US journalist James Foley beheaded by ISIS (1 Viewer)

[Quez]

We aren't just pulling out of Iraq after all we have invested there. Wasn't that embassy like a few billion dollars to build?

We get plenty of oil from the Saudis and now we have access to more sources of fossil fuels domestically.

 

[Mario Kart]

The only way to solve this is to organize and protest over there. We need to mobilize some American citizens and show the world by protesting peacefully.

Our country should put money into alternative fuel as well as the North Dakota shale and extract what we can. Lose dependency on the Middle East. Sounds simple to me.

 

[IC FBGCav]

Also, I think it is fair to say nothing we have done has helped stabilize the region, in fact we have made ourselves targets by being there.

 

[Rayderr]

The only way to solve this is to organize and protest over there. We need to mobilize some American citizens and show the world by protesting peacefully.

yeah, but you know there are going to be some professional looters from other countries trying to start a riot.

 

[lod01]

Also, I think it is fair to say nothing we have done has helped stabilize the region, in fact we have made ourselves targets by being there.

Would not matter if we were ever there with the current fanatics. They said it themselves. Convert or die. They must be destroyed as they will not stop until they are or everyone on the planet converts.

 

[timschochet]

What's the downside for us pulling completely out of the region? Is it just oil? Is the second most important reason humanitarian?

For me, both. But since we didn't get involved in the Sudan, I would have to say that the primary reason is to protect the flow of oil.

Quite obvious. It's been the policy of the US since the 70's oil crisis if not before. If you got oil we are your buddy. If you don't then we only attack if we think somehow you could be a threat to oil somewhere. That's the way it has to be to keep the engine running.

What would happen if we were cut off from mid-east oil? Obviously prices would rise, but aren't we getting a smaller and smaller percentage from the mid-east each year? At what point do we just pull out totally? Plus, I doubt the entire mid-east would want to lose us as oil customers, so it's not like we have no economic power in the region.

It doesn't matter how much the United States gets from the Middle East. The price of oil is set world wide. If the Middle East becomes more destabilized, if fanatics gain control of the oil and use it for political ends, we will be looking at major spikes to the price of oil, which will affect every American.

 

[Greggity]

The only way to solve this is to organize and protest over there. We need to mobilize some American citizens and show the world by protesting peacefully.

yeah, but you know there are going to be some professional looters from other countries trying to start a riot.

I say we bring in the lads from Ferguson to loot the middle east. Two wonderful worlds colliding!

 

[IC FBGCav]

Also, I think it is fair to say nothing we have done has helped stabilize the region, in fact we have made ourselves targets by being there.

Would not matter if we were ever there with the current fanatics. They said it themselves. Convert or die. They must be destroyed as they will not stop until they are or everyone on the planet converts.

They would still be fighting with sticks if we(and other countries) didn't arm them.

 

[Quez]

I wonder why the they didn't show the actual cutting off of the head. It's almost as they have toned it down a little so that more people would watch.

 

[Fennis]

I wonder why the they didn't show the actual cutting off of the head. It's almost as they have toned it down a little so that more people would watch.

I didn't (and won't) watch it. But if they didn't show it, and only showed the aftermath, I would think they either didn't do it or more likely it went horribly wrong.

 

[shader]

I wonder why the they didn't show the actual cutting off of the head. It's almost as they have toned it down a little so that more people would watch.

It was a 6 inch knife. I can't imagine it was a quick thing.

 

[lod01]

Also, I think it is fair to say nothing we have done has helped stabilize the region, in fact we have made ourselves targets by being there.

Would not matter if we were ever there with the current fanatics. They said it themselves. Convert or die. They must be destroyed as they will not stop until they are or everyone on the planet converts.

They would still be fighting with sticks if we(and other countries) didn't arm them.

Quite true. If you make the weapons, eventually the get in the hands of bad people.

 

[lod01]

I wonder why the they didn't show the actual cutting off of the head. It's almost as they have toned it down a little so that more people would watch.

It takes a while to hack thru the spine. They don't use Michonne's sword, they use a rusty old 6" blade. Seen one, seen them all anyway.

