Obama Revisited: The Surge Will Fail

[Sinatra]

He was terribly wrong about the surge, yet now defends it when he is president. Is his tip of the hat to Bush sincere, or merely Obama being Obama - do as I say while I do as I do...

 

[Sinatra]

And Del is quite right - this "Combat troops coming home" spin is bordering on an outright lie - most of the troops remain, but have simply been re-named. They are still fighting in Iraq.

Granted - Iraq is going far better than Afghanistan, which has become a shambles over the course of the last two years...

 

[rdean]

As President Obama, scrambling to find something positive to speak of given the shambles of the American economy, will tonight speak to the American people about how the combat mission in Iraq is now coming to a conclusion.

What then of the same Obama who just a few years ago said this?????
____

YouTube - Obama Said The Surge Would Actually Worsen Sectarian Violenc

Unfortunately, it did fail. We created a Constitutional Islamic Theocracy.

BY ABDU RAHMAN AND DAHR JAMAIL*
IPS NEWS AGENCY
BAGHDAD — Under Saddam Hussein, women in government got a year's maternity leave; that is now cut to six months. Under the Personal Status Law in force since Jul. 14, 1958, when Iraqis overthrew the British-installed monarchy, Iraqi women had most of the rights that Western women do.

Now they have Article 2 of the Constitution: "Islam is the official religion of the state and is a basic source of legislation." Sub-head A says "No law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of Islam." Under this Article the interpretation of women's rights is left to religious leaders — and many of them are under Iranian influence.

"The U.S. occupation has decided to let go of women's rights," Yanar Mohammed who campaigns for women's rights in Iraq says. "Political Islamic groups have taken southern Iraq, are fully in power there, and are using the financial support of Iran to recruit troops and allies.

Women in Iraq had it better under Saddam Hussein | International | NewJerseyNewsroom.com -- Your State. Your News.

----------------------------------------------

In case the right doesn't understand, "When half the population is "enslaved", it doesn't count as a "win"."

 

[Samson]

Unfortunately, it did fail. We created a Constitutional Islamic Theocracy.

BY ABDU RAHMAN AND DAHR JAMAIL*
IPS NEWS AGENCY
BAGHDAD — Under Saddam Hussein, women in government got a year's maternity leave; that is now cut to six months. Under the Personal Status Law in force since Jul. 14, 1958, when Iraqis overthrew the British-installed monarchy, Iraqi women had most of the rights that Western women do.[/IMG]

How nice.

I suppose Iraqi Personal Status Law extended womens' rights to be gassed right along with their brothers and husbands and grandfathers.

 

[Samson]

and the surge was only marginally successful at best. Sure... it stopped sectarian violence, but the Anbar awakening had a big part to play in that as well... and the MAIN purpose of the surge was not just to stop violence for stopping violence's sake, but to stop the violence so that the sunnis, shiites and kurds could resolve the differences that had them at one another's throats. THAT NEVER happened... and as we pull our combat forces out of Iraq, we see the sectarian violence begin to ramp up again, and we see the inevitable expansion of Iran's influence over the shiite majority in Iraq.

Obama was absolutely right in 2002 when he suggested that we avoid a war in Iraq to begin with. We would be MUCH better off today if we had concentrated on the guys who attacked us and not worried so much about Saddam....he was a paper tiger and we have wasted more blood and treasure than any of us can even measure on this stupid stupid war. Next summer and our complete departure cannot come soon enough for me.

Hey Main, you still up in the Great White North? You better get movin!!

Anyway, I think hindsight is 20/20 in the case of attacking Iraq: really, how could you positively confirm WMD in the hands of a kook until you look for them yourself?

However, there certainly wasn't any reason to stay any longer than it took to confirm this.

Yes, yes, yes....no doubt Iran would have tried to absorb shiite-Iraq, and the Saudi's would need to watch their backs, and some poor country might decide to absorb Kurds (yuck) and Iraqi-sunnis that didn't flee to London....but who CARES???

one of dubya's rare foreign affairs victories was getting Saddam to allow weapons inspectors back IN to Iraq in the months before our invasion. If dubya had just been a bit more patient, he would have found out that he didn't need to invade Iraq to disarm Saddam... AND... the whole premise for why Saddam's supposed stockpiles of WMDs were SOOOOO critically important was the BULLSHIT lie that a secular pan-arab ba'athist would EVER be stupid enough to give ANY weapons to radical wahhabists whose primary mission was the dissolution of his very nation state... it is a testament to just how fucking stupid and gullible Americans are that the majority of us bought into that ridiculous notion to begin with.

