Rubio continues to put his foot in his mouth

[GG]

 

If you actually read my post, the answer will reveal itself.

 

The problem is, again, you conflate the issues and pretend that things would be fine in ME, and only a failed invasion of Iraq in 2003 set this path in motion.

[Tiberius]

 

 

Undoubtedly the biggest enemy in the region -- even prior to the 2003 invasion -- was and still is Iran. If you hear Rubio talk about Iran, he'd agree with that statement. And yet, who benefited the most from the American invasion? The Iranians did through their proxy war against the great Satan, Saddam's Baathists, and the Sunni backed ISIS forces. Iran's influence and reach in the region has expanded dramatically since 2003 as a Shiite elite took over in what's left of Iraq. Iran is unquestionably in a more influential and threatening position in the region with Saddam out of the picture. Is that a good thing or a bad thing for the United States of America? Rubio would argue it's a bad thing -- or he would if he didn't stumble and stammer when someone reminded him of Saddam's role in limiting Tehran's influence prior to 2003. The one benefit of Saddam for American foreign policy was his ability to keep Tehran's power in check, now that's gone. As a result of our actions, Iran's strength in the region has grown exponentially. How could that possibly be viewed as a positive thing for the United States?

 

 

You mean the Iran that is begging us to drop the sanctions against them? Can I ask you what the Shiite population of Iran--I mean since you seem to know so much, snerk--thinks of the democracy in Shiite Iraq? You don't see that as putting pressure on the fundamentalist government there? You said we accomplished no strategic goals there, but isn't democracy a strategic goal?

 

 

Saddam was always a threat to fund and supply hostile actors against America, that was the main reason we invaded if you listen to (Vice)President Cheney talk about it, but Saddam was also a dog on America's leash. He was our bastard in power, one we funded and helped train from the day he stepped into office. His methods for stabilizing the sectarian violence in Iraq were deplorable and often genocidal, but there's no debate that Saddam was a predictable statesman. We understood him from a foreign policy perspective and knew how to deal with him, even if it meant swatting his nose with a carrier group from time to time. A Saddam led (or at least stable) Iraq kept the dogs of war at bay in the region more often than not. afer, and replaced him with 1,000 genocidal fighters with a death wish.

 

You mean like when he invaded Kuwait? You are such an idiot

[Magox]

 

Count me among the not many.

 

I think you misunderstood me, or perhaps not. I'd venture to say if that question was posed today to the American public, "Is the world a better place today without Saddam Hussein?". There very well may be more people that say no than yes. My argument isn't to say that the world is better, just that it is a very sensible debatable issue among thoughtful people.

 

It's a matter of whose perspective? If you are looking at this from an US economic point of view, I'd say we aren't better off. If you are looking at this from a point of view of the value of human lives. Then I'd say yes, the world is better off.

 

The point is as I've said before is that reasonable people can have reasonable differences, but to say that this isn't a fair-minded debate is silly.

[3rdnlng]

The question that Greg tried to preempt needs to be asked. If we had kept a force in Iraq capable of preventing the ISIS victories and control of much of Iraq would we or would we not think it was worth it to get rid of Saddam?

[IDBillzFan]

The question that Greg tried to preempt needs to be asked. If we had kept a force in Iraq capable of preventing the ISIS victories and control of much of Iraq would we or would we not think it was worth it to get rid of Saddam?

 

One of the few things I know about pulling troops out of Iraq is that countless people predicted what would happen and were called racists, and then when it predictably happened far more brutally than even the experts predicted, the people yelling "racists!" then said it was all Bush's fault, as if Isis would have still taken Iraq and begun murdering hundreds of people if the troops were left in place.

[4merper4mer]

The question that Greg tried to preempt needs to be asked. If we had kept a force in Iraq capable of preventing the ISIS victories and control of much of Iraq would we or would we not think it was worth it to get rid of Saddam?

 

 

IMO that is an equally bunk question to what was asked of Rubio. We can all have our opinions but to ask Obama, "If you knew then what you know now would you still have withdrawn all the troops?" is a fruitless endeavor just like the Rubio question. The only correct answer is "I don't have a time machine so STFU".

