• 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!

No, Barack Obama did not change U.S. policy regarding Jerusalem.

Objective Voice said:
Well, truth be told can you blame him for delaying? After all, we were still heavily involved in two wars where Islamic insurgency in both theaters of operation (Iraq and Afghanistan) were continuously escalating and IEDs were planted seeming at every roadside. And once ISIS sprang up and filtered outward to Syria and Europe, I'd say it would have been madness on his part to declare moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem as a foreign policy matter at any time during his presidency.

Trump had the luxury of two wars at their lowest inflection points since 2003 and ISIS all but eradicated. Therefore, it's now safe to make such a bold move....hindsight being what it is. I'm not taking anything away from his decision. Just stating the obvious.
Click to expand...

I see Obamas point. Politicians all agree: if you do the right thing and lose, no one loves you anymore. Politicians don’t like to do “the hard stuff” and take criticism. They prefer to ignore it until they can’t. Our system is ideally suited to benefit the procrastinators, and punish the proactive.
 
Perotista said:
Exactly. We created a bigger mess than if we left Iraq and Saddam alone.
Click to expand...

Thank you! I frequently get into debates with hawkish, interventionist types who rest on the "WMD or no WMD, getting rid of Saddam was worth it the long run." No, it was not. It cost the U.S. trillions of dollars, and cost an unimaginable amount of human devastation on a group of people who had nothing to do with 9/11 or were any threat to the U.S. Our ineptitude at nation building created a power vacuum that unleashed decades of pent up tribal and sectarian violence with no real mechanism for controlling it.
 
Lerxst said:
Thank you! I frequently get into debates with hawkish, interventionist types who rest on the "WMD or no WMD, getting rid of Saddam was worth it the long run." No, it was not. It cost the U.S. trillions of dollars, and cost an unimaginable amount of human devastation on a group of people who had nothing to do with 9/11 or were any threat to the U.S. Our ineptitude at nation building created a power vacuum that unleashed decades of pent up tribal and sectarian violence with no real mechanism for controlling it.
Click to expand...

There are some countries that need a strongman as a leader or they fall apart. Look at Yugoslavia, minus Tito, we have war and destruction and now several countries where there used to be one. Iraq was on such country. I always said Afghanistan was warrented and we fought that war in the beginning very smart. We let a few SF and paramilitary on the ground direct our air strikes while the 13 tribal/Northern Alliance did the fighting on the ground. The Taliban was driven out, but UBL wasn't caught. Then enter nation building. Instead of a few troops, we build up to well over 100,000. We still have troops in Afghanistan.

Iraq in my opinion is much closer to Iran today than to us. Libya is also a mess, a training ground and safe haven for terrorist. Libya is also a jumping off place for terrorist strikes to the countries south of Libya and could very be to Europe's soft underbelly. We try to take out Assad, that helps ISIS. Now Syria has Russians and the Russians have access to Syrian bases.

Sometimes it's best just to leave things alone, keep our nose out of other countries business. I think Libya would be better off with Qaddafi and Iraq with Saddam. But that is my opinion. Leaving Assad alone and letting him put down the Syrian rebels, Syria would be at peace today and we would have no refugee problem.

Afghanistan for harboring UBL, sure we should have went in. But we should have respected the Northern Alliances wishes. All they wanted to do, the 14 tribes was to return to their homelands and let their tribal elders rule them. Instead we forced and I use the word force democracy on them. Will it work out in the long run, time will tell.
 
chuckiechan said:
I see Obamas point. Politicians all agree: if you do the right thing and lose, no one loves you anymore. Politicians don’t like to do “the hard stuff” and take criticism. They prefer to ignore it until they can’t. Our system is ideally suited to benefit the procrastinators, and punish the proactive.
Click to expand...

So, what you're suggesting is former Pres. Obama purposely delayed taking action on Jerusalem until after he left office because he didn't want to face criticism? I highly doubt that.

I just think the conditions weren't conducive for a peaceful transition of the U.S. Embassy from Tela Viv to Jerusalem during his presidency. Of course, with both sides undermining the peace process, I don't think there would ever be a "right time". Still, I applaud Pres. Trump's boldness in this matter, but you have to admit the Muslim world is alot more stable today than it was 2-3 years ago.
 