 

[Fennis]

I wonder why the they didn't show the actual cutting off of the head. It's almost as they have toned it down a little so that more people would watch.

It was a 6 inch knife. I can't imagine it was a quick thing.

they used a 6" knife? what the ####?

 

[James Daulton]

Also, I think it is fair to say nothing we have done has helped stabilize the region, in fact we have made ourselves targets by being there.

Would not matter if we were ever there with the current fanatics. They said it themselves. Convert or die. They must be destroyed as they will not stop until they are or everyone on the planet converts.

So are they going after Russia, China, and India too? It seems to me that we're agitating them because we're there.

 

[Stinger Ray]

I wonder why the they didn't show the actual cutting off of the head. It's almost as they have toned it down a little so that more people would watch.

I didn't (and won't) watch it. But if they didn't show it, and only showed the aftermath, I would think they either didn't do it or more likely it went horribly wrong.

The video does show the initial part of the cutting. Sickening.

 

[James Daulton]

What's the downside for us pulling completely out of the region? Is it just oil? Is the second most important reason humanitarian?

For me, both. But since we didn't get involved in the Sudan, I would have to say that the primary reason is to protect the flow of oil.

Quite obvious. It's been the policy of the US since the 70's oil crisis if not before. If you got oil we are your buddy. If you don't then we only attack if we think somehow you could be a threat to oil somewhere. That's the way it has to be to keep the engine running.

What would happen if we were cut off from mid-east oil? Obviously prices would rise, but aren't we getting a smaller and smaller percentage from the mid-east each year? At what point do we just pull out totally? Plus, I doubt the entire mid-east would want to lose us as oil customers, so it's not like we have no economic power in the region.

It doesn't matter how much the United States gets from the Middle East. The price of oil is set world wide. If the Middle East becomes more destabilized, if fanatics gain control of the oil and use it for political ends, we will be looking at major spikes to the price of oil, which will affect every American.

That was also the boogeyman with Opec, they control the oil and set the prices. If they set prices too high, demand will come down and/or some other countries will increase supply. Perhaps it would hasten our turn toward actively looking for oil supplements as well.

 

[Bucky86]

They're saying a UK citizen was the one that did the cutting. Should we bomb the UK?

 

[Rayderr]

Also, I think it is fair to say nothing we have done has helped stabilize the region, in fact we have made ourselves targets by being there.

Would not matter if we were ever there with the current fanatics. They said it themselves. Convert or die. They must be destroyed as they will not stop until they are or everyone on the planet converts.

So are they going after Russia, China, and India too? It seems to me that we're agitating them because we're there.

Well, we are the biggest kid on the block, so they're going after us to show their might.

 

[Rayderr]

They're saying a UK citizen was the one that did the cutting. Should we bomb the UK?

No need. The Raiders game there next month should destroy most of it.

 

[johnnycakes]

Also, I think it is fair to say nothing we have done has helped stabilize the region, in fact we have made ourselves targets by being there.

Would not matter if we were ever there with the current fanatics. They said it themselves. Convert or die. They must be destroyed as they will not stop until they are or everyone on the planet converts.

So are they going after Russia, China, and India too? It seems to me that we're agitating them because we're there.

Oh, China has been dealing with their own problems with Muslims, in a big way, in Western China. It just doesn't get much western press, but does get noticed a little when they drive a car full of explosives through a crowd and blow themselves up in front of Chairman Mao's mausoleum. From McPaper.

 

[Todd Andrews]

If we wouldn't have supported the destabilizing of Iraq Libya & Syria we likely wouldn't of been in this mess. Anyone remember Kerry answering questions about the rebels in Syria we were arming? Well these were the guys.

We should have never supported the rebels that were rioting in Libya, and we would of avoided an ambassador getting killed.

We should have never supported the rebels in Syria and we wouldn't have this and future crap.

These people are never going to have a democracy as we know it. We should have been more supportive of the regimes like Iraq under Saddam that at least kept peace and a balance of power in the region. Now Egypt, Iraq, Libya, and Syria are a mess.