 

The inevitable result of chains of questions like this leads us all the way back to asking God "If you knew then what you know now would you still have created Adam and Eve" or asking the last atom to join the singularity before the Big Bang "if you knew then what you know now, would you still have piled on"?. I threw that one in there for Baldy.

 

Don't get me wrong, everyone can vote for whoever they want and everyone can and should offer their opinions but these questions are designed for nothing other than getting someone into an impossible corner.

[reddogblitz]

Can I ask you what the Shiite population of Iran--I mean since you seem to know so much, snerk--thinks of the democracy in Shiite Iraq? You don't see that as putting pressure on the fundamentalist government there? You said we accomplished no strategic goals there, but isn't democracy a strategic goal?

 

The Domino Theory lives.

 

Who made it America's role to conquer foreign lands and force democracy down the throats of people who don't even want it?

 

All we're doing over there is making enemies faster than we can kill them.

 

We have one and only one strategic interest over there. OIL.

[Magox]

The Problem LA, is that public sentiment shifts like leaves in the wind. It's too difficult and I'd argue almost unreasonable to expect that the US can follow through on any foreign policy that includes nation building. Yes, if we would have followed through on Bush's plan it very well may have ended in a much more stable Iraq and I'd argue Middle East, but the cost would have been tremendous. We would have spent Hundreds of Billions if not Trillions to have that happen not to mention would have entailed risking American Lives more so than they are now.

 

But the reality is that we have elections, and when wars are unpopular and huge nation building projects are under way, you can easily see a new president step in to stop the "occupation" of another sovereign country from the previous administration and reverse course, much like Obama did. Of course, his actions are proving to be costly as well, yes, he had a mandate to pull out of Iraq, but what's popular with the public isn't necessarily what's best for the country. Bush didn't create ISIS and either did Obama. ISIS has always been there, it is a deep-seeded ideology that has been dormant for quite some time. However, Bush did create the instability by displacing a secular dictator. Yes, with his surge he did keep it in check, and yes, Obama's fateful decision to not push for the Status of Forces agreement in Iraq did contribute to creating the vacuum in Iraq that allowed this poisonous interpretation of the Koran to fester and ultimately become what it is today.

 

I guess what I'm saying is that we can't rely on the American public to follow through on any Nation Building projects.

[GG]

The Domino Theory lives.

 

Who made it America's role to conquer foreign lands and force democracy down the throats of people who don't even want it?

 

 

Talk to the guys who decided to split from England, and then took over nearly the entire continent.

[3rdnlng]

The Problem LA, is that public sentiment shifts like leaves in the wind. It's too difficult and I'd argue almost unreasonable to expect that the US can follow through on any foreign policy that includes nation building. Yes, if we would have followed through on Bush's plan it very well may have ended in a much more stable Iraq and I'd argue Middle East, but the cost would have been tremendous. We would have spent Hundreds of Billions if not Trillions to have that happen not to mention would have entailed risking American Lives more so than they are now.

 

But the reality is that we have elections, and when wars are unpopular and huge nation building projects are under way, you can easily see a new president step in to stop the "occupation" of another sovereign country from the previous administration and reverse course, much like Obama did. Of course, his actions are proving to be costly as well, yes, he had a mandate to pull out of Iraq, but what's popular with the public isn't necessarily what's best for the country. Bush didn't create ISIS and either did Obama. ISIS has always been there, it is a deep-seeded ideology that has been dormant for quite some time. However, Bush did create the instability by displacing a secular dictator. Yes, with his surge he did keep it in check, and yes, Obama's fateful decision to not push for the Status of Forces agreement in Iraq did contribute to creating the vacuum in Iraq that allowed this poisonous interpretation of the Koran to fester and ultimately become what it is today.

 

I guess what I'm saying is that we can't rely on the American public to follow through on any Nation Building projects.

It certainly seemed to me that the Iraqi war got a lot less unpopular once Obama became president. Even General Betrayus became General Petraeus again. The far left were the only ones speaking up about it. What has happened over there was predicted but Obama didn't want to disappoint his big donors. Hell of a way to run a foreign policy.

