IF WE KNEW THEN WHAT WE KNOW NOW: A POST FOR MEMORIAL DAY

While the fortune teller entertains him, he is robbed from behind.
While the fortune teller entertains him, he is robbed from behind. “The Fortune Teller” by Simon Vouet (1590-1649).

When someone claims the ability to predict the future, they claim the ability to do the impossible. Then we have no choice except to suspect their honesty. Therefore, when someone offers to “read” your palm, shuffles a deck of Tarot cards, or puts a crystal ball on the table, we should protect our wallet and back off. Yet fortune tellers always entice some people. Frightened by the unknowable, we all want to believe, and some do. These stay to listen, and the rest of us are apt to smugly call them gullible.

Yet there is a different type of fortune teller who has almost no trouble getting everyone to listen.  Instead of predicting the future, these fortune tellers grandly proclaim as peerless the intelligence of hindsight. These speak with the perfect knowledge of the critic.

Want an example?

In hindsight, was invading Iraq and toppling the regime of Saddam Hussein a mistake? Here is probably the most famous answer to such blabbering critics.

It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat. — Theodore Roosevelt from THE MAN IN THE ARENA

When as a nation, we decided to invade Iraq and end an evil tyrant’s bloodthirsty rule, we did so for many reasons, but we could not do so with perfect knowledge. Until the future becomes the past, except for what our Lord has blessed us to know, we must pray, guess, and hope for the best.

Accurate or not, President George W. Bush correctly used the intelligence given him, and our military forces succeeded in pacifying Iraq. Then the critics took over, and with increasing rapidity the Middle East is descending into chaos. Yet instead of trying to correct President Barack H. Obama’s obvious foolishness, the corporate-owned news media wants to grill Republican presidential candidates as if it were possible to know in the past what we know now. When we know that such perfection is impossible, questions solely based upon knowledge gained in hindsight do nothing but stupidly insult people who have dedicated their lives to serving us.

If you are one who wants to properly contemplate what it means to be a doer of deeds, please consider reading A Memorial Day Devotion for Christians.

30 thoughts on “IF WE KNEW THEN WHAT WE KNOW NOW: A POST FOR MEMORIAL DAY

  1. This Memorial Day let us lift up those who have selflessly given so that we might have…. Freedom, Liberty and Dignity. Let every nation on earth humble itself before us – as WE humble ourselves before God….. who has given US the greatest Nation of All……..

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Did Bush make a mistake ordering our troops into Iraq? What is a mistake, an error? We all know that the risks of making errors is higher when a person is lacking experience. What is the difference between a political error and a medical error?

    In my opinion, a political error is very seldom ever admitted by a politician, or their political party, supporters, loyal fans, involved parties, etc.,………. whereas, a medical error is scrutinized by experienced medical authorities and a medical report is written to try to explain what happened medically.

    My point is in order to put to rest whether Bush make a mistake in Iraq, we need to read this Wikipedia article below and determine which medical explanation would best apply to describe the Bush decision on Iraq. Everything else in questionable opinions or pointless posturing about the incidence, again in my opinion.

    I decided on cognitive error. Which one would you choose?

    As for Cruz, he is too young and inexperienced to be President, same as Obama and Bush was. Too many what ifs as I explained below.

    https://rudymartinka.wordpress.com/2015/04/15/king-solomon-on-what-if/

    Regards and goodwill blogging

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_error

    Like

    1. That’s an interesting post you have there. However, I doubt we will raise the qualification age from 35 to 60 any time soon. Most voters are under sixty, and I suspect they think themselves as wise as someone who is sixty.

      My guess is that it would be a good idea to raise the qualification age for the presidency to 55 – 60, but my reason probably differs from yours. When we hit 55 – 60 years old, we have a fair amount of experience, and we have seen many of the ideas we thought would work when we were young don’t work. But I think what make someone wisest when they grow old is the certain knowledge that the end is near. At that point we have the opportunity to observe something important. We don’t have much control over anything, but we can control what is truly important. We can control our attitude.

      Why don’t politicians admit their errors? Why do medical authorities admit their errors? Well, unless the error is a moral error (Bill Clinton chasing skirts), politicians have little to gain. When a politician admits he is not the perfect man for the job, his opponent just points to his foe and says: “see.”

