• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Its Obama who lost Iraq...

ObamacareFail said:

ObamacareFail said:
Are you of the goofy impression that Cheney profited financially from the Iraq war?
Click to expand...





You are saying that none of Cheney's buddies got single source contracts for Iraq?

Dick Cheney on Corporations



This was not about Cheney getting rich in the office, it was for after he was out of office, he would have income.


A year before the invasion, Sadam was giving the West unreasonable amounts of trouble. Financing suicide bombers, etc.

Within the year before the invasion, the West had cut Sadam's funding pathways, so Sadam had lost power over suicide bombers and suicide bombings were on the decrease. The objectives of the invasion of Iraq had been achieved, when Bush actually invaded.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_suicide_attacks

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq


The international banking community had already cut Sadam's financial pathways to make trouble in other middle-eastern countries.

Saddam did help keep Iran in check, by lying/exaggerating about having weapons of mass destruction.

I think the invasion of Iraq would have made sense in 2002, but not 2003. In 2002, Saddam had the West on its heels.



"The consensus of intelligence experts has been that these contacts never led to an operational relationship, and that consensus is backed up by reports from the independent 9/11 Commission and by declassified Defense Department reports[3] as well as by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, whose 2006 report of Phase II of its investigation into prewar intelligence reports concluded that there was no evidence of ties between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.[4] Critics of the Bush Administration have said Bush was intentionally building a case for war with Iraq without regard to factual evidence. On April 29, 2007, former Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet said on 60 Minutes, "We could never verify that there was any Iraqi authority, direction and control, complicity with al-Qaeda for 9/11 or any operational act against America, period."[5]"


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda_link_allegations

What links do you claim for Saddam and AlQaida?







///
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
The legitimate objective for the middle east, for the West, is controlled, limited chaos. Invading Iraq was a mistake, in 2003, because this led to am excessive amount of Chaos, that was a result of he invasion of 2003. Obama failed to realize how chaotic it would get, when the US left, but W had no reason to go into Iraq in 2003.

I don't believe keeping troops in Iraq would have changed anything.

I think messing around with Assad is dumb, because Assad has very little power, and is ready to leave the West alone. Assad and Saddam were creating problems for the West in 2002. But the international bankers had Saddam and Assad under control in 2003.



//
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom