There are no solutions for Iraq. Not anymore.

[Samson]

To understand why there are no solutions, you have to understand what Bush and the Republicans did to Iraq to put that country in such a terrible position.

Not really.

I understand that Obama has been president for the past 6 years, but was never qualified for the job, and has completely screwed up Iraq during this period.

Can you actually explain how you think Obama has completely screwed up
Iraq using facts as the basis for your evaluation? Or is all you can do is generalized right-winger cliche's and ignorance based slurs?

Before Obama = No ISIS

After Obama = ISIS

Any more idiotic questions?

 

[U2Edge]

To understand why there are no solutions, you have to understand what Bush and the Republicans did to Iraq to put that country in such a terrible position.

Of course, the invasion was the first problem. Iraq never attacked the United States. They didn't ask to be "freed". The saw us from the first as invaders, not liberators.

The most obvious is that Republicans and Bush had no idea there was a difference between Sunni and Shiite. All they saw were "Muslims". By not knowing the religions or the people, there was no understanding of what "not to do". So Republicans blundered into doing everything wrong they could possibly imagine.

Iraq had an active duty military of 250,000 and an inactive reserve of 500,000 making it one of the largest armies in the world. Bush and the Republicans fired them. Just let 250,000 armed and trained men go. Suddenly they had no jobs and no money for their families. But they still had their weapons and a new found hatred of the US.

If Bush and the GOP knew anything about the Iraqis, they never would have put Shiites into power thereby creating a sister state with Iran.

Republicans helped those Shiites author a right wing, extreme Islamic Constitution:

Article 2:

First: Islam is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation:

A. No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established.

Full Text of Iraqi Constitution

George Bush did the greatest thing for Iraq ever in its history by removing SADDAM from power. SADDAM since 1979 was been the largest killer of Iraqi's and is responsible for more unprovoked invasions and attacks in the region than any other leader in modern history. Iraq should be the richest country in the Middle East, but instead SADDAM used its riches for WAR.

Iraq invaded Kuwait and then several days after that annexed the country. This happened 24 years ago this week and has brought us to today. Kuwait its oil and the rest of the oil in Saudi Arabia and throughout the region are vital to the global economy. Its been in the United States National Security interest to defend the free flow of oil from the Persian Gulf since Franklin Roosevelt declared it to be US policy in the early 1940s.

The George Bush administration did make mistakes after removing Saddam in rebuilding the country. Disbanding the military was one. Debathification was another. But these mistakes are things that can be fixed and things that the Bush administration was in the process of fixing when Barack Obama became President. Unfortunately, President Obama abandoned the rebuilding of the Iraqi military and government when he withdrew the United States in 2011. Without the United States to be a middle man working between the various factions in the government, sectarianism returned and the growth in capability of the Iraqi military stagnated and reversed as leaders were promoted for political loyalty rather than military competence and knowledge.

Shia Arabs are 60% of Iraq
Kurds are 15% of Iraq
Sunni Arabs 20% of Iraq
Yezedi's, Christians, Turks and others are 5%.

The only responsible thing to do in forming a new government once Saddam was removed was to form a democratic government. Obviously, in a democracy, the Shia Arab's naturally have an advantage given that they are 60% of the country. This is the natural state of Iraq and it can work provided that the various groups learn to solve their difference through politics and respect the law and minority rights.

The responsible thing for the United States to do now is to re-engage with Iraq with its military, economic, and diplomatic strength. The United States should be redeployed to Iraq in numbers large enough to support an air campaign against IS and to properly train, equip and advise the Iraqi military and Kurdish Pershmerga. Together with United States Air Power, the Iraqi Military, Kurdish forces, and as needed US troops on the ground, IS can be defeated in Iraq and eastern Syria and stability and security restored to this part of the region.

 

[U2Edge]

Obama had no "cards or incentives" So Obama becomes leader of the most powerful nation on Earth and it suddenly become impotent.

But Krauthammer said by 2009 that Petraeus and Bush had won the war by 2009 and the Iraq Army was trained and ready to defend itself. As powerful as America is Obama did not have any incentives to offer a sovereign nation to convince Iraqis in large numbers to grant foreign combat troops any immunity.

