All Forums | Politics

So what happened to Iraq? I thought getting rid of Saddam solved everything?

...
Participants:
Search model icon
Views: 4077
Posts: 113
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2009
Posts: 8046
Posted: #51
Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:



Presence does nothing..this is not Japan, Germany or Italy..this region is like NOTHING else in the world.


especially when they are pillaging, killing, and beheading any person who does NOT SHARE their extremely radical beliefs at this very moment.......Now you want to talk about a "humanitarian" crisis......I don't think our fighter jets or drones can get their fast enough 
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Apr, 2009
Posts: 6706
Posted: #52
Quote Originally Posted by Crusher13:

Btw, I NEVER mentioned OCCUPY, DJ did

 I said "presence"....I never said those words, we don't "occupy" Japan, South Korea, Germany, or Italy.... 

Neither will work and that's my point no matter how you want to spin it.

 
Covers Rehab
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2007
Posts: 35504
Posted: #53
The left can blame George W.Bush all they want ,,but Obama owns the present Iraq..

When the Bush administration handed over Iraq to Barack Hussein Obama he was handed a victory that Obama only had to hold on to..

...but instead he blew the victory and now because of Obama's policies..... ||fingershake.gif' border=0> not Bushes,,Iraq is a mess..



 
Legend
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2003
Posts: 32362
Posted: #54

Talk to me Slim.  I'm out of ambien bullets and can't sleep.
~~~~~ZOSO~~~~~
 
Legend
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2010
Posts: 33873
Posted: #55
Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:


So does this mean you are not able to make a determination that-

A) Bush was president during both events
B) Saddam was a dictator who kept religious factions in check
C) Bush removed Saddam and the rest has been nothing but a mess
D) The region was/is/will be a near impossible hot bed of religious fighting and that will never change.

What rungs are you missing? The one where you FORCE Obama into there somehow and place him as the blame?

Oh I agree with that. But do we assume there has to be a dictator always?  Is that the easy way out to just keep people oppressed?  Dictators keep all in check, not just religious factions.  Doesn't mean it is right just because they haven't taken to democracy and it may be arrogant to presume they should. But the average folk there were glad SH was gone. 
   Of course it is a mess. Maybe the fortitude was not there to make sure a mess didn't start up etc. Do we assume there wouldn't be a mess after SH?  Couldn't assume A-Okay right away. 
   Isn't it also arrogant of us to assume that oh well that area always been a hot mess of religious strife and always will be. So just throw hands up and leave them to it. 
    I am not even saying you are wrong. I am just saying you went straight from Bush went there and removed SH.  Then we say man that was stupid because any knucklehead knows those people are beyond hope and are better off being controlled by a vicious dictator so that the rest of us don't have to worry about them. 
  We also assume that once it is settled or whatever that control will be worse than SH?  
   Now that I think. Lotta missing rungs in there once you look at it. 
   
 
Legend
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2010
Posts: 33873
Posted: #56
Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:


So does this mean you are not able to make a determination that-

A) Bush was president during both events
B) Saddam was a dictator who kept religious factions in check
C) Bush removed Saddam and the rest has been nothing but a mess
D) The region was/is/will be a near impossible hot bed of religious fighting and that will never change.

What rungs are you missing? The one where you FORCE Obama into there somehow and place him as the blame?


For example, we have seen religious factions go at it before on other areas. Why do we assume there is no hope for these?
 
Legend
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2003
Posts: 32362
Posted: #57
Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22:


For example, we have seen religious factions go at it before on other areas. Why do we assume there is no hope for these?


Really???

You expect these people to find a solution after 5,000  years of fighting amongst themselves???


 
~~~~~ZOSO~~~~~
 
Covers Referee
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2004
Posts: 15731
Posted: #58
Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22:


For example, we have seen religious factions go at it before on other areas. Why do we assume there is no hope for these?

In the Middle East? Point me to one representative democracy that is not based on religious theocracy?
 
Covers Referee
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2004
Posts: 15731
Posted: #59
Quote Originally Posted by SarasotaSlim:

The left can blame George W.Bush all they want ,,but Obama owns the present Iraq..

When the Bush administration handed over Iraq to Barack Hussein Obama he was handed a victory that Obama only had to hold on to..


Oreilly?

What victory was that?
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Apr, 2009
Posts: 6706
Posted: #60
Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22:

Oh I agree with that. But do we assume there has to be a dictator always?  Is that the easy way out to just keep people oppressed?  Dictators keep all in check, not just religious factions.  Doesn't mean it is right just because they haven't taken to democracy and it may be arrogant to presume they should. But the average folk there were glad SH was gone. 
   Of course it is a mess. Maybe the fortitude was not there to make sure a mess didn't start up etc. Do we assume there wouldn't be a mess after SH?  Couldn't assume A-Okay right away. 
   Isn't it also arrogant of us to assume that oh well that area always been a hot mess of religious strife and always will be. So just throw hands up and leave them to it. 
    I am not even saying you are wrong. I am just saying you went straight from Bush went there and removed SH.  Then we say man that was stupid because any knucklehead knows those people are beyond hope and are better off being controlled by a vicious dictator so that the rest of us don't have to worry about them. 
  We also assume that once it is settled or whatever that control will be worse than SH?  
   Now that I think. Lotta missing rungs in there once you look at it. 
   

