sakinago
Gold Member
- Sep 13, 2012
- 5,320
- 1,632
- 280
First 2 on point...last one not so much. The only bombing Obama wanted was the bombing of Assad, who is essentially another Hussein, if not better. The reason that was stopped was bc everyone was saying that a large majority of the freedom fighters were really just al Qaeda. And Reagan also went after gaddafi and Libya...but Obama finished the job. And Obama does have authorization to bomb Isis, but the US flies only 7 sorties a day VS Frances 50 or so a day. Obama won't really go after ISIS, until they knock out Assad. You have to be objective enough to realize it does not make it ok when your party does it. That's only if you want true change1. National security is the Republican's most prized political weapon. Being tough on terrorism is literally what they sell to voters. (Remember when Reagan declared war on terrorism? Then he was revealed to be negotiating with Iran the whole time, even before he assumed office.)
2. It was predicted by Bush 41 during the Gulf War that removing Hussein would create a terminal power vacuum, followed by a costly/ineffective U.S. occupation . This is why Reagan supported/enabled Hussein in the first place, because the region needed a brutal strongman to crush the never ending tribal warfare.
3. Republicans are at war with Obama not ISIS. This is why they've been critical of his limited bombing but still won't authorize his authority for going to war. Their job is to destroy Obama politically - not matter what he does on ISIS OR Iran.