How wasn't it? Iraq and Saddam Hussein had nothing to do 9/11. If anything the USA, should have sent small squads to Afghanistan, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Not start a war in Iraq.
If your going to play the "Hussein" was an evil man, card.. And it's our Holier than thou take on life, that we must take him out. Why aren't we doing the same in Iran or North Korea?
"Enhanced Interrogation Techniques" is just fancy safe way of saying torture. Like it was said before, there is a reason they tried keeping that on the down low. It should go against our moral standards. And it just plain doesn't work. You can get people to admit to anything if your torturing them. Do you think they tortured these people for a few hours, and when they denied knowing anything let them go?
I believe we need to get off this high horse we have been riding on, stop trying to spread Democracy and freedom through wars. This is pretty messed up right now, and is into a downward spiral. We are not the top dog of the world anywhere. And lost a lot of credibility in the last 6 years.
I'll just blanket answer all of the spin u've learned from the media and hypocritical politicians.
The war in Iraq was predicated by the first one, desert storm. In that peace agreement, many conditions were created to keep Saddam in check and from retaliation upon the Kurds in the north. No fly zones for the Iraqi air force were set up. This was not a U.N. war. We are bound by no resolution prohibiting us from defending ourselves. I'm not talking about 9/11. There was many instances of Saddam breaking the peace and firing at our pilots. That right there set up a legal incursion. that was years ago. There is no expiration on the violations.
Regardless, Saddam was a victim of his own hubris and bad bad timing. Saddam Hussein allowed the world to believe he had weapons of mass destruction to deter rival Iran and did not think the United States would stage a major invasion, according to an FBI interrogator who questioned the Iraqi leader after his capture.
This was a terrible mistake and he admitted as much before he was hung by the neck until dead.
So it wasn't one sided at all. Clinton had the right to take care of Saddam, but he chose not to.
As for Congress not being able to give the President the nod to go to war ... nonsense. The US constitution clearly spells out that our country will have no outside force dictating our foreign policy (think U.N.).
In the end, the U.N. can go pound sand.
What did we gain? That's an easy one. We freed 55 million ppl. which is no small thing. We gathered Al Queda into one central location and soundly defeated them, actually humiliation is a word which comes to mind. That war ENDED Al Quedas influence over the Middle East. Top leaders were either killed or captured.
Even Osama Bin laden called Iraq the Central Front. We won, he lost. Instead of Osama riding through the streets of the Middle east causing trouble, he is holed up in some caves. Either way, his power has been greatly diminished.
We also took the fight to Al Queda, and by keeping them busy abroad, our shores have been safe form attack (so far).
Some might say we had a hair trigger with Iraq. That may be so. I can live with that. With crazy GB in office, which country was going to stand up and attack us again at home? Answer: NO ONE. Crazy George will attack us right back with a big footprint. That's not a bad thing. You don't see anyone attacking Moscow do you? Bejing? Because that would be a sure suicide for the attacking forces.
Projecting weakness (Clinton) emboldened the terrorists. We are projecting that weakness all over again. It is noticed, it will be acted upon down the road.
The Iraq war was legal. The Iraq war was moral. The Iraq war was a victory.
Crazy George did us all a huge favor and history will be very very kind to him. At least when it comes to foreign policy. After the dust settles, he will gradually ascend to near the top of the historically great presidents. When duty called, he answered. When the US was attacked, he responded. Al Queda was concentrated, humiliated and defeated. When the going got tough, and the insipid politicians in Washington DOVE for cover and made every excuse possible for denying their initial commitment, which is quite GUTLESS, did GB quit? He ignored the polls (as he should have), and doubled down after careful consult with the top military brass. That's true leadership. GB had some bad faults and domestically, he dropped the ball, no doubt (along with Congress of course).
Saddam knew in the end he did it to himself. He miscalculated in Kuwait, and he miscalculated in boasting he had WMD's. He ran out of luck. So be it.
Iraq was a mistake? understatement. iraq was a waste of time, money, and lives. Sadam had a bunch of arabs who hate each other in check. that is very very VERY difficult to do. something AMERICA isn't going to be able to do, no matter how modern it's millitary, navy and airforce is. the center of Islamic radicalism, and intolerance is SAUDI ARABIA. America went to iraq for all the contracts that go out for war, building guns n shit, rebuilding everything they tore down, "security" contracts, etc. etc. etc........ it's like if 15 canadians get on a plane and fly it into the eiffel tower, then the french teams up with a bunch of allies and pummels the US. and canada just sits back pretending it had nothing to do with it......americans and canadians kinda look alike, but it's two different places.... get what i'm saying??
and afganistan is another mistake. Afganistan is a country that takes down empires, anybody who paid attention in World History in high school would know this. NOBODY has EVER invaded afganistan and stayed. it's too rough, too arid, too cold, no resources, nothing to want, nothing to have...
Iraq was a success? Are you kidding me? Success for who? The country is worst off now, than it was when Saddam ruled.
I`ll take what your smoking..
