the mob what would you do? You would stock up weapons and be super paranoid. Saddam was just a boogey-man created by the west.
None of the other Gulf countries were ever a threat to Saddam, or ever pretended to be (how could they? The lazy, effeminate Kuwaitis and Saudis were, and are, too fond of their harems, Rolls Royces, and London discos to risk them in a war).
Iran? That's another matter. I must admit that I took smirking satisfaction in watching Saddam and the Ayatollah go at one another's throats for ten years in their war with one another, with an estimated 1 million deaths, not one of them an American: It was almost a replay of Hitler vs. Stalin, and it kept both of them too busy to have time to threaten anybody else. I wish we could somehow foment such monster vs. monster slugfests again: fun to watch and without any American blood or money.
Saddam's gestapo, acid tanks, and rape rooms weren't for foreign "threats"; they were for his own population–and for Uday's entertainment when Iraqi athletes didn't come in first in the Olympics.
His own population that might become turncoats for the british or the americans or the Iranians etc.
A truly bizarre justification, Bagdad Bob (that's your real name, right?). A traitor under every bed? "turncoats for the british or the americans"–?
I see that you must agree with Saddam's own statement justifying his methods: "Where there is a person, there is a problem. Where there is no person, there is no problem."
I agree with George Washington staying out of entangling alliances.
Even Thomas Jefferson knew we had to fight islamic terror.
No, he didn't. But christians are supposed to love their neighbors as they love themselves so, you must really hate yourself!
Yes he did. And he cleaned their clocks in Libya.
No he didn't. You're just going off of troll talking points.
I am going by history. Do you even know who our Thomas Jefferson was, or why they called them leather necks when the Marines fought in Tripoli?
You're going by troll talking points.
Nope, history outside of the iranian approved version baffles you, doesn't it?
You need to research the first barbary war if your handlers won't stone you as an apostate for it.
You need to research EVERYTHING!
Why, you don't pay attention when I do.
You're just a 'rented mouth'.
You need to actually step outside your comfort zone and accept the fact that you have been lied to your entire life.
As you have? But I'm not forced to be muslim, and I'm not in Iran.
Like you do? Do you just pretend the barbary wars never happened?
Like Hezbullah being peaceful?
After all the attacks and missiles they've used on Israel? Yeah, only a rented mouth Iranian hack troll would think to say that and pretend to keep a straight face.
"I agree with George Washington staying out of entangling alliances."
Still pretending modern technology doesn't affect global politics. How convenient.
You're not that bright.
Bright enough to mock you and show what a troll you are.
Why don't you come up with another parallel profile. That one isn't working.
It's not a parallel profile. Just someone that also understands the evil and foolishness of islam.
Yes it is.
Is what? You were a bit vague on that one.
objectivefactsmatter is another one of your parallel profiles!
Nope, I don't bother with them.
You have several I know.
Then you know wrong.
As a rented mouth you don't get to decide that.
Patriot, don't advocate for the Devil, okay? As much as I share your dismay at US puppeteering of despots, these are actually sentient beings who make their own choices. The insecurity that led Saddam to choose to be so evil was internal far more so than external. Iraq was cobbled together after WWI by the Great Powers, and tribes and sects which had hated each other since the dawn of creation were mashed together in a "modern" arrangement, ready to explode and take out any leader.
THAT was why Saddam was suc a vicious, Stalinist dictator.
It occurs to me that the entire World would be a better place if the human race stopped acting like a "well, he did it first!" little-brother-older-brother thing. "Well, what about the Crusades?!" "What about the Battle of the Boyne?!" "What about what the Big-Endians did to the Little-Endians?!"
I once asked a very militant Irishman: "If you saw two Irishmen, both buck naked, both equally washed clean and scrubbed over every inch of their bodies with bristle brushes for the occasion, and shaved down to the skin, both smelling identically the same, both standing utterly silent before you, and both keeping a straight face, could you tell which one was the Protestant and which the Catholic?"
"I'd know, damn you! And I'd kill the f***ing b*st*rd the minute I saw him!"
My dog has just as keen a sense, but isn't nearly as vicious.
Saddam was a CIA asset and boogeyman created by The US. That's it. He was no threat to the US I can tell you that much. At least kim jong un is actually a threat to the US.
Do all Iranian paid hacks say that?
America also supported Iran through Iran-Contra.
Why do you pretend we should be taking a paid hack troll seriously?
Why do you think facts have an agenda?
Why do you think that's what I think?
Why do you think you can say so?
Why do you think you can ask that question?
Did the handlers ok it?
Why do you think your talking points are actually facts?
"Saddam was a CIA asset and boogeyman created by The US."
