Board
Search
Member List
Calendar
Red Dot Arms
Help
(01-30-2015, 08:57 AM)Dutz Wrote: I don't think a new government was his intention. I think he knew something was needed once Saddam was gone or it would become another Iran.
I think Bush would have stayed far away from nation building if he thought he could.
As far as using "our country’s anger after 9/11 to move on Iraq", in the words of Col. Nathan R. Jessup, a.k.a Jack Nicholson, "You're ***damn right I did"
And the world and the U.S. are far better off for it.
It had been 13 years since we had a president the world respected and in some ways feared. You can make a good argument 9/11 was a direct result of not taking out Saddam the first time. We don't realize what little information your average citizen and average terrorist get over there. As far as they were concerned the U.S. lost the first Gulf war.
Bush's message was loud and clear. "My daddy is from Maine, I'm from Texas, get the difference?"
Bush was right. The "bad" results you are seeing are Obama's failure in handling the last stages. Regardless of what government formed in Iraq or any "nation building" that would or would not occur what we needed was a post WW II style military base presence like Germany and Japan. And it needed to be open-ended, i.e. permanent.
Had we done that, this would have turned and continue to turn out much better.
I agree, Dutz, and would add that the Iraq situation is a direct result of Obama trying to follow the same system that was used in Vietnam, ie trying to run things from Washington and disregarding his field commanders. That led to the pull out that the field commanders, who were seeing the situation on the ground, told him would be a disaster. They were right and he was wrong. Of course Obozo tries to blame it on a treaty that Bush was supposed to be responsible for that was never actually official as the Senate never voted to ratify it. See a trend here?
(01-30-2015, 08:57 AM)Dutz Wrote: I don't think a new government was his intention. I think he knew something was needed once Saddam was gone or it would become another Iran.
I think Bush would have stayed far away from nation building if he thought he could.
As far as using "our country’s anger after 9/11 to move on Iraq", in the words of Col. Nathan R. Jessup, a.k.a Jack Nicholson, "You're ***damn right I did"
And the world and the U.S. are far better off for it.
It had been 13 years since we had a president the world respected and in some ways feared. You can make a good argument 9/11 was a direct result of not taking out Saddam the first time. We don't realize what little information your average citizen and average terrorist get over there. As far as they were concerned the U.S. lost the first Gulf war.
Bush's message was loud and clear. "My daddy is from Maine, I'm from Texas, get the difference?"
Bush was right. The "bad" results you are seeing are Obama's failure in handling the last stages. Regardless of what government formed in Iraq or any "nation building" that would or would not occur what we needed was a post WW II style military base presence like Germany and Japan. And it needed to be open-ended, i.e. permanent.
Had we done that, this would have turned and continue to turn out much better.
I agree, Dutz, and would add that the Iraq situation is a direct result of Obama trying to follow the same system that was used in Vietnam, ie trying to run things from Washington and disregarding his field commanders. That led to the pull out that the field commanders, who were seeing the situation on the ground, told him would be a disaster. They were right and he was wrong. Of course Obozo tries to blame it on a treaty that Bush was supposed to be responsible for that was never actually official as the Senate never voted to ratify it. See a trend here?
I think Bush would have stayed far away from nation building if he thought he could.
As far as using "our country’s anger after 9/11 to move on Iraq", in the words of Col. Nathan R. Jessup, a.k.a Jack Nicholson, "You're ***damn right I did"
And the world and the U.S. are far better off for it.
It had been 13 years since we had a president the world respected and in some ways feared. You can make a good argument 9/11 was a direct result of not taking out Saddam the first time. We don't realize what little information your average citizen and average terrorist get over there. As far as they were concerned the U.S. lost the first Gulf war.
Bush's message was loud and clear. "My daddy is from Maine, I'm from Texas, get the difference?"
Bush was right. The "bad" results you are seeing are Obama's failure in handling the last stages. Regardless of what government formed in Iraq or any "nation building" that would or would not occur what we needed was a post WW II style military base presence like Germany and Japan. And it needed to be open-ended, i.e. permanent.
Had we done that, this would have turned and continue to turn out much better.
I agree, Dutz, and would add that the Iraq situation is a direct result of Obama trying to follow the same system that was used in Vietnam, ie trying to run things from Washington and disregarding his field commanders. That led to the pull out that the field commanders, who were seeing the situation on the ground, told him would be a disaster. They were right and he was wrong. Of course Obozo tries to blame it on a treaty that Bush was supposed to be responsible for that was never actually official as the Senate never voted to ratify it. See a trend here?