If Iraq was not ready in 2008 to be soveriegn Bush needed to convince Maliki to not insist the UN mandate for the occupation of Iraq to expire at the end of 2008.

Bush started the war wrong and apparently ended it wrong also.

The United States had largely defeated much of the insurgency by 2009 as reflected in the rapid drop in violence once all the US surge Brigades had deployed to Iraq by the end of 2007. There was no need to have the UN annually endorse the occupation of Iraq by the end of 2008 and the Bush administration wanted to move to a partnership with Iraq. That was set up, and it should have been extended beyond 2011 and Obama had the opportunity to do that.

Obama could have left US troops and advisors in the country without the immunity deal as it was highly unlikely problems would result without one and if they did they would be a small number of events that could be resolved through other means.

In any event Maliki was willing to give immunity, but Obama insisted that the immunity agreement be approved by the Iraqi parliament which was a mistake. The Iraqi parliament came a up short of votes to approve it. The Irony is that this would never of happened had Obama not insisted that the Iraqi parliament be involved in this process!

 

[Geaux4it]

Obama: It Wasn’t My Decision to Pull Troops Out of Iraq

[youtube]uS__hLWBc-8[/youtube]​

Asked if he had any “regrets” about not leaving a residual force in Iraq, Obama advised reporters to “Keep in mind, that wasn’t a decision made by me. That was a decision made by the Iraqi government.”


Obama: It Wasn?t My Decision to Pull Troops Out of Iraq | Washington Free Beacon

 

[Rikurzhen]

George Bush did the greatest thing for Iraq ever in its history by removing SADDAM from power. SADDAM since 1979 was been the largest killer of Iraqi's and is responsible for more unprovoked invasions and attacks in the region than any other leader in modern history. Iraq should be the richest country in the Middle East, but instead SADDAM used its riches for WAR.

Wrong. This decision to remove Saddam was the worst thing to happen. Iraq was a functioning society with Saddam, even amidst the terror he inflicted upon his own citizens.

Most of the ME actually needs Strong-Man political systems in order to function. This follows from the tribal political tradition which permeates their entire societies. Absent that strong-man, but with the tribal system retained, you get all-out tribal warfare, which is exactly what we're seeing breaking out all over the Middle East. Having one massive prick on the top of the whole pile keeping everyone in line does wonders for keeping those societies functioning.

The George Bush administration did make mistakes after removing Saddam in rebuilding the country. Disbanding the military was one. Debathification was another. But these mistakes are things that can be fixed and things that the Bush administration was in the process of fixing when Barack Obama became President.

All of the mistakes made by Bush have a common root cause - he and his advisers didn't know jack about how the societies in the region function. They believed that they could graft an alien Western sensibility onto a tribal society.

If you misunderstand an issue at the very foundational level, then every decision you make is very likely to produce bad outcomes.

Unfortunately, President Obama abandoned the rebuilding of the Iraqi military and government when he withdrew the United States in 2011. Without the United States to be a middle man working between the various factions in the government, sectarianism returned and the growth in capability of the Iraqi military stagnated and reversed as leaders were promoted for political loyalty rather than military competence and knowledge.

Not political loyalty, tribal allegiances. The higher up you ascend in a tribal society, the greater become your obligations to your fellow tribe members. If you're a leader of a bureaucracy, the notion of promoting a qualified member of an opposing tribe over promoting a member of your own tribe is a.) nonsensical and b.) a direct threat to your own power as leader because those under you see that you're failing in carrying out your leadership duties.

The only responsible thing to do in forming a new government once Saddam was removed was to form a democratic government. Obviously, in a democracy, the Shia Arab's naturally have an advantage given that they are 60% of the country. This is the natural state of Iraq and it can work provided that the various groups learn to solve their difference through politics and respect the law and minority rights.

You're suffering from the same limited exposure to the cultures of the region that the Bush brain trust suffered.

Look, people can learn to sunbathe on the surface of the moon so long as they learn to live without oxygen and learn to live in a vacuum. Simple, right?

Using wishful thinking as the basis for political decision making always leads to failure. We do this regularly here in the US with education policies - NCLB mandated that ALL children WILL BE proficient by the end of the program. All that was needed to achieve universal proficiency was to have better teachers and schools. Simple, right?

