RightNation.US
News (Home) | Righters' Blog | Hollywood Halfwits | Our Store | New User Intro | Link to us | Support Us

RightNation.US: Iraq then and now: Bush was right and Obama was wrong - RightNation.US

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Iraq then and now: Bush was right and Obama was wrong Rate Topic: -----

#1 User is offline   pepperonikkid 

  • Trucker
  • Group: Silver
  • Posts: 11,858
  • Joined: 03-September 03

  Posted 20 March 2017 - 04:33 AM

Iraq then and now: Bush was right and Obama was wrong



http://www.americanthinker.com
By Silvio Canto, Jr.
March 20, 2017



Article:


We recall this week the 13th anniversary of the start of the Iraq War II. It's a moment to reflect on a decision that still looks correct to me a decade later.

The first question we should ask is: What if President George W. Bush had not invaded Iraq?

The problem is that we always know what did happen as a result of a war, but we will never know what didn't happen.

What if President Bush had not made the decision? Let me suggest this scenario:

1. Saddam Hussein would have become a bigger threat to the region and the U.S. Saddam Hussein had clearly come to the conclusion that the West would not stop him and was acting as such.

2. Iraq would have continued shooting at U.S. and UK planes enforcing UN resolutions. How many times do you allow someone to fire missiles at your aircraft without interpreting it as an act of war?

3. What about Israel? Saddam was not a friend of Israel. What would the Middle East look like with Iraq and Iran threatening Israel? Maybe Iran and Iraq would have gone to war again? Or, maybe they would have attacked Israel? We do know today that Iraq won't be attacking Israel or has WMDs to threaten its neighbors. We can thank President Bush for that.

Yes, Bush's critics need to answer one simple question: what if Bush had not invaded Iraq?



Full Story

This post has been edited by Moderator T: 20 March 2017 - 06:30 AM

0

#2 User is online   zurg 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 21,514
  • Joined: 19-October 09

Posted 20 March 2017 - 07:50 AM

I was for the invasion then, and I still think it was the right thing to do. For proof, look at what Obama's "let's be nice to them and they'll be nice to us" campaign gave us: ISIS.
0

#3 User is offline   Dutch13 

  • <no title>
  • Group: Platinum Community Supporter
  • Posts: 15,238
  • Joined: 02-May 06

Posted 20 March 2017 - 01:11 PM

View Postzurg, on 20 March 2017 - 07:50 AM, said:

I was for the invasion then, and I still think it was the right thing to do. For proof, look at what Obama's "let's be nice to them and they'll be nice to us" campaign gave us: ISIS.


In retrospect, I still think that invading Iraq allowed us to kill a lot more terrorists because the battleground in Iraq was much more advantageous than trying to fight them in the tunnels, bunkers, and mountains of Afghanistan. I don't think that you will ever hear anyone say that because who would want to admit that we chose to fight them in Iraq.....that would we an alliance busting admission to the people of Iraq.
0

#4 User is offline   oki 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Bronze Community Supporter
  • Posts: 21,358
  • Joined: 14-October 04

Posted 20 March 2017 - 02:49 PM

View PostDutch13, on 20 March 2017 - 01:11 PM, said:

In retrospect, I still think that invading Iraq allowed us to kill a lot more terrorists because the battleground in Iraq was much more advantageous than trying to fight them in the tunnels, bunkers, and mountains of Afghanistan. I don't think that you will ever hear anyone say that because who would want to admit that we chose to fight them in Iraq.....that would we an alliance busting admission to the people of Iraq.



Another good question is to ask for how long where we going to tolerate Sadam Hussein's blatant violations of the agreements? How long where we going to tolerate his torturing and murder of his own people? Targeting and harassing of U.S and coalition forces?

Plus, we may not have found active chemical weapons programs. BUT, we did find a lot of stuff Iraq said they destroyed, evidence that Iraq kept parts of it's weapons programs intact and even Sadam's own statements towards the agent assigned to get in his head that Sadam Hussein had planned to resume Weapons programs as soon as the sanctions where lifted.