He was a test-tube baby parachuted in to destroy the lives of peaceful Muslims.
It's sort of tough to like, pull a whole army and all of its equipment out of a country in the dead of night and say "surprise!" so this criticism is ridiculous on its face.
Bush was smart enough to manage it.Are you calling Obama and his advisors stupid?
Bush was stupid enough to invade on a pack of lies.
Says the hack paid troll? Did your handlers finally give you new talking points?
Say the facts.
Roger 169p · 23 hours ago
The Almighty gives life and it's His place to take it away. You can't show those Egyptians were perfect and didn't deserve it.
The account shows God gave them several times to do the right thing
Wait until we bomb your cities to rubble hadji.
Start with mecca.
"Bush was smart enough to manage it."
Excuse me? Our troops got out of Iraq on W. Bush's watch? Then, what's your whole complaint about Obama about?
Dude, don't drink and post.
Bush wanted to withdraw based on reality on the ground, not an artificial timeline imposed by diplomats. Dude, don't try rewriting history.
We could have contained Saddam's Iraq, as we had done so since the first Gulf War. But by removing Saddam, we have empowered a far more powerful and dangerous enemy, Iran. Iraq was a mistake of a country, a colonial-era hobble of Sunnis, Shias and Kurds. It did a great job of going to war with its neighbors, but it could never dominate the Middle East. Iran by contrast is a single nation state, and its Sunni, Kurdish and Baluchi elements haven't been enough to challange the leadership, and even with our sanctions, it is still coming to dominate the Middle East. Iraq is their client state now, the days are numbered for the Gulf monarchies, and the only reason Assad is still standing iis because of Iranian help. We should have left Saddam in power. At the very least, our sanctions actually worked on him.
True.
Dowd displays precisely the mentality which led us to such a disaster in Iraq, namely, viewpoint that we can help a Moslem society to become democratic in our sense of the term if we only depose the dictator. He writes: "The war liberated 24 million Iraqis." Well, it "liberated" them from the dictator Hussein, but it did not liberate them from their Islamic doctrines which prevent the construction of a democratic society as we know it, that is, with the guarantees of limited government and the freedoms of the First Amendment. Yes, it was a good thing to depose Saddam Hussein and destroyed his weapons, but then we should have gotten out. We should never have attempted to "win the hearts and minds" of Iraqis — or any other Moslems, for that matter, like in Afghanistan. It cannot be done because their hearts and minds are devoted to Allah, not to following the lead of infidels. Our failure to understand the role that the doctrines of Islam play in the hearts and minds of Moslems has cost us thousands of American lives, tens of thousands of disrupted and ruined American lives, and trillions of dollars of our wealth. It has been a disaster caused by our leaders' ignorance of Islam.
The US Invasion of Iraq Was a Crime and Its Perpetrators Are Murderers
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/03/19-10
The US Invasion of Iraq is long over.
Get over it…
As soon as those who sent and murdered 5000 us troops are brought to justice..
The people who should be brought to justice are those who support the Islamofascst regimes of the Middle East.
Yeah but the US invastion of Iran is just starting.
Stay tuned. Stupid sheeple never learn anything!
The clerics of Iran sure don't.
They know peace.
They know they want pieces.
Pieces of a pie made of peace.
Neda wouldn't think so.
Rachel corrie wouldn't think israel wants peace.
She wasn't blown up in a terrorist attack. She went where she was warned not to go. You're trying to compare apples and car bombs.
She went there and was brutally murdered by israeli savages who kill women and children.
They're too cowardly to take on Iran. They couldn't even handle hezbollah.
She went there and committed suicide.
And last I heard, Tel Aviv isn't run by Hezbullah. Your handlers need to rewrite that talking point.
I don't know what to believe when it comes to the Iraq War. I've heard most of the arguments for and against it. But I refuse to this day to take sides on the Iraq War, because that's how controversial it is. You almost can't even ask the question regarding how the Iraq War started because no one as a whole can agree on why we went there. I've heard stuff from critics of the war saying, "It was about oil." I don't believe that's what the war was about because if it was, why didn't our oil cost go lower? But I will say this: in real life, Saddam was a evil man. As to whether it was a good idea to go after him, I would say that we should have focused our efforts in Afghanistan instead so we could have possibly got Osama bin Laden sooner. But then again, I don't know what's going on in the world. I can't know for sure if Saddam was a threat. But at the same time, I can't know for sure if Saddam wasn't a threat either. So for me regarding the Iraq War, nothing can truly be said. I have yet to do more research to find out more on the Iraq War. And by the way, I noticed that Democratic politicians who were for the Iraq War were never rebuked by the anti-war Left. Only President George Bush and his administration were. Why is that? Think about it: there was no protest from the same groups that condemned Bush when it came to Obama's involvement in the Libyan Civil War. Next thing you know, it's conservatives (such as Daniel Greenfield) that are against the war in Libya, even though conservatives did not start any movement on the streets when it came to Obama's involvement. It's very interesting to see how people behave in these situations. It makes me wonder if some condemnations that happen is because of political association (Republican Party, Democrat Party, etc).
"Think about it: there was no protest from the same groups that condemned Bush when it came to Obama's involvement in the Libyan Civil War. Next thing you know, it's conservatives (such as Daniel Greenfield) that are against the war in Libya, even though conservatives did not start any movement on the streets when it came to Obama's involvement."
Comparing our level of involvement with Iraq and with Libya is apples to oranges. But you are right to ask about political association. The easiest way to determine if you are talking from a position of principle or partisanship is to ask how you would feel about an action if it was YOUR guy doing it.
Al Gore and the Clintons were both talking tough about Saddam prior to 9/11…which put the democrats in a bind when it came to Iraq. Would Gore have invaded Iraq? I just don't think so. But Iraq was on Cheney's agenda
How the author can possibly justify the ludicrous venture in Iraq boggles the mind. We have sacrificed enormous blood and treasure for what, one authoritarian government in Baghdad in place of another? The neocons are all whining now about what a giant threat Iran is, but by taking out a Sunni dictator in Iraq and installing a Shia-majority government, they've only emboldened Iran; explain the logic to me there.
The truth is that this wasteful, counterproductive war was cooked up long before Bush the Lesser took office, in Tel Aviv and various neocon think tanks in the US. Look up PNAC's "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" and check out the list of authors; it reads like a Bar Mitzvah invitation list. I'm sick of these dual citizens acting in the best interests of a foreign and frankly hostile government. America has spilled far too much blood and treasure doing Israel's dirty work, all while earning the wrath of the Muslim world.
If Obama hadn't turned tail and ran in a disastrous way that let all the vultures know when to pounce, maybe it wouldn't have been such a complete waste.
Yeah right, and Nixon turned tail and ran too.
Nixon had very little choice, and he had Kissinger giving everything away.
So you defend one American president but not the other? Why is that? You really show your loyalties. You are biased, partisan and part of the PROBLEM. Not part of the SOLUTION!
Kissinger was a jew btw.
You as a paid iranain hack troll wouldn't understand the subtle differences between politics and loyalty. Obama has none of the later, and Nixon had to deal with the former.
You are biased, partisan and part of the PROBLEM. Not part of the SOLUTION!
Kissinger was a jew btw.
I a realist, so your islamic talking points and propaganda just don't fool me much.
"I a realist, so your islamic talking points and propaganda just don't fool me much. "
U IZ inbred.
Like you as a muslim? Nope.
"I a realist, so your islamic talking points and propaganda just don't fool me much. "
Yes, and it doesn't.
It doesn't.
As a rented mouth you wouldn't appreciate that one.
"Yeah right, and Nixon turned tail and ran too."
That's why it's essential to destroy your enemy before they reach any kind of military parity. That is why the Iranian regime must go. They must not be allowed to acquire any further military capability.
And leftists must be destroyed ideologically to keep stupid mistakes from happening over and over again.
That's why it's essential to destroy your enemy before they reach any kind of military parity. That is why the Iranian regime must go. They must not be allowed to acquire any further military capability. "
Do you know how stupid you sound? Iran is already a military power, an economic power, a geopolitical power and there is nothing the US or Israel or any other zionist stooge can do about it! Learn to live with Iran. Learn to live in peace with your neighbors. Love your neighbor as you love yourself remember? You must really hate yourself don't you?
Iran? They are a what?
You're funny.
They are a regional power. Like Turkey.
Iran? They paid you to say that, will it buy you fuel, or food?
Or will your family go to bed afraid and hungry….?
Iran isn't going anywhere. Learn to live with them.
They should be the ones learning to live with the world.
They have been for over 400 years. Your problem isn't with Iran. It's with israel.
They have what? You're a very bad liar.
They have been living with the rest of the world for more than 400 years.
No, they haven't been. And the clerics have been anti-social and barbaric since the day they seized power after the shah.
Oh,let me guess. "Blame the Jews." Remember the Liberty,here's the thing that you don't want to hear. The Israelis are pro-American. Much of the Muslim world is not. I'd rather be with those who like America than those who are not.
You still upset that your side lost WW2?
It sounds like it.
It sounds like you are on the wrong side of history.