The responsible thing for the United States to do now is to re-engage with Iraq with its military, economic, and diplomatic strength. The United States should be redeployed to Iraq in numbers large enough to support an air campaign against IS and to properly train, equip and advise the Iraqi military and Kurdish Pershmerga. Together with United States Air Power, the Iraqi Military, Kurdish forces, and as needed US troops on the ground, IS can be defeated in Iraq and eastern Syria and stability and security restored to this part of the region.

What is it about some people who continually push the same damn policy and after every failure they keep coming back with the same damn policy thinking that "this time it will work."

 

[Samson]

George Bush did the greatest thing for Iraq ever in its history by removing SADDAM from power. SADDAM since 1979 was been the largest killer of Iraqi's and is responsible for more unprovoked invasions and attacks in the region than any other leader in modern history. Iraq should be the richest country in the Middle East, but instead SADDAM used its riches for WAR.

Wrong. This decision to remove Saddam was the worst thing to happen. Iraq was a functioning society with Saddam, even amidst the terror he inflicted upon his own citizens.

So a "functioning society" is when citizens are terrorized........



Brilliant.

 

[Rikurzhen]

George Bush did the greatest thing for Iraq ever in its history by removing SADDAM from power. SADDAM since 1979 was been the largest killer of Iraqi's and is responsible for more unprovoked invasions and attacks in the region than any other leader in modern history. Iraq should be the richest country in the Middle East, but instead SADDAM used its riches for WAR.

Wrong. This decision to remove Saddam was the worst thing to happen. Iraq was a functioning society with Saddam, even amidst the terror he inflicted upon his own citizens.

So a "functioning society" is when citizens are terrorized........



Brilliant.

A police state doesn't preclude the business of life continuing, even continuing in an orderly manner. Citizens of a police state simply learn how to go about their lives without drawing the attention of the State. The rules are understood. I suppose the Prime Directive for Iraq was "Don't Challenge Saddam." You didn't have to fear a Sunni putting a car-bomb outside the shop owned by a Shia, etc.

 

[rdean]

These right wingers have no solution either. There isn't any. The GOP damage has been done. About the only thing we can do is try to protect the Kurds and the few Christians that are left after the GOP did nothing to protect them.

And that's exactly what Obama is doing and Republicans failed to do.

This is becoming a theme.

GOP fails and leaves a mess for Obama.

Obama works to clean it up as the GOP tries to stop him.

He still succeeds and they call him a failure anyway.

"Obama Derangement Syndrome" is the GOP's "Ebola".

 

[rdean]

George Bush did the greatest thing for Iraq ever in its history by removing SADDAM from power. SADDAM since 1979 was been the largest killer of Iraqi's and is responsible for more unprovoked invasions and attacks in the region than any other leader in modern history. Iraq should be the richest country in the Middle East, but instead SADDAM used its riches for WAR.

Wrong. This decision to remove Saddam was the worst thing to happen. Iraq was a functioning society with Saddam, even amidst the terror he inflicted upon his own citizens.

So a "functioning society" is when citizens are terrorized........



Brilliant.

Republicans terrorized America and we still more or less "functioned". Their "terror alerts" devolved into "jokes".

Remember when Republicans were saying Obama will let terrorists from Gitmo go into your back yards?

Fox News pushes GOP horror story of Obama setting Gitmo terrorists loose in U.S. | Research

When Republicans do these things, they are purposely terrorizing the people of the United States. That is true "terrorism".

 

[asterism]

George Bush did the greatest thing for Iraq ever in its history by removing SADDAM from power. SADDAM since 1979 was been the largest killer of Iraqi's and is responsible for more unprovoked invasions and attacks in the region than any other leader in modern history. Iraq should be the richest country in the Middle East, but instead SADDAM used its riches for WAR.

Wrong. This decision to remove Saddam was the worst thing to happen. Iraq was a functioning society with Saddam, even amidst the terror he inflicted upon his own citizens.