[IDBillzFan]

The Problem LA, is that public sentiment shifts like leaves in the wind. It's too difficult and I'd argue almost unreasonable to expect that the US can follow through on any foreign policy that includes nation building. Yes, if we would have followed through on Bush's plan it very well may have ended in a much more stable Iraq and I'd argue Middle East, but the cost would have been tremendous. We would have spent Hundreds of Billions if not Trillions to have that happen not to mention would have entailed risking American Lives more so than they are now.

 

But the reality is that we have elections, and when wars are unpopular and huge nation building projects are under way, you can easily see a new president step in to stop the "occupation" of another sovereign country from the previous administration and reverse course, much like Obama did. Of course, his actions are proving to be costly as well, yes, he had a mandate to pull out of Iraq, but what's popular with the public isn't necessarily what's best for the country. Bush didn't create ISIS and either did Obama. ISIS has always been there, it is a deep-seeded ideology that has been dormant for quite some time. However, Bush did create the instability by displacing a secular dictator. Yes, with his surge he did keep it in check, and yes, Obama's fateful decision to not push for the Status of Forces agreement in Iraq did contribute to creating the vacuum in Iraq that allowed this poisonous interpretation of the Koran to fester and ultimately become what it is today.

 

I guess what I'm saying is that we can't rely on the American public to follow through on any Nation Building projects.

 

I actually agree with all of this. It's just tiresome to hear nutsuckers repeatedly give Barry a pass pulling out of Iraq when every thinking person knew what would happen.

 

He's managed to keep probably two campaign promises in his entire presidential career, and this one was a painful one that didn't have to happen if only he had the nutsack to admit he oversold it...like he did with Gitmo.

[3rdnlng]

 

 

IMO that is an equally bunk question to what was asked of Rubio. We can all have our opinions but to ask Obama, "If you knew then what you know now would you still have withdrawn all the troops?" is a fruitless endeavor just like the Rubio question. The only correct answer is "I don't have a time machine so STFU".

 

The inevitable result of chains of questions like this leads us all the way back to asking God "If you knew then what you know now would you still have created Adam and Eve" or asking the last atom to join the singularity before the Big Bang "if you knew then what you know now, would you still have piled on"?. I threw that one in there for Baldy.

 

Don't get me wrong, everyone can vote for whoever they want and everyone can and should offer their opinions but these questions are designed for nothing other than getting someone into an impossible corner.

No, Obama had a choice of keeping some troops there or not. He was told what the consequences of leaving might be. It's a legitimate question.

[Magox]

 

I actually agree with all of this. It's just tiresome to hear nutsuckers repeatedly give Barry a pass pulling out of Iraq when every thinking person knew what would happen.

 

He's managed to keep probably two campaign promises in his entire presidential career, and this one was a painful one that didn't have to happen if only he had the nutsack to admit he oversold it...like he did with Gitmo.

 

Let the spinsters spin and the apologists make excuses. None of that will ever take away the fact that both administrations made huge miscalculations.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

The problem is, again, you conflate the issues and pretend that things would be fine in ME, and only a failed invasion of Iraq in 2003 set this path in motion.

 

I agree that's a ridiculous conclusion, and it's not one I'm making. The question was "is the world a better place without Saddam?" The current status of the ME today is a direct result of the decision to invade in 2003 and must be factored into any answer to that question. Hindsight is required, foresight isn't. We can only speculate what it would look like with Saddam still in power, it could be better or it could be much worse.

 

The question that Greg tried to preempt needs to be asked. If we had kept a force in Iraq capable of preventing the ISIS victories and control of much of Iraq would we or would we not think it was worth it to get rid of Saddam?

 

It certainly should be asked, but it's immaterial to this specific question. It is, however, completely relevant as an overall discussion of the topic.

 

 

I think you misunderstood me, or perhaps not. I'd venture to say if that question was posed today to the American public, "Is the world a better place today without Saddam Hussein?". There very well may be more people that say no than yes. My argument isn't to say that the world is better, just that it is a very sensible debatable issue among thoughtful people.

