|| posted on 25-7-2016 at 02:04
|I heard one commentator put it this way: If we had known that the next President would give up everything that had been accomplished, tell the enemy
that we were going to withdraw no later than a certain date (so, all they had to do was wait until after to strike and take back everything without
American military defenses), and not even bother to negotiate for ANY American help to preserve or defend against the enemy, after the
withdrawal--then, of course, we would have decided it wasn't worth it in the first place.
|| posted on 24-7-2016 at 22:17
|There have been many discussions, far and wide, of just this topic. Should the west have interfered with local politics. Hindsight is marvelous, do
you think the pollies would learn, though? The problem being, though, is the mindset of the people, they do not think the same way as "the west" and
rule using the "big stick" method. The one with the biggest stick rules until someone with a bigger one comes along and deposes him. Yes, the
populace were worse off (than us) under Saddam Hussein, but, such is the (entrenched) mindset, what has replaced him is far worse.
|| posted on 24-7-2016 at 19:49
|I am watching a documentary about Saddam Hussein's foray into making a film using Western actors such as Oliver Reed. This took place during the
Iran Iraq war and the shoot was difficult for many reasons such as the real army thinking the sfx of a train derailment was part of the war rather
than a construct.
It's taken me back though to my time in Iraq. All of the places such as Baghdad, Karbala, Habbaniyah etc. in the film shoot are places I'm familiar
with because I went there in 1990 just after the war was over.
As part of the documentary Saddam is interviewed about why he feels it necessary to get rid of his enemies.
In light of what has happened in Iraq after the West toppled him, should we have left well alone?