Forum Home | Log in | Signup | My Page | Rules | FAQ | Boards | Members | Search
« POPE IV Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Iraq? We should not have invaded Iraq ??? 

By: Zimbler0 in POPE IV | Recommend this post (1)
Thu, 21 Jan 16 12:32 AM | 85 view(s)
Boardmark this board | POPES NEW and Improved Real Board 		Msg. 02760 of 47202
(This msg. is a reply to 02712 by Decomposed)
Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

Decomposed> I find it hard to believe that even Saddam Hussein couldn't have been taken out this way.


My personal opinion.
The invasion of Iraq was the correct way of doing it.
Saddam Hussein was maintaining the capability of resurrecting all manner of weapons of mass destruction. saddam was also a proud sponsor of Islamic terrorism.

I personally believe that saddam was behind 9-11. With the oil for food corruption money he certainly had the funds to do it. With America enforcing those 'No Fly' zones of Iraq saddam was certainly motivated. And there are those who can point out the opportunities saddam had to have made it happen.

Invading Iraq and removing saddam sent a very powerful message to the rest of the world - Libya's Khaddafi got the message and surrendered his WMD programs to U.S. Iran temporarily buried their nuclear ambitions.

john horse turd Kerry squawling 'we should not have invaded iraq' should have had that fool beheaded. Because of his antics, iran has been working overtime to develop nuclear weapons technology.

That fool President obombo should have twisted some tails to get a 'status of forces' agreement to keep American troops in Iraq. Because of his ineptitude, we left Iraq and the Iraqi Army degenerated to the point that ISIL just rolled over top of them.

Syria? Again, obombo's ineptitude made a bad situation much much worse. When assad used poison gas on his fellow Syrians, obombo should have had the cruise missiles falling on assad's head. Instead, obombo sucked on Putin's Johnson and said 'we would remove Syria's chemical weapons stockpiles' . . . and so the War in Syria just drags on and on and on.

Now we got the Russians in Syria . . .

We got China claiming ownership of all the South China Sea . . .

And we got ISIL inspiring terrorist attacks in the U.S. . . .

I agree with Ribit. I want a President who'll do something incredibly nasty and vicious to terrorists and their sponsors.

Zim.




Avatar

Mad Poet Strikes Again.

» You can also:
- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
Re: Not Satisfied: First Time Ever, Majority in U.S. Now Dissatisfied With Security From Terrorism
By: Decomposed in POPE IV
Tue, 19 Jan 16 10:09 PM 		Msg. 02712 of 47202

ribit: 

re: "The bayonet must be included in our bag of DIPLOMATIC tools."

I hope you at least agree that $400 million per dead American is way, way, WAY too much to be spending.

Our approach to terrorism should be do nothing overt until the responsible parties and their enablers are found, and then assassinate them. Pure and simple. Whether that's accomplished with a poisoned umbrella or an ICBM is irrelevant. I find it hard to believe that even Saddam Hussein couldn't have been taken out this way.

I could say the same about mass-shootings, by the way. If the cure for mass shootings is dramatically worse than the problem, then a different approach is needed. Infringing on the rights of 320 million law-abiding Americans because a few dozen people are murdered each year is, if you'll pardon the pun, overkill. (And it's no solution anyway since the problem is that too many Americans have no respect for human life.)
 

« POPE IV Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next