Oki
0

#5 User is online   Dean Adam Smithee 

  • School of the Cold Hard Facts
  • View gallery
  • Group: Platinum Community Supporter
  • Posts: 17,180
  • Joined: 11-December 04

Posted 20 March 2017 - 05:32 PM

View Postzurg, on 20 March 2017 - 07:50 AM, said:

I was for the invasion then, and I still think it was the right thing to do. For proof, look at what Obama's "let's be nice to them and they'll be nice to us" campaign gave us: ISIS.


Tough Call for me. I recognize that Gulf War II was NECESSARY... but only because Gulf War I wasn't.

IN ONE PARAGRAPH: We should have never kicked Saddam Hussein in the shins in '91 - Either leave him alone or go in for the kill. That's how it IS in the Middle East. But Gulf War I wasn't OUR fight, except that GHWB need a "win" to recover from his broken "No New Taxes" pledge and was also beholden to the Saudis who crapped their pants when Saddam went after Kuwait for "Stealing" Iraqi oil via their near-horizontal drilling methods. Truth be told, the Saudis were probably doing it too. The Saudis called in a favor from their BFF at 1600. We smacked down Hussein in front of the whole world and God and everybody... except that you just don't DO that in the ME without then laying awake every night after worrying about 'revenge'. And these people, as a culture, have LONG memories. Heck, wars have been fought because someone's sixth cousin four times removed was once insulted by another person 200 years ago.
0

#6 User is online   zurg 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 21,514
  • Joined: 19-October 09

Posted 20 March 2017 - 05:34 PM

View PostDutch13, on 20 March 2017 - 01:11 PM, said:

In retrospect, I still think that invading Iraq allowed us to kill a lot more terrorists because the battleground in Iraq was much more advantageous than trying to fight them in the tunnels, bunkers, and mountains of Afghanistan. I don't think that you will ever hear anyone say that because who would want to admit that we chose to fight them in Iraq.....that would we an alliance busting admission to the people of Iraq.

That was one reason why I supported the invasion. Take the fight there, knowing the terrorists couldn't resist taking them on.

Another reason, our presence there really pissed off the Iranians. That alone was worth the effort. Of course, Jarrett, I mean Obama made it a priority to not continue to annoy precious Iran.
0

#7 User is offline   oki 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Bronze Community Supporter
  • Posts: 21,358
  • Joined: 14-October 04

Posted 21 March 2017 - 03:46 PM

View PostAdam Smithee, on 20 March 2017 - 05:32 PM, said:

Tough Call for me. I recognize that Gulf War II was NECESSARY... but only because Gulf War I wasn't.

IN ONE PARAGRAPH: We should have never kicked Saddam Hussein in the shins in '91 - Either leave him alone or go in for the kill. That's how it IS in the Middle East. But Gulf War I wasn't OUR fight, except that GHWB need a "win" to recover from his broken "No New Taxes" pledge and was also beholden to the Saudis who crapped their pants when Saddam went after Kuwait for "Stealing" Iraqi oil via their near-horizontal drilling methods. Truth be told, the Saudis were probably doing it too. The Saudis called in a favor from their BFF at 1600. We smacked down Hussein in front of the whole world and God and everybody... except that you just don't DO that in the ME without then laying awake every night after worrying about 'revenge'. And these people, as a culture, have LONG memories. Heck, wars have been fought because someone's sixth cousin four times removed was once insulted by another person 200 years ago.



Exactly. Every one knew that, everyone knew that it would never end until and Iraq would never have a chance for peace and prosperity until he and has ilk where out of power. Coarse, by this point Sadam owed a sh$t load of money to a number of U.N. members and be damned if they where going to intentionally lose it by supporting a regime change. I think Hussein always thought that was his ace in the whole, as long as he owed key U.N. members lots of money he had nothing to worry about.

Oki
0

Share this topic:


Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users