Most of the ME actually needs Strong-Man political systems in order to function. This follows from the tribal political tradition which permeates their entire societies. Absent that strong-man, but with the tribal system retained, you get all-out tribal warfare, which is exactly what we're seeing breaking out all over the Middle East. Having one massive prick on the top of the whole pile keeping everyone in line does wonders for keeping those societies functioning.

The George Bush administration did make mistakes after removing Saddam in rebuilding the country. Disbanding the military was one. Debathification was another. But these mistakes are things that can be fixed and things that the Bush administration was in the process of fixing when Barack Obama became President.

All of the mistakes made by Bush have a common root cause - he and his advisers didn't know jack about how the societies in the region function. They believed that they could graft an alien Western sensibility onto a tribal society.

If you misunderstand an issue at the very foundational level, then every decision you make is very likely to produce bad outcomes.



Not political loyalty, tribal allegiances. The higher up you ascend in a tribal society, the greater become your obligations to your fellow tribe members. If you're a leader of a bureaucracy, the notion of promoting a qualified member of an opposing tribe over promoting a member of your own tribe is a.) nonsensical and b.) a direct threat to your own power as leader because those under you see that you're failing in carrying out your leadership duties.

The only responsible thing to do in forming a new government once Saddam was removed was to form a democratic government. Obviously, in a democracy, the Shia Arab's naturally have an advantage given that they are 60% of the country. This is the natural state of Iraq and it can work provided that the various groups learn to solve their difference through politics and respect the law and minority rights.

You're suffering from the same limited exposure to the cultures of the region that the Bush brain trust suffered.

Look, people can learn to sunbathe on the surface of the moon so long as they learn to live without oxygen and learn to live in a vacuum. Simple, right?

Using wishful thinking as the basis for political decision making always leads to failure. We do this regularly here in the US with education policies - NCLB mandated that ALL children WILL BE proficient by the end of the program. All that was needed to achieve universal proficiency was to have better teachers and schools. Simple, right?

The responsible thing for the United States to do now is to re-engage with Iraq with its military, economic, and diplomatic strength. The United States should be redeployed to Iraq in numbers large enough to support an air campaign against IS and to properly train, equip and advise the Iraqi military and Kurdish Pershmerga. Together with United States Air Power, the Iraqi Military, Kurdish forces, and as needed US troops on the ground, IS can be defeated in Iraq and eastern Syria and stability and security restored to this part of the region.

What is it about some people who continually push the same damn policy and after every failure they keep coming back with the same damn policy thinking that "this time it will work."

As long as you excuse a little genocide here and there, Saddam was a good guy right?

 

[asterism]

Wrong. This decision to remove Saddam was the worst thing to happen. Iraq was a functioning society with Saddam, even amidst the terror he inflicted upon his own citizens.

So a "functioning society" is when citizens are terrorized........



Brilliant.

A police state doesn't preclude the business of life continuing, even continuing in an orderly manner. Citizens of a police state simply learn how to go about their lives without drawing the attention of the State. The rules are understood. I suppose the Prime Directive for Iraq was "Don't Challenge Saddam." You didn't have to fear a Sunni putting a car-bomb outside the shop owned by a Shia, etc.

The rules were understood by the Kurds too... "don't exist."

You idiots on the left sure love your dictators.

 

[Rikurzhen]

So a "functioning society" is when citizens are terrorized........



Brilliant.

A police state doesn't preclude the business of life continuing, even continuing in an orderly manner. Citizens of a police state simply learn how to go about their lives without drawing the attention of the State. The rules are understood. I suppose the Prime Directive for Iraq was "Don't Challenge Saddam." You didn't have to fear a Sunni putting a car-bomb outside the shop owned by a Shia, etc.

The rules were understood by the Kurds too... "don't exist."

You idiots on the left sure love your dictators.

Dude, I'm more Right Wing than you.

 

[rdean]

So a "functioning society" is when citizens are terrorized........



Brilliant.

A police state doesn't preclude the business of life continuing, even continuing in an orderly manner. Citizens of a police state simply learn how to go about their lives without drawing the attention of the State. The rules are understood. I suppose the Prime Directive for Iraq was "Don't Challenge Saddam." You didn't have to fear a Sunni putting a car-bomb outside the shop owned by a Shia, etc.

The rules were understood by the Kurds too... "don't exist."

