- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Would Saddam have let these people take over Mosul, etc?
Posted on 6/12/14 at 6:06 pm
Posted on 6/12/14 at 6:06 pm
I don't really know these ISIS people. Would Saddam be preferable over these guys?
13
Posted on 6/12/14 at 6:08 pm to baybeefeetz
quote:
Would Saddam have let these people take over Mosul, etc?
No quote:
Would Saddam be preferable over these guys?
Yes
Posted on 6/12/14 at 6:10 pm to baybeefeetz
quote:
I don't really know these ISIS people. Would Saddam be preferable over these guys?
What the idiots in Washington never understood, these hardline military dictatorships did not exist in a vacuum, Mubarak, Qaddafi, Saddam, Assad etc. They were in power because the people over there are fricking crazy and only understand brutal violent oppression.
Posted on 6/12/14 at 6:11 pm to baybeefeetz
I've talked to a few people about Saddam, about life before and after the US invasion.
The general theme is this, if you are Kurdish you love the fact that he is out and life is better.
If you Arab, life was better under Saddam as people felt if you committed a crime Saddam would somehow know about it and come after you. They like that he is gone, but they don't and haven't felt as safe since we invaded.
The general theme is this, if you are Kurdish you love the fact that he is out and life is better.
If you Arab, life was better under Saddam as people felt if you committed a crime Saddam would somehow know about it and come after you. They like that he is gone, but they don't and haven't felt as safe since we invaded.
Posted on 6/12/14 at 6:12 pm to baybeefeetz
Depends on if putting people in wood chippers is considered "better"?
Posted on 6/12/14 at 6:20 pm to baybeefeetz
quote:No, and this is one of the unintended consequences of our invasion of Iraq and the overthrow of Saddam.
Would Saddam have let these people take over Mosul, etc?
In this case those on the left are correct. This IS Bush's fault.
Posted on 6/12/14 at 6:31 pm to baybeefeetz
A lot of the ISIS are Saddam old supporters. ISIS is mostly sunni, there stronghold are in Sunni areas. Tikrit the city they just caputred is where Saddam's family is from, he is buried there.
Also a lot of the military officers prior to the US invasion were barred from jobs in the new government & they lost their pensions. Those officers mostly Sunni, unlike the new government, joined with the ISIS.
Their known enemies are the same as Saddam's
1) US backed Iraq govt.
2) Hezbollah
3) Kurds
4) Iran's government
5) Syria's government
Also a lot of the military officers prior to the US invasion were barred from jobs in the new government & they lost their pensions. Those officers mostly Sunni, unlike the new government, joined with the ISIS.
Their known enemies are the same as Saddam's
1) US backed Iraq govt.
2) Hezbollah
3) Kurds
4) Iran's government
5) Syria's government
This post was edited on 6/12/14 at 7:27 pm
Posted on 6/12/14 at 6:37 pm to baybeefeetz
quote:
Would Saddam have let these people take over Mosul
Nope
This post was edited on 6/12/14 at 6:38 pm
Posted on 6/12/14 at 7:08 pm to dr smartass phd
Exactly.
Guy was a butcher.
My question is where was the intel?
Posted on 6/12/14 at 9:13 pm to baybeefeetz
Saddam would have squashed them like bugs.
Posted on 6/12/14 at 9:15 pm to baybeefeetz
Yes, Bush's decision to invade the place was a disaster. Any person with functioning brain cells can see this.
Posted on 6/12/14 at 9:21 pm to TT9
I had no problem with the invasion of Iraq. However, I thought the occupation was pointless.
Posted on 6/12/14 at 9:35 pm to baybeefeetz
No. If we want to break out something like Maslow's Hierarchy, the Iraqi people and the world were better off with that cocksucker in charge. It's hardly debatable. Ask the Syrian people whether they preferred life under a PoS like Assad or Civil War and the threat of Islamic extremism more. It's not a hard answer for most. Freedom to live under Jihadist Sharia is not freedom at all.
Posted on 6/12/14 at 9:37 pm to Me4Heisman
quote:
I had no problem with the invasion of Iraq. However, I thought the occupation was pointless.
We broke something we can't fix. As an officer and member of the IC for going on a decade, I have a problem with it.
Posted on 6/12/14 at 9:39 pm to baybeefeetz
I knew when we began the withdrawal this would happen.
That said, we shouldn't have ever been there. We tried to shore up a completely dysfunctional situation knowing how bad the civil war was. Then we left. Now the people who worked with NATO forces are gonna be victims of genocide.
To answer the question from the op; no he wouldn't let people take anything. Saddam was a thug with $$ and absolute power. He preferred his fellow Sunnis, but he treated them like shite too.
That said, we shouldn't have ever been there. We tried to shore up a completely dysfunctional situation knowing how bad the civil war was. Then we left. Now the people who worked with NATO forces are gonna be victims of genocide.
To answer the question from the op; no he wouldn't let people take anything. Saddam was a thug with $$ and absolute power. He preferred his fellow Sunnis, but he treated them like shite too.
Posted on 6/12/14 at 9:50 pm to Navytiger74
My view is that we have no obligation to fix anything over there.
Posted on 6/12/14 at 9:52 pm to baybeefeetz
quote:
Would Saddam have let these people take over Mosul, etc?
Probably not. But neither would Hitler, Stalin, or Mao.
quote:
Would Saddam be preferable over these guys?
Depends. If you're a 13 year old girl, probably not. Same goes if you're a Kurd or Shi'ite.
Posted on 6/12/14 at 9:57 pm to Me4Heisman
quote:
My view is that we have no obligation to fix anything over there.
Well my view is that we broke it, but we sure as shite can't fix it. So why waste lives on a cause we can't support in good faith.
This post was edited on 6/12/14 at 10:00 pm
Posted on 6/12/14 at 9:58 pm to Bestbank Tiger
quote:
Depends. If you're a 13 year old girl, probably not. Same goes if you're a Kurd or Shi'ite.
Lots of 13-year-old American girls would have been better off without a PTSD father who blew his own fricking brains out.
This post was edited on 6/12/14 at 10:01 pm
Posted on 6/12/14 at 10:47 pm to baybeefeetz
If Saddam was in power still, ISIS would not have the success they have had.
Further more, it would depend on how willing the US would be in that scenario to feed weapons to groups like ISIS including them via proxies in Saudi Arabia and Qatar as they've done to help them cause chaos in Syria.
Saddam was a monster, and his removal in and of itself wasn't the bad thing. How it was done was the problem. The neocons tried to force things without a plan and wanted chaos in Iraq. If a legitimate transition government had been developed rather than an ouster/killing by illegal invasion with no plan for afterwards, then things may be different.
The existence and success of ISIS and its partners rests entirely in the hands of the US and most of the Persian Gulf nations (i.e. Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, UAE, etc). This is as much on Obama and his admin as it was on Bush and his, but Bush's instigated this shite.
Further more, it would depend on how willing the US would be in that scenario to feed weapons to groups like ISIS including them via proxies in Saudi Arabia and Qatar as they've done to help them cause chaos in Syria.
Saddam was a monster, and his removal in and of itself wasn't the bad thing. How it was done was the problem. The neocons tried to force things without a plan and wanted chaos in Iraq. If a legitimate transition government had been developed rather than an ouster/killing by illegal invasion with no plan for afterwards, then things may be different.
The existence and success of ISIS and its partners rests entirely in the hands of the US and most of the Persian Gulf nations (i.e. Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, UAE, etc). This is as much on Obama and his admin as it was on Bush and his, but Bush's instigated this shite.
This post was edited on 6/12/14 at 10:49 pm
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News