The Iraq war wasn't a mistake and could have been built up in to a proper western developed country if it wasn't for public pressure against the war.
It'll probably just go the same way as Vietnam and eventually join the west decades later anyway, but it could have been done faster if people were more patient.
Other urls found in this thread:
georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov
twitter.com
Saddam Hussain had to go man ....i mean he tortured people and one of his son's was a notorious rapist and murderer .
Saddam Hussein was a great leader, he kept the country stable, as a matter of fact he kept the entire Middle-East stable, now Iran is unchecked and proxy wars are all over the Middle-East, from Yemen to Syria to Lebanon to Iraq.
Fuck all Americans.
>Prove me wrong
How about this amerishart
No more invasions of Muslim nations, no more waves of refugees
There ya go.
I don't get it
It was built on a lie
So of course it wasn't a mistake, mistake is something unintentional
Wrong. Violence in Iraq had started almost immediately after Saddam's fall. However if we had any resemblance of any sort of plan on what to do with Iraq after toppling Saddam it might not have been as bad.
Should have been done in the Gulf War after Kuwait, there was some secular elements which where anti-Saddam that could have helped stabilise the country.
But they all got the chop and where massacred after the withdraw, so by the time we got there in the Iraq war in 03- all that was left was rabid pro forces and other randoms
If the US was still there right now, the refugees would have a home and wouldn't need to flee to Europe.
The Iraq war was an attempt to fix the region after we screwed it up during the Cold War since the Soviets were the bigger threat at the time.
not a good excuse .....his people hated him , a coup was already planned
> The Iraq war was an attempt to fix the region
I heard tehy estimate about 500000 people died there as a result
And then there's ISIS the core of which at the start was pretty much saddam's troops
>leaves Iraq in 2008
>goes back in 2014
If anyone is to blame for Iraq's (and Syria's) failures, it's this guy.
With Saddam Hussein, Iraq (and the rest of Middle East) would be much better off.
ISIS wouldn't exist without Bush.
No Iraq war.
No Syrian civil war.
No humanitarian crisis in the Middle East.
No chemical weapon attacks on civilians.
No selective genocide by any faction.
No millions of displaced people.
No refugee crisis in Europe.
Bush was the catalyst for hundreds of thousands of deaths.
Iran is unchecked because Obama didn't have the balls to do what needs to be done with them and was more concerned with "looking good" with our pansy European allies.
If they develop nuclear weapons, they'll be the pain in the ass that Pakistan is where we can't go in there and try and make them a sensible civilized region that doesn't have the power to wipe billions of people off the face of the Earth if they felt compelled to.
Would have been far worse did they actually have been able to develop nuclear weapons and used them.
Obviously Bush lied about there being a nuclear weapons program, but I can see why he did. Better to nip it in the ass early before they actually did get weapons.
Cmon the first claim that Iran in building nukes was in like 1970es and they still dont have it
Iraq couldn't/wouldn't have built it
Norks only managed it cause they're asian and crazy
We half-assed it. We either needed to completely take over their government ourselves and build infrastructure and education before handing them the keys, or just not at all.
Instead we tried to give a bunch of uneducated dirt farmers the power of democracy, and unsurprisingly it didn't work. Your democracy is only as good as your voters, and when the voters have no idea what they're voting for you're gonna have a bad time.
Yeah, your right. It'd be SO much better that instead of the region being a chaotic crazy but relatively non-threatening mess, it was actually a consolidated crazy mess with the potential to instantly exterminate millions of people.
I'd rather there be hundreds of countries in the same state Iraq is in than have 1 North Korea where a fucking insane Manlet actually gets to have global leverage because he has nukes while his countries people starve to death.
This was another major mistake. We completely dismissed Saddam's government and military, but let them keep their weapons as souvenirs for some fucking reason.
So a bunch of highly trained, combat experienced and well armed guys were pissed as fuck at USA with nothing but time on their hands, and then the most predictable thing happened that none of our troops were ready for.
Bush started withdrawal before Obama was even elected. But yea it's all the other guy's fault, no need to think just blame.
georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov
Really? Because of public pressure? 90% of Iraq's current problems can be traced back to kicking all Ba'athists out of the military and government and not giving them a place at the table when rebuilding Iraqi institutions.
this. the war was a full sucess.
Were we allowed to be able to use any necessary force to submit the region like we could with Japan and Germany in WW2, it'd have worked.
It's just people are overly sensitive and all it takes is a picture of a child who gets unfortunately shot because he was possibly a suicide bombing threat triggers people's 1st world sensibilities.
Saddam never had any WMD's. Bush knew that but still invaded Iraq on the pretense of saving the world from a madman with nukes.
When all was said and done, Iraq was left with a crippled government with no real power and thousands of radical Islamic terrorists with American made munitions.
>Islamic State in IRAQ and SYRIA
I deeply wonder what lead to ISIS being possible
Everyone already knows and admits Bush lied about the nukes, but he had too because US voters were getting fatigued with "Nation-building."
Saddam didn't have nukes, but he was a horrible evil dictator that had no qualms about killing millions of his own people just to maintain power. He was far more dangerous than ISIS could ever pretend to be.
>americans unironically think that overthrowing "dictators" and making failed states is better than just having "bad" rulers in those countries
Condoleezza Rice said this in an interview last year.
USA should've gone full colonialist. If you did, the whole mess could've been avoided or atleast mitigated.
It absolutely is better.
Crazy dictators like Hitler and Stalin can start massive wars and enforce domestic policies that cause the death and suffering of innumerable innocent people where as failed states can't do 1/10th of the damage as a bad dictator on their best day.
And despite Saddam being a genocidal dictator, what Bush left behind has led to over 700,000 deaths and counting over the past 14 years with no end in sight.
Is this really that much better than Saddam killing 1.2 million over a period of 24 years?
didn't saddam become extremely compliant after the kuwait war
You have to understand it's not a choice of good or bad
It's bad or worse
You gotta go with the bad
I honestly wouldn't be surprised at all if Saddam was really just pretending to be a villain for the sake of his people, and he himself knew that the country needed to be invaded and built up by the US to best serve future generations. Putin might be doing the same thing right now, and the truth may be that the US and Russia have actually been secret allies since Reagan and Gorbachev, and just put on a coordinated puppet show to best trick dumber voters in to doing what's best for both countries and the world.
The US did after all put Saddam in power.
I think executing 600,000 people and gassing 100,000 Kurds is a little more than pretending. His evil really does precede his reputation.
What could the Russian peoples possibly gain by pretending that the whole world is against them and that they have the right to conquer anything they want? Putin and his cronies are stealing their wallets while pointing at Europe.
You didn't find a single WMD in Iraq
eh you should watch HyperNormalization
Gaddhafi pretended to be a villain imo, while Assad was carrying out Lockerby bombigns and terrorists attacks the West didn't touch him because Syria was too important.
>One guy is a moron
>All Americans are responsible for him
Kill yourself, dumb ameritard.
If you can't figure that out yourself, It means I wouldn't be able to explain it to you anyway.
Or you are just talking shit? Theres no reason that the Russians wouldnt be able to join the west as a democracy other than their elite wont allow them.
Oh goody, it's that Dutch Arab.
Russians are too dumb (well, 85%) of the population for democracy. They need an emperor to lead them.
They are basically applying "better dead than commies" to others.
Yes unfortunately, Bush cared a little too much about what the New York Times and CNN would say.
Wait, didn't the Chinese given NK nukes or something?
Doubt it. China has always been consistent for decades about not wanting a war on the Korean Peninsula. They wouldn't give Kim Il Sung nukes back in the '60s when he asked for them, and that was back when communist solidarity actually mattered.
>It'll probably just go the same way as Vietnam and eventually join the west decades later anyway, but it could have been done faster if people were more patient.
I agree. The People's Republic of Vietnam is a paragon of democracy and human rights.
>Elected twice, reelected by majority AFTER the invasion.
>hurdur one American
>and could have been built up in to a proper western developed country
You build developed countries by leveling entire cities to the ground.
really mays u fink...
Obama was the president Jan 2009 until the "withdrawal" in July 2011. More than 2.5 tears. He is at least partly to blame for what happened.
Pakis
China gave zero fucks about NK 1980-2000 because it was a Soviet puppet state. Only once kimmy got nuclear schematics from the pakis did the chinese start caring
Abdul and his 17 wives isn't the same as literate Takeshi and Hans.
>1980-2000
The Soviet Union didn't even exist the last 8 years of that.
>ISIS, two failed states, and 5,000 dead American soldiers, is better than Saddam.
Unironically, in this brave new world that is a possibility.
>ISIS
Thanks, Obama.
...
I know. It was an absolute failed state mass starvation shitshow for those 8 until Clinton bribed them to delay the nukes.
I don't consider 1992 Soviet Union and 1993 Russian Federation to be all that different from each other. Only with Putin did it change.
Honestly, you can trace the "blame" back to Sykes-Picot or Iran-Iraq War.
>another spaniard here
Madrid?
...
People like you are why your country is in ruins.
It was a mistake, but an arguably unavoidable one. Bush saw Saddam still being in power and having those bioweapons (which admittedly was a huge problem, don't get me wrong) as an insult to his father. 9/11 happened soon after he became president, and he used the anti-arab sentiment it caused to get the people on board with any old random war in the Middle-East.
Of course, when Bush asked Saddam to hand over his weapons, Saddam obviously couldn't say yes. As a strongman dictator, and even more so an Arab strongman dictator, he needed to appear strong, brave, unstoppable, etc. to keep his power, and he didn't want to lose face. And obviously, once Saddam hid the weapons (which we knew he had because we gave them to him) we couldn't not go to war, because as the premier military superpower of this age we suck at diplomacy and rely on the threat of extreme retribution to maintain our status. Really, the war was unavoidable from the moment Bush got into office.
But, unavoidable as it was, it was still a mistake. A mistake that cost us big, alienated us to the world, essentially destroyed the Middle-East, and basically created ISIS. Not to mention that, after the coalition finishes off ISIS, Iran (for whom our raging irrational hateboner caused us to give Saddam those weapons in the first place) will very likely end up the dominant power in the region. The Iraq War is literally the cause of AT LEAST 1/3 of all the current problems in the Middle-East.
>Bush saw Saddam still being in power and having those bioweapons
WHAT?
>Iran (for whom our raging irrational hateboner caused us to give Saddam those weapons in the first place) will very likely end up the dominant power in the region.
You have to go back, Ardashir.
Yeah, the tl;dr of it is we were pissed as fuck at Iran and have been since that hostage crisis in 1979, so we gave Saddam bioweapons to use against the Iranians during the Iran-Iraq War. The Gulf War (I mean the first one, in the '90s) happened because Saddam used those bioweapons we gave him to invade Kuwait.
>hurr it worked for Germany and Japan so it should have worked for Iraq too!!!!
Except Germany and Japan were already unified nations with a strong national identity and not an artificial fragmented state solely defined by arbitrary borders you dumb fucks.
Regime change in Iran would have been a hell of a lot easier than Iraq. Iraq is a meme, like Syria it's an amalgamation of various sects that all fucking hate each other.