Objective Voice said:
So, what you're suggesting is former Pres. Obama purposely delayed taking action on Jerusalem until after he left office because he didn't want to face criticism? I highly doubt that.

I just think the conditions weren't conducive for a peaceful transition of the U.S. Embassy from Tela Viv to Jerusalem during his presidency. Of course, with both sides undermining the peace process, I don't think there would ever be a "right time". Still, I applaud Pres. Trump's boldness in this matter, but you have to admit the Muslim world is alot more stable today than it was 2-3 years ago.
Click to expand...

IMO, Obama was a guy who took a job he never wanted. He came in with no ideas and a narrow vision: to use illegal immigration to eventually dilute and destroy the white vote.

That was the sum total of Obama, Inc.
 
Perotista said:
There are some countries that need a strongman as a leader or they fall apart. Look at Yugoslavia, minus Tito, we have war and destruction and now several countries where there used to be one. Iraq was on such country. I always said Afghanistan was warrented and we fought that war in the beginning very smart. We let a few SF and paramilitary on the ground direct our air strikes while the 13 tribal/Northern Alliance did the fighting on the ground. The Taliban was driven out, but UBL wasn't caught. Then enter nation building. Instead of a few troops, we build up to well over 100,000. We still have troops in Afghanistan.

Iraq in my opinion is much closer to Iran today than to us. Libya is also a mess, a training ground and safe haven for terrorist. Libya is also a jumping off place for terrorist strikes to the countries south of Libya and could very be to Europe's soft underbelly. We try to take out Assad, that helps ISIS. Now Syria has Russians and the Russians have access to Syrian bases.

Sometimes it's best just to leave things alone, keep our nose out of other countries business. I think Libya would be better off with Qaddafi and Iraq with Saddam. But that is my opinion. Leaving Assad alone and letting him put down the Syrian rebels, Syria would be at peace today and we would have no refugee problem.

Afghanistan for harboring UBL, sure we should have went in. But we should have respected the Northern Alliances wishes. All they wanted to do, the 14 tribes was to return to their homelands and let their tribal elders rule them. Instead we forced and I use the word force democracy on them. Will it work out in the long run, time will tell.
Click to expand...

Very good comment, I very much appreciate your measured and well reasoned response. It's refreshing. When it comes to Afghanistan, I have a couple of criticisms on how we handled it.
1. GWB and the group he surrounded himself with let hubris keep them working out a back channel deal to get Bin Laden handed to them through a third party. We could have had that. However, we simply didn't understand Afghan culture well enough to get out of our own way. The Taliban knew they were going to be hammered the day A! hit the WTC. They did harbor Bin Laden, but Bin Laden had not told them of the details of his attack until it was unfolding. They actually tried to negotiate handing Bin Laden over to a 3rd party so they could save face within their ranks. There would be no mercy within the Taliban for anyone surrendering Bin Laden to the U.S. directly, however they could pull off handing him over to someone else if there were some kind of supporting evidence that he was behind 9/11. Problem is, Bush started beating his chest - "you're with us or you're with the terrorists." The media campaign that ensued had Bush front and center, the U.S. versus Islam (how most Muslims viewed it). That kind of attitude made it impossible for the Taliban leadership to make any kind of deal, direct or back channel. So we beat the war drums and went in. Bush and Co. would not have terms dictated by a bunch backwards ass "toweliban" tribesmen, we have Tomahawk missles, B-52's, Navy SEALS, etc. Unfortunately, nobody was able to convince the Taliban they shouldn't
2. I think we had a great strategy early on, but failed to commit an appropriate amount of resources to actually fulfill the mission, which is why Bin Laden slipped out of Tora Bora and eventually wound up in Pakistan. From all I've read, and it is substantial, it was "too little, too late" once we had his location pinned down. And as you pointed out, we switched our strategy from "getting Bin Laden" to destroying the Taliban and bombing until the U.S. brand of democracy was adopted. There is so little understanding about the region, and what resources were available, we just refused to listen to. We are America, we have the best weapons, give us what we want or we'll smash you...the Taliban may be simple compared by western standards, but they don't back down. They outlasted the Russians, and they will outlast us. Just because we occupy ground there does not mean we control the country, and Americans just don't get that concept.

A good book relating to Afghan history is Games Without Rules: The Often Interrupted History of Afghanistan.
 