You idiots on the left sure love your dictators.

Huh?

 

[rdean]

George Bush did the greatest thing for Iraq ever in its history by removing SADDAM from power. SADDAM since 1979 was been the largest killer of Iraqi's and is responsible for more unprovoked invasions and attacks in the region than any other leader in modern history. Iraq should be the richest country in the Middle East, but instead SADDAM used its riches for WAR.

Wrong. This decision to remove Saddam was the worst thing to happen. Iraq was a functioning society with Saddam, even amidst the terror he inflicted upon his own citizens.

Most of the ME actually needs Strong-Man political systems in order to function. This follows from the tribal political tradition which permeates their entire societies. Absent that strong-man, but with the tribal system retained, you get all-out tribal warfare, which is exactly what we're seeing breaking out all over the Middle East. Having one massive prick on the top of the whole pile keeping everyone in line does wonders for keeping those societies functioning.



All of the mistakes made by Bush have a common root cause - he and his advisers didn't know jack about how the societies in the region function. They believed that they could graft an alien Western sensibility onto a tribal society.

If you misunderstand an issue at the very foundational level, then every decision you make is very likely to produce bad outcomes.



Not political loyalty, tribal allegiances. The higher up you ascend in a tribal society, the greater become your obligations to your fellow tribe members. If you're a leader of a bureaucracy, the notion of promoting a qualified member of an opposing tribe over promoting a member of your own tribe is a.) nonsensical and b.) a direct threat to your own power as leader because those under you see that you're failing in carrying out your leadership duties.



You're suffering from the same limited exposure to the cultures of the region that the Bush brain trust suffered.

Look, people can learn to sunbathe on the surface of the moon so long as they learn to live without oxygen and learn to live in a vacuum. Simple, right?

Using wishful thinking as the basis for political decision making always leads to failure. We do this regularly here in the US with education policies - NCLB mandated that ALL children WILL BE proficient by the end of the program. All that was needed to achieve universal proficiency was to have better teachers and schools. Simple, right?

The responsible thing for the United States to do now is to re-engage with Iraq with its military, economic, and diplomatic strength. The United States should be redeployed to Iraq in numbers large enough to support an air campaign against IS and to properly train, equip and advise the Iraqi military and Kurdish Pershmerga. Together with United States Air Power, the Iraqi Military, Kurdish forces, and as needed US troops on the ground, IS can be defeated in Iraq and eastern Syria and stability and security restored to this part of the region.

What is it about some people who continually push the same damn policy and after every failure they keep coming back with the same damn policy thinking that "this time it will work."

As long as you excuse a little genocide here and there, Saddam was a good guy right?

No one said that idiot moron. What is wrong with you?

 

[rdean]

George Bush did the greatest thing for Iraq ever in its history by removing SADDAM from power. SADDAM since 1979 was been the largest killer of Iraqi's and is responsible for more unprovoked invasions and attacks in the region than any other leader in modern history. Iraq should be the richest country in the Middle East, but instead SADDAM used its riches for WAR.

Wrong. This decision to remove Saddam was the worst thing to happen. Iraq was a functioning society with Saddam, even amidst the terror he inflicted upon his own citizens.

Most of the ME actually needs Strong-Man political systems in order to function. This follows from the tribal political tradition which permeates their entire societies. Absent that strong-man, but with the tribal system retained, you get all-out tribal warfare, which is exactly what we're seeing breaking out all over the Middle East. Having one massive prick on the top of the whole pile keeping everyone in line does wonders for keeping those societies functioning.

The George Bush administration did make mistakes after removing Saddam in rebuilding the country. Disbanding the military was one. Debathification was another. But these mistakes are things that can be fixed and things that the Bush administration was in the process of fixing when Barack Obama became President.

All of the mistakes made by Bush have a common root cause - he and his advisers didn't know jack about how the societies in the region function. They believed that they could graft an alien Western sensibility onto a tribal society.

If you misunderstand an issue at the very foundational level, then every decision you make is very likely to produce bad outcomes.



