Jump to content
  • Welcome to AngelsWin.com

    AngelsWin.com - THE Internet Home for Angels fans! Unraveling Angels Baseball ... One Thread at a Time.

    Register today to join the most interactive online Angels community on the net!

    Once you're a member you'll see less advertisements. Become a Premium member and you won't see any ads! 

     

2003 Invasion of Iraq, 11 years later...


Recommended Posts

Obama:

 

"Russia has pointed to America’s decision to go into Iraq as an example of Western hypocrisy. Now, it is true that the Iraq war was a subject of vigorous debate, not just around the world but in the United States, as well. I participated in that debate, and I opposed our military intervention there.


But even in Iraq, America sought to work within the international system. We did not claim or annex Iraq’s territory. We did not grab its resources for our own gain. Instead, we ended our war and left Iraq to its people in a fully sovereign Iraqi state that can make decisions about its own future."

 

Shortly after Obama's speech, the reality in Iraq:

 

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2014/03/27-0

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

`

He's correct that we did not attempt to annex the territory.

 

There are two types of governments in the middle east. Well connected, fairly oppressive, quick to squash dissent and the utter chaos of the aftermath of the first type. Qadaffi, Sadam, Mubarak, Bib Laden are gone. Assad on his way out. How is that working out for their countrymen? There will not be peace and stability here because the people are not nationalists. They are not loyal to any flag. They are clannish and refuse to pledge loyalty beyond the tribal level. The one who will stabilize the middle east will be the one who can get the tribal leaders together to come to a basic agreement. And I'm 100% sure that man is not any leader of a western democracy. Nor is he Vladimir Putin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are two types of governments in the middle east. Well connected, fairly oppressive, quick to squash dissent and the utter chaos of the aftermath of the first type. Qadaffi, Sadam, Mubarak, Bib Laden are gone. Assad on his way out. How is that working out for their countrymen? There will not be peace and stability here because the people are not nationalists. They are not loyal to any flag. They are clannish and refuse to pledge loyalty beyond the tribal level. The one who will stabilize the middle east will be the one who can get the tribal leaders together to come to a basic agreement. And I'm 100% sure that man is not any leader of a western democracy. Nor is he Vladimir Putin.

 

Funny that W could never seem to figure this out. The company line was that the Iraqi people would rush to embrace American-style democracy once we "liberated" them. Bush seemed totally stunned (I wasn't) when every suppressed faction throughout Iraq rushed to try to fill the void once Saddam Hussein was removed. We spent trillions of dollars and spilled an uncountable amount of American blood to essentially return Iraq to a tribal society. Yes, there is a central government, but how much control do they really have? From all accounts I have read, the daily lives of most Iraqis are far worse than they were before we showed up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...