- 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
re: In hindsight; was removing Saddam Hussein a good idea?
Posted on 3/1/18 at 5:27 am to Eli Goldfinger
Posted on 3/1/18 at 5:27 am to Eli Goldfinger
quote:
After his removal, the entire region has been a disaster,
After his removal, Iraq was on the way to becoming a stable country - until Obama decided to pull out all our support and let it revert back to tribalism.
Posted on 3/1/18 at 6:21 am to Eli Goldfinger
quote:
In hindsight; was removing Saddam Hussein a good idea?
In present sight, foresight or hindsight it was stupid. It takes a bad guy to control bad people.
Posted on 3/1/18 at 6:36 am to Eli Goldfinger
I would say it backfired bigly. We removed one dictator that was only interested in terrorizing his own people, and maintaining his power. And he was replaced with groups that are more interested in terrorizing europe and USA.
Posted on 3/1/18 at 6:43 am to Eli Goldfinger
Removing Hussein hurt the U.S. and the Republican party more than anything that has happened since Nixon.
Bush could have been a great President if not for it - now he is thought of as one of the worst, for good reason.
Bush could have been a great President if not for it - now he is thought of as one of the worst, for good reason.
Posted on 3/1/18 at 6:52 am to Bham4Tide
No, but neither was removing Qadafi, or Mubarak, all were secular leaders that were put in place by the CIA long ago to stop the spread of Radical Islamist in the region.
Posted on 3/1/18 at 6:55 am to starsandstripes
quote:
removing Saddam emboldened Iran
No....Barrack Obama is what emboldened Iran.
Haha. No.
Posted on 3/1/18 at 7:08 am to Eli Goldfinger
Easily the biggest foreign policy disaster since Vietnam, maybe even bigger considering the lasting effects
Posted on 3/1/18 at 7:34 am to OMLandshark
quote:
Name a worse one?
Vietnam
17th Amendment
Not letting Patton take Berlin
Posted on 3/1/18 at 7:46 am to Eli Goldfinger
I'm not sure how anybody can analyze the results of our actions in Iraq and not conclude that it was a bad decision. I was 16 when the war started and a subscriber to the neoconservative mission statement throughout my college years. Watching the absolute failure of interventionism along with the soaring costs in both capital and lives I've completely 180'd on my foreign policy philosophy. Moral intervention is most always a terrible idea but now we can clearly see that the notion of installing democracy does NOT result in the liberalization of foreign civilizations as was hypothesized by neocon intellectuals. We should adjust our policy prescriptions accordingly.
Posted on 3/1/18 at 7:48 am to ChewyDante
We could have kicked out Saddam and his thug kids, then propped up some Army General or Generals and everything would have been fine.
Posted on 3/1/18 at 7:52 am to ILeaveAtHalftime
quote:
Not letting Patton take Berlin
Explain this one. The Battle of Berlin was savage, desperate fighting. It would have cost the United States tens of thousands of lives, perhaps more, for no appreciable gain. The allies had already agreed to split up Berlin by sector regardless of who took it. Allowing the Soviets to take Berlin was a no brainer.
This post was edited on 3/1/18 at 7:53 am
Posted on 3/1/18 at 7:53 am to Lsuhoohoo
quote:
15 years, 5,000 deaths
THIS is the problem.
I have NEVER agreed with the "you break it, you bought it" bullshite.
Got in and removed Saddam in about 100 days with fewer than 100 casualties. Should have just left.
frick nation building. Simply say...whatever grows into the void...we can come back and remove you, too.
We could have gone back and removed 50 regimes for the cost.
You want to be a totalitarian dick and become rich while subjugating your own people? Have at it. You make us feel threatened...you are gone. Easy peezy
Posted on 3/1/18 at 7:54 am to Eli Goldfinger
Absolutely no. Removing Sadam has been a total disaster. Thx George Bush!
Posted on 3/1/18 at 7:55 am to antibarner
The primary mistake made was disbanding the Iraqi Army and just sending them home. The draconian de-Baathification removed all the experienced civil servants and contributed to the infrastruction and administration problems that plagued them for a decade.
It wasn’t so much the invasion or occupation so much as the vacuum created by demilitarization and debaathification.
It wasn’t so much the invasion or occupation so much as the vacuum created by demilitarization and debaathification.
Posted on 3/1/18 at 7:56 am to ILeaveAtHalftime
I am not so sure we wanted to take Berlin. If we really wanted to be ruthless we could have paused at the Elbe rested and refit and done what Patton really wanted to do. We would have known in advance we were going to hit them so we step up M26 Pershing production to deal with the Russian T34's and Heavies.
The Russians were exhausted and we could have kicked Uncle Joe all the way back to Russia. The Germans would have fought right along with us to keep their necks out of the noose. We bomb hell out of his Caucasus oil fields from the south and this little skirmish is over before Stalin knows what hit him.
The Russians were exhausted and we could have kicked Uncle Joe all the way back to Russia. The Germans would have fought right along with us to keep their necks out of the noose. We bomb hell out of his Caucasus oil fields from the south and this little skirmish is over before Stalin knows what hit him.
This post was edited on 3/1/18 at 8:03 am
Posted on 3/1/18 at 7:57 am to Eli Goldfinger
No, it was an awful thing to do. The world is paying for it today. You either have to make two choices in (most of) the middle east. A dictator, or brutal religious fanatic.
He should have been left alone, but personal grudges (GW Bush) won out in the end.
This is why Assad needs to stay in power in Syria.
He should have been left alone, but personal grudges (GW Bush) won out in the end.
This is why Assad needs to stay in power in Syria.
Posted on 3/1/18 at 8:12 am to antibarner
That’s more of what I meant. Not letting Patton throw the Russians out of Eastern Europe is one of the biggest what ifs in recent world history.
This post was edited on 3/1/18 at 8:14 am
Posted on 3/1/18 at 8:16 am to ChewyDante
quote:
Explain this one
The reason the Battle of Berlin was the way it was is because it was the soviets; the Germans fought for every street corner and house from Poland through Berlin because they knew what would happen if the USSR won. However, I meant more taking Berlin as in Patton pushing the soviets back across Eastern Europe at the end of the war. We would likely have had the Germans fighting alongside us in that endeavor.
The smart move there was getting the Russians out of Europe. They were beaten near to death in almost every way, we could have cleaned house all the way to Moscow.
This post was edited on 3/1/18 at 8:17 am
Posted on 3/1/18 at 8:17 am to Eli Goldfinger
quote:Yes. You have to break eggs to make omelets.
In hindsight; was removing Saddam Hussein a good idea?
Posted on 3/1/18 at 8:27 am to Eli Goldfinger
Let's ask one of the architects of Desert Storm if he thought we should have taken out Saddam at the end of that conflict:
quote:
Because if we had gone to Baghdad we would have been all alone. There wouldn't have been anybody else with us. It would have been a U.S. occupation of Iraq. None of the Arab forces that were willing to fight with us in Kuwait were willing to invade Iraq. Once you got to Iraq and took it over and took down Saddam Hussein's government, then what are you going to put in its place? That's a very volatile part of the world. And if you take down the central government in Iraq, you could easily end up seeing pieces of Iraq fly off. Part of it the Syrians would like to have, the west. Part of eastern Iraq the Iranians would like to claim. Fought over for eight years. In the north, you've got the Kurds. And if the Kurds spin loose and join with Kurds in Turkey, then you threaten the territorial integrity of Turkey. It's a quagmire if you go that far and try to take over Iraq. The other thing is casualties. Everyone was impressed with the fact that we were able to do our job with as few casualties as we had, but for the 146 Americans killed in action and for the families it wasn't a cheap war. And the question for the president in terms of whether or not we went on to Baghdad and took additional casualties in an effort to get Saddam Hussein was, how many additional dead Americans is Saddam worth? And our judgment was not very many, and I think we got it right.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News