It's widely held by many on the left that Dubya was a bad President and that Iraq was a mistake. Is that true though? Is the final redpill that George W. Bush was right?
Christopher Hitchens said the Iraq war was justified by the fact that Saddam was consolidating his power, dropping the dollar, and become a thread to us all.
In retrospect, was going to war with Iraq based and redpilled?
Tucker is great but yes on this issue he is full of shit. Everyone who plays the "anti-war card" is full of shit. Opposition party always does it too. Republicans aren't technically the opposition party right now, but culturally and in terms of embedded government officials they sort of are, so many are still trying to play it.
Nobody serious actually thinks that pulling out of the middle east, or not invading MORE countries in the middle east is good though.
I just posted about this on another thread. Basically just think of a world today in which Saddam had been allowed to continue on. He wasn't complying with UN weapon inspections. He was doing the same dance that NK and Iran were doing. Today NK and Iran are nuclear threats.
Because of President George W Bush, you at the very least don't have to deal with a nuclear armed Iraq. Bush WANTED to go into both NK and Iran too (called them "The Axis of Evil") but the faggot liberals and anti-war activist "peace" hippies stopped him. Now we're probably going to incinerate all of humanity in a nuclear holocaust or even worst a messy biological warfare weapon at some point in the near future.
Yes, Iraq war was "based". Yes, the anti-war lobby is virtue signaling, anti-intellectual garbage. Yes, the people who are intelligent and educated KNOW that they are spewing lies about the war situation. YES, Tucker Carlson does that every night (although I still think his show is really great and personally believe that he is prob actually a pretty decent guy deep down who is just trying to do what he thinks is best by playing the game of politics, but yes he is 100% full of shit on that one particular issue).
Tyler Rodriguez
>550 metric tons of yellowcake uranium removed from Iraq >nbcnews.com/id/25546334/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/secret-us-mission-hauls-uranium-iraq/#.XSq-UR7Pxzk Yes, it was declared. Yes, we knew it was there. No, there is no direct proof that Saddam was actively using it to work on nuclear weapons. But he was refusing UN inspections and he was holding on to that stuff. You don't just hold on to yellowcake uranium "just because". He had nuclear ambitions. The iraq war started 16 years ago. When it started North Korea was not nuclear and Iran wasn't even close to nuclear. In the 16 intermittent years, it's pretty dumb to think that Iraq would not have become a nuclear power the same as NK and Iran did.
The anti-war lobby was wrong and because of them America and the west will probably one day be destroyed. Europe is already being destroyed by muslim immigration anyway. The whole thing with the fucking virtue signaling, BS leftists just sowed the seeds of our own destruction for no reason.
Dylan Evans
A few trillion dollars later it’s not so black/white
Based poster, but invading Iran and NK are harder because they’re both backed by bigger nuclear armed states. Iran was backed by Russia and China backs the norks as a buffer state between democracy and their weird synthesis of capitalism, fascism, and communism.
Nicholas Lee
>there is no direct proof that Saddam was actively using it to work on nuclear weapons Imagine writing the biggest Neo Conservative cumstain of a post on Jow Forums and lose your argument by typing this after typing for almost 10 minutes
James Miller
>Because of President George W Bush, you at the very least don't have to deal with a nuclear armed Iraq. My question is though, would they have ever used it?
>The anti-war lobby was wrong and because of them America and the west will probably one day be destroyed. Europe is already being destroyed by muslim immigration anyway Thing is though, part of this is related isn't it? For example, the KSA is responsible for much of the islamic terrorism over Europe in terms of wahhabist mosque funding and etc. And a lot of this has been increased from the Libya situation.
Of course, the European govts are themselves to blame for letting in massive amounts of refugees, but ultimately it all adds onto the same issue.
Would we better off if we took out Iran right now for example?
I'm playing devils advocate on both things by the way to try to learn.
Camden Allen
This is because of idiotic things like "nation building" and autistic avoidance of "collateral damage".
Ethan Murphy
I wished they did it to remove saddam only, but yes, dubya was right. The bullshit that followed after saddam died shouldn’t have ever happened. We should’ve pulled out and let Iraq collapse into a heap of stupidity.
Caleb Richardson
>We should’ve pulled out and let Iraq collapse into a heap of stupidity. that happened, on your watch. And after 10 years you accomplished nothing but turn it into an Iranian buffer state.
Congrats
Kayden Reed
>YES, Tucker Carlson does that every night (although I still think his show is really great and personally believe that he is prob actually a pretty decent guy deep down who is just trying to do what he thinks is best by playing the game of politics, but yes he is 100% full of shit on that one particular issue).
I understand where Tuck is coming from. And that's why I made the thread too. On one hand, Tucker would say 'The US wasted a ton of money, cost a lot of lives, and the world is a less safe place because of Iraq'. On the other hand, Saddam was dropping the dollar, potentially going for WMDs as you and the other poster have said, and he was also considering forming an alliance with other ME nations over time, (moving closer with Libya for example).
So ultimately, had Iraq not happened, would we be worse off today?
Parker Gutierrez
>and Iraq not happened, would we be worse off today? No because the entire region wouldn't have gone to complete shit. US Invasion is why the region is an utter mess.
Jack Baker
International law is bullshit for this reason. No one really even abides by it anyway yet everyone 'pretends' they do to virtue signal on the world stage... My issue with the neocons is they talk about 'democracy, nation building' all the time. Would Rome have done that?
Carson Sullivan
But isn't that better than having a nuclear armed Iraq as well as hurting the petrodollar?
Evan Brooks
Middle East wars are about keeping the US military fighting fit and making sure new hardware is battle tested. Oh and oil.
Oliver Taylor
The invasion of Iraq was justified on fabricated evidence.
Ryder Williams
>petrodollar Who fucking cares? America didn't preserve shit, you just made everything worse and contributed to eventual replacement of it
Henry Brooks
Without the petrodollar the US empire is screwed. Saddam was playing ball back in the day but he got too big for his boots..
Andrew Adams
Sad Dan was working on nukes yet none were ever found really makes me think ya shill idiots
Levi Morales
If you seriously think the petrodollar and an Iraqi dictator is your prime concern than your country getting absolutely raped in everything domestically, then youre stupid. Maybe that's why you think Bolton has a good case for sucking Kike dick on Fox after being a incompetent hated shithead in the Pentagon
Tyler Campbell
Can't both be important?
Angel Morales
reasonable quality bait I guess
Zachary Garcia
I was skeptical of W.'s Iraq War from day one. The War in Afghanistan was kind of justified because they harboured Bin Laden, but Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, something even they admitted. Unjustified and allegedly straight up illegal to attack Iraq using that pretext. >implying that Saddam wasn't a puppet if the US already anyways
Landon Ward
Bolton is a fucking retard dude. What the fuck arguments does he have that justifies you dying in some desert hellhole because he gets paid by the MEK and AIPAC to think?
Nathan Jenkins
I didn't advocate pumping trillions of dollars into a desert shithole because it's obvious sandniggers can't do anything except make life pretty miserable for anyone in their general vicinity. I would have advocated for occupation with an iron fist and seizure of their oil as payment, same thing with Iran. Sooner or later they would straighten up, and if not, they're not a threat to us or our dominance in the region. As it stands, we lit warehouses of American tax dollars on fire over land that produces enough oil to make any country with a non retarded population prosperous beyond their wildest dreams and guess what we have to show for it? Weakness. Weakness and resentment.
Grayson Bailey
Honestly all non-Americans are sub-subhuman. They are life unworthy of life and they must not only be genocided out of existence, but any and all traces of their existence must be scrubbed from the universal psyche. America is pure, holy, and anointed by Christ to send the sand people to the fires of hell eternal.
>I would have advocated for occupation with an iron fist and seizure of their oil as payment, same thing with Iran. Sooner or later they would straighten up, and if not, they're not a threat to us or our dominance in the region
Bolton's argument is that America must remain number 1 by any means necessary. I assume his support for MEK is basically him admitting by proxy that he wants Iran to be a failed state mess.
How would you feel if he turned his attention towards China for example instead of Iran?
Anyway it's not just Bolton, realistically Bolton has become a kind of meme figure to represent the entire idea of neoconservative policy. At some point they will probably just have a giant moustache on a coathanger with a sign saying 'Bomb Iran' present in White House meetings if Bolton can't make it.
Adrian Smith
If you haven't read this book yet, you're a faggot.
>Bolton's argument is that America must suck Jewish cock because I get paid to do that ftfy, he's an incompetent bureaucratic leech, check his history. He's a shitty unskilled cuck that is only around because he's sucked enough dick on capital hill.
Brody Reyes
You had no right to destroy Saddam's iraq filthy imperialist
Jaxson Diaz
But in the video he said we're better off with Saddam gone. Let's say Iraq had gotten nukes and continued with dropping the dollar.
Would America be better or worse off?
Henry Myers
>he said we're better off with Saddam gone Yeah and Iraq is magically democratic, eating burgers, and are our BFFs as the region has not gone to complete shit and contributed to the festering rot of American foreign policy.
Your point? Because wars get tough leftist cry and put pressure on government to shut down a winning engagement? Everything always comes back around to leftist trying to weaken our standing in the world, and for what? Its the same in Britain, France, Germany, Scandinavia. All of our countries have people in it that actively advocate for weakening our standing and putting us in danger.
Cooper Fisher
>But in the video he said we're better off with Saddam gone. >Let's say Iraq had gotten nukes and continued with dropping the dollar. >Would America be better or worse off?
Never forget the real enemy. Arabs need nukes in the middle-east to defend themselves.
But Iraq is under the thumb of Murica. The only issue is America has let Iran take footholds into Iraq too, again, due to drawing down of the troops right?
Bentley Gutierrez
>dominated by borderline pro-iranian parties, militias >starting to toy with Russia and Turkey >would've kicked you out if ISIS didn't stick around more like a thorn in your ass m8, US doesn't want to go to war with Iran because the country would collapse into another insurgency
Julian Lopez
That's what I meant though, the US shouldn't have let Iraq become how it has. Iran was always going to come in if it could.