      Medical authorities also don’t admit to their own errors. They report about other people’s mistakes (the mistakes of other medical practitioners), and politicians pay them to do just that. The closest thing to that in politics is opposition research, and everyone know that is generally done with the intent of smearing ones opponent. So that, of course, is not the same.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Your comments about the right time and best age for a political candidate to a represent voters who spend lifetime careers in private industry or service occupations. Candidates who have experienced lifetimes of accomplishments or even failures in the real world away from Washington culture.

        Whether they their accomplishments are from the military, health, service industries, business, etc. It is there that they accumulate a resume that voters can consider rather than listening to promises made by lifetime politicians that very seldom seem to materialize, in my opinion.

        I wrote a post about a King Solomon proverb to describe empty suit politicians who are like passing clouds that float by but do not produce rain,. He wrote they are not men of substance who do what they say instead of like clouds that pass by giving hope of rain that does not materialize.n…

        Might also solve the term limit problem and double dipping government pension problems of lifetime government employees.

        But the main point would be that the better legislator might be one who has experienced life, including raising a family, and inspired with a patriotic or altruistic motive, will, and life experience to help him or her make wiser decisions than a younger legislator.

        Perhaps think more about it, I am.

        Regards and goodwill blogging.

        .

        Liked by 1 person

  3. I venture to say the removal of Hussein, Gaddafi, and Mubarak was mistaken. Though these men were terrible, one cannot deny they maintained order and peace in the Middle East. (For example, Mubarak kept peaceful relations with and supported Israel.) Since their removal, the Middle East has become a competition. Coincidence? No. I, personally, would not have sent our servicemen into harms way. (For what?) I am still trying to answer the biggest question in this matter: Why?

    Like

    1. I agree the removal of Gaddafi and Mubarak was pointless. Hussein, however, posed a distinct threat. Gaddafi we could cow. Mubarak understood the advantages of US support, but Hussein had dreams of still greater power. Therefore, he posed a constant and continuing danger to regional stability, and that is why we had to get rid of him.

      Think of it this way. Look at Iran. Consider ISIS. Add them together and you get Saddam Hussein. What has Obama’s approach yielded with respect to Iran and ISIS? More trouble? That’s why we could not ignore Hussein.

      Hence the problem really is not whether Hussein should have been removed. The issue is the power vacuum that followed his removal. We chose to stay and rebuild Iraq, a very difficult and expensive enterprise. That’s when the American people truly starting arguing, but walking away has not worked either.

      Like

      1. In my opinion, we need to take a deep breath and justify why we are still at war in the Middle East. We avenged Osama and most of the Muslim attackers of 9/11. Why are we even concerned about who the next dictator will be in the Middle East? We were all bent out of shape in Vietnam and now we are their trade partners. Is it really the responsibility of the USA to keep police order in the world. when we cannot seem to police the USA? Let the Shiites and Sunnis work it out themselves. That is what Russia and China are doing. All we may be doing is choosing sides when neither side wants us except for our military aid.

        Bush was criticized for attacking irag and not having a long range plan. What is our present long range plan, objectives, and justification for warring today. Iraq threw us out, so be it. If our objectives are for defense, lets defend the USA borders instead of Iraq borders which are lines on a map conjured up to divvy up the spoils in the aftermath of WWI.

        Regards and goodwill blogging..

        Like

    2. Each of the three cases is different, and I note that you did not mention Qaddafi.

      For Hussein, the worst-case estimate was that he would not have nuclear capability for perhaps even as much as five years.

      It has been twelve years.

      We misjudged this before: We thought he was years away from a nuclear weapon when we (including my sons) went in in 1991. He turned out to be only about six months away from having a weapon. And he was, of course, the largest sponsor of terrorism on the planet, and absolutely unfazed by sanctions. Iran is now, but only because we eliminated Saddam as competition.

      Every indication was that:
      (1) Saddam was ready to go full-tilt boogie on his WMD program as soon as sanctions were lifted,

      (2) The FRoGs (my own term: France, Russia, others and Germany) were already pushing hard to end the sanctions because of their business interests with Iraq,

      (3) The Kay- and Duelfer-led Iraq Survey Group reports noted that he had siphoned off $1.1 billion into his WMD programs from the Oil-for-Food scam so far,

      (4) He had bribed 247 officials and politicians around the world (including two US Democrats, who sheepishly gave the money back when caught) to support the release of sanctions,

      (5) We found more than 20 illegal biological laboratories, explicitly prohibited by the terms of the cease-fire within three weeks of our arrival in Iraq in 2003, and

      (6) We had absolutely no HUMINT in Iraq and thus no good way to educate our guesses as to what was going on.