 

It's a matter of whose perspective? If you are looking at this from an US economic point of view, I'd say we aren't better off. If you are looking at this from a point of view of the value of human lives. Then I'd say yes, the world is better off.

 

The point is as I've said before is that reasonable people can have reasonable differences, but to say that this isn't a fair-minded debate is silly.

 

And yet, the human lives element of your argument is your weakest. It's speculative and ignores the actual question being asked (along with current events) and shows you're just looking to defend Rubio because he's your boy.

 

You mean the Iran that is begging us to drop the sanctions against them? Can I ask you what the Shiite population of Iran--I mean since you seem to know so much, snerk--thinks of the democracy in Shiite Iraq? You don't see that as putting pressure on the fundamentalist government there? You said we accomplished no strategic goals there, but isn't democracy a strategic goal?

You mean like when he invaded Kuwait? You are such an idiot

 

If you can explain what strategic goal is obtained by letting your stated enemy gain ground, influence, and power in the region, I'll be stunned. Otherwise, you should stick to your other account.

 

The Problem LA, is that public sentiment shifts like leaves in the wind. It's too difficult and I'd argue almost unreasonable to expect that the US can follow through on any foreign policy that includes nation building. Yes, if we would have followed through on Bush's plan it very well may have ended in a much more stable Iraq and I'd argue Middle East, but the cost would have been tremendous. We would have spent Hundreds of Billions if not Trillions to have that happen not to mention would have entailed risking American Lives more so than they are now.

 

But the reality is that we have elections, and when wars are unpopular and huge nation building projects are under way, you can easily see a new president step in to stop the "occupation" of another sovereign country from the previous administration and reverse course, much like Obama did. Of course, his actions are proving to be costly as well, yes, he had a mandate to pull out of Iraq, but what's popular with the public isn't necessarily what's best for the country. Bush didn't create ISIS and either did Obama. ISIS has always been there, it is a deep-seeded ideology that has been dormant for quite some time. However, Bush did create the instability by displacing a secular dictator. Yes, with his surge he did keep it in check, and yes, Obama's fateful decision to not push for the Status of Forces agreement in Iraq did contribute to creating the vacuum in Iraq that allowed this poisonous interpretation of the Koran to fester and ultimately become what it is today.

 

I guess what I'm saying is that we can't rely on the American public to follow through on any Nation Building projects.

 

Completely sensible, and further solidifies why Rubio's answer to the question -- and your initial answer -- is demonstrably wrong. There are decades of history to point to which prove the point this country does not have the stomach for nation building. The entire strategic vision of the invasion depended upon this fundamentally flawed belief after all. Didn't it? So how can Rubio's answer be anything other than laughable if you truly believe what you just wrote? We know now, with hindsight, this was a miscalculation -- all he has to do is own up to it. But he doesn't. He can't. Why?

[reddogblitz]

 

I actually agree with all of this. It's just tiresome to hear nutsuckers repeatedly give Barry a pass pulling out of Iraq when every thinking person knew what would happen.

 

 

What is happening now is what was bound to happen whenever we decided to leave. Be it under "Barry"'s watch, or P Bush's grandson when he gets to be president.

 

Did you really want to baby sit them for another few decades? You can't make people like each other. We've stuck ourselves in the middle of a religious/tribal war.

 

We did stay there and nation build (which W said in the debates he opposed) for 8 years and the top still blew off. Another 5, 10, 20 30 years would have made little difference IMHO.

[Magox]

 

What is happening now is what was bound to happen whenever we decided to leave. Be it under "Barry"'s watch, or P Bush's grandson when he gets to be president.

 

Did you really want to baby sit them for another few decades? You can't make people like each other. We've stuck ourselves in the middle of a religious/tribal war.

 

We did stay there and nation build (which W said in the debates he opposed) for 8 years and the top still blew off. Another 5, 10, 20 30 years would have made little difference IMHO.

