and who is the leader id ISIS? Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, and guess who let him go. king Obama did in 2009. if we had left a post in Iraq which was the plan from the get go, none of this would be going on.
Hi gacpl. Yes, but there would not even BE an ISIS leader in Iraq such as Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi had Bush not 'lead' us there to begin with. We had no justifiable reasons to even be in Iraq from the get-go. No al-Qaida there. No WMD's. No clandestine training of terrorists. Bush went after the wrong target (Saddam). W. essentially aided and abetted the spread of al-Qaida and the birth of ISIS rather than eliminating it.
We will be paying for King George's 'DECISION POINTS' for decades in the form of human life and national fiscal deficits.
i guess you forgot the games they played when clinton was in office, blocking the inspectors from getting into sites to look for them. we know they had them, they used them before, M8 alarms were going off left and right during desert storm all over the country. then they showed up in Syria.
the "IRAQ LIBERATION ACT OF 1998"was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on October 31, 1998:
The Act declared that it was the Policy of the United States to support "regime change."
Iraq admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability, notably, 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production....
.....President Bill Clinton February 1998
and lest not forget it was voted on too when the Democrats controlled the Senate when President Bush requested passage of the The Iraq War Resolution in 2002? Yes, the democrats were in control, Majority leader was Tom Daschle and he along with Hillory Clinton, John Kerry, and Good Ole Harry Reid voted YES and gave approval to go to war in Iraq.
Human Rights Watch, a non-governmental organization, stated in their Feb. 20, 2003 briefing paper titled "International Humanitarian Law Issues in a Potential War in Iraq":
"Although Iraq has repeatedly claimed that it currently has no weapons of mass destruction, it has used chemical weapons in the past against both combatants and civilians. The Iraqi army repeatedly used chemical weapons against Iranian armed forces between 1983 and 1988. Furthermore, it used chemical weapons against Kurdish civilians at Halabja in 1988, killing up to 5,000 people, and on some forty documented occasions that year during the Anfal genocide against Iraqi Kurds. These previous uses of chemical weapons violated the 1925 Geneva Protocol that prohibited the use of chemical weapons."
Yes gacpl the legislative 'procedures' were there but were wrongfully utilized by Bush and his Administration. Saddam was EVIL, but we had him contained. Bush had no reason to put boots on the ground in IRAQ or AFGHANISTAN after 9-11!
Unlike Clinton, who so deftly handled the Bosnian-Serb-Croatian conflict where atrocities were being committed,
Clinton did it with very few loss of life by American combatants.
Bush, however, fumbled the ball by invading a CONTAINED Iraq resulting in thousands of deaths of American Soldiers and at a massive fiscal cost.
that's the difference between democrats and republicans (short term thinking vs long term thinking). in the short term he was contained, but in the long run he was far from it and the cost would have been much higher. it would have been much lower if Clinton didn't let them get away with blocking the weapons inspectors.
At this point in time it is hard to imagine the cost being higher than it is right now. Hundreds if not thousands of veterans committing suicide, the number of veterans divorce rate and shattered families left in the wake, the growing number of soldiers with PTSD, the very real possibility of Iraq becoming an Islamic State 'friendly' with al-Qaida and ISIS and the on-going monetary burden having to be shouldered by the American Tax payer for the Bush wars.
I respectfully disagree with your argument, gacpl. And if you served your country and I think I remember you saying you did, then thank you and God Bless you. I hope you have not had to endure any emotional or marital upheaval as a result of Bush's folly.
don't forget it's been Obama folly too. and more so seen he didn't end it when he said he would. and he doesn't intent of ever ending it in Afghanistan. leaving almost 10,000 troops there indefinitely is not ending anything.
JM, did you really state how "deftly" the Dems handled Bosnia? Love ya Brother but not even close. Wild Bill stated in 95 that we were going to send in a 20,000 strong force for the period of one year called IFOR. He further claimed that at the end of the year the US would pull out. So wonder boy proclaimed in 96 that IFOR was over and now it is SFOR. SFOR went on for almost 12 years and the country is still living in the stone age and the centuries old hated of one another is still perpetuated to this day. All we managed to do was get the three opposing parties to go to separate sides of the country. Unfortunately another place I have served can be classified as a failure that no one wants to bring up...
Hi HMJC. First: Thank you for your service to our country.
Now I know the number of body bags is not necessarily an indicator of 'success' or failure. However, how many of our men and women in uniform came home in one of them? How does the over all cost of the Bosnian conflict stack up against the Bush Iraq fiasco? And finally, is conflict still going on in that particular region?
Jimmy Thank You and money and bodies will never equate. The simile here is that the initial push into Bosnia was not supposed to be a protracted one. This of course been our hallmark since Korea. We never figure out how to leave... Although the US casualties were minimal the Bosnia debacle claimed 10 times of what we lost in Iraq. Doesn't make it any better; my point was to illustrate another conflict where we were not able to create an exit strategy. As far as the middle east; at this point I would fine with backing out and letting them put themselves back to the stone age. I have grown weary with the US trying to assert a democratic state when the centuries of hate and religious based governments will continue to prevent from occurring.
Yes HMJC: exit strategy has plagued our military ventures for decades. I agree.
I may be missing something as I am confused as to what "the Bosnia debacle claimed 10 times what we lost in IRAQ."
Are you referring to loss of life, dollars, civilian casualties, money... etc.
not sure of the loss of life count. but one thing not in the news is loss of american contractors lives. which is usually much higher then military loss. i still agree with the Chenny doctrine on Iraq. we were going to leave a base to insure piece and oil stability.
I was referring to the Bosnian civilian deaths, many by Genocide in Srebrenica and Gorzade. The religious intolerance predicated hundreds of thousands of cruel death; many by rounding up "war age" men(14-60 years old) in a stadium or warehouse and committing Genocide. I am going to post a blog here in a little bit that may be a little illuminating. Thanks for your insight.