Fixed that for you.

 

[Mario Kart]

Also, I think it is fair to say nothing we have done has helped stabilize the region, in fact we have made ourselves targets by being there.

Would not matter if we were ever there with the current fanatics. They said it themselves. Convert or die. They must be destroyed as they will not stop until they are or everyone on the planet converts.

So are they going after Russia, China, and India too? It seems to me that we're agitating them because we're there.

Oh, China has been dealing with their own problems with Muslims, in a big way, in Western China. It just doesn't get much western press, but does get noticed a little when they drive a car full of explosives through a crowd and blow themselves up in front of Chairman Mao's mausoleum. From McPaper.

Curious but are Muslim extremists only going after American targets or does American journalism only report Muslim extremists going after American targets?

I'd like to know if this whole extremism is against "everyone" or if its only against America. This should be something our journalists should be reporting if there are multiple cultures involved.

 

[lod01]

Also, I think it is fair to say nothing we have done has helped stabilize the region, in fact we have made ourselves targets by being there.

Would not matter if we were ever there with the current fanatics. They said it themselves. Convert or die. They must be destroyed as they will not stop until they are or everyone on the planet converts.

So are they going after Russia, China, and India too? It seems to me that we're agitating them because we're there.

We left, they saw a void in security and correctly assumed they could defeat who we left defending Iraq. They started systematically killing every kurd, Iraqi, etc that they came across that did not agree with their agenda. Yeah, I'd say they would love to kill Russians, Chinese and Indians.

 

[lod01]

Also, I think it is fair to say nothing we have done has helped stabilize the region, in fact we have made ourselves targets by being there.

Would not matter if we were ever there with the current fanatics. They said it themselves. Convert or die. They must be destroyed as they will not stop until they are or everyone on the planet converts.

So are they going after Russia, China, and India too? It seems to me that we're agitating them because we're there.

Oh, China has been dealing with their own problems with Muslims, in a big way, in Western China. It just doesn't get much western press, but does get noticed a little when they drive a car full of explosives through a crowd and blow themselves up in front of Chairman Mao's mausoleum. From McPaper.

Curious but are Muslim extremists only going after American targets or does American journalism only report Muslim extremists going after American targets?

I'd like to know if this whole extremism is against "everyone" or if its only against America. This should be something our journalists should be reporting if there are multiple cultures involved.

ISIS is against EVERYONE that does not adhere to their BS. They want you dead.

 

[johnnycakes]

Also, I think it is fair to say nothing we have done has helped stabilize the region, in fact we have made ourselves targets by being there.

Would not matter if we were ever there with the current fanatics. They said it themselves. Convert or die. They must be destroyed as they will not stop until they are or everyone on the planet converts.

So are they going after Russia, China, and India too? It seems to me that we're agitating them because we're there.

Oh, China has been dealing with their own problems with Muslims, in a big way, in Western China. It just doesn't get much western press, but does get noticed a little when they drive a car full of explosives through a crowd and blow themselves up in front of Chairman Mao's mausoleum. From McPaper.

Curious but are Muslim extremists only going after American targets or does American journalism only report Muslim extremists going after American targets?

I'd like to know if this whole extremism is against "everyone" or if its only against America. This should be something our journalists should be reporting if there are multiple cultures involved.

I really don't know. But I can say that China has been dealing with its own version of these problems in recent years; we just don't hear much about it. And some of that may be because China still controls to a large degree how much info gets out. When something "big" happens, like a car bomb in Tiananmen Square, then the social media gets ahold of it, and the Chinese Press then has to address it publicly. But there's lots that goes on that just never hits the media over there.

One big difference between what's happening in China, from what I understand, is the Uyghurs want political independence. In this respect, there is a difference as to why China is having problems with Muslims compared to the United States.

Another missive from the WSJ a few weeks ago...

BEIJING—A group of assailants launched coordinated attacks on government and police buildings in China's far-western Xinjiang region on Monday, leaving dozens of people dead a day before the mostly Muslim area was set to celebrate the end of Ramadan.

Attackers armed with knives attacked the town of Elixhu, with some later moving on to the town of Huangdi, smashing cars and killing civilians, the official Xinhua News Agency reported on Tuesday.

Xinhua reported that dozens of civilians were killed, at least 30 cars were smashed and six more were set on fire in what it called "an organized, premeditated and carefully planned terrorist attack of vile nature and tremendous violence." Xinhua didn't identify the attackers.

Xinjiang, which abuts Central Asia and contains oil and natural-gas reserves, has long been riven by ethnic tensions between Han Chinese migrants and Xinjiang's Turkic-speaking, mostly Muslim Uighur ethnic group. Uighurs often complain of religious and economic discrimination at the hands of the Han Chinese majority.

While China says it has raised living standards and educational levels for Uighurs, frustration with Chinese rule has fed a long-running separatist movement.

Elixhu and Huangdi are located north of the city of Yarkand in western Xinjiang, the site of multiple violent attacks on police in the past year.

Calls to the Yarkand government press offices and Yarkand police went unanswered Tuesday.

Uighur separatists have periodically targeted the government and police for decades, but civilians have increasingly been targeted in recent attacks. In May, attackers in Urumqi, Xinjiang's capital, killed 31 people after hurling explosives and blowing up their vehicles in a street market, in what Beijing declared an act of terrorism.

China has also blamed the separatists for a series of mass stabbings at railway stations and an SUV attack on crowds near Beijing's Tiananmen Square in October that left five people dead.

President Xi Jinping has pledged to root out terrorism as the attacks have spread outside Xinjiang. China has tightened security in major cities, issuing handguns to regular police, launching new patrols by commandos in armored vehicles and stepping up security at subway stations.

Beijing has also urged foreign governments to clamp down on jihadist material hosted on servers in their countries.

On Tuesday, a photo of a purported internal report that was circulating online said at least five locations fell under attack over six hours Monday morning and that the attackers at one point assaulted a column of 90 soldiers rushing to the scene. Troops killed 16 of the attackers, the document said.

A police officer answering the phone in Elixhu on Tuesday confirmed those details but said he couldn't provide any other information. He also confirmed reports that Internet service in Yarkand had been suspended in the wake of the attack. "Starting from yesterday, the Internet has been shut down. The Web, instant messaging—none of it works," he said.

The attack came a day before Eid al-Fitr, the festival that marks the end of the Islamic holy month of Ramadan. Yarkand streets are typically filled with people during the festival, an employee of the city's Pengcheng Hotel said on Tuesday. "It's crazy, there's no one on the streets now," the employee said.

Police were working "all-out" to investigate the attack, Xinhua reported, adding that social order had be restored.

 

[mquinnjr]

Steven Sotloff is good as dead no matter what we do... it's just a matter of time.

At this point I'm in favor of making Iraq a U.S. territory... bomb the hell out of them, WWII style, go in with boots on the ground, establish martial law, install the puppet government, and rule with an iron fist like the Shah. Let's see how they like that approach.

No need to fret, we're lead by a chief executive who backs down to no one .

whats he supposed to do?

Anything that would prevent groups like ISIS from openly taunting the US in this manner with absolutely no regard for repercussion from the US.

 

[Fennis]

Iraq under Saddam did not keep the peace. The killed hundreds of thousands of people. The only difference is the US wasn't involved.

 

[Fennis]

Steven Sotloff is good as dead no matter what we do... it's just a matter of time.

At this point I'm in favor of making Iraq a U.S. territory... bomb the hell out of them, WWII style, go in with boots on the ground, establish martial law, install the puppet government, and rule with an iron fist like the Shah. Let's see how they like that approach.

No need to fret, we're lead by a chief executive who backs down to no one .

whats he supposed to do?

Anything that would prevent groups like ISIS from openly taunting the US in this manner with absolutely no regard for repercussion from the US.

You do know we have been bombing ISIS targets right?

 

[IC FBGCav]

In the end it is only a matter of time before we have robot warriors to deal with situations like this. This is a short term problem.

