AQ not "running" Iraq? I'd say that you're correct. But Saddam Hussein had plenty of ties to all sorts of terrorist groups, including radical Islamist jihadis. The Pentagon announced back in 2008 that an investigation into over 600,000 documents captured at the end of the invasion of Iraq showed operational links to al-Qaeda affiliated groups.

Here are excerpts from that report:

Take a look at (Extract 25) "The Army of Muhammad is working with Osama bin Laden. … “this organization is an offshoot of bin Laden, but that their objectives are similar but with different names that can be a way of camouflaging the organization.”

On pages 34-35 of the report, we find communications between their Bahrain agent and IIS (Iraqi Intelligence Service) headquarters the Iraqis list their aims as attacking Jewish and American interests anywhere in the world, attacking American embassies, disrupting American oil supplies and tankers, and attacking the American military bases in the Middle East. A later memorandum from the same collection to the Director of the IIS reports that the Army of Muhammad is endeavoring to receive assistance [from Iraq] to implement its objectives, and that the local IIS station has been told to deal with them in accordance with priorities previously established.

The Iraqi support for AoM may not be an operational link, but it’s certainly a financial link that goes right to Osama bin Laden.


The most recent military conflict during which the Left rooted for an American victory was World War II. In every fight since that time, the American Left has mischaracterized US involvement as being avaricious, acquisitive, imperialistic, or genocidal. During recent wars, the Left have augmented their practice of impugning American motives by also maligning American troops, who have been smeared as being thieves, rapists, torturers, and baby killers.

And those are just the slurs issued by our current secretary of state.


ShyGuy, you simply do not know what you are talking about.

http://a.abcnews.com/images/pdf/Pentagon_Report_V1.pdf

What is/was better:

Iraq under Saddam Hussein as in 2003

Iraq today with ISIS takeover in 2014

You are trying to justify the War in Iraq and it isn't working. No one is buying it. Saddam's links seem to have been benign with no operational input and certainly nothing to do with 9/11. Sure there are excerpts but give it time and even Maliki will make the same links/connections.

We might conclude that setting up a puppet government in Iraq, Vietnam,Iran, or Afghanistan might not lead to the desired outcome.

Yes. There's a lot to be said for minding our own ****ing business.

[QUOTE=ShyGuy;1670670]What is/was better:

Iraq under Saddam Hussein as in 2003

Iraq today with ISIS takeover in 2014

You are trying to justify the War in Iraq and it isn't working. No one is buying it.



In Iraq, we walked away. The "War isn't working" meme is the same thing that would have been said had we left Germany or Japan in 1946, or Korea in 1954.

The war in Iraq started in 1991. It was never terminated. It continued through the Clinton administration. We just refused to do the work at the time to oust him. After Iraq I, the hope was that an uprising would occur and he would be offed by internal forces. Instead he attacked the Shiites and the Kurds. That is when in Aug of 1992, we started the no fly zones with orders to shoot down any Iraqi military aircraft.

Bush did not "create the failure in Iraq", it was the Left's Apologist Hero currently occupying the Oval Office who did that.

The next time O'Blunder's liberated Jihadists arrive in New York, hopefully only lefties will be there to receive their "greetings".

[QUOTE=Sum Ting Wong;1670695]If you are still thinking in terms of left/right you have missed the point entirely.
None of these people are your friends, none of them are going to help you in any way.
Stop dreaming about a political solution, they are just two sides of the same coin.

Accept the failures and move on, none of them have been proven trustworthy.

[QUOTE=jungle;1670702]Well that is certainly one way to view things. Another is to acknowledge that the Dems owned Iraq for the last two years of W's presidency and pretty well made opposing the war and losing the peace a theme of O's campaign.
Just like in Iraq, the left threw away S. Vietnam after Nixon negotiated a peace agreement and refused to support our them when the North broke its side of the bargain.

War is destruction, and if we don't have the stomach to win, we should not be in to begin. We could never win WW II now because the press and the left (but I repeat myself) won't let us do what it takes to win.

[QUOTE=Sum Ting Wong;1670725]I wish I could say you are correct, but history has proven you wrong.
Not just once, but many times.

Get away from the left/right thing and see the light brother-I know you are smarter than that. I do care and I think you will eventually see the light.:D

You left out a few, but who's counting? :D Anyhow, what could POSSIBLY go wrong?