 

I suppose it's a matter of how you view the U.S's role in the world. Should we be a force to try to stop mass atrocities across the world? Or shall we take a more isolationist path and allow these things to happen? Yes, I understand it's not a zero sum world, there is a happy medium to all this, but where is that medium? If the US doesn't intervene, then you damn well the rest of the world will just debate it at the United Nations, make some sort of meaningless declaration of disapproval and that will basically be the end of that.

 

It's complicated.

[GG]

 

I agree that's a ridiculous conclusion, and it's not one I'm making. The question was "is the world a better place without Saddam?" The current status of the ME today is a direct result of the decision to invade in 2003 and must be factored into any answer to that question. Hindsight is required, foresight isn't. We can only speculate what it would look like with Saddam still in power, it could be better or it could be much worse.

 

 

Again you're ignoring a major factor in how things got to where they are now - 2003 is a critical juncture, but how much sway does 1991 have into the 2003 decision, and did that date simply shorten the time frame for heavy US involvement, which we're about to find out in the next few years?

 

If you think that the 2003 invasion changed the trajectory of what was building up in Mid East, you may be only right that it was earlier than it naturally would have occurred.

 

Nature abhors a vacuum, and you're witnessing firsthand the effects of a hands off US foreign policy in a hot zone.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

I suppose it's a matter of how you view the U.S's role in the world. Should we be a force to try to stop mass atrocities across the world? Or shall we take a more isolationist path and allow these things to happen? Yes, I understand it's not a zero sum world, there is a happy medium to all this, but where is that medium? If the US doesn't intervene, then you damn well the rest of the world will just debate it at the United Nations, make some sort of meaningless declaration of disapproval and that will basically be the end of that.

 

It's complicated.

 

I do believe the United States has a role to play in stopping atrocities across the world. I know not everyone agrees with that, but I do. But let's not kid ourselves, that's a cop out way to look back at this policy decision. I think you would agree that a full on invasion and occupation of Iraq falls into the more extreme category when it comes to finding a solution to the problem. There were then, and are today, plenty of other ways to handle the situation. Ways which would have been cheaper and less destabilizing to the region.

 

 

 

Again you're ignoring a major factor in how things got to where they are now - 2003 is a critical juncture, but how much sway does 1991 have into the 2003 decision, and did that date simply shorten the time frame for heavy US involvement, which we're about to find out in the next few years?

 

If you think that the 2003 invasion changed the trajectory of what was building up in Mid East, you may be only right that it was earlier than it naturally would have occurred.

 

Nature abhors a vacuum, and you're witnessing firsthand the effects of a hands off US foreign policy in a hot zone.

 

I agree, especially your last sentence. Personally speaking I believe 1991 had a tremendous role in the decision to invade. W made things personal from the start and looked for any excuse to invade and finish the job his father didn't. There's plenty of anecdotal evidence of this scattered throughout the books published by his cabinet in the past few years that make that exact case.

 

The long post last page was specifically addressing what I believe to be an indefensible answer to the question: "is the world a better place with Saddam gone knowing what we know now?" The question Rubio answered in the affirmative. Debating the decision to invade, the aftermath and the consequences of past policy is completely fair and on the table. But the empirical evidence is overwhelming that the world, or at the very least our country, is not a better place today than when Saddam was in power.

[GG]

 

The long post last page was specifically addressing what I believe to be an indefensible answer to the question: "is the world a better place with Saddam gone knowing what we know now?" The question Rubio answered in the affirmative. Debating the decision to invade, the aftermath and the consequences of past policy is completely fair and on the table. But the empirical evidence is overwhelming that the world, or at the very least our country, is not a better place today than when Saddam was in power.

 

That's like saying that someone felt better when the cancer was in remission, before it came back. The docile Saddam you saw between 1991 and 2003 was not going to last a very long time.

[DC Tom]

 

That's like saying that someone felt better when the cancer was in remission, before it came back. The docile Saddam you saw between 1991 and 2003 was not going to last a very long time.

 

The docile Saddam between 1991 and 2003 wasn't all that docile.

 

The greatest trick Bill Clinton ever pulled was making everyone forget we were still in a shooting war with Iraq during his term.