Saddam's Arm Race?

I don't mean to be that anti-humanitarian shit, but Saddam's followers weren't flying planes into our building or shooting up our night clubs. Sure he killed a lot of their people, but to be pragmatic, he wasn't killing our people. That is the difference between Saddam/Assad and Isis/Al-Queda.

I don't care how many fucking persons he killed in his country. As long as he isn't getting our own citizens killed then that's all that matters. If you such a big globalist that cares about refugees, why don't you go over there and fight Isis yourself.

the most interesting question to me is what would the arab spring have looked like in Iraq

>The only mistake America did was leaving before fully finishing the job
kinda hard to stay when the government of Iraq demanded they leave

>having a world war in the most oil-rich region of the world is good for us
that being said, Israel BTFO'ing Arabs would be based

25 year rule?

Hussein would've done that, I guess, but he also paid the families of suicide bombers in Israel and gave shelter to various terrorists including:
-Abu Abbas (hijacker of Achille Lauro)
-Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (orchestrated killing of Laurence Foley in October 2002)
-Abdul Rahman Yasin (only bomber of WTC '93 that got away)

The vacuum is the result of the actions after the invasion, not the invasion itself.

This

anncoulter.com/columns/2015-05-20.html
Here's my source on terror funding

We have troops in Germany, we have troops in Japan, we have troops in South Korea, why not troops in Iraq too? it's a strategic position with lots of oil and gives us a strategic position to keep the Gulfies and the Mullahs in Iran from messing around.

That doesn't prove me wrong though. If anything, saying that the Gulfies wanted him out proves the situation is more dire than expected. Previously, I assumed that a massive re-arming of Shia nations by Iran would result in a re-arming of Sunni nations by Saudi Arabia. But if the Saudis hated Saddam as much as you say they did, then they would be re-arming because of both Iran and Saddam- and Iran would be re-arming because of the Saudis and Saddam.

The man was throwing around the fact that he had weapons of mass destruction. Also, the fact that they plotted to assassinate the president who BTFO'd them (George H.W. Bush) would be a pretty good indicator.

-Abu Abbas (hijacker of Achille Lauro)
-Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (orchestrated killing of Laurence Foley in October 2002)
-Abdul Rahman Yasin (only bomber of WTC '93 that got away)

Also, they attempted to orchestrate the killing of George H.W. Bush. It's not "family drama," I'd say that's a pretty good casus belli.

Do we let foreigners dictate how we defend our national security? Isn't that globalism at its finest?

I'm sure the post-war Germans and Japanese would've said the same thing.

Personally, I'd distinguish between a country like Iraq, where the populace is well-educated and semi-Western thanks to Saddam ironically (in a similar manner as the Shah in Iran), making it a good target for nation-building.

In contrast, Afghanistan seems stuck in a tribalistic state where there isn't even a concept of demos, much less democracy. Thus, nation building is much less effective there.

woah

even neo cons are shilling on Veeky Forums now trying to defend the bush legacy

what a time to be alive

>neo con
I mean, I don't shun the label exactly. I support Trump, I'm cautious about saber rattling with Putin, I despise free trade for letting China become a superpower, and I have a strong distaste for mass immigration.

Do with that information what you will.

>I despise free trade for letting China become a superpower

why? The prosperity of the last two decades at least has gone hand in hand with china becoming the world's factory. I mean for a specific example look at Australia's economy.

First off those situations are so different that its ridiculous to compare them. Germany was the cold war's frontline to the point where the country itself had been sliced in half, and Japan has in its constitution that it is a pacifist country and cannot defend itself without the US military. Second the Iraq war had nothing to do with our national security, and staying there only nedlessly put further american lives at risk.

Third I want you to explain to me what "finishing the job" means, why we couldn't achieve it in 8 years, and how we were going to achieve it by staying in Iraq against the wishes and without the support of the Iraqi government.

>I support Trump
why?

I'm fine with free trade with countries like South Korea and Japan, generally speaking market economies.

What worries me about China is that a large number of their companies are owned by the state. Thus, the companies are less about fulfilling their own private interests and more vessels of Chinese foreign policy.

I'd be fine with free trade with China so long as the Chinese liberalized their economy more. I think that trade policy should serve as a vessel to make other countries liberalize their markets, not just to drive down prices.

I'm saying that the Germans and Japanese would've probably disagreed with the occupation of their country. That doesn't make it not in our national interests.

You're discussing too much the individual policies of the occupation period and not the invasion itself. I'm presenting a scenario in which we don't invade. We could've easily invaded and just replaced Saddam with another strongman or something. I'm just making the case for toppling Saddam.

are you not the one who implied we should have stayed in Iraq to "finished the job"? I get very upset when people say this because they never explain what finishing the job means or how we could have done it.

Mass immigration will import illegal immigrants, who, for better or for worse, will distort our democracy into a Democrat voting machine.

I don't buy the "Hillary will start WW3" meme that /pol/ shills, but I think Hillary's foreign policy will just auction our country off to the highest bidder, if the Clinton Foundation is any indicator.

I think Trump's agenda of cutting taxes and deregulating the economy is good. On trade, I disagree with the steep measures he proposes on our friends like Japan and South Korea, but I think that some of our trade agreements have been weak on liberalizing other countries, like our current trade policy with China (even though there isn't an agreement currently in place).

I think Trump's support for law enforcement is good. Overall, national crime rates have been falling since the 1990s, but that's because of Bill Clinton's 1993 law and order bill, and also in many inner cities, crime is actually rising.

No, I'm OP. Person who suggested finishing the job was someone else. I wanted this to be a thread getting rid of the "Saddam was a benign autocrat."

The Shah was a benign autocrat. General Sisi is a benign autocrat. Saddam was an unstable saber rattler who threatened the stability of a region vital to our national security interests.

what had he actually done since Kuwait though?

"Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability.

The inspectors undertook this mission first 7.5 years ago at the end of the Gulf War when Iraq agreed to declare and destroy its arsenal as a condition of the ceasefire.

The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.

The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.

The United States has patiently worked to preserve UNSCOM as Iraq has sought to avoid its obligation to cooperate with the inspectors. On occasion, we've had to threaten military force, and Saddam has backed down."
-Bill Clinton, 1998
(source: cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html)

The issue of Iraqi disarmament began before Bush II. There's a reason Schwarzkopf, the general who led the invasion, wanted Saddam out before getting cucked by Beltway establishmentarian Powell (nytimes.com/1991/03/28/world/after-the-war-bush-aims-rebuke-at-schwarzkopf-for-truce-remark.html)

The greatest threats to Middle East stability have been Israel and the United States.

>Arabs consistently invade a legitimately existing country and continue to fund a terrorist agenda that emphasizes permanent war
>It's the one Westernized country in the region's fault

nice meme!

I can understand some of what you're saying, but I think your support is somewhat misguided. You worry that Clinton's presidency will only strengthen those who are already wealthy because she has made so much money selling access to herself, but when I look at Trump's economic and tax plan that's exactly who it will benefit: those who are already wealthy and powerful. You say that you support cutting taxes, that's fine and all, but Trump has also promised to invest a huge amount of money in infrastructure (including the wall ofcourse, which I'm not opposed to on moral grounds, it just seems an incredible waste of money) and put more money into the military. If he's going to cut taxes how is he going to pay for this stuff, by cutting education and healthcare? Those are exactly the things we need to be spending more on, not less.

And I understand your concerns about trade, but is his approach really the best one? I get pretty disturbed when I see him go to places like West Virginia and saying he's going to put all the coal miners back to work. Those jobs were eliminated by automation, not foreign competition. There is no way they're ever going to come back unless the government gives massive subsidies to coal companies. Is that really the best use of public money, writing checks to coal companies so they'll create economically unviable jobs? That's literally corporate welfare, I don't want that.

That's just looking at his stated policies. Have you read the republican platform? It's full of so many insane things like declaring porn a public health emergency. Do you think that should be a priority for the department of health? How about endorsing gay conversion therapy when it has been proven, repeatedly, to fail? Obviously the platform is always mostly bullshit, but it did disturb me to see just how willing he was to rubberstamp the most insane shit the republicans churned out. That's what his presidency would really be like.

>The vacuum is the result of the actions after the invasion, not the invasion itself.
The actions that were only possible bc of the invasion. You know actions have consequences, right?

You could've put a strongman like Sisi or the Shah in charge. This thread isn't discussing the strategy of the Iraq War, it's discussing Saddam.

>yes I know if i slash my tires it will result in me not being able to drive my car okay but lets keep the discussion strictly to whether or not I should slash them

Where the fuck did you pull any of that from? That's not relevant to what I was saying at all. I was criticising the op because it's entire premise is based on a hypothetical situation and saying "this is what would have happened so invading iraq was a good thing".

I mean, I do admit that his spending policies are a tad concerning. But overall, the debt is a pretty overblown issue IMO. The Saudis bluffed on selling 650 billion in Treasuries and Congress called their bluff. Doing so would collapse the economy of the Saudis and, yes, the Chinese.

I'd honestly prefer a fence to a wall since it'd probably be cheaper and most of the illegal immigration that happens now is because of visa abuse, which would be better fought with an entry/exit database or E-Verify.

Well yeah, the automation stuff is bullshit. But wouldn't we lose more jobs with Hillary raising taxes? I think the idea of the Trump tariff policy causing a supply shock is overhyped, he's bluffing to bring the Chinese to the negotiating table with stuff like the 40% tariff. I don't want corporate welfare either and coal is being replaced by natural gas so it's not like it matters that much. Just retrain the people.

I'd agree with the porn stuff. Porn addiction is a pretty concerning thing in society. I'd support a parent's right to send them to a gay conversion camp. I'm just naturally conservative on a lot of social issues I suppose. Those were a big part of me deciding to vote for Trump as well.

So, let's look at the situation:
-Unstable dictator allowed to stay in power
-Gulfies agitating for him to get removed
-Unstable dictator decides to start re-arming because he is unstable
-Gulfies start re-arming because unstable dictator they want removed is re-arming
-Iranians start re-arming because Gulfies, who are Sunni, are starting to re-arm
-Israelis, seeing everyone re-arming, start getting nervous

What is the problem in this situation? What is the missing link?

>take out Saddam
>immediately put in some military general
>keep Saddam's governance style, with less saber rattling in international relations

There were many clear paths to occupying Iraq beyond "muh democracy"

Even then, the democracy in Iraq could've been saved if the Americans had kept the Shias in check instead of allowing them to grab all power for themselves.

I was following you up to the point of porn addiction.

I hardly look at porn the older I get, but really... Is looking at dirty images destroying our society?

Maybe the Muslims were right and we should cover women head to toe because men can't control themselves.

But really porn weeds out people from the gene pool who wouldn't make good parents. Forcing people to fuck and make children isn't benefiting anyone if they are shitty parents.

Also being gay is proven to be genetic. You can't pray that shit away. I tried being gay once and when I was young and it didn't work. Really. You can be gay as much as you are straight without having being born that way.

personally I agree with the strategy of promoting democracy, I'm just pointing out that there were other strategies that would've filled the vacuum faster. The democracy promotion in Iraq was half assed until the Surge anyway.

But the point is about Saddam and whether he was too unstable to be left in power using the situation I described at the start. Clearly, he could've been "stable" in Iraq, but he would've been turning the whole Middle East into a sea of chaos and instability.

>What's the problem in this situation?
Let me explain this for you.
>This never happened
>You don't know that it would definitely happen
>It is h y p o t h e t i c a l
>You are basing your reasoning on events that never happened
>Let this sink in

Technically, if Saddam invaded Saudi Arabia and set up a semi-secular dictatorship we'd all be better off.

social issues are mostly bull in general but you really should read up on gay conversion therapy. It's been repeatedly shown not just to fail at its goal of turning gay kids straight but the suicide rate of kids who have been through gay conversion therapy is extremely high. Frankly speaking there is no "cure" for homosexuality, gay people are simply wired differently and that's something their parents and society at large will simply have to accept. That said I think a lot of things like gay pride parades do significantly more harm than good in that regard, but hey its a free country.

What exactly do you mean by porn addiction? If people can't function in society because they're jacking off a dozen times a day then the problem is not internet porn, its them. Why do you consider porn to be inherently harmful? I have to say I'm pretty shocked to hear you say social issues are why you support Trump, those things hardly matter at all in the larger picture.

No, he wasn't, because he did it on blatantly false pretenses, and ultimately left Iraq in a worse state. No amount of "if"s can change that.

We also can't forget that the US supported Saddam before the Gulf War. He was yet another monster of our own creation. The solution for the Middle East is less US intervention, not more. The humanitarian argument has always been a trojan horse.

That's not totally true, Saudis fund a lot of Salafist mosques throughout the world but they're probably as friendly to us and Israeli interests an oil rich Muslim nation can get.

Secularism doesn't exist as a concept in KSA the get rid of the house of Saud and the only thing to replace them would be Isis on steroids.

>Technically, if we gave an unstable dictator control of one of the most strategically important resources and regions of the world, we would be better off

Saddam was clearly unstable. There's a reason why Bill Clinton started bombing Iraq in 1998.

"Muh neocons" did not invade Iraq for shits and giggles or to line Halliburton's bottom line. Saddam was refusing to comply with the United Nations on weapons of mass destruction and had previously used them very extensively on his own people and the people of Iran. Do you expect other nations to look at this in the Middle East and say "Well okay, Saddam has his weapons of mass destruction, I guess we won't make our own even though Saddam is our enemy." Regardless of whether Saddam has WMD or not, this is just basic strategizing- Saddam just has to tell people he has WMD and pretty soon, you'll get Iran and the Saudis going after WMD if you don't get that under control. There's a reason why Libya ended its WMD program after Saddam got toppled.

Did you forget Obama legitimizing transexual gender surgeries when there is no scientific basis of it being an effective method of treatment? This boils down to agenda, not science. The liberal agenda works one way, the conservative agenda works the other. The liberal agenda regarding transexuals is immoral and harms people and families. The suicide rates enough should be more than enough to stop with gender surgeries and hormone blockers.

Also, while we're on the subject of Trump and Saddam, I felt like I lost all sympathy for Trump when he glorified Saddam. He basically said "Saddam didn't have a terrorist problem" which is a way of legitimizing his brutal tactics. It's also factually wrong because Saddam was under constant threat from the Kurdish and Shia rebellions. You just didn't hear about it because he would move in with his troops and exterminate everyone and ditch their bodies in mass graves.

>Haha the US supported him! Argument destroyed! It's not like the US can make mistakes or anything in differing historical contexts!

The fact that we supported him when he was for our interests and then he turned against us does not devalue my argument, in fact, it fuels my theory that leaving Saddam in power was too unstable a situation to serve our interests. We would've been better off putting a more stable autocrat, like the Shah or Sisi, in charge of the country, it should follow.

I disagree with Trump on Saddam, but he's better off than the women who runs the Clinton Foundation. Seriously, look into the wikileaks stuff.

I'll take a guy who praised Saddam over someone who takes donations from human rights violators (Qatar, KSA) when her own campaign manager admits they are funding our enemies.

Are you retarded? If more men cut their own dicks off voluntarily, it means more women looking for the dick elsewhere? Why is that bad when you aren't cutting off your own dick?

can you please explain to me what the clinton foundation does

Libya's WMD program was a joke.

not him but the mentally ill should be treated not allowed to pay unscrupulous surgeons to mutilate them

>implying the people chopping their dicks off are the ones getting all the pussy
how can one person be so wrong

They accept donations from foreign countries and have made foreign policy decisions that were then beneficial to these foreign donors.

Money flowed to the Clinton Foundation when the purchase of Uranium One by Rosatom, a Russian state owned nuclear power company, had to be approved by the State Department. Surprise surprise, Hillary's associates rubber stamped the deal even though it handed over 20% of American uranium assets to a company literally owned by the Kremlin.

That's just one of the many egregious examples of money flowing through her foundation. To appeal to the humanitarian case, I'd say her handling of Haiti was pretty terrible as well- she received money from businesses in exchange for lucrative contracts that exploited the dire state of Haiti for cheap labor. I believe in the free market, but if our government is going to help other countries in disaster relief, can we actually make it about helping them?

The US supporting Saddam was not a "mistake", it was not a miscalculation, the "blowback" of supporting such a monster was simply not given much value. It was done intentionally in order to keep Iran in check. The same Iran we staged a coup against because oil and yet another false pretense. It's funny how you bring up the Shah as a stable dictator, that's cute.

America causes a mess, they try to fix that mess, then end up causing another mess, and so on into infinity. The solution is to stop the cycle, stop the intervention. But then that would have severe economic implications that are undesirable for certain parties.

Syria also pulled out of Lebanon at the same time. North Korea started sweating for the first time since the Korean War, although Colin Powell and Condi Rice in the Department of Appeasement cut out any chance of stopping North Korea's reign of terror by trying to negotiate with another strongman who represented what Saddam could've become (except instead of being in charge of essentially a peasant fiefdom of China, it'd be an independent country with the third largest oil reserves in the world).

Why not? I feel I have libertarian leanings and if people want to chop off their own fingers for whatever fetish they want, then let them? Their body is their own property and if they pay money into the economy so what's the problem?

Why should we let government tell people what they allowed to do with their body? People can toss themselves into furnaces for all I care.

We made a pragmatic decision and decided to support a secular guy against a bunch of Islamic fundamentalists who broke the Golden Rule of international diplomacy by invading our Embassy and killed 243 Marines in the Beirut Barracks Bombing.

I don't agree with supporting Saddam in the 80s, but you can't just take our support for him in the 80s and immediately devalue any foreign policy intervention.

There's blowback from non-intervention too. Look at North Korea, where Bill Clinton and Colin Powell/Condi Rice's negotiations resulted in the Norks getting a nuke in 2006 and, as a result, we all have to worry about a megalomaniac causing a nuclear holocaust for making fun of his haircut in Pyongyang.

It's about medical ethics, not public policy. It's not medically ethical to treat anorexic people with liposuction and it shouldn't be medically ethical to treat transgender people with hormone therapy and gender reassignment surgery. The problem with trans people is that they have a crisis in their identity, which would be better aided by therapy, rather than making them outsiders for the rest of their life.

>I feel I have libertarian leanings
stopped reading there.
you may be personally okay with living in a society that allows the severely mentally ill to do all kinds of shit to their bodies. I don't. In fact most people who don't suffer from crippling autism (see: non libertarians) don't either.

This.

Libertarian social values ignore the fact that capitalism/the market are upheld by family values. There's a reason why people from broken homes often end up poor and on welfare and why people from strong homes end up becoming successful or at least middle class.

how did you find Veeky Forums
all of your posts read like you're channelling rush Limbaugh

fuck you capitalism is why transgenders are being mutilated in the first place

Heard about a lot of Trump support on /pol/ and decided to check it out. 2edgy4me so I just use Veeky Forums as a channel for my interest in history (Veeky Forums) and economics (Veeky Forums).

>government allows companies to act unethically
>companies act unethically
>"Damn private ownership of the means of production! It'd be better letting Elizabeth Warren set my salary and determine whether or not I'm employed!"

>Was Bush right to invade Iraq?