Not political loyalty, tribal allegiances. The higher up you ascend in a tribal society, the greater become your obligations to your fellow tribe members. If you're a leader of a bureaucracy, the notion of promoting a qualified member of an opposing tribe over promoting a member of your own tribe is a.) nonsensical and b.) a direct threat to your own power as leader because those under you see that you're failing in carrying out your leadership duties.

The only responsible thing to do in forming a new government once Saddam was removed was to form a democratic government. Obviously, in a democracy, the Shia Arab's naturally have an advantage given that they are 60% of the country. This is the natural state of Iraq and it can work provided that the various groups learn to solve their difference through politics and respect the law and minority rights.

You're suffering from the same limited exposure to the cultures of the region that the Bush brain trust suffered.

Look, people can learn to sunbathe on the surface of the moon so long as they learn to live without oxygen and learn to live in a vacuum. Simple, right?

Using wishful thinking as the basis for political decision making always leads to failure. We do this regularly here in the US with education policies - NCLB mandated that ALL children WILL BE proficient by the end of the program. All that was needed to achieve universal proficiency was to have better teachers and schools. Simple, right?

The responsible thing for the United States to do now is to re-engage with Iraq with its military, economic, and diplomatic strength. The United States should be redeployed to Iraq in numbers large enough to support an air campaign against IS and to properly train, equip and advise the Iraqi military and Kurdish Pershmerga. Together with United States Air Power, the Iraqi Military, Kurdish forces, and as needed US troops on the ground, IS can be defeated in Iraq and eastern Syria and stability and security restored to this part of the region.

What is it about some people who continually push the same damn policy and after every failure they keep coming back with the same damn policy thinking that "this time it will work."

That was a really well worded and thought out post. And still, these guys come up with "you must love ruthless dictators". What were they reading? Were they deluded? Stupid? Indoctrinated? Did they even bother to read it?

If they didn't like it or disagreed, why not explain why?

We know why. They couldn't. Agreeing or disagreeing with well thought out discourse is beyond their meager abilities. They aren't even trying to understand your point. It's a race to the bottom to figure out some tiny thing they can put down thinking they are making some clever comment. Only, it's not clever, it's pathetic.

 

[asterism]

George Bush did the greatest thing for Iraq ever in its history by removing SADDAM from power. SADDAM since 1979 was been the largest killer of Iraqi's and is responsible for more unprovoked invasions and attacks in the region than any other leader in modern history. Iraq should be the richest country in the Middle East, but instead SADDAM used its riches for WAR.

Wrong. This decision to remove Saddam was the worst thing to happen. Iraq was a functioning society with Saddam, even amidst the terror he inflicted upon his own citizens.

Most of the ME actually needs Strong-Man political systems in order to function. This follows from the tribal political tradition which permeates their entire societies. Absent that strong-man, but with the tribal system retained, you get all-out tribal warfare, which is exactly what we're seeing breaking out all over the Middle East. Having one massive prick on the top of the whole pile keeping everyone in line does wonders for keeping those societies functioning.



All of the mistakes made by Bush have a common root cause - he and his advisers didn't know jack about how the societies in the region function. They believed that they could graft an alien Western sensibility onto a tribal society.

If you misunderstand an issue at the very foundational level, then every decision you make is very likely to produce bad outcomes.



Not political loyalty, tribal allegiances. The higher up you ascend in a tribal society, the greater become your obligations to your fellow tribe members. If you're a leader of a bureaucracy, the notion of promoting a qualified member of an opposing tribe over promoting a member of your own tribe is a.) nonsensical and b.) a direct threat to your own power as leader because those under you see that you're failing in carrying out your leadership duties.



You're suffering from the same limited exposure to the cultures of the region that the Bush brain trust suffered.

Look, people can learn to sunbathe on the surface of the moon so long as they learn to live without oxygen and learn to live in a vacuum. Simple, right?

Using wishful thinking as the basis for political decision making always leads to failure. We do this regularly here in the US with education policies - NCLB mandated that ALL children WILL BE proficient by the end of the program. All that was needed to achieve universal proficiency was to have better teachers and schools. Simple, right?

