sort by best latest
More stable? Hardly. Saddam Hussein has killed, tortured, raped, and terrorized the Iraqi people and his neighbors for over two decades. Over 1 million dead. Assad has committed unimaginable abuses- even against children as young as 7.
Stable for us,
Savvydating, Hussein may have committed atrocities against his own people and the Iranians, Assad the same against his people, but those regimes, like North Korea, were functioning states... not lawless lands of anarchy and terror spreading everywher
False. Those states did and do spread terror everywhere. Your use of the word anarchy does not apply within the context you have suggested. Thus, it is not relevant to this discussion.
That is your opinion Savvydating, I would classify Libya, Iraq, Syria, at the least as lawless lands where radical extremists hold control and spread their terror from those and other lands, to our own... you may not see it, but it is so.
I agree with that statement fully. What I disagree with is our not helping the Syrian Rebels when we had a chance. They were fighting against the brutality of Assad. Now look what has happened. I felt this matter was the gist of the author's question
Savvy, the Obama Admn DID help them, they shipped a boatload of weapons, anti-aircraft, etc. from Libya to them... it is why Benghazi happened... they supported it all "From the Arab Spring to Benghazi" I wrote that hub years ago, read it.
False. He did not help them. If he had, We would not have the Syrian refugee crises. Millions displaced. 300,000. Dead. Not my idea of help. Good luck with your theory. I prefer to get my news from prize winning journalists who are well respected.
It depends on what the goals were, it depends on what international matters they were forced to contend with, such as the positions Russia and China took on the matter. Unfortunately these comments limit my ability to share info with you.
Rightly said, 15 years back these nations were stable, no weapons of mass destruction were ever found in Iraq. Whether it be Gaddafi or Saddam, they never created a monsters like ISIS.
I do not defend our invasion of Iraq, I do see that the Bush Admin and the Obama Admin have pursued very different policies, hoping for very different results... this is the truth, whether either Admin's goals was just is not my point.
Obama did everything within his power to help the 'Arab Spring' to occur, he wrongly thought the people would bring about a better society if the dictators (in Libya, Egypt, etc.) were removed, so he helped remove them, and anarchy and terror grew in
No. He did next to nothing, and very late at that. PBS leans left, but Frontline has good reporting nevertheless. Watch the video I provided. You will see the facts there.
I do not need to see a news story, see the Hubs/articles I wrote years ago, back when it was occurring. The Obama administration had far more to do with making the Arab Spring happen than you'll ever see reported, by any televised news source.
Right. I know about the Arab Spring. I do not disagree. Again, I have been referring to the mess in Syria.
Well, one thing led to another, a long line of dominoes led Syria, Europe, the U.S. to where we are today... Syria is not an isolated matter, it is one of many pieces to the puzzle, as is Libya, Iraq, Egypt, Iran, etc.
I think Obama always knew what he was doing.. "Assad must go" was the stand he long pursued, unfortunately Russians coming to Assad's rescue and fighting IS shifted the whole dynamics.
I agree, just like how we deal with Iran is limited by the relationship they have with China, and the protection China provides Iran. So to, does how we deal with Syria depend on the relationship Russia has with Assad.
I disagree. The oil hypotheses is a myth.
I agree with most of your comment. Saddam kept the militiant radical Muslim extremists at bay, just like the USSR. and when they both disappeared that is when we had the Muslim Radical Extremists killing anyone not them.
Agreed end of day its all to do with petro-dollars. Now the radical elements essentially with their wahabi agenda are creating chaos and not difficult to tell who is helping them behind scenes supplying weapon and intel.
"...in response to a West that doesn't want to fight." Thank you for stating this sad fact.
Back in late 70s Taliban was good terrorism essentialy cuz they were fighting soviets with aids from America and support from Pakistan ISI. Post them defeating Soviet in '79 they unleashed their savegery as they were no longer a required entity.