Sounds like you're a paid hack troll.
Sounds like you are stuck on stupid talking points.
Sounds like you're a paid hack troll.
6 minutes ago @ Breitbart.com – Protests to greet Ahma… · 1 reply · 0 points
I'm like jesus, I'm gonna chase you money changers out of the temple and out of town and of course out of this forum. Me and ohsoquiet and a few other REAL AMERICANS who are being PAID to be here like you Israeli PR men. I'm here to chase you filth out.
"It sounds like you are on the wrong side of history."
Certainly not your side.
I know. You're on the wrong side. W-R-O-N-G.
Not even, he's not on the islamic nutso side.
Year: 2002
Place: US Senate Hearings.
Expert Witness : Benjamin Netanyahu
Subject: Is a war on Iraq the right response by US?
ENJOY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpQdg4D78Jc
Based on evidence supplied by a (Clinton-selected) CIA Director, a Manhattan federal judge found Saddam Hussein equally liable for 9-11 with Osama bin Laden. The evidence demonstrated that the 9-11 hijackers had been recruited by Osama but trained in hijacking by Saddam at Salman-Pak Iraq on an airplane fuselage whose passenger seating arrangement resembled that in the planes hijacked on 9-11. Several former Salman Pak Fedayeen training specialists testified to the training of non-Iraqi Arabs who were unusually devout, interrupting the training to pray multiple times during the day. The Saddam regime tried to explain away the fuselage as part of "counter-terrorism" training, but the aircraft involved was not an Iraqi plane, but one resembling a Boeing 707 such as some which were in Kuwait at the time Saddam invaded that country. The fuselage was seen by the UN Inspectors and later the Marines who came through at the time of the U.S. counter-attack in 2003. After 9-11, Saddam boasted of his attack in the form of murals found in Baghdad (by the 3rd Army) and Nasiriya.(by the Marines).
You're a paid hack, why should we take you seriously?
They said similar things about the Byzantine Empire. We have always been the great satan, even before Israel was around.
That;s not what Phil Giraldi says. I'll take Phil Giraldis word over a paid hack zionist troll with talking points any day.
Who's the paid hack troll?
Oh… you are!
6 minutes ago @ Breitbart.com – Protests to greet Ahma… · 1 reply · 0 points
I'm like jesus, I'm gonna chase you money changers out of the temple and out of town and of course out of this forum. Me and ohsoquiet and a few other REAL AMERICANS who are being PAID to be here like you Israeli PR men. I'm here to chase you filth out."
And history is what it is.
"Much of the Muslim world is not pro-american BECAUSE of israel. After WW2 90% of the arab and muslim world was pro-american. "
Because they saw us as mitigating British influence. The British were the ones standing in the way of sharia and oil interests were not eroding their propensity for law and order fast enough. Once we replaced Britain as the main force for defending Western liberal democracy, we in the USA became the "greatest satan." And the British had also done the most to liberate them from Turkish colonialism. It just provides more and more evidence that it's always about sharia. Which includes lying to advance Islamic interests.
Israel is just the biggest fight in their neighborhood.
"Do you really blame Iran for not being pro-american when we threaten to go to war against them every day?"
We blame all liars. Not all Iranians are liars.
"Or when we overthrew their government?"
We should help people and then support the government no matter what, even if that regime steals our assets once used to help them. That's your point?
"It's common sense."
Common sense rarely exists. An appeal to "common sense" means you've probably simplified too much. It's certainly true in this case. It's common sense that many Iranians who've been lied to will believe those lies. Somehow I think you tried to bootstrap that point in to something far larger.
"Because they saw us as mitigating British influence. The British were the ones standing in the way of sharia and oil interests were not eroding their propensity for law and order fast enough. Once we replaced Britain as the main force for defending Western liberal democracy, we in the USA became the "greatest satan." And the British had also done the most to liberate them from Turkish colonialism. It just provides more and more evidence that it's always about sharia. Which includes lying to advance Islamic interests."
Who? The israelis? The israelis saw the british occupying their land so they blew up the king david hotel. A terrorist attack.
"We blame all liars. Not all Iranians are liars."
I blame all liars and propagandists for war. Liars that lie about Iran. War propaganda to justify wars for israel.
"We should help people and then support the government no matter what, even if that regime steals our assets once used to help them. That's your point? "
How do you help somebody by overthrowing their democratically elected government and putting in a dictator?
"It's common sense that many Iranians who've been lied to will believe those lies. Somehow I think you tried to bootstrap that point in to something far larger"
Why don't you give some examples of what you're talking about? Why not be coherent?
Your'e not coherent. Why should we even take a paid hack troll seriously?