Aren't you glad we pulled out of Iraq?

[Lethal91]

Ok can we hold up a minute here I am trying to understand something with everything posted here.

So we have a war against Iraq in the early 90's that we win but don't really go into Iraq and let Saddam stay in charge of that country?
Now this is what really gets me all confused in this letting Saddam stay in charge would have been like letting Hitler live and let him stay in charge of Germany after WW2.


Then we know about Bin laden and have tried to kill him a number of times but we don't for some reason or another?
And if we tried to kill him a number of times why didn't we kill him? If he was killed like we tried to then there would not have been a reason to invade Afgan.

[636blurr]

Originally Posted by Lethal91

Ok can we hold up a minute here I am trying to understand something with everything posted here.

So we have a war against Iraq in the early 90's that we win but don't really go into Iraq and let Saddam stay in charge of that country?
Now this is what really gets me all confused in this letting Saddam stay in charge would have been like letting Hitler live and let him stay in charge of Germany after WW2.


Then we know about Bin laden and have tried to kill him a number of times but we don't for some reason or another?
And if we tried to kill him a number of times why didn't we kill him? If he was killed like we tried to then there would not have been a reason to invade Afgan.

Military-Industrial Complex Speech, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961

[Lewd Ferrigno]

Originally Posted by Lethal91

Ok can we hold up a minute here I am trying to understand something with everything posted here.

So we have a war against Iraq in the early 90's that we win but don't really go into Iraq and let Saddam stay in charge of that country?
Now this is what really gets me all confused in this letting Saddam stay in charge would have been like letting Hitler live and let him stay in charge of Germany after WW2.


Then we know about Bin laden and have tried to kill him a number of times but we don't for some reason or another?
And if we tried to kill him a number of times why didn't we kill him? If he was killed like we tried to then there would not have been a reason to invade Afgan.

You're comparing Saddam to Hitler? READ BOOKS.

Saddam was a small time dictator. Hitler conquered most of europe and almost took more.

[Lethal91]

Originally Posted by Lewd Ferrigno

You're comparing Saddam to Hitler? READ BOOKS.

Saddam was a small time dictator. Hitler conquered most of europe and almost took more.

Yes I am because first the French sure as hell is not Iran. And we jumped in right away unlike in WW2 so sure there are things that can be said to be the same. And if you are so up in arms how about I compare him to someone like Tojo or since you called him small time how about Noriega both were captured and taking away (Tojo was hung). We did not let them stay and rule after they were beating.

So if we finished the job in 91 we might not have been there today. Is that hard to even think about?

[dave b]

Originally Posted by Lethal91

Yes I am because first the French sure as hell is not Iran. And we jumped in right away unlike in WW2 so sure there are things that can be said to be the same. And if you are so up in arms how about I compare him to someone like Tojo or since you called him small time how about Noriega both were captured and taking away (Tojo was hung). We did not let them stay and rule after they were beating.

So if we finished the job in 91 we might not have been there today. Is that hard to even think about?

You might consider educating yourself.

db

[Lewd Ferrigno]

Originally Posted by dave b

You might consider educating yourself.

db

+1.

Pick up a book.

[Lethal91]

Originally Posted by dave b

You might consider educating yourself.

db

No Dave you might want to Open your eyes. Everyone needs to stop kidding yourself that were were in Iraq for WMD's or even for 9/11 we were there because most on Bush 2 staff were also on Bush 1 staff and saw Iraq as a thorn in their political sides so they wanted to finish it. Saddam also keep up his pushing our buttons after the war was over which prolly did not help with Dick having more pull this time around.

I am not putting down anyone I know in 91 we would have finished it but for either public pressure or political we stopped and let Saddam stay in power.

Some on here have said it best we do place are nose places it should not be like Afgan when Russia was there went sent both CIA and SF over there to train and equip them to fight the Red Army. The very people we trained and gave weapons to attacked us on 9/11 and were still in country when we went to Afgan.

If you think about it you could say the same about Bin Laden. If Clinton would have just had him killed we might not have been in Afgan. But if we had not trained them he might not have been so good at what he does.

Kinda a double edge sword there.

[Lethal91]

Originally Posted by Lewd Ferrigno

+1.

Pick up a book.

Books what books would you like to sit down and read?

When it comes to Wars and Military there is really not much I have not had to read at one point or just because I wanted to read it.

Call me a Warmonger or what ever you want I don't kid myself about things that are as plan as day.

[Lewd Ferrigno]

Originally Posted by Lethal91

Yes I am because first the French sure as hell is not Iran.

Meaning? If Iran were a pushover, Saddam would have gone into Russia?

