Blame Bush...wsc..
Blame Bush...wsc..
Deflection. 
An objective analysis of foreign policy isn't your strong suit is it.
The simple reality is it doesn't matter who is President or how long we remain in Iraq unless we are going to both control its government and military.
Iraq is and never was, going to be a Democracy. We have been (and continue to) simply holding the ground until the next dictator comes along.
A country that is governed by a religious theocracy will never be a sustainable democracy. Blame Bush, Obama, it doesn't really matter. I said before that five years after we leave, Iraq would have a ruthless dictator and nothing I have seen changes that. We are now just delaying the inevitable.
Whether we should have removed SH is another matter. I have been clear that I don't fault Bush for that and the blunders occurred after he was gone.
You (and your ilk) should find those posts. It will be a good learning experience.
..Guess you folks need to go back in your history books, if you EVER took the time to read them that is, "STRENGTH through force"...ironically, "talk softly and carry a big stick".....we now carry a twig
Personally, I hope all this angers the POTUS (just alone for his legacy) enough to go in and bomb all this NEW terrorist off shoot and stop them in their tracks..
Go read a book on religious theocracies and get back to me since its obvious that you don't understand what the term means.
Sure it would. We could 'occupy' the country, subject our troops to attacks daily, and know that the moment we leave, as history is our Bible, that the country will slide into dictatorship as it was under SH.
Makes you wonder why we would do that.
The other issue is our occupation in Iraq (and by occupation, I mean install a puppet goverment and control of the military) likely will create problems in the surrounding countries, not to mention that puppet government would rule insurgents with an iron fist, thereby creating more turmoil, more inurgents, and the likely actions of neighboring countries supporting the insurgents.
In the end we ALL just want
You should take your own advice and read the history again. Just like Vietnam except it's even worse, we didn't have a chance to win even with our Founding fathers combined.
They either don't want or ready for our "democracy" or whatever you want to call it and add a lot of religious craziness into the mix, you get a recipe for disaster.
I know Bush was the head of the state but I fault Cheney the most and that's one of the main reasons they had a fallout at the end.
You should take your own advice and read the history again. Just like Vietnam except it's even worse, we didn't have a chance to win even with our Founding fathers combined.
They either don't want or ready for our "democracy" or whatever you want to call it and add a lot of religious craziness into the mix, you get a recipe for disaster.
I know Bush was the head of the state but I fault Cheney the most and that's one of the main reasons they had a fallout at the end.
and btw, I feel it may have helped "toned" down this current religious "upheavel" from differing factions now ... I understand some of this.........but we are talking about some serious TERRORIST organizations here
fricken pitiful and extremely stupid...like all his laughable so-called foreign policy..
Aren't there at least two missing rungs in this attempt at ladder logic? 
No, you didn't mention Vietnam. I did because if you are so fond of history(by suggesting the need for the mods to go back to history books), you would have known we didn't have a chance from the get-go. Of course, Iraq was in a even worse situation than Vietnam and anyone should expect a different outcome?. Even with a continuous occupation/presence, we wouldn't solve the chaos because we would not have cooperation from them.
Aren't there at least two missing rungs in this attempt at ladder logic?
.
Established in 1995,
Hot Forum Topics