 

[Jobber]

It's this sort of thing which could bolster diplomacy between [mostly] civilized countries like the US, China and Russia. A common enemy, which only with shared intelligence, can be rooted out.

Or am I being naive?

 

[BroncoFreak_2K3]

Steven Sotloff is good as dead no matter what we do... it's just a matter of time.

At this point I'm in favor of making Iraq a U.S. territory... bomb the hell out of them, WWII style, go in with boots on the ground, establish martial law, install the puppet government, and rule with an iron fist like the Shah. Let's see how they like that approach.

No need to fret, we're lead by a chief executive who backs down to no one .

whats he supposed to do?

That Nobel Peace Prize should make everyone sit up and listen to him

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

Steven Sotloff is good as dead no matter what we do... it's just a matter of time.

At this point I'm in favor of making Iraq a U.S. territory... bomb the hell out of them, WWII style, go in with boots on the ground, establish martial law, install the puppet government, and rule with an iron fist like the Shah. Let's see how they like that approach.

No need to fret, we're lead by a chief executive who backs down to no one .

whats he supposed to do?

Anything that would prevent groups like ISIS from openly taunting the US in this manner with absolutely no regard for repercussion from the US.

So you think that organizations like ISIS or terrorist groups would just stop all of their shenanigans if there were repercussions? Show me how well that has worked in the past.

1945 we bomb the everloving #### out of Japan. Pretty sure that didn't disuade the North Koreans, Vietcong, Saddam, al Quaida etc.

 

[FigJam]

We're not going "all in". I predict we're gong to continue to do what we are doing right now: support the Kurds with air power, support the central government with money and arms, and do our best to contain this threat. We will be successful, and as we are we can expect more terrorist strikes by ISIS against American journalists and civilians. And that in turn will fuel those who disagree with what Obama's doing: the types who want us to go all in, invade Iraq again and wipe out ISIS, and the isolationist types like Politician Spock who want us to pull out completely. But Obama and the next President will hopefully resist both of these groups and stay the course.

You are an #######! #### you!

Doesn't it suck when someone reads you like the cliff notes version of a comic book?

 

[timschochet]

Iraq under Saddam did not keep the peace. The killed hundreds of thousands of people. The only difference is the US wasn't involved.

No, this is incorrect. Saddam kept a stable nation, and also provided a buffer against Iran. When he got out of line (invaded Kuwait) we contained him, but did not overthrow him (which was the correct decision.)

 

[Joe Summer]

Iraq under Saddam did not keep the peace. The killed hundreds of thousands of people. The only difference is the US wasn't involved.

No, this is incorrect. Saddam kept a stable nation, and also provided a buffer against Iran. When he got out of line (invaded Kuwait) we contained him, but did not overthrow him (which was the correct decision.)

Jesus Tim, how the hell do you think Saddam kept Iraq "stable"? He did it by systematically murdering thousands of people.

 

[Fennis]

Iraq under Saddam did not keep the peace. The killed hundreds of thousands of people. The only difference is the US wasn't involved.

No, this is incorrect. Saddam kept a stable nation, and also provided a buffer against Iran. When he got out of line (invaded Kuwait) we contained him, but did not overthrow him (which was the correct decision.)

He gassed and killed 10,000 of thousands of Iraqis. He rounded up and killed (tens of) thousands of people who threatened him. He jailed tens of thousands. This is not keeping the peace.

 

[TheIronSheik]

Iraq under Saddam did not keep the peace. The killed hundreds of thousands of people. The only difference is the US wasn't involved.

No, this is incorrect. Saddam kept a stable nation, and also provided a buffer against Iran. When he got out of line (invaded Kuwait) we contained him, but did not overthrow him (which was the correct decision.)

He gassed and killed 10,000 of thousands of Iraqis. He rounded up and killed (tens of) thousands of people who threatened him. He jailed tens of thousands. This is not keeping the peace.

Yes, but did anyone really get hurt?

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

Iraq under Saddam did not keep the peace. The killed hundreds of thousands of people. The only difference is the US wasn't involved.