      The focus on WMDs was inappropriate; it was one of a dozen items on the authorization. But even that was not technically required, as Hussein had massively violated the terms of the UN Resolution that he’d agreed to and that had set up the temporary cease-fire.

      We know that literally thousands of truckloads of material was moved from Iraq to Syria in the sixty days prior to the invasion (i.e., Jan 19–Mar 19, 2003). We watched this process by satellite. We also know that he left thousands of tons of conventional weaponry behind; he was not concerned about moving those.

      Remember the 2004 “October Surprise”? The infamous al-Qaqaa ammunition and explosives complex that had hundreds of tons of munitions, which the media had “smoking gun proof” that the US military had allowed terrorists to harvest after we arrived? That was all over the news, day after day, until the media published a satellite photo of the terrorists loading the trucks. Then it was discovered that (a) they were Russian trucks, (b) the date had been changed, and the actual date was weeks before our arrival, and (c) the trucks had left all those tons of conventional weapons behind. That’s not what they were loading. Most of the stuff (an estimated 97%) was gone before we got there. It was indeed looted by terrorists later, but by that time there was little left. At this point, the story instantly disappeared from the news.

      Hah! Wikipedia still insists on the original story. Ah, well.

      A year later, al Qaida obtained tens of tons of chemical weapons from Syria and loaded some of them into semi trucks for what was almost the largest terrorist attack in history. It was thwarted in the last day or so when one of the planned suicide drivers chickened out. It would have killed an estimated 60,000 to 90,000 people around the security complex (including the US facility) in Amman, Jordan. (Cars were rigged to knock down barricades; the trucks would then be free to enter.)

      Those barrels of chemicals still had the UN tags on them where UN inspectors in Iraq had marked them to be destroyed. In the terrorist’s warehouse was about 20 tons more of the stuff, which included nerve gas and evidently a mustard gas or derivative. All, evidently, courtesy of Saddam Hussein — though the Syrian source with UN/Iraq tags were sidestepped in establishment media, of course. Here’s an article:
      http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/26/jordan.terror/

      Sadly, Wikipedia refers to the issue this way in part:

      The Iraq Survey Group replaced the United Nations inspections teams (the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), led by Hans Blix) and from the International Atomic Energy Agency (led by Mohamed ElBaradei), which had been mandated by the UN Security Council to search for illegal weapons before the conflict (See Iraq disarmament crisis). None had been found.

      El Baradei was the one responsible for Iran getting such a head start on their nuclear weapons program. For this completely missing the boat and the clues, if that’s what it was, he was given a Nobel Prize and nearly elected president of Egypt during the Muslim Brotherhood days.

      That “none had been found” from Wikipedia included thousands of tons of chemical weapons that showed up in inventory reports that Iraq would not address the disposition of (as Blix repeatedly reported.) And it includes the long-range missiles, which were specifically prohibited WMDs according to the cease-fire (i.e., “illegal weapons”), which we found right before Blix’s team was thrown out.

      We found more than 100 of those missiles, and Saddam to great fanfare promised to destroy them. But he would only destroy one per day, and allowed no inspectors to attend. He produced a souvenir video per day of this destruction process, but it didn’t take long to realize that it was the same missile being run over by a bulldozer, but seen from different camera angles.

      Hussein refused to budge on this, threw out the inspectors, and the war seemed likely. When it looked like he was feeling pressure even from his allies the FRoGs, they caved in to the pressure from bribed officials and vetoed further action. As a result, Hans Blix blamed Germany and the others for forcing the war. But he did this in German; no establishment paper reported on this.

      I read every one of Blix’s reports. Over and over again, he noted Saddam’s massive inventories of WMDs that he refused to account for, and the finds that Blix was encountering when he could rig up surprise inspections. (This was tough, as Saddam had a spy working on the inspection team.) Blix learned that he needed to surprise even his own people with his plans. And he had been forced into the role by Germany (with the help of France and Russia) because he was considered much more compliant and political than Rolf Ekéus he replaced, or even the less tough but still scary Richard Butler who was an interim inspector. Blix was supposed to be a pushover, but got interested — perhaps despite himself.

      But his reports, while detailed and damning, were accompanied by much milder speeches. Unless you read them, you’d miss how bad Saddam really was.

      One of the things that Blix noted was that buildings with detectable radiation signals, that had been marked for special inspection to be conducted if we invaded, had been completely removed by the time we got there. Building gone, ground bulldozed flat. Nothing left behind.

      This is why the “no WMDs!” argument does not strike me as very compelling. I am doing all of this from the top of my head (though I did hit Wikipedia to look up Butler’s first name and snag that “nothing found” quote, and see what they said about al-Qaqaa).

      Given time, I could make a more detailed case. I’ll put this up on my site, and dig up some links to support my aging memory.

      Mubarak should have been supported. (How’s that for brief?)

      Qaddafi should have been left alone.

      The populace rising against the Iranian regime should have been supported.

      Assad is a proxy for Iran and Qatar, both motivated in part by their mutual hatred of Saudi Arabia. We should have supported isolating Syria, then let things work themselves out there.

      ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Again you demonstrate you have a wealth of knowledge. Seems if the USA does not police the world, there are grave consequences.for both the US and the world.

        Unfortunately, I believe the Romans thought the same during their time period and look what happened to Rome.just before their demise. Bankrupted, hated, and replaced in time………………..and the beat went on……………………………….notheing changed or became new under the sun in the time that followed Rome or us… For example, WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, etc. etc.

        World leaders need to wise up, in my opinion.

        Regards and goodwill blogging.

        Like

  4. The Youngest Presidents, which is 40s, are in the minority. There’s no need to change the requirement age. In many professions you’re considered to be either the prime of your career at that age or even advanced. Interesting how you quoted the wisdom of the ‘youngest’ serving President, Teddy Roosevelt, who served at the age of 42.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I believe I may not have explained well the point I tried to make about age equivilancy. .For example, if you consider that Ted Roosevelt was 42 when he was elected in 1901 as you stated, he would have been born in 1860.

      If you then look at the chart of age equivalence of a person born in 1860 and follow it up, you will see in 1860 that the average life expediency of a man was only 42 at that time period. This is the point I am trying to make that our Constitution originators intended to only allow a mature man to be considered as President in the later part of a mans lifetime.

      At that period in a mans life, he realizes he only has a limited time left to live and his perspective is totally different than a younger, perhaps,more dashing, daring risk mentality of time period. However a man thinks differently after experiencing more time in relation to the time periods of life he has matured. He has a far different vision that a younger man because he is or may be better prepared to consider the consequences for the future of his “trees of life”, grandchildren.

      Check it out. below.

      http://mappinghistory.uoregon.edu/english/US/US39-01.html

      https://rudymartinka.wordpress.com/2015/04/12/king-solomon-on-the-right-time-for-presidential-leadership/

      I personally like Ted Roosevelt but only listed the top three presidents mentioned in the Wikipedia article. Might be interesting to check out all the Presidents and see if my :theory” of the best age for legislators holds up.

      Regards and goodwill blogging.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Ted Cruz has 40+ years of experience — he just didn’t take that long to accumulate it. He is brilliant, a child prodigy, and a serious conservative. And the most accomplished lawyer in the Senate, having argued most of a dozen SCOTUS cases and won most of them. In his career, he’s run offices of 700+ people, doing that well also.

        ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

        Liked by 2 people

        1. I personally like Cruz as a candidate but think it is not yet the time for him to be President. It is not his time because voters are not ready for him. Perhaps voters will think more wisely about him in the future when he is older and accomplishes more followers and experiences.
          He might be ready now, but voters are not ready for him. Just think how much better a President he will be in the future when both he and voters mature. Right now is not the time is now right for Cruz in my opiinion. Plus, If the USA stays on the present course, we will certainly appreciate him imore in the future and he will accomplish more when voters do..

          Like

  5. I’ve changed my mind a dozen times on Iraq and Saddam Hussein. what ever advantage or good motive, I think we violated international law and seriously muffed it up as we went, both in the Bush era and the Obama one.
    there is no doubt that it’s chaos over there now, but it wasn’t all roses and daffodils when President Bush was in office either. Ron Paul calls it blow back and WE are the Terrorists and Occupying forces that depose and usurp at will only according to our own interests and desires at the time.
    it’s just not as simple as playing the Blame Game of dem vs rep or left vs right. there’s enough blood to go around for everybody’s hands.
    -mike
    ps: I thought we Christians weren’t supposed to take pleasure in anyone’s death?

    Like

    1. @”mike and brandy” who wrote:

      what ever advantage or good motive, I think we violated international law and seriously muffed it up as we went,

      Partly right, it seems to me.