Not to mention WE FUNDED SADDAM IN THAT ONE

Originally Posted by Lethal91

And we jumped in right away unlike in WW2 so sure there are things that can be said to be the same.

This line makes no sense in our native toungue.

Originally Posted by Lethal91

And if you are so up in arms how about I compare him to someone like Tojo.

You didn't compare him to Tojo. You compared him to Hitler. Are you harkening back to a different conversation?

Originally Posted by Lethal91

or since you called him small time how about Noriega both were captured and taking away (Tojo was hung). We did not let them stay and rule after they were beating. .

Again, This line makes no sense in our native toungue

Originally Posted by Lethal91

So if we finished the job in 91 we might not have been there today. Is that hard to even think about?

Well, Pappy Bush said in his book:

Originally Posted by The smarter Bush

Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different — and perhaps barren — outcome.

And I agree with him. He was proven right.

[Gaolee]

Originally Posted by Lethal91

Books what books would you like to sit down and read?

When it comes to Wars and Military there is really not much I have not had to read at one point or just because I wanted to read it.

Call me a Warmonger or what ever you want I don't kid myself about things that are as plan as day.

Not a warmonger so much as a dick waving idiot. Clearly you just read the boy adventure parts, since the geopolitical and strategic parts of military history are completely lost on you.

[Lethal91]

Originally Posted by Lewd Ferrigno

Meaning? If Iran were a pushover, Saddam would have gone into Russia?

Not to mention WE FUNDED SADDAM IN THAT ONE

No meaning that Iran did stand up and fight and didn't get pushed over like the French did when Hitler invaded them.

Yes I know we gave Saddam intel and certain other thing but was that because we were still mad about what Iran did to us?

Just a few years before that war we sold Iran fight planes including the F-14 at the time one of the best fighter jets we also trained Iran's military to use the weapons we sold them. So they are not that much of a push over when it comes time to fight.

Do some history on Saddam he has killed millions of people with gas attacks and even rounded up Iraqi citizens and had them killed because he didn't like their religion. Ask the Kerd's up north how Saddam treated them before and after the Gulf war. Also ask them how we promised them that we would set them free if they would help us during the Gulf war.

Bush 1 was correct he had a lot on his plate if we went after Saddam at the time but we didn't and people still died after we left and there were broken promises to people that we had made and they were punished for it.

I mean we are all grown ups is it really that hard to sit back just one time and think what could have been done and prolly what should have been done at that time. I don't care to disagree with you guys on other topics on this site it makes it kinda fun.

[Lethal91]

Originally Posted by Gaolee

Not a warmonger so much as a dick waving idiot. Clearly you just read the boy adventure parts, since the geopolitical and strategic parts of military history are completely lost on you.

That fine I am a dick waver maybe I have the bigger dick in this site so I'll keep on waving it.

And you might want to put down the book written by all the political idiots about war someday and read books written by the men and leaders that have fought wars and how the Geopolitical handcuffs the strategic parts of military and they really don't belong together.

[BDFINALLY]

Originally Posted by Lethal91

...and they really don't belong together.

You mean in this country?

[Lewd Ferrigno]

Originally Posted by Lethal91

No meaning that Iran did stand up and fight and didn't get pushed over like the French did when Hitler invaded them.

Yes I know we gave Saddam intel and certain other thing but was that because we were still mad about what Iran did to us?

Just a few years before that war we sold Iran fight planes including the F-14 at the time one of the best fighter jets we also trained Iran's military to use the weapons we sold them. So they are not that much of a push over when it comes time to fight.

Do some history on Saddam he has killed millions of people with gas attacks and even rounded up Iraqi citizens and had them killed because he didn't like their religion. Ask the Kerd's up north how Saddam treated them before and after the Gulf war. Also ask them how we promised them that we would set them free if they would help us during the Gulf war.

Bush 1 was correct he had a lot on his plate if we went after Saddam at the time but we didn't and people still died after we left and there were broken promises to people that we had made and they were punished for it.

I mean we are all grown ups is it really that hard to sit back just one time and think what could have been done and prolly what should have been done at that time. I don't care to disagree with you guys on other topics on this site it makes it kinda fun.

Uh, Hitler invaded more than France. Honestly, you are completely clueless on this.

Saddam was no threat to the United states. He couldn't even pull off an invasion of Kuwait without getting his ass handed to him.

Good luck with your exceedingly weak argument.

[Lethal91]

Originally Posted by BDFINALLY

You mean in this country?

In any country does not matter if its the US with our police the world idea's or Russia at the time of cold war shoving Communism down everyone's mouth.

War and Politics need to be separated.