$2 trillion for that war. Next time let’s cure cancer(s).
Correct, no one said it would be easy. True we would likely not have succeeded, but millions more would be cancer survivors.
replies(6):
Correct, no one said it would be easy. True we would likely not have succeeded, but millions more would be cancer survivors.
Aren't there any positive tradeoffs in overthrowing the likes of Saddam Hussein?
Basically, Iraq went straight to hell, and whatever minorities etc. didn't flee got murdered.
I interpret it as something along the lines of Saddam Hussein's government caring about having a strong or at least functional country enough that they only wanted to kill Kurds and Iranians.
Baathists are better than sectarian madmen, and I suspect we'll see some kind of idiot outcome in Syria as well.
Not really. He was oppressing Iraq and ruling it with a cruel tight grip, but any regime change takes decades to normalize. You don't just replace a nation's political class overnight and expect to a) not have pushback, b) the successors having it easy or hitting the ground running.
Oh come on. To whom in 2025 could you possibly expect to sell this nonsense excuse for an unbroken record of catastrophic neoconservative failure? Do you steal candy from babies also?
Furthermore, it's not as if though cruel grips can't grow back with another hand.
But he was holding it together. There might be a case for removing him, but note that nobody ever made that case without resting it on total fabrications. Because, while he was “bad” in a moral sense, there was no case for the war that could be made using the actual truth.