Bush and bailouts

[John81]

We went into Iraq because it was more neutral to deal with Saddam and his maniac sons than it was to deal with Afghanistan' date=' Syria, and Iran. We would have lost more troops going that route. Saddam was a pacifist compared to the others.[/quote']

Saddam was a stablizing factor in the Mideast but now he's gone. Under Saddam, Iraq served as a check against Iran. Now that's gone. Saddam wanted to talk tough, as most Muslim leaders do (and it's expected of them over there), but behind the scenes he was willing to work with and cooperate with America on certain issues.

Removing Saddam was a bad idea. He could have easily been kept in check which would have kept Iraq as a hedge against Iran and since Saddam was generally opposed to radical Muslims (including radical Muslim terrorist) he was a hedge against them too because they posed a threat to him as well.

[Guest Guest]

Saddam...IMO, wasn't as evil as his one son, though. Saddam was handing the reigns over to a son who raped and molested a 12 year old Muslim girl. I don't think the USA, or any other nation, for that matter could keep a monster like that "in check." Saddam wasn't the real issue...his vile and wicked oldest son was. Saddam was a kitty cat compared to that dude. The Muslims feared that man. Top Muslims leaders, that is.

How can we keep "evil" in check? We can't. JMHO.

[John81]

Saddam...IMO, wasn't as evil as his one son, though. Saddam was handing the reigns over to a son who raped and molested a 12 year old Muslim girl. I don't think the USA, or any other nation, for that matter could keep a monster like that "in check." Saddam wasn't the real issue...his vile and wicked oldest son was. Saddam was a kitty cat compared to that dude. The Muslims feared that man. Top Muslims leaders, that is.

How can we keep "evil" in check? We can't. JMHO.

Their internal affairs are theirs to deal with, not ours. Iraq was a check against Iran and they helped to hinder some of the radical Muslim terrorist groups.

[Guest Guest]

Their internal affairs are theirs to deal with, not ours. Iraq was a check against Iran and they helped to hinder some of the radical Muslim terrorist groups.

Except... that the US military found empty barrels of NUKES buried underground Iraqi territory...years back. Shortly after the war began, actually. You won't hear this on the liberal news stations or in our newspapers, though.

These people stick together, regardless. They hate the USA, and have always hated us because we have supported Israel. We are the "infidels" in their own words.

[HappyChristian]

Saddam was a stablizing factor in the Mideast but now he's gone. Under Saddam, Iraq served as a check against Iran. Now that's gone. Saddam wanted to talk tough, as most Muslim leaders do (and it's expected of them over there), but behind the scenes he was willing to work with and cooperate with America on certain issues.

Removing Saddam was a bad idea. He could have easily been kept in check which would have kept Iraq as a hedge against Iran and since Saddam was generally opposed to radical Muslims (including radical Muslim terrorist) he was a hedge against them too because they posed a threat to him as well.

?????? Um, hate to tell you this, but the rank and file Iraqui would say that you are dead wrong! They celebrated his removal.

That area has always been unstable. And Saddam was a power hungry killer. Yes, America put him in there...and that was our mistake.

As I said in another thread, there are things going on that most Americans don't know about.

[Guest Guest]

As I said in another thread, there are things going on that most Americans don't know about.

YES! Talk to our troops and they will tell you...first hand. :thumb Details and all.

[John81]

Saddam hated Iran and his prescense helped keep Iran in check. Saddam cooperated with America on numerous occasions and provided a great deal of intelligence regarding Iran and terrorist groups.

Some of the Iraqi people didn't like Saddam, some did. That doesn't matter. It's not our job or business to go around the world ridding countries of unpopular leaders. If such should happen then most Americans should welcome and invasion of our country to rid us of Bush and congress because both have extremely low approval ratings and there are millions of Americans who hate Bush and millions who hate the Dem leadership.

Saddam was no worse than Syrian, Iranian, North Korean, Chinese, and various other leaders around the world yet he was targetted and the others were not. Saddam posed a potential threat to Iran and Saddam worked against Iranian backed terrorist organizations. In both capacities he served American interests while serving his own self-interests; unlike the leaders of these other countries.

Today, Iraq is open to Iranian influence and Muslim sects are set to war with one another over control of Iraq; which, incidently, didn't even exist until created when the British pulled out of the region.

[HappyChristian]

John, I know you don't believe this, but Saddaam was involved in terrorism. And it affected us directly.

[Guest Guest]

Yes...that is right. The man that he grew up with lives in Canada. He said that Saddam has always been touched. :roll

[John81]

John' date=' I know you don't believe this, but Saddaam was involved in terrorism. And it affected us directly.[/quote']

I never said Saddam wasn't involved in terrorism. I said Saddam helped work against radical Muslim terrorist groups as well as those supported by Iran. Both groups were a potential threat to him if they succeeded elsewhere.

Saddam was not a real threat to America and absolutely no more of a threat than any of the other "bad" leaders in the MidEast or elsewhere. America has/does support "terrorist" groups too, but I would hate to find America invaded because some country wanted to take out whoever our president was because he gave support to these groups.

[Guest Guest]

Well...if Barack gets elected that could happen. :eek

[John81]

Whoever gets elected the hand of Gods judgement will remain and grow heavier upon America.

[HappyChristian]

America was invaded, remember? And Dubya promised to go after all countries that harbored terrorists. I don't believe that Saddaam wasn't a threat to America. I do believe there were chemical weapons there, and that they were removed beforehand, thanks to media leaks. I know soldiers whose health has been affected by them...during this go-round, not Desert Storm.

[Anon]

I also am sure that the intelligence that said WMI were in Iraq were NOT mistaken, but that they were moved. They have satellite imagery that would show this possibility. The only reason we don't hear about it much is that the media doesn't want anyone thinking Bush was actually right (even though Bush really was just acting on what he was told...Presidents really do get too much credit, whether good or bad.)

[John81]

America was invaded, remember? And Dubya promised to go after all countries that harbored terrorists. I don't believe that Saddaam wasn't a threat to America. I do believe there were chemical weapons there, and that they were removed beforehand, thanks to media leaks. I know soldiers whose health has been affected by them...during this go-round, not Desert Storm.

Iraq never invaded America. Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. The vast majority of the 9-11 terrorists were from Saudia Arabia but we didn't invade them. The terrorist group they were affiliated with was one Iraq had spurned.

Syria, Iran, North Korea, and several other countries all harbored and supported terrorists yet Bush didn't invade any of them.

Many countries around the world, including in the Middle East have chemical weapons and various other weapons. This is no surprise and there is nothing unusual about any nation gathering weapons in secret. We would have to invade almost every nation on earth if we were to invade all those who have something to do with terrorist and that have secret weapons caches.