      On legality: This may have been the only legal war in all of history, whose terms were agreed upon by both sides in advance. The cease-fire treaty signed by Saddam Hussein’s government as well as the Coalition parties spelled out the terms under which war would resume. Everyone knew the deal. UN Resolution 1441 is detailed, and warned of “serious consequences” of Hussein’s behavior (this manly exertion on the part of the UN must have wrung them out). The US support for the authorization was strong and bipartisan — it would have passed had no Republicans even shown up that day.

      It was only the attempt to get the UN to say it again — in the face of Saddam’s bribes of the FRoGs — that was not successful, but there was no legal requirement to say anything again. And “we really, really mean it this time” coming from the UN is sort of laughable anyway.

      Remember when the UN “threatened” Saddam Hussein that he better stop giving the families of suicide bombers checks for $10,000 if they had succeeded in killing Jews or Americans? Saddam stopped giving them $10k, and upped it to $25k.

      Also note that the UN couldn’t help itself; it really likes Islamic dictators if they’re anti-American. So they have Saddam Hussein various humanitarian awards, such as for “most improved literacy rate.”

      After a rapid elimination of the Republican Guard as a threat, we did indeed falter on next steps, and we fueled the insurgency when we disbanded the Iraqi forces giving them nothing to do because they were Ba’athists. It took three long years before we could fix that, but fix it we did, and we defeated the insurgent terrorists in 2007/2008. These terrorists had long since been targeting Iraqis for their attacks, as soldiers had this nasty habit of shooting back at them.

      Usama bin Ladin, when he was reading the Democrat-talking-points speech and rather lame request for forgiveness just before the 2004 US elections, actually bragged that we were killing 15 of his people for every one of ours that we lost. That speech was sanitized for the US public, but I wrote upon it at some length. (There are interesting conversations in the comments at the link.) UbL spoke about the US economy, evil corporations, and various other Democrat hot-button issues (earlier he was warning us about global warming!), and supported Kerry over Bush.

      I don’t know how many voters bin Ladin converted with this sales pitch, but Kerry lost anyway. This also disappointed Kim Jong Il, who had been running John Kerry promotional pieces over North Korea state radio (not that many had radios to hear this, or even electricity).

      Ron Paul has clearly evidenced that he does not understand jihadism, our implacable enemy. I like some of his domestic ideas, but his foreign policy would lead to endless war by pretending that war can be avoided by hiding. The Jihadist War started against the US on February 26, 1993 (though it had preceding hostilities for hundreds of years) — and Dr. Paul is not quite there yet.

      ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

      Like

    2. @”Mike and Brandy” who wrote:

      Ron Paul calls it blow back and WE are the Terrorists and Occupying forces that depose and usurp at will only according to our own interests and desires at the time.

      Since this is self-evidently false, as history has abundantly demonstrated, do you quote Dr. Paul merely to mock him? You almost sound supportive of “the Americans are the terrorists” shtick, which would be surprising.

      Dr. Paul would do well to learn the Muslim Brotherhood’s origins and operations; they have sworn to destroy us largely because Sayyid Qutb didn’t like what he saw when he came to the US as a young man. No way to fix that, and he was their most influential thinker. Everyone from MAK to al Qaida to al Nusra to CAIR to ISIS to Hamas to Hezbollah are Brotherhood operations, usually openly, sometimes at a level of remove.

      As for Hussein’s death, (1) I am not a Christian, nor religious at all, and (2) I did not “take pleasure” in his death but did find its grim necessity fitting and somewhat satisfying. Hence the poetic tribute, which was also intended to help my friends and readers get a sense of the issues.

      For example, Ron Paul and others have said “the US armed Saddam Hussein!” But in fact, 57% of Iraq’s armaments came from Russia/Soviet Union, 32% from France, a couple of other places were involved, leaving the US as a mere 1% supplier. Moreover, the policy decisions at the time were reasonable — remember, this was when Hussein was the darling of the UN, and his new enemy was the freshly installed jihadist regime in Iran.

      Iran had moderate elements, and we attempted to encourage them (hence the massively misunderstood process later known as Iran-Contra), but that did not ultimately work. Though Iran did give us emergency landing rights after 9/11 in support of our attacks on Afghanistan, something not widely known as it would have made their leaders look bad.

      ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

      Like

    3. Keith handled the issues you brought up more thoroughly than I can. So I will leave it at that.

      I will just observe that the comment about anyone taking pleasure in Hussein’s death was a cheap shot. What was the point of even saying that?

      Like

  6. the cease-fire treaty that was signed under threat of continued destruction on their people? oh yea, that would be coerced and not ‘agreed on by both sides’ freely. therefore not legal.
    -mike

    Like

    1. Saddam Hussein won that war, as he was quick to tell anyone in earshot. He forced the coalition to the table, he said. Nor did he ever once assert that he was coerced. So if he doesn’t assert it, why do you?

      The “continued destruction of his people” was a military rout of his Republican Guard, who were surrendering en masse; we actually did very little to the civilian population. One of my sons was there, feeding them in Kuwait and being shot at for his efforts. The other was in Iraq … let’s say “before it was fashionable.”

      Later, though sanctions, Hussein would kill many of his own civilians (and many surviving Guards as well) — diverting money intended for those starving masses to build palaces and support his WMD programs instead. The death toll was alleged to be in the hundreds of thousands, but anytime the Lancet gets involved, truth and credibility suffer. It was a lot, in any event.

      ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Hussein may have touted his ‘victory’, but he was lying and you know it. the only thing that kept us from rolling into Bagdad and finishing the job the first time was GHWB and his leniency (also that he was beholden to the Saudis and the Arabic/Muslim countries).
        Hussein was coerced into peace just as Bush Sr. snatched ‘defeat from the jaws of victory’ as they say.
        the first gulf war was a just defense of a free nation of Quwait. if we were so concerned about the Iraqi people (which we weren’t) we would have finished the job, but WE were the reason and ‘permission’ given to Hussein to torture and kill his own people after 1991. that was on OUR hands.
        Gulf War Two no matter how you try to deny it was our fault. we caused it and Hussein (CIA plant). Blow back regardless of what you think of Ron Paul.
        -mike

        Like

        1. You are worried about forcing a bloodthirsty tyranny to the peace table, forcing him to stop fighting. Even if you are a pacifist that’s illogical. Hussein’s “legitimacy” rested purely upon the exercise of brute power. Given that negotiating with him increased his “legitimacy,” we should have been concerned about that. As it is, I just hope Hussein’s executioners felt appropriately justified. Executing that man should not have troubled anyone’s conscience.

          Then you flip-flop and say we should have finished Hussein the first time. Imagine you are the first President George Bush. Look all the variations of opinions we have here, even with the advantage of hindsight. Consider that Bush knew that more Americans and Iraqis would die, and he did not know how many.

          At that time, Hussein’s neighbors, even the Saudi’s, and they were paying the bill, wanted us to call it a victory and go home. In fact, lots of people did not think Hussein would be as stupid as he was afterwards, but he was — and now we know, but then we did not. And that is the point.

          The first Bush made a sensible decision, but he could not make a perfect decision. None of us can. That Bush had seen combat. He knew the cost of war.

          Like

        2. *sigh*

          Here we go.

          the first gulf war was a just defense of a free nation of Quwait.

          Nothing in such affairs is “just” a single layer. Saudi Arabia was involved here as well, very apprehensive of Hussein’s next move, especially given Hussein’s cooperation with Usama bin Ladin. (Three years later, Saudi Arabia disowned UbL, who had become decidedly uncomfortable for them with his “kill all the royals” notions.)

          if we were so concerned about the Iraqi people (which we weren’t) we would have finished the job

          Do you remember the news media hammering every night that “we must abandon the war, we won, get out, bail out”? The “highway of death” was the feature of every news broadcast, every White House press conference, every pundit, and was relentless until GHW Bush agreed to pull out. The expression “Highway of Death” has its own Wikipedia entry referring to these affairs. Yes, it was arguably a mistake, but Bush was fighting a battle there and one of public opinion here.

          but WE were the reason and ‘permission’ given to Hussein to torture and kill his own people after 1991. that was on OUR hands.

          Interesting logic. Utterly false, but interesting.

          Gulf War Two no matter how you try to deny it was our fault. we caused it and Hussein (CIA plant).

          Despite your “PrisonPlanet” mentality, in which you translate President Kennedy’s and President Johnson’s support for the early Ba’athist party faction into “Hussein (CIA plant)”, you also inadvertently make the case for our involvement there now.