Lerxst said:
Very good comment, I very much appreciate your measured and well reasoned response. It's refreshing. When it comes to Afghanistan, I have a couple of criticisms on how we handled it.
1. GWB and the group he surrounded himself with let hubris keep them working out a back channel deal to get Bin Laden handed to them through a third party. We could have had that. However, we simply didn't understand Afghan culture well enough to get out of our own way. The Taliban knew they were going to be hammered the day A! hit the WTC. They did harbor Bin Laden, but Bin Laden had not told them of the details of his attack until it was unfolding. They actually tried to negotiate handing Bin Laden over to a 3rd party so they could save face within their ranks. There would be no mercy within the Taliban for anyone surrendering Bin Laden to the U.S. directly, however they could pull off handing him over to someone else if there were some kind of supporting evidence that he was behind 9/11. Problem is, Bush started beating his chest - "you're with us or you're with the terrorists." The media campaign that ensued had Bush front and center, the U.S. versus Islam (how most Muslims viewed it). That kind of attitude made it impossible for the Taliban leadership to make any kind of deal, direct or back channel. So we beat the war drums and went in. Bush and Co. would not have terms dictated by a bunch backwards ass "toweliban" tribesmen, we have Tomahawk missles, B-52's, Navy SEALS, etc. Unfortunately, nobody was able to convince the Taliban they shouldn't
2. I think we had a great strategy early on, but failed to commit an appropriate amount of resources to actually fulfill the mission, which is why Bin Laden slipped out of Tora Bora and eventually wound up in Pakistan. From all I've read, and it is substantial, it was "too little, too late" once we had his location pinned down. And as you pointed out, we switched our strategy from "getting Bin Laden" to destroying the Taliban and bombing until the U.S. brand of democracy was adopted. There is so little understanding about the region, and what resources were available, we just refused to listen to. We are America, we have the best weapons, give us what we want or we'll smash you...the Taliban may be simple compared by western standards, but they don't back down. They outlasted the Russians, and they will outlast us. Just because we occupy ground there does not mean we control the country, and Americans just don't get that concept.

A good book relating to Afghan history is Games Without Rules: The Often Interrupted History of Afghanistan.
Click to expand...

I heard the same thing about Chief Omar trying to broker a deal for UBL from a friend of mine. Democracy works for some, others it doesn't. I don't think we took the time to ask what each tribe of the 14 tribe Northern Alliance wanted. We just told them democracy would be the type of government they would have, whether they wanted it or not. We had from the Magna Carta on to the Constitution to get ready for democracy. The Afghan's didn't have that learning curve. Neither did the Iraqi.

I think we would have been just fine letting the tribes go back to their homeland with their elders ruling over them. When the taliban started to return, they still could have done the ground fighting with us using our air power to support them. We could have had a very small foot print in Afghanistan, just a few SF and paramilitary remaining there. Instead it was a huge military buildup and nation building.

UBL was out of Afghanistan by the time we got enough forces in there to try to track him down. We were bound to get him, it was just a matter of time. I always favored as small a footprint as possible. We have done very well with those troops we trained if we stayed with them. By that I mean an advisor or two, not a company or battalion etc. One must have faith in those you train. But most Americans, those from the west do look upon those from third nation countries as inferior to us in the west. That probably due to technology.

Respect is something that is earned, respect doesn't come by just being an American who thinks he knows what's best and how to go about doing things. There are times when the locals know the best way to get the mission done, but many times they will just stay quiet and not say a thing to an American advisor who think he is superior. I seen too much of that.

Anyway, the wife is calling, bed time. You take care. You are correct as far as I know.
 
chuckiechan said:
IMO, Obama was a guy who took a job he never wanted. He came in with no ideas and a narrow vision: to use illegal immigration to eventually dilute and destroy the white vote.

That was the sum total of Obama, Inc.
Click to expand...

O...K....moving right along....:coffeepap
 
chuckiechan said:
IMO, Obama was a guy who took a job he never wanted. He came in with no ideas and a narrow vision: to use illegal immigration to eventually dilute and destroy the white vote.

That was the sum total of Obama, Inc.
Click to expand...

That's one of the stupidest goddamned things I've ever read in my life. Literally every word of it is utterly asinine.
 
chuckiechan said:
IMO, Obama was a guy who took a job he never wanted. He came in with no ideas and a narrow vision: to use illegal immigration to eventually dilute and destroy the white vote.