>Arms race between Saddam-backed Arab nationalists, Saudi-backed Sunni jihadists, Iran-backed Shia jihadists, and Israel begins

>so much bullshit...

that fucker fucked up harder than any americunt president to date, he fucked up so hard he quite literaly fucked generations of people and generations to come, turning a entire region of the planet into a constant living hell that shits toxic fallout over three continents and now everione else gets to deal with it

mind you obama didnt help any, in fact botrh were instrumental in how catastrophic the situation realy is, but bush is basicaly all the reasons people hate america incarnated, starting shit he wont finish, messing with shit that isnt his problem, blatantly making shit up, just agressively ruining everithing then acting like he dindu nuffin

i mean where is he any way, whats he doing these days, how are fuctards like that even alloved to walk free

>We made a pragmatic decision

That's the problem though. Every foreign policy decision we make is based on short-term economic and geopolitical interests and is always based on the underlying assumption that American intervention is desirable. If you take the long-term view of interventionism, it becomes much much less desirable, and downright counterproductive to any sort of humanitarian/democratic efforts.

>There's blowback from non-intervention too.

Of course, but it's vastly preferable to Team America World Police. Bad shit will happen in the world just like it always has. We can't control everything, at least not unilaterally.

It's also pretty ridiculous to claim that the current situation in North Korea is a result of non-intervention, we've been very involved for many decades.

well all of your posts read verbatim like something the white house press secretary would have said under the bush administration

go away

The pragmatic decision was selling arms to both Iraq and Iran during the war, and using Iraq's attack on the USS Stark as an excuse to attack Iranian oil platforms.

Well that is straight up fascism. If you want to prevent people from drinking, doing drugs, and choping off their own dicks, then you are just enforcing moralism

Shitty moralism at that.

No one is cutting off me or yours dick, so why get upset. People really just want to lop their dick off, and it makes them really upset to have one. So why does it make you so autistic that everyone has to keep the parts they are born with.

OH because it goes against my morality.

What a fucking spook.

How is Iraq worse than what the Obama administration has done to Syria? Unlike Iraq, Syria was actually a decent place to live in. Unlike Iraq, Syrians weren't under constant threat of genocide. But Obama is smarter than Bush and he also knows how to play the media so his hands are clean no matter how many thousands die.

>"you think outside of the normal boundary and present arguments!"
>"therefore you must be a paid shill!"
Jeez, I thought the "muh CTR shill" people were bad...

>"You don't want people to be able to chop off their dicks and torture cats for personal amusement? Well Hitler said that so checkmate right there you nazi"

Saddam is way more unstable than Assad. I don't like Assad personally but the argument that Assad is a stable autocrat is much stronger than the argument for Saddam.

Plus, trying to take down Assad while the Russians are backing him reeks of a Cold War proxy war quagmire. Better to stick to Iraq and Iran, we lost Syria and we should probably accept that.

>not wanting severely ill schizophrenics to eat buckets of their own shit or transgenders to fork over money to whatever surgeon they can find to cut their dick off is fascistic moralism

Whatever kiddo :^)

>you think outside of the normal boundary

Except your thinking is very much in line with the people who've been running the executive branch for half a century.

if people want to eat their own shit and pay money for the priveledge, then we all be better off letting them do it. Hell, for $10 I'll shit in a bucket so they can eat more.

It's okay one day they will find a way to treat sociopathy too.

its a continuation of the exact same process, there could be no syrian civil war, at least not at this scale, without post bush iraq, the latest war is fought all along the levant and iraq from lebanon to iran, syria is just one ''hotspot'', its all one big theatre and its all directly a consequence of american intervention in iraq

im not trying to defent obama, he fucked things up as well, he repeated the same patterns of messing with shit that isnt his problem, justifying it with bullshit, agravating the situation trough incompetence, this seems to be typical american foreign policy for the last 70+ years, fucking shit up then washing hands, but bush started the whole thing, shit was fine before 2002, things were stable, even the war in lybia is a continuation of the same process of destabilisation and screwing everithing up as much as possible, like thats somehow explicitly part of the agenda as such, like chaos death and destruction is both a means and a end

personaly i dont even see obama and bush as opposed in this story, they both just continued the same thing pushing it from catastrophy to catastrophy

Don't bother this guy is a literal PNAC shill.

most people who don't suffer from crippling autism dont give two fucks

nothing kills the traditional family unit like liberal capitalism, its not even a argument

You're a fucking idiot.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clean_Break:_A_New_Strategy_for_Securing_the_Realm

>A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm (commonly known as the "Clean Break" report) is a policy document that was prepared in 1996 by a study group led by Richard Perlefor Benjamin Netanyahu, the then Prime Minister of Israel.[1]The report explained a new approach to solving Israel's security problems in the Middle East with an emphasis on "Western values." It has since been criticized for advocating an aggressive new policy including the removal of Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and the containment of Syria by engaging in proxy warfare and highlighting its possession of "weapons of mass destruction."

This is in 1996, 5 years prior to 9/11.

Perle went on to be a part of PNAC and the neo-conservative movement, which was founded by William Kristol and Robert Kagan, both Jews.

Prior to the Iraq War and before the dubious findings of WMDs Netanyahu gave a speech in front of congress stating a regime change in Iraq would have positive repercussions in the region. We now know that was a lie.

youtu.be/nN1HOVLf4C0

Friendly reminder that the Iraq War

1. Cost 10,000 European and American lives and an estimated 100,000-1,000,000 Iraqi lives
2. Cost America over 1 trillion dollars
3. Didn't do anything other than give the Kurds some autonomy, expand the Saudis and Iranian's spheres of influence, and lastly provide a proxy which, wait for it, attacked Syria!

Pic below sheds light on the "who" behind Iraq.

nothing kills the traditional family unit like liberal capitalism, its not even a argument

Really? I'd say it is due to rampant commercialized consumerism, not necessarily capitalism.
But really what has killed the core family is feminism and over-consumption of entertainment.

>Saddam is unstable
>lets ignore the sectarian violence post-removal that has claimed hundreds of thousands of lives while creating the vacuum which gave birth to ISIS

>not recognizing it was the US which gave Saddam his weapons while inviting him to attack Iran
>Iran is part of of the Axis of Evil!
>t. (((David Frum)))
>ignoring the US has been trying to destroy and destabilize Iran for decades
>failing to recognize WMDs exist to ensure MAD and to prevent invasion
>failure to recognize only one nation in the Mide East has WMDs and has a history of invasion of it's neighbors.

capitalism by default means urbanisation, from the begining massing industrial workforce, which usualy reduces family size

the need for both parents to compeete on the labor market and the problem of being forced to plan each pregnancy more carefuly due to basic financial reasons, as well as a increased level of stress and risk further reduces family size

the need to spend most of the first 30 years of life getting educated and trained to even have a chance at being competitive and then building somesort of ''career'' or for most people just finding work and making ends meet, combined with the above mentioned stress and risk associated with increasing competition, not to mention the burden of credits and loans, offsets marriage and formation of families and is correlated with high abortion rates, which further reduces family size or even inhibits family formation entirely

the individualist and consumerist culture that goes along with this in a kind of reinforcement loop further reduces family size

this is even further agravated by liberal financial and economic policy, deregulaton, offshoring and outsourcing, various forms of monopolies, agreements, laws and internal politics favouring large capital, the unfavourable position of workers and the systemic destruction of small producers and buisnisses of all sorts

this is obvious in that most families in the developed world are ''atomic'' families made up of 3-4 people, as opposed to family units of a dosen+ as was usual before, in the internal migration patterns in developed parts of the world, in the high number of singles, especialy female singles in developed nations, in the subreplacement birthrates in many developed coutries

''rampant commercialized consumerism'' and ''over-consumption of entertainment'' are part and parcel of developed liberal capitalism, its the same thing, along with many ther forms of decadence and behavioral sinkholes, contemporary capitalism strives on these, generates and maintains them, but realy it has always done so, it just became more of a obvious thing after the 1950is

the conditions that capitalism sets for populations to live in and the effects this has on people in existential, social even psycological terms, acts the same as the ''control factors'' in calhouns rat experiments, the result is pretty much the same, inhibiting basic human functioning

from the get go, the whole setup is disruptive and morbid

you dont get out of this one by blaming feminists and holiwood, which both together are again part of the same thing

> capitalism by default means urbanisation, from the begining massing industrial workforce, which usualy reduces family size

Not at all, urban families were large during the industrial revolution despite living in tenement housing.

This is
A. a completely manufactured culture and mentality only 50 years old
B. revolves around money and is necessary due to ever-increasing inflation

This is exacerbated by feminism which instills in women that they must be self-reliant and must be educated and in the work force, thus doubling the work force while failing to provide the necessary jobs

> offsets marriage and formation of families and is correlated with high abortion rates, which further reduces family size or even inhibits family formation entirely

Which all all results of feminism.

so how exactly do you propose women pay the rent and buy food and stuff?

marry a rich guy? camwhore a lot? maybe a corporate polygamy system?

most women i know arent feminists or have ever read any feminist literature or know shit about it or even care, in fact there is a increasing degree of animosity to feminism among women, they resent that their basic sexual identity is somehow subverted and that the roles they are simply forced into are depicted as a wictory and ''equality'' and so on, most of them want a family, want a decent home, want to be able to live life beyond shitty jobs and shittier distractions, still, most of these women need to work, so they would earn money, since their parents arent forbes millionares and they dont all get to marry the local import-export taicoon, politician or football star

this is regardless of them being single or living as a couple, even then both the male and female partner work, to make ends meet, and are pretty much both in the same shit together

in fact one of the reasons women increasingly resent modern feminist bullshit is precisely because they feel they are in the same position, the same situation as men are, they even do their best to maintain basic ''labor division'', things like who cooks cleans fixes things in the home gets this that or the other done, because everione is just trying together to make life function

while it is true that the idea a woman ''should be indipendent'' and that getting educated and having a career is a feminist imperative of sorts over having kids, every adult living in a modern capitalist economy is forced into this set of roles any way, and often fails at them for systemic reasons, and the average women that gets pregnant has real and practical reasons to consider aborton, forget about breeding 3 kids before shes 40, the situation is overall shit, feminism or no feminism

Doesn't it really make you think why the more developed a nation is the smaller the birth rates become, generally?

It really makes me think.

You are a person who woke up to politics after gamergate if you think feminism has such an impact.

Where you can circle jerk about the kikes and the niggers.

Hormone replace therapy and surgery are the only treatments shown to decrease distress in transgender patients, user. You fell for some bullshit about transness being curable.

The Bible says in Leviticus 20:13 that homosexuality is an abomination and those found guilty of practising will surely be killed.

The Bible teaches that homosexuals are disgusting perverters of the flesh and they should be stoned to death.

Yeah the massive post op suicide rate speaks volumes of how good of a treatment it is.

Sexual reassignment surgery will be viewed in the same light as lobotomies are now in half a century.

>Let sunnis take the power
>Get situation similar to that in Egypt, where Sunni majority government is set
>Military decides to make a coup when new "democratically" chosen government is starting to go against their own people

Oh wow, I didn't know grills posted on Veeky Forums, sorry for insulting your sensibilities m'lady.
>current women vs women for the past 70 years

>for the past 70 years

wasnt much different

Compare divorce rates for the last 70 years to the 70 years prior, then formulate why.

This, neo-cons such as Kristol and Billionaire Zionists such as Sheldon Adelson have been steering the GOP for the last 3 decades. Men like Pat Buchanan opposed the neo-conservative takeover and failed, America should have listened to him then.

The Iraqi civil war had little to do with the US. There was unrest in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and other gulf states at the same time.

The actual reason was the high oil prices destabilizing the country. The last time this happened was in 1975 and it created a huge civil war that killed hundreds of thousands. Same in 1980 which caused the iran iraq war. The invasion just got it started a little sooner.