You know what's so arrogant? It's how some of us think our brand of democracy is best suited for everyone, regardless of their own history and background.

A-ok right away? What's your definition of right away? The war started on 2003 and ended rather quickly  Should we give it a bit more time, like 15, 25, 50 more years? After all, it's only been about 11 years and thousands and thousands of our own service members lost.

A vicious dictator? You meant the same one we helped to seize power in the first place?  There are plenty of them out there and of course you are not suggesting that we should remove them all, right? So what made him so special?

"Is it arrogant to assume that area has always been a hot mess...."? Well, it's absolute arrogance to think we could/did make it better by sticking our hands in there with no real exit-strategy.

 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: May, 2010
Posts: 5575
Posted: #61
Refusing to have a status of forces agreement against all advice of military generals seems to have not worked out so well.
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2009
Posts: 5755
Posted: #62
A lib posted on her Twitter page she is mad Bush 43 gets to sit this one out (concerning the debacle in Iraq) It was her equivalent of a Covers "Blame Bush Thread". Here are some of the responses to her tweet...

"Six years ago called and wants it's election back."

"Five years of Pres Obama and this lib is pining for the Bush 43 days."

"I'm so old I remember when Obama got elected."

"Dude, that was like six years ago."

"That's cool since Obama is sitting it out too."

"I agree. It's a shame Obama is President."





Cue the Washers in 3....2....1....
 
Covers Linesmen
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2003
Posts: 58407
Posted: #63
Raiders,

I dont think you know what kind of dictator Saddam was.

Under his control more people had more freedoms than you think. Women were not oppressed, now they are, religions were able to co-exist and now they cannot. 

How I see Saddam is he was a person that always thought someone was out to get him, so if he thought you were trying to undermine him, you were in serious trouble..but the majority of people did not have that fear. 

There are some dictators out there like that one in Korea that seem to be cruel to more of the majority but I did not get that impression of SH.
 
Covers Referee
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2004
Posts: 15731
Posted: #64
Quote Originally Posted by canovsp:

A lib posted on her Twitter page she is mad Bush 43 gets to sit this one out (concerning the debacle in Iraq) It was her equivalent of a Covers "Blame Bush Thread". Here are some of the responses to her tweet...

"Six years ago called and wants it's election back."

"Five years of Pres Obama and this lib is pining for the Bush 43 days."

"I'm so old I remember when Obama got elected."

"Dude, that was like six years ago."

"That's cool since Obama is sitting it out too."

"I agree. It's a shame Obama is President."





Cue the Washers in 3....2....1....

Have you ever debated an actual issue or do you just engage in deflection

It reminds me if the episode from Friends where Joey defected all conversations to the title of 'V' because that was the encyclopedia he bought. 

It's never too late to expand your limited knowledge base.
 
Legend
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2010
Posts: 33873
Posted: #65
Quote Originally Posted by TheGoldenGoose:



Really???

You expect these people to find a solution after 5,000  years of fighting amongst themselves???


I do not expect that at all. I think the are a bunch of fanatics that are radical and only have a militant mindset!   Am saying it is arrogant of us to assume this and that there is not hope for them. Just because it hasn't been done we assume it can never be done. Maybe; maybe not. 
 
Legend
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2010
Posts: 33873
Posted: #66
Quote Originally Posted by djbrow:


In the Middle East? Point me to one representative democracy that is not based on religious theocracy?
Is it right for us to ASSUME out way is best for everyone.  How would we feel if their way was pushed on us is kinda of my point here. Takes time and effort maybe. 
 
Legend
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2003
Posts: 32362
Posted: #67
Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:

Raiders,

I dont think you know what kind of dictator Saddam was.

Under his control more people had more freedoms than you think. Women were not oppressed, now they are, religions were able to co-exist and now they cannot. 

How I see Saddam is he was a person that always thought someone was out to get him, so if he thought you were trying to undermine him, you were in serious trouble..but the majority of people did not have that fear. 

There are some dictators out there like that one in Korea that seem to be cruel to more of the majority but I did not get that impression of SH.



Well, I don't believe that at all.  Both SH sons were brutal person.  They would go into schools, bring girls home and rape them.  The oldest son tortured the soccer team because they didn't win.
~~~~~ZOSO~~~~~
 
Legend
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2003
Posts: 32362
Posted: #68
person = b-a-s-t-a-r-d-s
~~~~~ZOSO~~~~~
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2009
Posts: 5755
Posted: #69
Quote Originally Posted by djbrow:


Have you ever debated an actual issue or do you just engage in deflection

It reminds me if the episode from Friends where Joey defected all conversations to the title of 'V' because that was the encyclopedia he bought. 

