- 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
In hindsight; was removing Saddam Hussein a good idea?
Posted on 2/28/18 at 11:17 pm
Posted on 2/28/18 at 11:17 pm
Desert Storm pretty much neutered him as a threat to the US’s interests in the region.
However, he was still able to keep all those tribal factions in line...as well as provide a needed check for Iran.
After his removal, the entire region has been a disaster, and a lot of the trouble would have never happened under Saddam.
I’m not saying he was a good guy, but it looks like he was a necessary guy.
However, he was still able to keep all those tribal factions in line...as well as provide a needed check for Iran.
After his removal, the entire region has been a disaster, and a lot of the trouble would have never happened under Saddam.
I’m not saying he was a good guy, but it looks like he was a necessary guy.
31
Posted on 2/28/18 at 11:21 pm to Eli Goldfinger
Removing Saddam needed to happen. the mistake was disbanding the Bath Party and purging Bathists and Sunnis from government and the armed forces.
Posted on 2/28/18 at 11:22 pm to Eli Goldfinger
15 years, 5,000 deaths and 0 Weapons of Mass Destruction later, no.
Posted on 2/28/18 at 11:22 pm to Eli Goldfinger
If the plan was a power vacuum and migration to Europe, yes.
Posted on 2/28/18 at 11:23 pm to Eli Goldfinger
He was a lunatic and his kids were lunatics...
But, eh...
The real question is Qaddafi...an idealist
But, eh...
The real question is Qaddafi...an idealist
Posted on 2/28/18 at 11:23 pm to Eli Goldfinger
No. Whenever we topple a regime, there’s always significant blowback. We created a huge power vacuum and a weak government in Iraq. There’s a reason why Washington warned about foreign entanglements.
Posted on 2/28/18 at 11:24 pm to Eli Goldfinger
quote:
In hindsight; was removing Saddam Hussein a good idea?
No. It wasn't a good idea at the time, either.
Posted on 2/28/18 at 11:27 pm to DownSouthJukin
It se the stage for Obama. So no.
Posted on 2/28/18 at 11:28 pm to Eli Goldfinger
Terrible idea. Should have brought him to chicago and let him bring some nerve has with him and solve some of our problems the way he solved his.
Posted on 2/28/18 at 11:29 pm to Eli Goldfinger
Short Answer: frick No! One of the biggest mistakes in US history. Saddam was awful, but he kept relative stability in the region.
Posted on 2/28/18 at 11:30 pm to 14&Counting
quote:
Removing Saddam needed to happen. the mistake was disbanding the Bath Party and purging Bathists and Sunnis from government and the armed forces.
No, removing Saddam emboldened Iran and caused chaos everywhere else. It was a terrible idea to remove him, despite how brutal he and his sons were.
Posted on 2/28/18 at 11:30 pm to Eli Goldfinger
The goal is to destabilize every country around Israel so that they can never develop to be strong enough to be an actual threat to Israel.
Posted on 2/28/18 at 11:32 pm to Eli Goldfinger
He was awful but the consequences of that decision have been much worse.
The Second Iraq War was one of our greatest mistakes in history.
The Second Iraq War was one of our greatest mistakes in history.
Posted on 2/28/18 at 11:32 pm to sparkinator
quote:
It se the stage for Obama. So no.
The crash was coming regardless. I think Obama would have still been President even without Iraq.
Posted on 2/28/18 at 11:33 pm to DallasTiger11
quote:
The Second Iraq War was one of our greatest mistakes in history.
Name a worse one?
Posted on 2/28/18 at 11:38 pm to sparkinator
quote:
It se the stage for Obama. So no.
I'm certainly no fan of Obama. But in line with the theme of this thread, our other option was John McCain who pops a viagra when he thinks about the US entering a war.
Posted on 2/28/18 at 11:39 pm to Lsuhoohoo
quote:
our other option was John McCain who pops a viagra when he thinks about the US entering a war.
I think that's the only time he doesn't need it.
Posted on 2/28/18 at 11:39 pm to Kujo
quote:
The goal is to destabilize every country around Israel so that they can never develop to be strong enough to be an actual threat to Israel.
1. Pan-Arabism failed miserably. Pan-Muslimism won't work due to way too many factions.
2. Any one country would be stupid to challenge Israel because a military loss would be absolutely devastating.
3. The Muslim and Arab countries in the Middle East need the "Little Satan" Israel in order to coalesce their tribes/factions around a central enemy. A loss of Israel would cause a break down in the cohesion.
In other words, the countries around Israel politically need Israel.
This post was edited on 2/28/18 at 11:57 pm
Posted on 2/28/18 at 11:44 pm to Eli Goldfinger
Things would have never been stable with his constant quest for WMDs, this has been proven by the Duelfer report despite whatever issue with finding them after the fact.
Posted on 2/28/18 at 11:48 pm to DownSouthJukin
quote:
In other words, the countries around Israel politically need Israel.
That's actually an astute observation. Iran and Israel both serve as convenient scapegoats for issues related to the Sunni underclass and in truth, for one another as well.
Page 1 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News