Thread: Is the world better off without Saddam, George?

Those 2 little ass wipes Dick Cheney and George Bush have nothing to fall back on now that in retrospect it can be seen that their entire effort in Iraq was an abject failure not to mention a genocide. Is the world better off without Saddam Hussein.

Hahaha. You tell me ...let's take a look at who filled in the vacuum after Saddam Hussein was removed. It looks like isis to me and all these other ass wipe groups beheading people and stuff like that. George Bush Dick Cheney Donald Rumsfeld all fail and the whole lot of those piece of s*** abject failure and in many ways they are responsible for what is happening now

The real question would be would the world be better off without Bush's ever being presidents?

mic drop

It's irrelevant if Gore would have gone to war himself or even if he supported the idea. The fact is that girl was not elected president so therefore he was not the one who invaded Iraq and did all of these things.

Originally Posted by brocktonblockbust

It's irrelevant if Gore would have gone to war himself or even if he supported the idea. The fact is that girl was not elected president so therefore he was not the one who invaded Iraq and did all of these things.

Ok Brockton, let's imagine this....no George H.W. Bush, no George W. Bush......everything is peaceful and grand in the Middle East right? No terrorist attacks here or there or ever right? Peace in the Middle East right?

I tend to agree Lyle. But Bush made a mess. Just look at it now. All the floodgates were opened. Saturation bombing of Iraq. You KNEW there'd be a backlash. There's literal proof that most of these isis guys are Saddam Hussein's elite guards and people they have trained directly.

Saddam Hussein wasn't kidding when he said it would be the mother of all wars. Everyone thought he was referring to battling against the United States in that initial invasion 2003. Saddam Hussein was an intelligent man and was talking about 25 years into the future. Iraq a sovereign nation was destroyed unilaterally

Originally Posted by brocktonblockbust

I tend to agree Lyle. But Bush made a mess. Just look at it now. All the floodgates were opened. Saturation bombing of Iraq. You KNEW there'd be a backlash. There's literal proof that most of these isis guys are Saddam Hussein's elite guards and people they have trained directly.

Saddam Hussein wasn't kidding when he said it would be the mother of all wars. Everyone thought he was referring to battling against the United States in that initial invasion 2003. Saddam Hussein was an intelligent man and was talking about 25 years into the future. Iraq a sovereign nation was destroyed unilaterally

It's a great thing Bill Clinton didn't mess with them, I mean it's not like we were attacked during HIS Presidency.....oh, wait...

Lyle I've been trying to get you to see past the two-party

Originally Posted by brocktonblockbust

Lyle I've been trying to get you to see past the two-party

I don't like the 2 party system anymore than you do, but what makes it a hell of a lot easier to support Republicans is that they're willing to address the problem and actually NAME IT....




....that's BILL MAHER, he's no Republican, he's hardly a Democrat, he's just to the right of Bernie Sanders, maybe

Well how can you generalize like that.

Saddam put a hit on on Bush senior and continuously broke all the agreements that ended the gulf war. Yes, it's a mess over their but if you remember the troop surge and ramadi when the Iraqis began working with the Americans things were getting better. Obama then pulled the troops out. There is a lot to the story but I think we left Iraq at a very bad time. We could go back and say the war never should have happened or we could go back further and say England shouldn't have carved up the ottoman empire the way it did but this is the world we live in.

Saddam was a horrible evil man. Who also happened to have a lot of wealth worth taking.

I think people did not appreciate that his reign of terror was containing all these lunatics. He just killed them himself and ruled the land.

If you blame anything like that on one front man, you haven't a clue. Bush didn't make any decisions, even less than the rest of them do because of being mentally challenged

Why should we give a shit about Saddam who is 8,000 miles away? If we are against terrorist then why don't we go after Israel for war crime against the people of Gaza. Jimmy Carter who has been all over the world has said Gaza is the worst he has ever seen. A UN doctor said that children by the age of 8 has lost the will to live. Now that is a true crime against humanity.

Originally Posted by mrbig1

Why should we give a shit about Saddam who is 8,000 miles away? If we are against terrorist then why don't we go after Israel for war crime against the people of Gaza. Jimmy Carter who has been all over the world has said Gaza is the worst he has ever seen. A UN doctor said that children by the age of 8 has lost the will to live. Now that is a true crime against humanity.

Carter is a Jew hater, nice guy, but hates Jews.

No the world is not better off.

Nation upon nation has stated this. The American Conservative stated this. On line: The Federalist stated this.
Lead contender Trump states the same.

Tony Blair recently apologized for his part.

Tea/birther Rand Paul states same. Ron Paul same.

For years many of our retired military brass called the invasion America's worst blunder.
Admiral Stansfield Turner, General Wesley Clark, Ltd. General Newbold, Lt General Richard Sanchez. Just to name a few.
World war II vets spoke against it.

Only two demographics are still for it Right Wing thinkers in America and Zionist leaders