Quote:
Originally Posted by 88-31-10  Army I appreciate the passion you bring to this subject and most of your cogent thoughts on it. But I think Bubba is right. Hell man your own post states that nutjobs are all over the world. Me thinks they are the ones we should have went after.
Saddam was a no good SOB and nobody here will argue that point with you. But the crazy bastard kept all the lunatic factions in Iraq under control. They didn't pull any of the Shitie/Sunni/Kurd shit with each other cause they knew he'd kill em all. No questions asked. Now do I think that's the way to run a country? No it isn't. But I'd rather he kept them under control then trying to do it ourselves because it's a no win situation for us. Every faction over there now sees us as the enemy instead of each other. Very precarious situation. After Gulf War I, he was boxed in. With the no fly zones, sanctions, and everything in place he was a sitting duck and he and the whole world knew it. He wasn't gonna pull any shit cause he knew the weight of the world would crash about him. We should have left that situation the way it was. It was working fine. Instead, we should have focused all the blood, treasure and political capital we spent on that damn quagmire mopping up the terrorists in Afghanistan and "ALL over the world." They worry me more than that crazy bearded SOB whose every move was being watched like a hawk. | So what I extrapolate from all of that is that you think Iraq and the U.S. would be better off if Saddam was still at the helm?
__________________
"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..............." Nancy Pelosi > December 16, 1998
LIBERALISM
The haunting fear someone, somewhere can help themselves. |