ME Prediction back in 2007, happening now
- Thread starter majorwhiteapples
- Start date
D
dillohorn
Guest
Very accurate. I do miss G W Bush. I didn't have to worry about losing our country with him at the helm.
H
Hu_Fan
Guest
Why does the White House and staff and related depts insist on saying ISIL ... while every news org from US to UK, every spokesperson or legislative person... all say ISIS?
Is the WH against saying the S (Syria) word? Is that all it's about? I have to look to find anyone saying ISIL but the White House and associates/dept spokespersons.
Too bad the US/EU did not think years ahead and work to be an ally with Russia in terms of all matters across the Middle East... but that wasn't in the Big Plan. The US and Russia could have built good relations after 1991 but ... it is a very long story and spelled out in a Foreign Affairs article...
Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West's Fault: "The Liberal Delusions That Provoked Putin"
From Sept/Oct Issue, Foreign Affairs -- publication of the Council on Foreign Affairs
Is the WH against saying the S (Syria) word? Is that all it's about? I have to look to find anyone saying ISIL but the White House and associates/dept spokespersons.
Too bad the US/EU did not think years ahead and work to be an ally with Russia in terms of all matters across the Middle East... but that wasn't in the Big Plan. The US and Russia could have built good relations after 1991 but ... it is a very long story and spelled out in a Foreign Affairs article...
Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West's Fault: "The Liberal Delusions That Provoked Putin"
From Sept/Oct Issue, Foreign Affairs -- publication of the Council on Foreign Affairs
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
If only GWB would have heeded warnings in 2002 of the power vacuum that Iraq would incur by removing Sadam. If we're cherry picking speeches I'm sure there are some available from that time by his critics. How 'bout any video of Cheney/Rumsfeld talking about the US being greeted as heroes, the oil repaying any money we'd spend or how long the military conflict would last? Real prescient, right?
Bevo Incognito
5,000+ Posts
Bush's words/prediction in 2007 were wise. Too bad it took tens of thousands of lives and trillions of American dollars for him to gain that kind of wisdom.
D
dillohorn
Guest
Isn't it wonderful to have a president now that is more worried about pizza in school cafeterias than he is about, well, just about everything else? Worry about the piss ants while the gators are biting our *** off. That's how libs/dems think though.
These people are all in bed with eachother. Bush said this. Obama said that. Clinton said that etc etc etc etc. They all play ball for the same team. I dont care what he said in some speech written by some staffer. Bush was a buffoon. Still is. And Miley Cyrus is a great song writer.
Bevo Incognito
5,000+ Posts
Mr. Fiesta
1,000+ Posts
Yeah, leaving Saddam in power would've been a good move....
Bevo Incognito
5,000+ Posts
I disagree with the line of thought that Iraq and the ME and the entire situation would be better if Saddam was still around. Dont interpret this to mean the invasion and war were justified, I am only commenting on the current state of affairs.
First- Everyone forgets that Saddam invaded Kuwait with little or no resistance from Kuwait or any ME country. Saddam would have controlled oil reserves greater than Saudi if he controlled Kuwait. To think he would have stopped at Kuwait if the US doesnt get involved is silly. The invasion of Kuwait elevated Saddam above almost all other ME leaders from a destabilizing standpoint.
Second- Saddam was an active and open supporter of terrorism. Probably not Alqueda but numerous terror groups and leaders received safe haven and money and weapons from Saddam. This would only have increased.
Third- Following on the first two points (invading other countries and openly supporting terrorists) Saddam obviously had no issue with unleashing chemical weapons as he did it to Kurdish Iraqis and he was, by even the harshest criritcs of the war, infatuated with obtaining nuclear weapons. He was willing to do just about anything to get them. With the continued wild west show that is Russia and the political turmoil in pakistan and india etc, I fully believe that Saddam would have ended up with nuclear weapons at some point. The most likely culprit would be an arms dealer from Russia. So does anyone question whether Saddam, who already invaded Kuwait and gassed his own people, would be "responsible" with nukes? Not a question I think we ever wanted to find out.
Fourth- While there is obviously upheavel now in Iraq it is actually not nearly as bad as previously with regards to casualties and human rights. ISIS has killed in the thousands where Saddam killed over 300,000, and gassed the Kurds and had children dying of starvation of about 50,000 per year. That is dreadful. It just wasnt publicized.
Fifth- And it is way too early to tell on this one, but the vacuum created in Iraq that allowed ISIS to come in has opened many, many more eyes around the world as to the barbarism and true threat from groups like ISIS. I think it is entirely possible that the rest of the world as well as other ME countries will openly enter the fight against terrorism. What ISIS is doing is so bad on a big open stage that people can no longer sit back and claim it will never happen to their country and is only an ME problem. These ISIS guys have gone so bold that everyone is now on board with wiping them out. That is an actual benefit, albeit possibly not worth the cost, to this whole affair.
First- Everyone forgets that Saddam invaded Kuwait with little or no resistance from Kuwait or any ME country. Saddam would have controlled oil reserves greater than Saudi if he controlled Kuwait. To think he would have stopped at Kuwait if the US doesnt get involved is silly. The invasion of Kuwait elevated Saddam above almost all other ME leaders from a destabilizing standpoint.
Second- Saddam was an active and open supporter of terrorism. Probably not Alqueda but numerous terror groups and leaders received safe haven and money and weapons from Saddam. This would only have increased.
Third- Following on the first two points (invading other countries and openly supporting terrorists) Saddam obviously had no issue with unleashing chemical weapons as he did it to Kurdish Iraqis and he was, by even the harshest criritcs of the war, infatuated with obtaining nuclear weapons. He was willing to do just about anything to get them. With the continued wild west show that is Russia and the political turmoil in pakistan and india etc, I fully believe that Saddam would have ended up with nuclear weapons at some point. The most likely culprit would be an arms dealer from Russia. So does anyone question whether Saddam, who already invaded Kuwait and gassed his own people, would be "responsible" with nukes? Not a question I think we ever wanted to find out.
Fourth- While there is obviously upheavel now in Iraq it is actually not nearly as bad as previously with regards to casualties and human rights. ISIS has killed in the thousands where Saddam killed over 300,000, and gassed the Kurds and had children dying of starvation of about 50,000 per year. That is dreadful. It just wasnt publicized.
Fifth- And it is way too early to tell on this one, but the vacuum created in Iraq that allowed ISIS to come in has opened many, many more eyes around the world as to the barbarism and true threat from groups like ISIS. I think it is entirely possible that the rest of the world as well as other ME countries will openly enter the fight against terrorism. What ISIS is doing is so bad on a big open stage that people can no longer sit back and claim it will never happen to their country and is only an ME problem. These ISIS guys have gone so bold that everyone is now on board with wiping them out. That is an actual benefit, albeit possibly not worth the cost, to this whole affair.
Mr. Fiesta
1,000+ Posts
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
Good discussion Bronco and Mr. Deez. I'll address each of Bronco's points here. Of course, my bias from the beginning was that Sadam, while a very bad man, actually was a unifying force in a country that had for centuries suffered from sectarian conflict.
On your first point, Bronco, Sadam has been pushed back out of Kuwait more than 10yrs earlier. The only relevance to to our 2nd invasion is whether there was evidence he's try a Kuwait type of attack again. Keep in mind, the result of the first war was the US installing major bases in Quatar and Kuwait. So, whereas we didn't have a significant presence before the first Gulf War but we did afterward. Remember the no-fly zone? We had nearly full control of the skys in Iraq.
The second point was that Sadam was an active supporter of terrorism. I'd agree with this point. Of course, what we now know is that he protected terrorists that had already committed heinous acts, we haven't been able to tie him to active efforts. Remember, terrorism to date has been associated with religious fanatacism and he was anything but a supporter of that ideology as it was just as much a threat to him. He tried to coopt religion but had no measurable success.
Third, chemical weapons were used in the 80's and following our 1991 pull back short of taking Baghdad. The world was pretty united in preventing Sadam from getting nuclear arms. Outside of help from NK, which allies did Sadam have to help him in his desire to get nuclear arms? In hindsight, he clearly wanted the world to think he had nuclear capability but that was pure smoke and mirrors. All the evidence points to the fact that our embargo and sanctions were having the very real effect they were intended to have.
Fourth, if you want to consider Sadam's terrible human rights total for deaths, shouldn't you also include ISIS and all the military/civilian deaths since we entered Iraq the 2nd time? There was no sectarian violence or car bombs because Sadam ruled with an iron fist. It should be pointed out that you are using a death total Sadam garnered over 30-40 years of rule compared to 12 years of activity since we entered Iraq.
I think your Fifth point is a very valid point that ISIS is certainly opening the eyes of ME leaders to the threat. On the flipside, would ISIS exist if we didn't go into Iraq? Their military success is directly attributed to former Baathist leaders. In essence, they are partly a reincarnated Iraq army, at least their strategic military leadership. The rise of ISIS though has created the potential of a major sectarian war between Shia and Sunni. In many ways, Sadam kept the religious element at bay simply because he was more interested in his own power than any religious supremacy.
On your first point, Bronco, Sadam has been pushed back out of Kuwait more than 10yrs earlier. The only relevance to to our 2nd invasion is whether there was evidence he's try a Kuwait type of attack again. Keep in mind, the result of the first war was the US installing major bases in Quatar and Kuwait. So, whereas we didn't have a significant presence before the first Gulf War but we did afterward. Remember the no-fly zone? We had nearly full control of the skys in Iraq.
The second point was that Sadam was an active supporter of terrorism. I'd agree with this point. Of course, what we now know is that he protected terrorists that had already committed heinous acts, we haven't been able to tie him to active efforts. Remember, terrorism to date has been associated with religious fanatacism and he was anything but a supporter of that ideology as it was just as much a threat to him. He tried to coopt religion but had no measurable success.
Third, chemical weapons were used in the 80's and following our 1991 pull back short of taking Baghdad. The world was pretty united in preventing Sadam from getting nuclear arms. Outside of help from NK, which allies did Sadam have to help him in his desire to get nuclear arms? In hindsight, he clearly wanted the world to think he had nuclear capability but that was pure smoke and mirrors. All the evidence points to the fact that our embargo and sanctions were having the very real effect they were intended to have.
Fourth, if you want to consider Sadam's terrible human rights total for deaths, shouldn't you also include ISIS and all the military/civilian deaths since we entered Iraq the 2nd time? There was no sectarian violence or car bombs because Sadam ruled with an iron fist. It should be pointed out that you are using a death total Sadam garnered over 30-40 years of rule compared to 12 years of activity since we entered Iraq.
I think your Fifth point is a very valid point that ISIS is certainly opening the eyes of ME leaders to the threat. On the flipside, would ISIS exist if we didn't go into Iraq? Their military success is directly attributed to former Baathist leaders. In essence, they are partly a reincarnated Iraq army, at least their strategic military leadership. The rise of ISIS though has created the potential of a major sectarian war between Shia and Sunni. In many ways, Sadam kept the religious element at bay simply because he was more interested in his own power than any religious supremacy.
The US supposedly had the chance to remove Saddam after the first Gulf War, but didnt. One of the stupidest things Ive ever seen. The sanctions we imposed had the effect of resulting in 10s of thousands, if not 100s of thousands, of Iraqi deaths due to shortages while Saddam sat comfy in his palaces.
Saddam's human rights record wasnt really an issue when we, through American corporations, were supporting Saddam as he gassed his own people and Iranians in the 80s. Just in case anyone here doesnt know that.
ISIS likely wouldnt be a problem today if we hadnt supported or funded the rebels in Syria fighting Assad, or they would be much much weaker.
At the end of the day, when you support dictators for decades, creating animosity and hatred in the process, you help to create a very unstable environment. Those kooks know our history over there, and they dont like it, so they gladly accept our aid and weapons and training.
Ron Paul said it best. Get the hell out of there and trade with them. Let them handle their own internal affairs and fight for themselves. Dont arm them. And if there is a dictator like Saddam or Mubarak whose really bad, dont support them or give them billions, because the people there know it and wont like it.
Of course now its all a giant **** show, but making wholesale changes in our foreign policy might start to make changes.
Saddam's human rights record wasnt really an issue when we, through American corporations, were supporting Saddam as he gassed his own people and Iranians in the 80s. Just in case anyone here doesnt know that.
ISIS likely wouldnt be a problem today if we hadnt supported or funded the rebels in Syria fighting Assad, or they would be much much weaker.
At the end of the day, when you support dictators for decades, creating animosity and hatred in the process, you help to create a very unstable environment. Those kooks know our history over there, and they dont like it, so they gladly accept our aid and weapons and training.
Ron Paul said it best. Get the hell out of there and trade with them. Let them handle their own internal affairs and fight for themselves. Dont arm them. And if there is a dictator like Saddam or Mubarak whose really bad, dont support them or give them billions, because the people there know it and wont like it.
Of course now its all a giant **** show, but making wholesale changes in our foreign policy might start to make changes.
Weekly Prediction Contest
* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC
Recent Threads
-
The Media Industry
- Started by texas_ex2000
- Replies: 8K
- West Mall
-
Black Lives Matter; The Cerebral Warlords of Our Time
- Started by iatrogenic
- Replies: 1K
- West Mall
-
New Jaguar TV Commercial!?
- Started by WorsterMan
- Replies: 3
- West Mall
Prediction Results Threads