Saddam did three things a whole hell of a lot better than we do them:

1. he acted as a very effective foil to Iranian regional hegemony.
2. he kept radical islamists from gaining any significant foothold in his country
3. he kept sunnis and shiites from slaughtering one another.

We would be better off today if we had let him continue to do those things and spent our blood and treasure annihilating Al Qaeda.

p.s... and the house is going on the market (tentatively) next spring and we're Merida bound as soon as it sells.

I think you make some very good points.

HOWEVER, some seem to have been removed from historical context, which include:

1. Saddam's invasion of Kuwait, and the US leadership in reclaiming that nation's independence

2. 9/11

3. Saddam's use of WMD

4. Saddam's use of SCUD missiles

5. Saddam's squirrly treatment of UN sanctioned inspections

Under all these circumstances, I see no reason the USA shouldn't have invaded Iraq to take an objective inventory of the situation, and, finding no WMD, gotten the hell out, leaving some Friendly Baathist General behind to run the circus.

 

[Yurt]

As President Obama, scrambling to find something positive to speak of given the shambles of the American economy, will tonight speak to the American people about how the combat mission in Iraq is now coming to a conclusion.

What then of the same Obama who just a few years ago said this?????
____

YouTube - Obama Said The Surge Would Actually Worsen Sectarian Violenc

Unfortunately, it did fail. We created a Constitutional Islamic Theocracy.

BY ABDU RAHMAN AND DAHR JAMAIL*
IPS NEWS AGENCY
BAGHDAD — Under Saddam Hussein, women in government got a year's maternity leave; that is now cut to six months. Under the Personal Status Law in force since Jul. 14, 1958, when Iraqis overthrew the British-installed monarchy, Iraqi women had most of the rights that Western women do.

Now they have Article 2 of the Constitution: "Islam is the official religion of the state and is a basic source of legislation." Sub-head A says "No law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of Islam." Under this Article the interpretation of women's rights is left to religious leaders — and many of them are under Iranian influence.

"The U.S. occupation has decided to let go of women's rights," Yanar Mohammed who campaigns for women's rights in Iraq says. "Political Islamic groups have taken southern Iraq, are fully in power there, and are using the financial support of Iran to recruit troops and allies.

Women in Iraq had it better under Saddam Hussein | International | NewJerseyNewsroom.com -- Your State. Your News.

----------------------------------------------

In case the right doesn't understand, "When half the population is "enslaved", it doesn't count as a "win"."

so then,...do you oppose their right to create a government founded on islamic law? aren't you the one belly aching that they have the right to build a mosque, but apparently don't have the right to have islam has their foundation in their own country....

 

[Sinatra]

As President Obama, scrambling to find something positive to speak of given the shambles of the American economy, will tonight speak to the American people about how the combat mission in Iraq is now coming to a conclusion.

What then of the same Obama who just a few years ago said this?????
____

YouTube - Obama Said The Surge Would Actually Worsen Sectarian Violenc

Unfortunately, it did fail. We created a Constitutional Islamic Theocracy.

BY ABDU RAHMAN AND DAHR JAMAIL*
IPS NEWS AGENCY
BAGHDAD — Under Saddam Hussein, women in government got a year's maternity leave; that is now cut to six months. Under the Personal Status Law in force since Jul. 14, 1958, when Iraqis overthrew the British-installed monarchy, Iraqi women had most of the rights that Western women do.

Now they have Article 2 of the Constitution: "Islam is the official religion of the state and is a basic source of legislation." Sub-head A says "No law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of Islam." Under this Article the interpretation of women's rights is left to religious leaders — and many of them are under Iranian influence.

"The U.S. occupation has decided to let go of women's rights," Yanar Mohammed who campaigns for women's rights in Iraq says. "Political Islamic groups have taken southern Iraq, are fully in power there, and are using the financial support of Iran to recruit troops and allies.

Women in Iraq had it better under Saddam Hussein | International | NewJerseyNewsroom.com -- Your State. Your News.

----------------------------------------------

In case the right doesn't understand, "When half the population is "enslaved", it doesn't count as a "win"."

so then,...do you oppose their right to create a government founded on islamic law? aren't you the one belly aching that they have the right to build a mosque, but apparently don't have the right to have islam has their foundation in their own country....

You have certainly caught them in their own confounding contradiction!!!

Well done!!!

 

[xotoxi]

GO DIDDLE YOURSELF. then maybe you'll be a nicer person. doubt it, but it's worth a try.

I've never heard anyone say that masturbation makes you a nicer person.

I think I'll go try it!!!

 

[xotoxi]

As President Obama, scrambling to find something positive to speak of given the shambles of the American economy, will tonight speak to the American people about how the combat mission in Iraq is now coming to a conclusion.

What then of the same Obama who just a few years ago said this?????
____

YouTube - Obama Said The Surge Would Actually Worsen Sectarian Violenc

Obama is the first President in history who has been wrong about something.

AMAZING!

Great partisan catch as always, Synatrah!

 

[maineman]

Hey Main, you still up in the Great White North? You better get movin!!

Anyway, I think hindsight is 20/20 in the case of attacking Iraq: really, how could you positively confirm WMD in the hands of a kook until you look for them yourself?

However, there certainly wasn't any reason to stay any longer than it took to confirm this.

Yes, yes, yes....no doubt Iran would have tried to absorb shiite-Iraq, and the Saudi's would need to watch their backs, and some poor country might decide to absorb Kurds (yuck) and Iraqi-sunnis that didn't flee to London....but who CARES???

one of dubya's rare foreign affairs victories was getting Saddam to allow weapons inspectors back IN to Iraq in the months before our invasion. If dubya had just been a bit more patient, he would have found out that he didn't need to invade Iraq to disarm Saddam... AND... the whole premise for why Saddam's supposed stockpiles of WMDs were SOOOOO critically important was the BULLSHIT lie that a secular pan-arab ba'athist would EVER be stupid enough to give ANY weapons to radical wahhabists whose primary mission was the dissolution of his very nation state... it is a testament to just how fucking stupid and gullible Americans are that the majority of us bought into that ridiculous notion to begin with.

Saddam did three things a whole hell of a lot better than we do them:

1. he acted as a very effective foil to Iranian regional hegemony.
2. he kept radical islamists from gaining any significant foothold in his country
3. he kept sunnis and shiites from slaughtering one another.

We would be better off today if we had let him continue to do those things and spent our blood and treasure annihilating Al Qaeda.

p.s... and the house is going on the market (tentatively) next spring and we're Merida bound as soon as it sells.

do you have pictures of your hero saddam in your house?

nope...but I DO have googlemaps directions on how to get to the cute little pineapple under the sea.... spongebob...

get ready for soup... you and me and the rest of the partners.

 

[haileydavey]

and the surge was only marginally successful at best. Sure... it stopped sectarian violence, but the Anbar awakening had a big part to play in that as well... and the MAIN purpose of the surge was not just to stop violence for stopping violence's sake, but to stop the violence so that the sunnis, shiites and kurds could resolve the differences that had them at one another's throats. THAT NEVER happened... and as we pull our combat forces out of Iraq, we see the sectarian violence begin to ramp up again, and we see the inevitable expansion of Iran's influence over the shiite majority in Iraq.

Obama was absolutely right in 2002 when he suggested that we avoid a war in Iraq to begin with. We would be MUCH better off today if we had concentrated on the guys who attacked us and not worried so much about Saddam....he was a paper tiger and we have wasted more blood and treasure than any of us can even measure on this stupid stupid war. Next summer and our complete departure cannot come soon enough for me.

Hey Main, you still up in the Great White North? You better get movin!!

Anyway, I think hindsight is 20/20 in the case of attacking Iraq: really, how could you positively confirm WMD in the hands of a kook until you look for them yourself?

However, there certainly wasn't any reason to stay any longer than it took to confirm this.

Yes, yes, yes....no doubt Iran would have tried to absorb shiite-Iraq, and the Saudi's would need to watch their backs, and some poor country might decide to absorb Kurds (yuck) and Iraqi-sunnis that didn't flee to London....but who CARES???

one of dubya's rare foreign affairs victories was getting Saddam to allow weapons inspectors back IN to Iraq in the months before our invasion. If dubya had just been a bit more patient, he would have found out that he didn't need to invade Iraq to disarm Saddam... AND... the whole premise for why Saddam's supposed stockpiles of WMDs were SOOOOO critically important was the BULLSHIT lie that a secular pan-arab ba'athist would EVER be stupid enough to give ANY weapons to radical wahhabists whose primary mission was the dissolution of his very nation state... it is a testament to just how fucking stupid and gullible Americans are that the majority of us bought into that ridiculous notion to begin with.

Saddam did three things a whole hell of a lot better than we do them:

1. he acted as a very effective foil to Iranian regional hegemony.
2. he kept radical islamists from gaining any significant foothold in his country
3. he kept sunnis and shiites from slaughtering one another.

We would be better off today if we had let him continue to do those things and spent our blood and treasure annihilating Al Qaeda.

p.s... and the house is going on the market (tentatively) next spring and we're Merida bound as soon as it sells.

I never thought WMD's was a good reason to go in. I do however believe that Saddam should have been ousted. When I was in the first Gulf War I was lucky (Yea Right!!) enough to see what this man was capable of. I got to see the mass graves full of hundreds of people that his people tried to cover up. I also was lucky enough to see many of his living victims face to face. I was not there to see the live images of what Hitler had done to those he did not care for but from what I read Saddam was on par if not more so being as he actually committed the acts.

I thought at that time we should overthrow someone who could do this to anyone much less his own people. I am sure a lot of people are good with letting him continue to murder, rape and maim. I personal am glad that WMD's was a good enough excuse to go in because to leave that type of person in power of anything is not ethical. I would personally hate to see anyone treated the way he treated his own people. I would have gladly sacrificed my life to see that he did continue to do his atrocities.

I saw were someone said we wasted over 4000 soldiers lives. I do not see it that way at all. I see those men as liberators allowing a group of people to live their lives without fear. When we lose nearly that many soldiers in training accents I think they liberators did not die in vain.

 

[maineman]

Hey Main, you still up in the Great White North? You better get movin!!

Anyway, I think hindsight is 20/20 in the case of attacking Iraq: really, how could you positively confirm WMD in the hands of a kook until you look for them yourself?

However, there certainly wasn't any reason to stay any longer than it took to confirm this.

Yes, yes, yes....no doubt Iran would have tried to absorb shiite-Iraq, and the Saudi's would need to watch their backs, and some poor country might decide to absorb Kurds (yuck) and Iraqi-sunnis that didn't flee to London....but who CARES???

one of dubya's rare foreign affairs victories was getting Saddam to allow weapons inspectors back IN to Iraq in the months before our invasion. If dubya had just been a bit more patient, he would have found out that he didn't need to invade Iraq to disarm Saddam... AND... the whole premise for why Saddam's supposed stockpiles of WMDs were SOOOOO critically important was the BULLSHIT lie that a secular pan-arab ba'athist would EVER be stupid enough to give ANY weapons to radical wahhabists whose primary mission was the dissolution of his very nation state... it is a testament to just how fucking stupid and gullible Americans are that the majority of us bought into that ridiculous notion to begin with.

Saddam did three things a whole hell of a lot better than we do them:

1. he acted as a very effective foil to Iranian regional hegemony.
2. he kept radical islamists from gaining any significant foothold in his country
3. he kept sunnis and shiites from slaughtering one another.

We would be better off today if we had let him continue to do those things and spent our blood and treasure annihilating Al Qaeda.

p.s... and the house is going on the market (tentatively) next spring and we're Merida bound as soon as it sells.

I think you make some very good points.

HOWEVER, some seem to have been removed from historical context, which include:

1. Saddam's invasion of Kuwait, and the US leadership in reclaiming that nation's independence

2. 9/11

3. Saddam's use of WMD

4. Saddam's use of SCUD missiles

5. Saddam's squirrly treatment of UN sanctioned inspections

Under all these circumstances, I see no reason the USA shouldn't have invaded Iraq to take an objective inventory of the situation, and, finding no WMD, gotten the hell out, leaving some Friendly Baathist General behind to run the circus.

while we disagree about the dangers presented by Saddam, I would agree to your get in get out scenario as a solution I could live with.

 

[maineman]

Hey Main, you still up in the Great White North? You better get movin!!

Anyway, I think hindsight is 20/20 in the case of attacking Iraq: really, how could you positively confirm WMD in the hands of a kook until you look for them yourself?

However, there certainly wasn't any reason to stay any longer than it took to confirm this.

Yes, yes, yes....no doubt Iran would have tried to absorb shiite-Iraq, and the Saudi's would need to watch their backs, and some poor country might decide to absorb Kurds (yuck) and Iraqi-sunnis that didn't flee to London....but who CARES???

one of dubya's rare foreign affairs victories was getting Saddam to allow weapons inspectors back IN to Iraq in the months before our invasion. If dubya had just been a bit more patient, he would have found out that he didn't need to invade Iraq to disarm Saddam... AND... the whole premise for why Saddam's supposed stockpiles of WMDs were SOOOOO critically important was the BULLSHIT lie that a secular pan-arab ba'athist would EVER be stupid enough to give ANY weapons to radical wahhabists whose primary mission was the dissolution of his very nation state... it is a testament to just how fucking stupid and gullible Americans are that the majority of us bought into that ridiculous notion to begin with.

Saddam did three things a whole hell of a lot better than we do them:

1. he acted as a very effective foil to Iranian regional hegemony.
2. he kept radical islamists from gaining any significant foothold in his country
3. he kept sunnis and shiites from slaughtering one another.

We would be better off today if we had let him continue to do those things and spent our blood and treasure annihilating Al Qaeda.

p.s... and the house is going on the market (tentatively) next spring and we're Merida bound as soon as it sells.

I never thought WMD's was a good reason to go in. I do however believe that Saddam should have been ousted. When I was in the first Gulf War I was lucky (Yea Right!!) enough to see what this man was capable of. I got to see the mass graves full of hundreds of people that his people tried to cover up. I also was lucky enough to see many of his living victims face to face. I was not there to see the live images of what Hitler had done to those he did not care for but from what I read Saddam was on par if not more so being as he actually committed the acts.

I thought at that time we should overthrow someone who could do this to anyone much less his own people. I am sure a lot of people are good with letting him continue to murder, rape and maim. I personal am glad that WMD's was a good enough excuse to go in because to leave that type of person in power of anything is not ethical. I would personally hate to see anyone treated the way he treated his own people. I would have gladly sacrificed my life to see that he did continue to do his atrocities.

I saw were someone said we wasted over 4000 soldiers lives. I do not see it that way at all. I see those men as liberators allowing a group of people to live their lives without fear. When we lose nearly that many soldiers in training accents I think they liberators did not die in vain.

and yet, the perpetrators of the attacks of 9/11 remains unpunished.... was Saddam REALLY more important that THAT?

 

[rdean]

one of dubya's rare foreign affairs victories was getting Saddam to allow weapons inspectors back IN to Iraq in the months before our invasion. If dubya had just been a bit more patient, he would have found out that he didn't need to invade Iraq to disarm Saddam... AND... the whole premise for why Saddam's supposed stockpiles of WMDs were SOOOOO critically important was the BULLSHIT lie that a secular pan-arab ba'athist would EVER be stupid enough to give ANY weapons to radical wahhabists whose primary mission was the dissolution of his very nation state... it is a testament to just how fucking stupid and gullible Americans are that the majority of us bought into that ridiculous notion to begin with.

Saddam did three things a whole hell of a lot better than we do them:

1. he acted as a very effective foil to Iranian regional hegemony.
2. he kept radical islamists from gaining any significant foothold in his country
3. he kept sunnis and shiites from slaughtering one another.

We would be better off today if we had let him continue to do those things and spent our blood and treasure annihilating Al Qaeda.

p.s... and the house is going on the market (tentatively) next spring and we're Merida bound as soon as it sells.

I think you make some very good points.

HOWEVER, some seem to have been removed from historical context, which include:

1. Saddam's invasion of Kuwait, and the US leadership in reclaiming that nation's independence

2. 9/11

3. Saddam's use of WMD

4. Saddam's use of SCUD missiles

5. Saddam's squirrly treatment of UN sanctioned inspections

Under all these circumstances, I see no reason the USA shouldn't have invaded Iraq to take an objective inventory of the situation, and, finding no WMD, gotten the hell out, leaving some Friendly Baathist General behind to run the circus.

while we disagree about the dangers presented by Saddam, I would agree to your get in get out scenario as a solution I could live with.

What did 9/11 have to do with Saddam? Even Bush said the two were unconnected. Unless you know something Bush didn't?

 

[rdean]

Unfortunately, it did fail. We created a Constitutional Islamic Theocracy.

BY ABDU RAHMAN AND DAHR JAMAIL*
IPS NEWS AGENCY
BAGHDAD — Under Saddam Hussein, women in government got a year's maternity leave; that is now cut to six months. Under the Personal Status Law in force since Jul. 14, 1958, when Iraqis overthrew the British-installed monarchy, Iraqi women had most of the rights that Western women do.

Now they have Article 2 of the Constitution: "Islam is the official religion of the state and is a basic source of legislation." Sub-head A says "No law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of Islam." Under this Article the interpretation of women's rights is left to religious leaders — and many of them are under Iranian influence.

"The U.S. occupation has decided to let go of women's rights," Yanar Mohammed who campaigns for women's rights in Iraq says. "Political Islamic groups have taken southern Iraq, are fully in power there, and are using the financial support of Iran to recruit troops and allies.

Women in Iraq had it better under Saddam Hussein | International | NewJerseyNewsroom.com -- Your State. Your News.

----------------------------------------------

In case the right doesn't understand, "When half the population is "enslaved", it doesn't count as a "win"."

so then,...do you oppose their right to create a government founded on islamic law? aren't you the one belly aching that they have the right to build a mosque, but apparently don't have the right to have islam has their foundation in their own country....

You have certainly caught them in their own confounding contradiction!!!

Well done!!!

I hate using the word "retarded". But sometimes it fits. Then another one has to come along just as "retarded".

I'll try to explain, but this is way, way over either little pointed head.

First of all, how anyone can compare building a religious institution on privately owned land in a country that believes in both freedom of religion and separation of church and state in this country to creating a hard right Islamic theocracy that makes Islam the National Religion and enslaves women in another country is beyond beyond.

I'm going to stop right there and give the twin tards a chance to think about it for a moment.

 

[haileydavey]

one of dubya's rare foreign affairs victories was getting Saddam to allow weapons inspectors back IN to Iraq in the months before our invasion. If dubya had just been a bit more patient, he would have found out that he didn't need to invade Iraq to disarm Saddam... AND... the whole premise for why Saddam's supposed stockpiles of WMDs were SOOOOO critically important was the BULLSHIT lie that a secular pan-arab ba'athist would EVER be stupid enough to give ANY weapons to radical wahhabists whose primary mission was the dissolution of his very nation state... it is a testament to just how fucking stupid and gullible Americans are that the majority of us bought into that ridiculous notion to begin with.

Saddam did three things a whole hell of a lot better than we do them:

1. he acted as a very effective foil to Iranian regional hegemony.
2. he kept radical islamists from gaining any significant foothold in his country
3. he kept sunnis and shiites from slaughtering one another.

We would be better off today if we had let him continue to do those things and spent our blood and treasure annihilating Al Qaeda.

p.s... and the house is going on the market (tentatively) next spring and we're Merida bound as soon as it sells.

I never thought WMD's was a good reason to go in. I do however believe that Saddam should have been ousted. When I was in the first Gulf War I was lucky (Yea Right!!) enough to see what this man was capable of. I got to see the mass graves full of hundreds of people that his people tried to cover up. I also was lucky enough to see many of his living victims face to face. I was not there to see the live images of what Hitler had done to those he did not care for but from what I read Saddam was on par if not more so being as he actually committed the acts.

I thought at that time we should overthrow someone who could do this to anyone much less his own people. I am sure a lot of people are good with letting him continue to murder, rape and maim. I personal am glad that WMD's was a good enough excuse to go in because to leave that type of person in power of anything is not ethical. I would personally hate to see anyone treated the way he treated his own people. I would have gladly sacrificed my life to see that he did continue to do his atrocities.

I saw were someone said we wasted over 4000 soldiers lives. I do not see it that way at all. I see those men as liberators allowing a group of people to live their lives without fear. When we lose nearly that many soldiers in training accents I think they liberators did not die in vain.

and yet, the perpetrators of the attacks of 9/11 remains unpunished.... was Saddam REALLY more important that THAT?

You know I really do not know the answer to that. I would hazard to say that if we only went after the perpetrators I still think they would not be punished. I do know that we have one less dictator the way we did do things.

I do think that we saved a lot more lives than were lost by doing what we did. I guess if you can live with a Hitler type dictator killing on a whim because you do not have a personal attachment to those suffering then yes it was a waste of time.

If it does not sit well with you that others suffer because you can look the other way then no I do not think it was a waste of time. I do not like the fact it took so long nor do I like the fact it was covered up with the WMD discussion. I think it should have been done when we were there the first time.

 

[rdean]

so then,...do you oppose their right to create a government founded on islamic law? aren't you the one belly aching that they have the right to build a mosque, but apparently don't have the right to have islam has their foundation in their own country....

You have certainly caught them in their own confounding contradiction!!!

Well done!!!

I hate using the word "retarded". But sometimes it fits. Then another one has to come along just as "retarded".

I'll try to explain, but this is way, way over either little pointed head.

First of all, how anyone can compare building a religious institution on privately owned land in a country that believes in both freedom of religion and separation of church and state in this country to creating a hard right Islamic theocracy that makes Islam the National Religion and enslaves women in another country is beyond beyond.

I'm going to stop right there and give the twin tards a chance to think about it for a moment.

Guess I scared the "twin tards" away. Sorry.

 

[Samson]

I think you make some very good points.

HOWEVER, some seem to have been removed from historical context, which include:

1. Saddam's invasion of Kuwait, and the US leadership in reclaiming that nation's independence

2. 9/11

3. Saddam's use of WMD

4. Saddam's use of SCUD missiles

5. Saddam's squirrly treatment of UN sanctioned inspections

Under all these circumstances, I see no reason the USA shouldn't have invaded Iraq to take an objective inventory of the situation, and, finding no WMD, gotten the hell out, leaving some Friendly Baathist General behind to run the circus.

while we disagree about the dangers presented by Saddam, I would agree to your get in get out scenario as a solution I could live with.

What did 9/11 have to do with Saddam? Even Bush said the two were unconnected. Unless you know something Bush didn't?

You're not much of a big picture kinda guy, so I won't bother explaining.

 

[Samson]

You have certainly caught them in their own confounding contradiction!!!

Well done!!!

I hate using the word "retarded". But sometimes it fits. Then another one has to come along just as "retarded".

I'll try to explain, but this is way, way over either little pointed head.

First of all, how anyone can compare building a religious institution on privately owned land in a country that believes in both freedom of religion and separation of church and state in this country to creating a hard right Islamic theocracy that makes Islam the National Religion and enslaves women in another country is beyond beyond.

I'm going to stop right there and give the twin tards a chance to think about it for a moment.

Guess I scared the "twin tards" away. Sorry.

When you're intellect is so low that it scares the tards away, you're beyond apology.

 

[mudwhistle]

Can you BELIEVE this man is now the COMMANDER of Chief of our Troops.

And now taking CREDIT for DOING ABSOLUTLY..........NOTHING.

Friggen sick

Hey Fucktard, do a little research before you speak. Here is something one of your loon friends posted.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/131012-obama-to-thank-bush-tonight-in-speech.html#post2679596

Today we are removing all combat troops from Iraq. This was a war I opposed initially, as I opposed the surge that brought us to this point. But the true measure of a leader is admission that he is not infallible. I was wrong to oppose the surge, which has brought us peace with honor, removed a dangerous tyrant from the world stage, and liberated millions of Iraqis. All of this could not have been done without our brave troops on the ground, our military commanders overseeing it, and the wise policy decisions of my predecessor, President Bush."

From Rabbi's post.
Sinatra and Stephanie obviously need to think before they speak.

Yes....what it amounted to was just a simple thanks.....now let's turn the page on Bush shall we.

Kind of wish he would because I'm tired of hearing him blaming every fucken thing under the Sun on him.