i should have made my questions more clear Did we lie to Saddam in 1991? did we need to take him down a few pegs in 1991?
In 1991 we needed to protect vital allies in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia that were invaded by Saddam. Nobody takes over one of our allies without a response. It took him down a few pegs, but that was not what is was all about. It was about protecting our vital national interests, namely the uinterrrupted flow of Kuwaiti and Saudi oil. The world is full of sordid dictators, but Zimbabwe is not a vital interest to us, nor do they threaten an ally. The Persian Gulf is and Saddam did.
IMO, W saw the same intel everyone else saw including the Clintons, Kerry...all made statements supporting the war and the intel that led to the war. W was the only one with balls to act. Or to some people, the stupidity to act. But I don't think he was bluffed. The time was ripe after 9/11 to do what should have been done in 91 and the administration took the opportunity to take Saddam out. And we did that. After the fact, we can debate whether it was the right move forever, as we all have done before. Hopefully things will keep going well and Congress will allow Petraus to continue his work. True, both have/had a big mouth and promise the "the mother of all" anything. But IMO, the philosophy that we act before finding out just how crazy a dictator is, is still the best policy. If we have actionable intelligence that Ahmaahole is close to getting nukes completed, they have to be taken out IMO. No way those nutjobs can have a nuke......no way. IMO. And again, the US should NEVER meet one on one with that kook. It only serves his purposes of becoming a world power and gives his regime legitamacy.
Dubya saw much more intel than anyone outside the administration did. All the Congress got to see was what the administration wanted them to see. In any case, Clinton and Kerry were not foreign policy makers, nor the commander in chief. They were being supportive of their country, but Bush was leading it. Whatever happened to "The Buck Stops Here"? It is kind of embarassing for Dub to try to share blame for his blunder with those who merely followed his lead. At least they quickly saw the error of the decision, but Bush still thinks the mission was accomplished. It's true, Ol' George was thinking with his balls instead of his brains. :hihi: The WMD's were imaginary. Either Bush hoodwinked us . . . or he got hoodwinked by his own people. Either way, we deserved better. But look what it brought us! Ultimately Saddam was of no importance compared to the tremendous loss of international prestige, American lives, military readiness and cold hard cash we have suffered. True, but they apparently gave it up 4 years ago and are just posturing, thank goodness. In any case, the Israelis are on top of this situation and are much better at it than we are. They have already taken out the nuclear facilities of Iraq (1981) and Syria (2007).
You and Hillary and your international prestige. Whatever that means. We have enough international prestige that France and Germany elected Bushies to lead their countries. Don't listen to Hillary to judge how much international influence the US still has. Listen to her and her Democrat cronies and the war was lost, Bush blew up the WTC....you'll start hating your country like they do. Oh and Saddam was of importance......ask the Iraqi people how much it meant getting rid of a dictator who killed their families. Ask them how important that was. And in terms of a waste of money....this country has wasted trillions on failed liberal policies for the past 100 years so go blow the "cost" of war horn with Harry Reid. What was the "cost" of the war going to spent on......what are you lacking from getting because of the war?
Because of Bush's follies in Iraq we have problems getting key allies on board for our diplomatic actions. Examples include the opposition we are getting from Russia. The are being killed by militias, and al Queda and rival tribes in much greater numbers today. Sadamm had a strangle hold on everybody, and it increased the stability and safety for everybody. Wetland restoration, levees, key infastructructure, military R&D. There have been a number of necessities lost to this war. To think otherwise is silly.
Oh yeah, Russia was a huge ally before we went into Iraq. To think otherwise is silly. Those are Russian weapons we are fighting against my friend. For you to suggest that Russia is not not an ally because of the war is absurd. And if you wanted wetlands restoration and think the war is to blame for not getting it, that is equally absurd. Show one article anywhere that blames the lack of anything on the war....name one? Anyway, your liberal pals from Louisiana who sat in Congress for 30 years and got nothing for any of those projects are to blame. Blame Bennett Johnston and John Breaux for getting zilch for for the Louisiana Coast and levees. Blame them not Bush or the war. I'll take every point you made in your last post as a joke cause that's the only way it makes sense on any level.
Bumbling, incompetent, corrupt Republicans trying to paint their critics as unpatriotic is a pathetic attempt at a smokescreen to cover their own failures. Now you're starting to rant like Limbaugh, . . . again. Look, my opinions have nothing to do with Hillary, you haven't heard me support her. Your inability to understand the importance of international prestige is astonishing. International prestige equals international power. Oh Yeah? Well, if they yearned for freedom so badly why didn't they revolt and start and insurrection against him instead of our troops? 55,000 Bathists could not hold 26 million Iraqis in tyranny if they weren't willingly following along. We revolted against our tyrannical king in 1776 and established a democracy. The Iraqis could have done the same thing if they actually gave a chit. There are not and have never been worthy of US assistance. Give us some examples, if you can. I ain't holding my breath. Inflation, we're already experiencing it and it will get worse. The dollar keeps losing value. Higher energy prices, too. The unprecedented national debt just keeps on growing and as it does inflation will follow. It will eat up our retirement savings in time and we'll all end up poor.
Let's not mention the aid the US gave to Iraq. Anyway, since when did Republicans want to police the world? Why are so many Republicans now in favor of no governmental intervention at home but widespread intervention abroad? Our economy is going to crap. WTF is going on in the heads of most of this country? We are so used to being wealthy that we are going to ignore all the warning signs and believe the fed can fix everything? Foreign investors are looking at our dropping dollar and thinking, we can snatch up US business at a great deal now. It's like an after Christmas sale. Wake up. Why is the "liberal" the one asking, "If Iraq wanted freedom so bad, why didn't they make more efforts themselves?" The war in Iraq was never about liberating the Iraqi people, anyway.
I think Saddam kind of put a damper on anybody wanting to fight for freedom when he gassed a couple of hundred thousand kurds.With that kind of thinking Hitler would have exterminated every jew in Europe and we would have said " why didnt they fight for freedom if they wanted it so bad."
