Wasn't Life Supposed to Be Better without Saddam Hussein's Sons Taking over Iraq?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 14, 2015 1:49 PM GMT
    Wasn't Life Supposed to Be Better without Saddam Hussein's Sons Taking over Iraq?

    With Saddam and his sons as successors, were we on the road to ISIS?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 15, 2015 1:46 PM GMT
    ISIS filled the void in Iraq left when Obama refused to leave a residual force as we previously had done in Japan, Germany and South Korea.

    Now a lot of unemployed vets that Obama laid off can't get work or proper medical care.
  • Lincsbear

    Posts: 2605

    Nov 15, 2015 8:07 PM GMT
    People knew life was deteriorating badly in Iraq as early as 2006.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 15, 2015 9:03 PM GMT
    mx5guynj saidISIS filled the void in Iraq left when Obama refused to leave a residual force as we previously had done in Japan, Germany and South Korea.

    Now a lot of unemployed vets that Obama laid off can't get work or proper medical care.


    ...then there's what really happened:

    Many ISIS military commanders are (were) former Republican Guard and Iraqi army commanders from the Saddam era. Following the defeat of Saddam, instead of giving them a useful role or even a pension, Paul Bremer, with the blessing of President Bush, sacked them and sent them on their way. At a stroke, 400,000 members of the defeated Iraqi army were barred from government employment, denied pensions - and also allowed to keep their guns. They were very pissed off. The devil (in this case the Al Qaeda in Iraq affiliate and, in turn, their successor ISIS) made work for idle hands and the rest is recent history.

    How Saddam Hussein's former military officers and spies are controlling Isis
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/how-saddam-husseins-former-military-officers-and-spies-are-controlling-isis-10156610.html
  • KissTheSky

    Posts: 1981

    Nov 16, 2015 1:05 AM GMT
    Let's be honest -- George W. Bush and his incompetent band of Neo-Cons created Isis. They blew up the middle east and now pretend to be suprised that the results are total mayhem. Obviously Saddam was a total a-hole, but the region was far more peaceful with him there to provide stability. And the Western world -- including the USA -- was much safer.
    Too bad W. didn't consider the aftermath before launching his military adventure.
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3284

    Nov 16, 2015 2:10 AM GMT
    KissTheSky saidLet's be honest -- George W. Bush and his incompetent band of Neo-Cons created Isis. They blew up the middle east and now pretend to be suprised that the results are total mayhem. Obviously Saddam was a total a-hole, but the region was far more peaceful with him there to provide stability. And the Western world -- including the USA -- was much safer.
    Too bad W. didn't consider the aftermath before launching his military adventure.


    Lets be even more honest. Who supported Asad leaving syria?

    This was the creation of ISIL.
    Who promoted a policy that's responsible for Libya? Then when he got caught with the real scenario of making a decision he decided (Id rather not) going back on his red line in the sand.

    That was the message of weakness that the ISIL caliphate framers were looking for.


    How about Africa, Yemen etc etc.

    Even Obama hours before the attack said ISIL was contained, In the same week an airliner was bombed.

    This is a president who is trying to run out the clock ,but he really should just quit. So many attacks on his watch domestic and international he cant claim he was positive for international affairs or safe.

    He is still Ok'ing the importation of 10,000 refugees from Syria. Seems smart right ......

    Bush blaming only exists in the overnight area of the democratic underground. You need LSD to actually believe it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 16, 2015 2:38 AM GMT
    KissTheSky saidLet's be honest -- George W. Bush and his incompetent band of Neo-Cons created Isis. They blew up the middle east and now pretend to be suprised that the results are total mayhem. Obviously Saddam was a total a-hole, but the region was far more peaceful with him there to provide stability. And the Western world -- including the USA -- was much safer.
    Too bad W. didn't consider the aftermath before launching his military adventure.


    Yep, 911 sure proves that.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 16, 2015 5:54 PM GMT
    A people will only stand on their own when they fight for the right to do so. In truth, the approach I believe the US should take to all of this is that of France during the American Revolution. A silent partner, giving aid and support but rarely interfering. We would not be the nation we are today if France had sent armadas and armies to North America to fight our battles for us.

    We need to stop policing the world. You'd think after Vietnam we'd have figured that out.


    Furthermore, on the subject of ISIS, the term "war on terror" is quite possibly the worst label of the 21st Century thus far. You cannot kill an idea. You cannot gas it, burn it, blow it up, or lock it away. An idea cannot be fought or defeated by physical might. The only thing that can defeat an idea is another idea. Americans and foreign nationals don't randomly succumb to extremist propaganda. Battling the current elements does nothing to stem the tide of people being swept up in their media campaign nor does it address WHY. there are fundamental psychological and sociological elements at play in determining susceptibility to extremist propaganda and if we don't simultaneously deal with those (on a global scale) we will be doomed to fight a never-ending war against people recruited from within our own borders.


    One final note

    How many of the people supporting increased military presence and action do you think would stay their position if we restored the draft? No more "professional army" to do the dangerous, harrowing duties we so readily wave our banners for from the comfort of our organic, free trade coffee shops. If saying "more boots on the ground" meant that those boots could be filled by yourself or a loved one, would they be so quick to wave that same banner?