That was the sum total of Obama, Inc.
Click to expand...

Lemme guess - you're a supporter of the guy who (when asked about why he hasn't appointed an ambassador to South Korea) said, "The only one that matters is me."

Kool-Aid clean-up, aisle four!
 
Perotista said:
I heard the same thing about Chief Omar trying to broker a deal for UBL from a friend of mine. Democracy works for some, others it doesn't. I don't think we took the time to ask what each tribe of the 14 tribe Northern Alliance wanted. We just told them democracy would be the type of government they would have, whether they wanted it or not. We had from the Magna Carta on to the Constitution to get ready for democracy. The Afghan's didn't have that learning curve. Neither did the Iraqi.

I think we would have been just fine letting the tribes go back to their homeland with their elders ruling over them. When the taliban started to return, they still could have done the ground fighting with us using our air power to support them. We could have had a very small foot print in Afghanistan, just a few SF and paramilitary remaining there. Instead it was a huge military buildup and nation building.

UBL was out of Afghanistan by the time we got enough forces in there to try to track him down. We were bound to get him, it was just a matter of time. I always favored as small a footprint as possible. We have done very well with those troops we trained if we stayed with them. By that I mean an advisor or two, not a company or battalion etc. One must have faith in those you train. But most Americans, those from the west do look upon those from third nation countries as inferior to us in the west. That probably due to technology.

Respect is something that is earned, respect doesn't come by just being an American who thinks he knows what's best and how to go about doing things. There are times when the locals know the best way to get the mission done, but many times they will just stay quiet and not say a thing to an American advisor who think he is superior. I seen too much of that.

Anyway, the wife is calling, bed time. You take care. You are correct as far as I know.
Click to expand...

Very good points, and I couldn't agree more regarding the U.S. ignoring the desires of the tribes and Northern Alliance. It was if we couldn't help ourselves when it came to letting them determine the path forward. We knew best, it would just take time for them to realize how great western democracy was and then we'd route the Taliban and have a great partner in the region. Pipe dreams in U.S. foreign policy. We were simply too impatient to nurture the Afghan people in their resistance to the Taliban, we needed results and we needed them yesterday, but that's not the way the Afghani's do business.

The U.S. lost Bin Laden after an expensive and bloody series of strategic and political failures, and I think we needed a win at home. The conflict supporting narrative was sure to fall apart if we didn't show U.S. voters we were fighting the terrorists and winning. We couldn't find Bin Laden, but we could beat the hell out of the Taliban in tactical engagements, but that was no long term strategy, the war became more about culture than about military victory, and that's where we stalled out. I believe we figured if we could build schools, build clinics, and improve their infrastructure they would eventually come around and work with coalition forces to wipe the Taliban out for good. Culturally that approach was doomed to fail, we could not protect the people in many provinces, and some of them wanted nothing to do with us to begin with. Life with the Taliban wasn't easy, but they understood how to do it. Throwing them off should have been a goal for the people of Afghanistan, at their own time and their own method.

I think we still hold on to this idea that we can figure out how to beat the Taliban. Trump and his generals will change the strategy up a bit, probably be a lot more bombs and a lot more bullets, and in the end it will fail because we are just very bad at fighting an insurgency. Hell, everybody is. It takes massive amounts of resources, dollars, and time. And even then it may or may not work. Especially in a tribal environment that rejects centralized rule in favor of cultural and religious fundamentalism. I see three more years of doubling down on a strategy of military force being the hammer and Afghanistan being a nail. The U.S. needs to get out of the occupation business. We're very bad at it and we have many more good things we could be doing.
 
Last edited:
Lerxst said:
Very good points, and I couldn't agree more regarding the U.S. ignoring the desires of the tribes and Northern Alliance. It was if we couldn't help ourselves when it came to letting them determine the path forward. We knew best, it would just take time for them to realize how great western democracy was and then we'd route the Taliban and have a great partner in the region. Pipe dreams in U.S. foreign policy. We were simply too impatient to nurture the Afghan people in their resistance to the Taliban, we needed results and we needed them yesterday, but that's not the way the Afghani's do business.

The U.S. lost Bin Laden after an expensive and bloody series of strategic and political failures, and I think we needed a win at home. The conflict supporting narrative was sure fall apart if we didn't show U.S. voters we were fighting the terrorists and winning. We couldn't find Bin Laden, but we could beat the hell out of the Taliban in tactical engagements, but that was no long term strategy, the war became more about culture than about military victory, and that's where we stalled out. I believe we figured if we could build schools, build clinics, and improve their infrastructure they would eventually come around and work with coalition forces to wipe the Taliban out for good. Culturally that approach was doomed to fail, we could not protect the people in many provinces, and some of them wanted nothing to do with us to begin with. Life with the Taliban wasn't easy, but they understood how to do it. Throwing them off should have been a goal for the people of Afghanistan, at their own time and their own method.

I think we still hold on to this idea that we can figure out how to beat the Taliban. Trump and his generals will change the strategy up a bit, probably be a lot more bombs and a lot more bullets, and in the end it will fail because we are just very bad at fighting an insurgency. Hell, everybody is. It takes massive amounts of resources, dollars, and time. And even then it may or may not work. Especially in a tribal environment that rejects centralized rule in favor of cultural and religious fundamentalism. I see three more years of doubling down on a strategy of military force being the hammer and Afghanistan being a nail. The U.S. needs to get out of the occupation business. We're very bad at it and we have many more good things we could be doing.
Click to expand...

I do believe when we go into a country, we forget the wishes and wants of the people of that country and try to impose our values, morality and secular ways. That's not what the people of Afghanistan wanted, they want their Muslim ways and rulers, especially their tribal elders. What the Northern Alliance opposed was all the 18 tribes under one ruler, they wanted individual tribal rulers. Hence their opposition to the Taliban. so what did we do, we brought the country, the 18 tribes under one ruler. Via the vote, but still under one ruler when that isn't what they wanted.

Time has always been an enemy for us. Not only in Afghanistan, but in Vietnam also. We wanted victory and we wanted it now. The North Vietnamese will willing to take all the time it took. One had to remember, it took the Vietnamese a thousand years, but they finally threw off the yoke of China. Time meant little to them, time meant everything to us. Different culture, different traditions and a totally different outlook on time.

Yeah, no more nation building, no more occupation. More importantly, no more forcing a type of government, rulers upon people who don't want them. If the tribes of Afghanistan want to be ruled by Islamic Law, so be it. It is after all, their country. Afghanistan is a country of shifting tribal alliances. Each tribe does and becomes allies of other tribes in what is best for their tribe. It is time to let the people and the tribes of Afghanistan decide their own fate.
 
Perotista said:
I do believe when we go into a country, we forget the wishes and wants of the people of that country and try to impose our values, morality and secular ways. That's not what the people of Afghanistan wanted, they want their Muslim ways and rulers, especially their tribal elders. What the Northern Alliance opposed was all the 18 tribes under one ruler, they wanted individual tribal rulers. Hence their opposition to the Taliban. so what did we do, we brought the country, the 18 tribes under one ruler. Via the vote, but still under one ruler when that isn't what they wanted.

Time has always been an enemy for us. Not only in Afghanistan, but in Vietnam also. We wanted victory and we wanted it now. The North Vietnamese will willing to take all the time it took. One had to remember, it took the Vietnamese a thousand years, but they finally threw off the yoke of China. Time meant little to them, time meant everything to us. Different culture, different traditions and a totally different outlook on time.

Yeah, no more nation building, no more occupation. More importantly, no more forcing a type of government, rulers upon people who don't want them. If the tribes of Afghanistan want to be ruled by Islamic Law, so be it. It is after all, their country. Afghanistan is a country of shifting tribal alliances. Each tribe does and becomes allies of other tribes in what is best for their tribe. It is time to let the people and the tribes of Afghanistan decide their own fate.
Click to expand...

I have a couple of dozen very good books that examine the many different angles of U.S. foreign policy over the lifetime of our nation. If one looks back over time with an objective lens, they can see how we got into this mess with Iraq and Afghanistan, and why we are so ineffectual at brokering peace in the middle east.

I think if we could change up our relationships with Israel and Saudi Arabia, improve our relationship with Turkey, and completely overhaul our policy towards Iran that would be a very good start. Unfortunately we won't do that. And without Turkey and Iran on board, there will be no peace in the middle east (if such a thing is possible).
 
Lerxst said:
Thank you! I frequently get into debates with hawkish, interventionist types who rest on the "WMD or no WMD, getting rid of Saddam was worth it the long run." No, it was not. It cost the U.S. trillions of dollars, and cost an unimaginable amount of human devastation on a group of people who had nothing to do with 9/11 or were any threat to the U.S. Our ineptitude at nation building created a power vacuum that unleashed decades of pent up tribal and sectarian violence with no real mechanism for controlling it.
Click to expand...

A bit off topic but arguably it wasn't deposing Saddam which caused the problem but the US decision to disband the entire Iraqi power structure rather than finding someone to act as their token to take control of it and coopt them.

And removing Saddam needed to happen because the Americans drew red lines that he pissed all over. Their continued credibility required action to address his obstinacy, although, as is quite obvious to everybody, they really mucked it up.

As for Jerusalem and the consequences of the Europeans' division of territory, the fundamental issue was partly the Europeans but mostly because, for cultural and political reasons, the Arab world lacked the institutions of the modern world and was not capable of adjusting to be a part of it. Nations didn't work because tribe took precedence and only strongmen could hold them together, while a lack of education and industriousness and a predisposition to fatalism and blame shifting ensured that even if the Ottomans disappeared without anyone stepping in to replace them, the place would be just as much of a complete mess as it is today (and probably more).

So while the Europeans thought their systems made the most sense for controlling imperial territory (vs the direct rule of the Ottomans, which was partly easier because of religious homogeneity) and that caused them to devolve far too much autonomy and control to Arab nation states run by strongmen, I don't think "imperialism" and "colonialism" are really the core of what has messed up the Arab world so badly. At its core are the cultural and institutional constraints which have limited the economic and social prosperity of that region for hundreds of years
 
CJ 2.0 said:
A bit off topic but arguably it wasn't deposing Saddam which caused the problem but the US decision to disband the entire Iraqi power structure rather than finding someone to act as their token to take control of it and coopt them.

And removing Saddam needed to happen because the Americans drew red lines that he pissed all over. Their continued credibility required action to address his obstinacy, although, as is quite obvious to everybody, they really mucked it up.

As for Jerusalem and the consequences of the Europeans' division of territory, the fundamental issue was partly the Europeans but mostly because, for cultural and political reasons, the Arab world lacked the institutions of the modern world and was not capable of adjusting to be a part of it. Nations didn't work because tribe took precedence and only strongmen could hold them together, while a lack of education and industriousness and a predisposition to fatalism and blame shifting ensured that even if the Ottomans disappeared without anyone stepping in to replace them, the place would be just as much of a complete mess as it is today (and probably more).

So while the Europeans thought their systems made the most sense for controlling imperial territory (vs the direct rule of the Ottomans, which was partly easier because of religious homogeneity) and that caused them to devolve far too much autonomy and control to Arab nation states run by strongmen, I don't think "imperialism" and "colonialism" are really the core of what has messed up the Arab world so badly. At its core are the cultural and institutional constraints which have limited the economic and social prosperity of that region for hundreds of years
Click to expand...

Thank you, that was a great post. And you are spot on, especially about the U.S. disbanding the Iraqi military and government structure. De-Baathification and firing the military sent the country into chaos. Not only did we terminate employment for the majority government and military, we also got rid of many teachers, doctors, engineers, and other highly skilled people that kept things going in Iraqi society. We had negotiated non-resistance deals with many Iraqi military leaders prior to the invasion, and told them we would let them remain in their positions to help secure the populace. We reneged on that. Problem was, we never disarmed them. All of those weapons caches were left unguarded and they simply re-armed and began the insurgency. Never a good idea to leave an armed populace with no money and lacking necessary infrastructure. It was no surprise when we found out that the best way to fight the insurgents was to simply give them jobs and pay them to protect their own communities (Sons of Iraq for example), cease attacks on coalition forces, and fight insurgents and foreign born terrorists operating in Iraq.

I have mixed feelings about U.N. sanctions. We knew well and good Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and we had no real intelligence that he actually had WMD's that posed any risk to the rest of the world (sure he had the old chemical artillery shells, but those were buried and pretty much unusable). "Red lines" are always a bad idea when dealing with strong man type world leaders.

Complete agreement on the European handling of the Ottoman territories after the Great War.

Thanks again for the great input.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom