In a way, the information that is available to the public proves that we're worse off without Saddam and Gaddafi. Removing Saddam lead to the rise of ISIS and countless more deaths. Removing Gaddafi lead to the Libyan slave trade.
Neither of them were actively hostile toward the US in a meaningful way, and both helped to maintain stability in their regions. Now that they're gone, both areas are a shitshow.
It really depends on the leader in charge. I was in Iraq 2009-10 and there was shit left of resistance. Obama talked of pulling out and i said to my brethren that this was just a feint. They are there and know we are leaving if they just chill a bit. Right after big draws left ISIS filled that vacuum real quick. We left those people and Obama knew exactly what would happen. They got all our equipment we left too
In a way, the information that is available to the public proves that we're worse off without Saddam and Gaddafi. Removing Saddam lead to the rise of ISIS and countless more deaths. Removing Gaddafi lead to the Libyan slave trade.
Neither of them were actively hostile toward the US in a meaningful way, and both helped to maintain stability in their regions. Now that they're gone, both areas are a shitshow.
The weapons were transported to Syria in modified passenger jets prior to the invasion. The general that did it wrote a book about it years later.
Both Iraq and Syria were Baathist regimes...
The only thing good that came out of that whole disaster was Hot Shots.
It really depends on the leader in charge. I was in Iraq 2009-10 and there was shit left of resistance. Obama talked of pulling out and i said to my brethren that this was just a feint. They are there and know we are leaving if they just chill a bit. Right after big draws left ISIS filled that vacuum real quick. We left those people and Obama knew exactly what would happen. They got all our equipment we left too