Iraq war post-mortem

Once Obama got into office, Freepers' ideology has drifted, since being against everything Obama does isn't as clarifying as cheerleading Bush's actual policies. This is especially true in foreign policy, which Freepers have never been really interested in beyond another channel for the Obama hatred.

Thus Freepers experience disagreement in how to react when Trump rolls realpolotik, and wishes we'd never removed the dictators oppressing Libya and Iraq. Throwing Bush under the bus didn't surprise me, but the number of imperialistic Neocons that remain did.

TigerClaws echoes Trump's analysis:

Absolutely true. The Christians there would also still be alive and we wouldn’t have the migration invasion.

George W. was delusional to think that with Saddam gone the Iraqis would embrace freedom. Their Muslim ideology is anti-democratic. The choice is secular dictator or religious dictator. Take your pick.

I’d prefer the secular dictators.

Cruz2Victory takes things one step further, and damn near quotes the Conquistadors:

I was a strong supporter of the Iraq war(s). And I was wrong. I did not know the mind of the arab, and most everyone there. You can’t bring sandy losers stuck in the dark ages into modern concepts of fredom.

Biggest lesson: True freedom is unnatural. When freedom is given or bestowed, it just gets corrupted and dies, quite fast. Freedom must be earned, fought for, craved with the entirety of the soul. It is a rare people who win freedom. And it must be won.

And during the fight, all opposed to freedom must be destroyed, completely and utterly destroyed. Because control freaks never, ever, ever give up. It’s a compulsion eminating from the core of their being.

And thus SWAMPSNIPER more or less justifies enslaving all Muslims:

The cultures of the ME absolutely require tyranny.

Mamzelle spares no mercy on Bush:

this really must be ticking off the Bush family, so that is a pleasure.

PGR88 conveniently ignores Iraq, which even other Freeper have been focusing on:

He’s correct - but Donald, don’t say what “WE” did there. Always say - what OBAMA and CLINTON did there.

They assassinated Khaddafi and turned Libya into a failed, violent, Jihadi state — for what reason???

SeekAndFind notes the change in position:

In 2003, there was HUGE support for Bush and Operation Iraqi Freedom here at FR.

In fact, there was HUGE support here at FR for THE SURGE as well.

My, how things have changed after a decade...

SeekAndFind follows up by deciding the Middle East is about like Europe:

OK, here’s hindsight. Iraq was quite stable between 2008 and 2011 after the surge.

They did not have a good, strong, incorruptible leader and that was the problem. BUT .... LEAVING IRAQ WAS A HUGE PROBLEM.

WE SHOULD NOT HAVE LEFT.

We are still in Japan, Germany and South Korea over 5 decades now. What makes people think that we can simply end the war by retreating in Iraq?

Trapped Behind Enemy Lines echoes old, rejected, Bush arguments:

The causus belli were numerous. The case against Saddam is solid. He received his just reward in the end. He deserved what he got. He was a mini-Hitler operating in the region who tried to get away with as much as possible.

Please, let’s not re-write history like the Left always does.

Trapped Behind Enemy Lines then says the oft-unstated GOP defense spending policy out loud:

I believe that military spending is a legitimate federal expense and that it needs be dramatically increased IMHO.

As for our colossal national debt-—which I agree is perfectly insane and unsustainable-—nearly all of that can attributed to out of control entitlement programs. Military spending is miniscule in comparison.

Starstruck takes confidence in the unproveable:

If Saddam was still in power, he would already have the bomb.

Sans-Culotte lets slip a great quote:

At the time, Saddam appeared to be a loose cannon that could not be allowed to flourish in a post-9/11 world. However, Bush apparently had no plan for the post-Saddam Iraq. "Let democracy taker its course" was not the way to go over there. If the removal of Saddam was done to make the world safer, it failed. Then to make matters worse, Obama and Hillary followed the same course in Libya.

I guess we at FR assumed Bush/Cheney et al knew what they were doing.

I guess we at FR assumed Bush/Cheney et al knew what they were doing.
I guess we at FR assumed Bush/Cheney et al knew what they were doing.
I guess we at FR assumed Bush/Cheney et al knew what they were doing.

HAHAHAHA!

MARKUSPRIME just wants occasional bombings. Forever.

fk the muslims. Saddam killed them and kept them in check, and Iran as well. All we had to do was enforce our no fly zone, and bomb if need be. Democracy everywhere does not work. Muslims need a dictator/strong man to murder enough of them to keep their barbarity quelled and in line. Sad but true.

piasa basically lays out an Imperial philosophy right out of Pericles:

Someone is always going to be the world’s policemen- everyone who isn’t is will be the world’s policed.

There’s no in between.

piasa knows it woulda worked, if it weren't for that meddling democracy!

the United States betrayed them, as we did Vietnam, by electing treasonous scum.

Now watching FR cheering on the KGB is sickening- the stupid has been growing stronger here over the years.

Timber Rattler doesn't get why America doesn't just take over everywhere:

Problem is that the Bush Administration lost its nerve after toppling Sadaam, and instead of right wheeling into Iran and turning the Israelis loose on the Syrians, Bush, Condi, and Rumsfeld decided to hunker down and fight the guerrilla/hearts and minds war, making the exact same mistakes that were made in Vietnam, before Bush finally pulled it out with the Surge (the victory in which Obama then chucked away).