So Bush II, Terms I & II, hell-bent on increasing oil prices at the expense of US lives: Went with Pentagon, following willingly, to overthrow Saddam Hussein! Put in a paragraph in one of this week's LA Times editorials:
_______________________________________
"This week's upsurge of violence is partly a spillover of the civil war in Syria — the group that gained control of Mosul and Tikrit is called Islamic State in Iraq and Syria — but it also reflects the failure of Iraq's Shiite Prime Minister Nouri Maliki to establish legitimacy with Sunni Iraqis. It's thus another reminder of the naivete of U.S. strategists who thought that the sectarian hatreds unleashed by the ouster of Saddam Hussein could be easily subdued in a Western-style democracy.
The New York Times reported that even before this week's victories by insurgents, Maliki pleaded with the Obama administration to launch airstrikes against areas used by the rebels to launch attacks. The administration refused, but it will now be pressured to reconsider. How should it respond?
________________________________________
Among liberals, white and non-white people alike: It is generally known that getting rid of moderately socialist Saddam Hussein, would lead the area back to sectarian division. The actual people who could have kept the area stable were not allowed to be a part of the new government. Those were the Baathists, all excluded.
There is the Boehner, (X marks the spot), McConnell, John McCain, Bachmann, Palin, Paul, Paul, et. al., brand. Now all over the news of the world is the outcome of the Betrayus caused brand.
Leaving ordinance and vehicles all over the countryside, and probably in working condition, makes anyone wonder who was fleeing the area in disarray. That would be said military directed, from the start. The apparent idea was to go back to sectarian divisions. The outcome was to install a Shia Tyrant, instead of stabilizing socialist.
"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Many White Eyes not too thrilled with Hispanics either, now that Jew is gone!)
_______________________________________
"This week's upsurge of violence is partly a spillover of the civil war in Syria — the group that gained control of Mosul and Tikrit is called Islamic State in Iraq and Syria — but it also reflects the failure of Iraq's Shiite Prime Minister Nouri Maliki to establish legitimacy with Sunni Iraqis. It's thus another reminder of the naivete of U.S. strategists who thought that the sectarian hatreds unleashed by the ouster of Saddam Hussein could be easily subdued in a Western-style democracy.
The New York Times reported that even before this week's victories by insurgents, Maliki pleaded with the Obama administration to launch airstrikes against areas used by the rebels to launch attacks. The administration refused, but it will now be pressured to reconsider. How should it respond?
________________________________________
Among liberals, white and non-white people alike: It is generally known that getting rid of moderately socialist Saddam Hussein, would lead the area back to sectarian division. The actual people who could have kept the area stable were not allowed to be a part of the new government. Those were the Baathists, all excluded.
There is the Boehner, (X marks the spot), McConnell, John McCain, Bachmann, Palin, Paul, Paul, et. al., brand. Now all over the news of the world is the outcome of the Betrayus caused brand.
Leaving ordinance and vehicles all over the countryside, and probably in working condition, makes anyone wonder who was fleeing the area in disarray. That would be said military directed, from the start. The apparent idea was to go back to sectarian divisions. The outcome was to install a Shia Tyrant, instead of stabilizing socialist.
"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Many White Eyes not too thrilled with Hispanics either, now that Jew is gone!)