It's never too late to expand your limited knowledge base.


Have I ever debated any issue: I've debated this issue about a hundred times on Covers and a thousand times elsewhere and I'm sick of it. You should know where I stand but I'll say it again: Bush went to congress for approval based off of the info from the intel community and congress was on board. Do I have to attach that video again?

The operation and exit strategy should be debated and criticized but not why we went in.
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Apr, 2009
Posts: 6706
Posted: #70
Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22:

I do not expect that at all. I think the are a bunch of fanatics that are radical and only have a militant mindset!   Am saying it is arrogant of us to assume this and that there is not hope for them. Just because it hasn't been done we assume it can never be done. Maybe; maybe not. 

Wow, just wow! Sure, you can flip-flop all you want on here but it's just too much American lives at stake for a bunch of "maybe".

 
All-Star
Participation Meter
Joined: Aug, 2005
Posts: 11129
Posted: #71
yeah for Obama.... 'solve your own problems'!!!!

lets get all our troops out of that middle east area......and tell all the radical muslims to go back there that live here.....let them destroy their own turf...

let Israel deal with them on their own

not going to ever get those people in that area to 'get along'......

no need to lose one more American troop in that area....

we were dumb enough to invade those places......admit defeat (again) and just leave.....

we can't be everything to everyone....like some say....some places just need to be what they are and not like us....!!!!!!!!

grrrrrr   constant drones?.... WTF why?...never ending


 
Covers Linesmen
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2003
Posts: 58407
Posted: #72
Quote Originally Posted by TheGoldenGoose:




Well, I don't believe that at all.  Both SH sons were brutal person.  They would go into schools, bring girls home and rape them.  The oldest son tortured the soccer team because they didn't win.

Yes now that I agree with, his sons were bad news for sure. Saddam let his sons do whatever they wanted and they were worse than he was (IMO)..

That aside, women and the religious minorities had rights and lived, Iraq had a decent middle class and infrastructure..now it is a mess AND the leader was head of one of the religious groups who are now fighting each other.

If I had to choose between a middle of the road dictator like Saddam or religious fighting, I take Saddam.

Now that guy in N.Korea..he is bad news as a dictator.
 
Legend
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2010
Posts: 33873
Posted: #73
Quote Originally Posted by bunny651:

You know what's so arrogant? It's how some of us think our brand of democracy is best suited for everyone, regardless of their own history and background.

Correct.   I have said this often.

 
Legend
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2010
Posts: 33873
Posted: #74
Quote Originally Posted by bunny651:

A-ok right away? What's your definition of right away? The war started on 2003 and ended rather quickly  Should we give it a bit more time, like 15, 25, 50 more years? After all, it's only been about 11 years and thousands and thousands of our own service members lost.

"Is it arrogant to assume that area has always been a hot mess...."? Well, it's absolute arrogance to think we could/did make it better by sticking our hands in there with no real exit-strategy.

Yes---war ended quickly---  I am saying if the plan was to have an exit strategy (which I am not sure you can, with things being so dynamic in war), then it has to be decided do we win and pull out or are we obligated to leave a stabilizing help behind until they get it together somewhat?

Also, it can be argued we went over there and made a mess---should we just leave?  Or should we be obligated to clean up somewhat?  Very tricky as things change and our mindset changes from the early idea of 'let's go get him' to 'oh boy this didn't go as planned let's bail'.   

 
 
Legend
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2010
Posts: 33873
Posted: #75
Quote Originally Posted by bunny651:

A vicious dictator? You meant the same one we helped to seize power in the first place?  There are plenty of them out there and of course you are not suggesting that we should remove them all, right? So what made him so special?

No---never thought so in the first place.  But again, if someone makes the argument to me that 'hey we put him in place and he is a scourge on the people.  Shouldn't we feel guilty and do something to try to help the people since we helped put SH in place?'  I do not know that I could say they were wrong in that reagrd. 

All Forums | Politics
About Us
Contact Us
Careers
Our Team
Brand
Testimonials
Betting Guides
Sportsbook Reviews
Betting News
Podcasts
Responsible Gambling
Betting Sites
US Betting Sites
Canada Betting Sites
Canada Casinos
Best Betting Apps
Contests
Streak Survivor
King of Covers
Ultimate Race
Office Pools
The Covers community has
810,221
lifetime members worldwide
Covers 30 Years Logo Established in 1995,
Covers is the world
leader in sports
betting information.
21+
Gambling problem? Call 1-800-GAMBLER
Help Privacy Terms of Service Cookies Sitemap Forum
Covers is verified safe by:
Evalon Logo Logo GPWA Logo GDPR logo Logo GeoTrust logo Logo PCI DSS logo Logo
Copyright © 1995 - 2026 CS Media Ltd. All Rights Reserved.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.