          You are translating early support for a faction that was, at the time, opposed to murderous dictators into intentionally creating the murderous dictators that would replace them. But then you would also have to say that Chile’s rise from a bankrupt communist hellhole to become the economic jewel of South America was “our fault.” I’d bet you are disinclined to credit the US the same way you are so quick to blame it.

          The Middle East has long had Islamic dictators intent on slaughtering all Westerners. I’m not just talking about Kassem in Iraq and Nasser in Egypt a half century ago. This goes back to Muhammad and Suleiman and the Ottoman Empire and the actions that triggered what we call the Crusades. You can sit isolated until they come for you (and indeed they were and they did, for almost a millennium and a half so far), or you can engage.

          But … if you merely engage in conspiracy theories, it will avail you little.

          ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

          Liked by 1 person

  7. was not ‘worried’ at all. ken was trying to convey that the peace treaty, which was actually only an armistice agreement, was entered into freely by both sides to end the 1st gulf war and thus the second was not against international law.
    I just told him he was wrong. that’s all.
    -mike

    Like

  8. then I demonstrated that we were responsible for the atrocities Hussein was doing to his own people because we left him in power when we were right to remove him in the first gulf war. see the logic? -mike

    Like

Comments are closed.

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑

Oh Lord, It's Monday!

Understanding The Bible In A Way That Transforms You And Your World

The Cripplegate

for a new generation of non-conformists

D. Patrick Collins

liberating christian thought

MUSINGS OF AN IMAGINARY BILLIONAIRE

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

The Way Online

Christian Insight Through God's Word

Conservative Government

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

The Night Wind

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

Reclaim Our Republic

Knowledge Is Power

John Branyan

something funny is occurring

In Saner Thought

"It is the duty of every man, as far as his ability extends, to detect and expose delusion and error"..Thomas Paine

Christians in Motion

Christians in Motion

SGM

Faithful servants never retire. You can retire from your career, but you will never retire from serving God. – Rick Warren

The Latin Community

"You will be my witnesses." Acts 1:8

All Along the Watchtower

A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you ... John 13:34

The Sheriff of Nottingham in Prince William County

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

The Derecho

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

The Bull Elephant

Conservative and libertarian news, analysis, and entertainment

Always On Watch: Semper Vigilans

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

The Family Foundation Blog - The Family Foundation

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

Cry and Howl

Let not him that girdeth on his harness boast himself as he that putteth it off. I Kings 20:11

Twenty First Summer

Thoughtful. Positive. Relevant.

Dr. Luis C. Almeida

Christian College Professor

praythroughhistory

Heal the past. Free the present. Bless the future.

Dr. Lloyd Stebbins

Deliberate Joy

Lillie-Put

The place where you can find out what Lillie thinks

He Hath Said

is the source of all wisdom, and the fountain of all comfort; let it dwell in you richly, as a well of living water, springing up unto everlasting life

partneringwitheagles

WHENEVER ANY FORM OF GOVERNMENT BECOMES DESTRUCTIVE OF THESE ENDS (LIFE,LIBERTY,AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS) IT IS THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO ALTER OR ABOLISH IT, AND TO INSTITUTE A NEW GOVERNMENT...

PUMABydesign001's Blog

“I hope we once again have reminded people that man is not free unless government is limited. There’s a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: as government expands, liberty contracts.” Ronald Reagan.

nebraskaenergyobserver

The view from the Anglosphere

Freedom Through Empowerment

Taking ownership of your life brings power to make needed changes. True freedom begins with reliance on God to guide this process and provide what you need.

bluebird of bitterness

The opinions expressed are those of the author. You go get your own opinions.

Pacific Paratrooper

This WordPress.com site is Pacific War era information

The Isaiah 53:5 Project

Life: the time God gives you to determine how you spend eternity

altruistico

People Healing People

THE RIVER WALK

Daily Thoughts and Meditations as we journey together with our Lord.

Silence of Mind

Where God Speaks and Creation Listens

My Daily Musing

With God we will gain the victory, and he will trample our enemies. Psalms 109:13

atimetoshare.me

My Walk, His Way - daily inspiration

Nickel Boy Graphics

Comic Strips (Some Funny, Some Serious)

Rudy u Martinka

What the world needs now in addition to love is wisdom

Truth in Palmyra

By Wally Fry

Kingdom Pastor

Living Freely In God's Kingdom

The Life Project

Finding Clear and Simple Faith

In My Father's House

"...that where I am you may be also." Jn.14:3

%d bloggers like this: