Do you believe removing Saddam from power made Persian Gulf Oil supply safer and was the right move?

[OohPooPahDoo]

If Obama had been President at the end of WW2, Europe and Japan would have been taken over by the Soviet Union, just as he is allowing Iran to take over the Middle East today.

Half of Europe was taken over by the Soviet Union you blubbering idiot.

 

[paulitician]

Just remember, you the Taxpayer paid for the Iraq nightmare. And you'll never see penny one in return. However, the Globalist Elites are set to make $Billions in Iraq, Libya, Ukraine, and so on.

The nightmare would have been to leave Saddam in power given what he did to the region from 1979 to 2003.

You've made things much much worse. You've brutally maimed and murdered far more Iraqis than Hussein could have ever imagined. You've brought nothing but horrific carnage to the Iraqi People. And for what? So some Globalist Elite bastards could get richer?

Who has maimed and murdered more then 1 million Iraqi?
"According to The New York Times, "he [Saddam] murdered as many as a million of his people, many with poison gas. He tortured, maimed and imprisoned countless more. His unprovoked invasion of Iran is estimated to have left another million people dead. His seizure of Kuwait threw the Middle East into crisis. More insidious, arguably, was the psychological damage he inflicted on his own land. Hussein created a nation of informants — friends on friends, circles within circles — making an entire population complicit in his rule".[9] Other estimates as to the number of Iraqis killed by Saddam's regime vary from roughly a quarter to half a million,[10][11] including 50,000 to 182,000 Kurds and 25,000 to 280,000 killed during the repression of the 1991 rebellion.[12][13] Estimates for the number of dead in the Iran-Iraq war range upwards from 300,000.
Human rights in Saddam Hussein s Iraq - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Once again idiots like you deal with suppositions, guesses and out right LIE!
FACTS!!!
Counts of deaths reported in newspapers collated by projects like the Iraq Body Count project
found 174,000 Iraqis reported killed between 2003 and 2013,
with between 112,000-123,000 of those killed being civilian noncombatants...TERRORISTS!!!
Casualties of the Iraq War - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

DICK HEAD!!!
Where are the "MORE Iraqis maimed and murdered "? then 1 million by Saddam???
FACTS......FACTS!!! Deal with it!

Murdering one Iraqi baby is an unforgivable atrocity. Your Government murdered and maimed Thousands of Iraqi children. The bloody carnage it's caused in Iraq is a crime against humanity.

And like i said, if the U.S. didn't own the international justice system, there would have been Nuremberg-type trials held. Many of its leaders would be in prison right now.

YUP! We did kill some and maimed some! NO question.
BUT YOU dummy!!!!
with between 112,000-123,000 of those killed being civilian noncombatants...TERRORISTS!!!
Casualties of the Iraq War - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


Plus what about Saddam allowing this to happen:
In 1995 as many as 576,000 Iraqi children may have died since the end of the Persian Gulf war because of economic sanctions imposed by the Security Council, according to two scientists who surveyed the country for the Food and Agriculture Organization.
Iraq Sanctions Kill Children U.N. Reports - NYTimes.com
Of course idiot lovers of the terrorists that think ANY of us that are the good guys WE are the bad guys would NOT blame Saddam!
All that dictator need do was certify there were no WMDs! He didn't. Children starved!

What your Government did in Iraq is so shameful and horrific, most of you will always try your hardest to ignore it and block it out. The countless charred dead babies and so on. Many of your leaders should be serving time in prison right now. That's the reality.

 

[irosie91]

you people are so STOOOPID ----you miss the entire point The whole point of SADDAM and ASSAD and even ISIS ------is ISLAAAAAAAAM

 

[irosie91]

not one Iraqi child died as a result of sanctions

 

[BlindBoo]

you people are so STOOOPID ----you miss the entire point The whole point of SADDAM and ASSAD and even ISIS ------is ISLAAAAAAAAM

Let me guess, you graduated from the George W. Bush School of Middle Eastern Studies, right?

 

[kaz]

Do you believe removing Saddam from power made Persian Gulf Oil supply safer and was the right move?

YES OR NO?

No

 

[kaz]

Do you believe removing Saddam from power made Persian Gulf Oil supply safer and was the right move?

YES OR NO?

By taking out the Saddam Sunni government and installing the present Shiite government, it gave Iran an open road to supply Syria. Both Iran and Syria are Shiite. it also created the Sunni ISIS. So you really think that's safer....BWAH HA HA HA HA!

The government of Syria is Shiite, but the majority of the population are Sunni

 

[NotfooledbyW]

The Bush administration did not deal well with the Sunnis after Sadam was gone which brought us Al-Qaeda in Iraq after they did get the Sunnis on board and ran them out the Obama administration for whatever the reason could not work out a SOFA extension which allowed ISIS which is just Al-Qaeda under a new name back in.

You skipped the part where Bush erroneously forced inspectors out and launched the invasion in the first place. That was a deliberate and an overt act that forced Bush to "deal" with the Sunnis, also in the first place.

You can't define a problem by failing to recognize what caused the problem in the first place.

We all know the reason Obama did not keep any troops beyond the deadline that Bush and Maliki set in 2008. It is because Iraq's politicians did not want troops to stay and they were never going to extend the immunity for our troops beyond Bush's agreed deadline at the end of 2011.at

Obama cannot be held responsible for the three year limit on immunity that Bush set. Obama got a ten year SOFA in Afghanistan. That is the minimum Bush should have negotiated in 2008 if that is what was thought to be necessary at the time. Bush was a wimp. He should have told Iraq it's a ten year deal and we keep our bases or we were pulling out within six months. But no, Maliki had Dubya by the jayboes from 2007 through 2008.

 

[irosie91]

you people are so STOOOPID ----you miss the entire point The whole point of SADDAM and ASSAD and even ISIS ------is ISLAAAAAAAAM

Let me guess, you graduated from the George W. Bush School of Middle Eastern Studies, right?

wrong I graduated from the muslim school of middle eastern studies. I have interacted very closely with muslims over the past----greater than 50 years... I attended a mosque-----more than 45 years ago when most americans could not differentiate a muslim from a hindu. My husband was born in a shariah cesspit---a jew-----oh ---btw I read the Koran more than 45 years ago-----long before most americans ever heard of it (picthall translation) I was born in the USA-----to jewish parents---both democrats----also born in the USA ------ Now you know who I am. Feel free to ask questions-----I know lots of stuff about lots of stuff

 

[Syriusly]

Do you believe removing Saddam from power made Persian Gulf Oil supply safer and was the right move?

YES OR NO?

No- removing Saddam from power caused all sorts of problems
a) Diverting American military from Afghanistan to Iraq caused the Afghanistan War to go on and on- we should have consolidated Afghanistan.
b) Removing Sadam from power, removed the counter balance to Iran- today Iran is stronger than it was before- just by removing Saddam from power.
c) Removing Saddam from power allowed the rise of Islamic Extermism in Iraq- Saddam kept it brutally under control- that act precepted the eventual creation of ISIS.

If you oppose Obama's handling of Libya- then you should really be opposed to Bush's handling of Iraq.

What happened in Libya is what happened in Iraq- except it didn't cost the lives of 4,000 American soldiers or 2 trillion dollars.

 

[irosie91]

Do you believe removing Saddam from power made Persian Gulf Oil supply safer and was the right move?

YES OR NO?

No- removing Saddam from power caused all sorts of problems
a) Diverting American military from Afghanistan to Iraq caused the Afghanistan War to go on and on- we should have consolidated Afghanistan.
b) Removing Sadam from power, removed the counter balance to Iran- today Iran is stronger than it was before- just by removing Saddam from power.
c) Removing Saddam from power allowed the rise of Islamic Extermism in Iraq- Saddam kept it brutally under control- that act precepted the eventual creation of ISIS.

If you oppose Obama's handling of Libya- then you should really be opposed to Bush's handling of Iraq.

What happened in Libya is what happened in Iraq- except it didn't cost the lives of 4,000 American soldiers or 2 trillion dollars.

yeah-----the presidents did make mistakes-----they were not GOD-----ok? they did the best they could----even the jerk, Obama is doing the best he can-----jerk that he is-----I have to admit------I doubt that I could do better

 

[Syriusly]

Do you believe removing Saddam from power made Persian Gulf Oil supply safer and was the right move?

YES OR NO?

No- removing Saddam from power caused all sorts of problems
a) Diverting American military from Afghanistan to Iraq caused the Afghanistan War to go on and on- we should have consolidated Afghanistan.
b) Removing Sadam from power, removed the counter balance to Iran- today Iran is stronger than it was before- just by removing Saddam from power.
c) Removing Saddam from power allowed the rise of Islamic Extermism in Iraq- Saddam kept it brutally under control- that act precepted the eventual creation of ISIS.

If you oppose Obama's handling of Libya- then you should really be opposed to Bush's handling of Iraq.

What happened in Libya is what happened in Iraq- except it didn't cost the lives of 4,000 American soldiers or 2 trillion dollars.

yeah-----the presidents did make mistakes-----they were not GOD-----ok? they did the best they could----even the jerk, Obama is doing the best he can-----jerk that he is-----I have to admit------I doubt that I could do better

The thing is- have we learned from our mistakes?

Both Iraq and Libya demonstrate the danger in removing a bloody dictator from a country who has spent decades eliminating all potential opposition.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Yanno............I think that we should just pull the hell out of there and let them fight it out themselves.

At least there was a little bit of stability over there when Saddam was still in power. Yeah........he did bad things, but he kept the badder things in check.

 

[irosie91]

Yanno............I think that we should just pull the hell out of there and let them fight it out themselves.

At least there was a little bit of stability over there when Saddam was still in power. Yeah........he did bad things, but he kept the badder things in check.

yeah sorta like MUSSOLINI ----kept the trains running on time

 

[ABikerSailor]

I think keeping a lid on terrorist organizations is much more important than trains running on time.

 

[Syriusly]

Yanno............I think that we should just pull the hell out of there and let them fight it out themselves.

At least there was a little bit of stability over there when Saddam was still in power. Yeah........he did bad things, but he kept the badder things in check.

yeah sorta like MUSSOLINI ----kept the trains running on time

Yeah- well that is not a bad comparison.

Mussolini was as much a third rate dictator as Iraq- and about as much of a danger to the United States.

EXCEPT- Mussolini declared war on the United States- Saddam didn't.

And- there were no real schisms of substance in Italy that drove Italy into a virtual Civil War after Mussolini was driven from power.

I mean except for all of that.

 

[irosie91]

Yanno............I think that we should just pull the hell out of there and let them fight it out themselves.

At least there was a little bit of stability over there when Saddam was still in power. Yeah........he did bad things, but he kept the badder things in check.

yeah sorta like MUSSOLINI ----kept the trains running on time

Yeah- well that is not a bad comparison.

Mussolini was as much a third rate dictator as Iraq- and about as much of a danger to the United States.

EXCEPT- Mussolini declared war on the United States- Saddam didn't.

And- there were no real schisms of substance in Italy that drove Italy into a virtual Civil War after Mussolini was driven from power.

I mean except for all of that.

'
SO? in fact your hero SADDAM was a supporter of world wide terrorism He paid the families sluts willing to put bombs on their stinking asses in the worship of the
pile of shit in Jannah

 

[U2Edge]

The Bush administration did not deal well with the Sunnis after Sadam was gone which brought us Al-Qaeda in Iraq after they did get the Sunnis on board and ran them out the Obama administration for whatever the reason could not work out a SOFA extension which allowed ISIS which is just Al-Qaeda under a new name back in.

You skipped the part where Bush erroneously forced inspectors out and launched the invasion in the first place. That was a deliberate and an overt act that forced Bush to "deal" with the Sunnis, also in the first place.

You can't define a problem by failing to recognize what caused the problem in the first place.

We all know the reason Obama did not keep any troops beyond the deadline that Bush and Maliki set in 2008. It is because Iraq's politicians did not want troops to stay and they were never going to extend the immunity for our troops beyond Bush's agreed deadline at the end of 2011.at

Obama cannot be held responsible for the three year limit on immunity that Bush set. Obama got a ten year SOFA in Afghanistan. That is the minimum Bush should have negotiated in 2008 if that is what was thought to be necessary at the time. Bush was a wimp. He should have told Iraq it's a ten year deal and we keep our bases or we were pulling out within six months. But no, Maliki had Dubya by the jayboes from 2007 through 2008.

Well, guess what, Obama now has 4,500 US troops on the ground in Iraq. Obama pulled them out in 2011 under circumstances that did not warrant it. Maliki was ready to approve that they stay, but Obama wanted it to be put before a vote in the Iraqi parliament the Iraqi parliament rejected the immunity deal for US troops. But they did not reject the idea of US troops continuing to stay in the country which could have prevented the disaster with ISIS that occurred in June 2014.

 

[TomFitz]

Yes indeed, the world is much safer with Saddam's regime out of power in Iraq!

Really?

Sadaam Hussein was no a threat to anyone. He had lost half his army, all of his air force, and had no navy after the last war.

So we deposed him. Iraq dissolved into chaos, and it was only after the Bush crowd finally admitted that the war they started wasn't going to be the quick and easy romp they promised everybody, that we surged troops and put the lid on.

The lid was never on especially tight, and it was only a matter of time before it blew off.

 

[TomFitz]

Obviously removing Saddam from office opened up wounds between the Sunni and Shiites which eventually led to the emergence ISIS.
Saddam was a bad, bad man but as history shows his presence and his ability' kept peace between the Sunni and Shiites. Once he was disposed, that all changed. Even with US troops present, civil war broke our between the two factions. The fact that Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki marginalized and harassed the Sunni eventually led to radical Sunni creating ISIS. This led to the instability that is present in the oil rich region of the ME.

nope-----the WOUND between sunnis and shiiites has been opened for some 1300 years. Saddam managed to "keep peace' by committing genocide against Shiites in Iraq. Stability by genocide does not create a lasting peace ----especially in view of the fact that a huge powerful country of Shiites exists just west of Iraq and that country has leaders even more ambitious than was Saddam

And thanks to the bungling of the Bush adminstration, that regieme has tremendous influence in Baghdad.