9-11-14: Better or worse than 9-12-01?

... Aka .... #nuance

 

Sorry, but we had exactly what we wanted until the worst president in the history of American presidents pulled everyone out in 2011. Then he sat back and watched as what he called "the JV squad" proved him to be a complete do-nothing moron.

 

In any case, we now have a cheerleading squad down in Texas performing their own special 9/11 routine. So it's not all bad (or tacky or in poor taste....)

http://gawker.com/lets-watch-these-texas-cheerleaders-commemorate-9-11-wi-1730398303

 

As it's been pointed out earlier, that pullout was agreed to and signed by the previous president, who had started the whole mess that allowed the JV squad to do so well.

 

I've been trying to avoid responding to you, because you've proven yourself such a simple-headed and hateful buffoon to be unworthy of the time waste. But I think I will respond to this stupidity.

NO, we most certainly did NOT have that. If our Iraqi puppet govt and its military had been "stable and strong enough" to keep the terrorists out on its own then none of this shit would be happening. Granted, we did spend ourselves broke over nearly a decade trying to build one that could, but obviously never succeeded. Nor were we able to do it ourselves. I mean, seriously, who do you think we were fighting against for eight years there? It sure as hell wasn't Saddam, he was gone within the first two months, from then on it was these insurgent terrorist groups that began pouring in the moment Saddam fell.

We could not keep them out or get rid of them. Nor could the Iraq govt/military we set up. Nor would it ever have been strong enough, because the Iraqi people were never going to give the necessary support to an authority perceived as a puppet govt drawn up by an illegal US military occupation. In truth, the only Iraqi govt that's ever been able to successfully keep the terrorist groups out is the one we removed in 2003 for no valid reason.

As for Obama's 2011 decision to finally pull out, I'd point out it had overwhelming support at the time, and from both of the sides of aisle. Indeed, the primary criticism I recall him getting on Iraq back then was not why are we leaving, but instead "why the hell are we still there nearly a decade later, is this stupid war never gonna end?"

And there's also the matter that economically we simply could no longer afford the occupation. Hell, not sure we ever could, we financed the damn thing by borrowing ourselves senseless (for fucks sake we now owe China alone more than a trillion dollars due to that damn war). We went from running huge annual surpluses at the start of that decade, to staggering deficits in the years right after the Iraq invasion, ending up with a national debt level that defies rational belief. That fucking war bankrupted our treasury ...yet accomplishing nothing other than to make everything much worse over there.

Remaining there in a state of perpetual military occupation with no clear end in sight--seemingly a never ending war that never should've begun--was a notion the American people could no longer tolerate and was no longer economically sustainable. It had to end sometime.

 

Liberals are really missing despotic leaders of nations.

It's really a shame Saddam isn't still in charge, huh?

 

More people died on 9/11 than Pearl Harbor, and with few exceptions, policy makers didn't think we should be in "total war" mode. Even calling the Reserves and National Guard to active duty got a lot of people grumbling.

 

What made Saddam any more dangerous to us than any other despotic leader? Why was he so special?





(I know, I know, why do I even bother asking him anything. He'll just ignore the question, call me dumb or something similar and come up with a Clinton reference)

 

Maybe you should ask the guy who instituted the policy of regime change in Iraq:

Today I am signing into law H.R. 4655, the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998." This Act makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress that the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime in Baghdad now offers.

Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are:

The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and lawabiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region.

The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian makeup. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else.

The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life.

My Administration has pursued, and will continue to pursue, these objectives through active application of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. The evidence is overwhelming that such changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership.

In the meantime, while the United States continues to look to the Security Council's efforts to keep the current regime's behavior in check, we look forward to new leadership in Iraq that has the support of the Iraqi people. The United States is providing support to opposition groups from all sectors of the Iraqi community that could lead to a popularly supported government.

 

A little bit of a difference between "providing support for opposition groups" and sending 150,000 ground troops, doncha think?



(A Clinton reference. Did I call that one, or what?)

 

Yeah, all Clinton did was make "Regime Change" our official national policy, and you ask (paraphrasing) "What was so bad about Saddam?" Might want to confer with yourself before you ask such stupid questions.

And trying to deflect with "Another Clinton reference. Did I call that or what?" makes you look exceedingly stupid when taking into account Clinton created the policy of Regime Change.

 

Yes, "Regime change". To be done by the opposition groups, as the law says on multiple parts, which I assume you actually read. Not the US military doing the 99 percent of the "regime change" for them.


It's pathetic that you don't understand the difference between supporting opposition groups and doing the work for them. But what else should we expect when you don't understand anything involving #nuance.