The responsible thing for the United States to do now is to re-engage with Iraq with its military, economic, and diplomatic strength. The United States should be redeployed to Iraq in numbers large enough to support an air campaign against IS and to properly train, equip and advise the Iraqi military and Kurdish Pershmerga. Together with United States Air Power, the Iraqi Military, Kurdish forces, and as needed US troops on the ground, IS can be defeated in Iraq and eastern Syria and stability and security restored to this part of the region.

What is it about some people who continually push the same damn policy and after every failure they keep coming back with the same damn policy thinking that "this time it will work."

That was a really well worded and thought out post. And still, these guys come up with "you must love ruthless dictators". What were they reading? Were they deluded? Stupid? Indoctrinated? Did they even bother to read it?

If they didn't like it or disagreed, why not explain why?

We know why. They couldn't. Agreeing or disagreeing with well thought out discourse is beyond their meager abilities. They aren't even trying to understand your point. It's a race to the bottom to figure out some tiny thing they can put down thinking they are making some clever comment. Only, it's not clever, it's pathetic.

I've responded to plenty of your posts saying that it was wrong to remove Saddam and all I got was "Republicans bad derp derp derp."


But once again, I'll articulate my point:

1. Saddam was a genocidal maniac. His and the Baath Party's efforts to eradicate the entire Kurdish population goes back to the 1970s.
2. Saddam was bribing France and Russia to get the sanctions lifted. This corrupted the process of the UN Security Council.
3. Saddam was a State Sponsor of Terror. He harbored Abu Nidal, rewarded the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, and allowed Zarqawi to set up a base in Northern Iraq.
4. Saddam broke the cease-fire with the US many times and the perception of the US as a "paper tiger" was undermining the purpose of any cease-fire agreement.
5. Saddam was either going to be Al Qaeda's most ardent supporter or he was going to be ousted and the resources at his disposal were going to be in control of someone worse.

 

[asterism]

Even the hero of the left President Bill Clinton thought Saddam had to go:

 

[asterism]

"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

"[W]e 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, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."

Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others,
Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 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.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 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

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass
destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.



snopes.com: Weapons of Mass Destruction Quotes

 

[Rikurzhen]

But once again, I'll articulate my point:

1. Saddam was a genocidal maniac. His and the Baath Party's efforts to eradicate the entire Kurdish population goes back to the 1970s.
2. Saddam was bribing France and Russia to get the sanctions lifted. This corrupted the process of the UN Security Council.
3. Saddam was a State Sponsor of Terror. He harbored Abu Nidal, rewarded the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, and allowed Zarqawi to set up a base in Northern Iraq.
4. Saddam broke the cease-fire with the US many times and the perception of the US as a "paper tiger" was undermining the purpose of any cease-fire agreement.
5. Saddam was either going to be Al Qaeda's most ardent supporter or he was going to be ousted and the resources at his disposal were going to be in control of someone worse.

The traditional American approach has been to depose the "out of control bastard" and install another bastard who understand that we hold the whip.

The effort to turn Iraq into the Shining Democracy on the Hill was so damn asinine that it looks like a policy devised by drugged out peaceniks congregated together at a dorm room bull session.

What's so hard to understand about the fact that identification of a problem is DIFFERENT than a solution to the problem. All you're doing is identifying the problem and resting on your laurels. EVERYONE understood that Saddam was a problem, so don't go patting yourself on the back for being able to see that he was a problem.

The hard part here is to devise the best solution to that problem. Invading and then nation-building in order to create a western-modeled outpost in the Middle East was sheer lunacy.

 

[U2Edge]

Obama: It Wasn’t My Decision to Pull Troops Out of Iraq

[youtube]uS__hLWBc-8[/youtube]​

Asked if he had any “regrets” about not leaving a residual force in Iraq, Obama advised reporters to “Keep in mind, that wasn’t a decision made by me. That was a decision made by the Iraqi government.”


Obama: It Wasn?t My Decision to Pull Troops Out of Iraq | Washington Free Beacon

It was Obama that insisted that the Iraqi parliament vote on whether to approve an extended stay of US forces in Iraq. Maliki alone had already approved a US extension, but then Obama made him put the issue before the parliament which was a first for a US SOFA agreement. The parliament came up a few votes short in approving it. So in a sense, it was Obama's decision, because he submitted the stationing of US troops to a parliament vote that was unnecessary.