No, this is incorrect. Saddam kept a stable nation, and also provided a buffer against Iran. When he got out of line (invaded Kuwait) we contained him, but did not overthrow him (which was the correct decision.)

He gassed and killed 10,000 of thousands of Iraqis. He rounded up and killed (tens of) thousands of people who threatened him. He jailed tens of thousands. This is not keeping the peace.

Yes, but did anyone really get hurt?

Just a bunch of brown people so it doesn't really count.

 

[Henry Ford]

Steven Sotloff is good as dead no matter what we do... it's just a matter of time.

At this point I'm in favor of making Iraq a U.S. territory... bomb the hell out of them, WWII style, go in with boots on the ground, establish martial law, install the puppet government, and rule with an iron fist like the Shah. Let's see how they like that approach.

No need to fret, we're lead by a chief executive who backs down to no one .

whats he supposed to do?

Anything that would prevent groups like ISIS from openly taunting the US in this manner with absolutely no regard for repercussion from the US.

Is this what you said after the Daniel Pearl video?

 

[BroncoFreak_2K3]

Iraq under Saddam did not keep the peace. The killed hundreds of thousands of people. The only difference is the US wasn't involved.

No, this is incorrect. Saddam kept a stable nation, and also provided a buffer against Iran. When he got out of line (invaded Kuwait) we contained him, but did not overthrow him (which was the correct decision.)

He gassed and killed 10,000 of thousands of Iraqis. He rounded up and killed (tens of) thousands of people who threatened him. He jailed tens of thousands. This is not keeping the peace.

Yes, but did anyone really get hurt?

 

[Fennis]

Iraq under Saddam did not keep the peace. The killed hundreds of thousands of people. The only difference is the US wasn't involved.

No, this is incorrect. Saddam kept a stable nation, and also provided a buffer against Iran. When he got out of line (invaded Kuwait) we contained him, but did not overthrow him (which was the correct decision.)

He gassed and killed 10,000 of thousands of Iraqis. He rounded up and killed (tens of) thousands of people who threatened him. He jailed tens of thousands. This is not keeping the peace.

Yes, but did anyone really get hurt?

The narrative of Saddam was a stabilizing (or kept the peace - WTF) factor bugs me to no end. I wasn't in favor of the war, but Saddam was not good for the region.

 

[Limp Ditka]

Jeebus, Tim.

 

[jamny]

These ISIS guys are just going town by town in Iraq and murdering all the men.

Not all men, just those that aren't Sunnis.

They kill Sunnis too if they don't swear allegiance to the caliphate.

 

[fantasycurse42]

The narrative of Saddam was a stabilizing (or kept the peace - WTF) factor bugs me to no end. I wasn't in favor of the war, but Saddam was not good for the region.

As opposed to what though? The thought of a peaceful democratic Iraq society isn't really plausible, it is a nice thought, but we know will never happen. It's dictator or endless civil war there.

 

[Ned]

Can we get a Lies About Sadaam thread going and keep this about the current situation?

 

[TheIronSheik]

Iraq under Saddam did not keep the peace. The killed hundreds of thousands of people. The only difference is the US wasn't involved.

No, this is incorrect. Saddam kept a stable nation, and also provided a buffer against Iran. When he got out of line (invaded Kuwait) we contained him, but did not overthrow him (which was the correct decision.)

He gassed and killed 10,000 of thousands of Iraqis. He rounded up and killed (tens of) thousands of people who threatened him. He jailed tens of thousands. This is not keeping the peace.

Yes, but did anyone really get hurt?

Just a bunch of brown people so it doesn't really count.

Brown people piss me off.

 

[johnnycakes]

Iraq under Saddam did not keep the peace. The killed hundreds of thousands of people. The only difference is the US wasn't involved.

No, this is incorrect. Saddam kept a stable nation, and also provided a buffer against Iran. When he got out of line (invaded Kuwait) we contained him, but did not overthrow him (which was the correct decision.)

He gassed and killed 10,000 of thousands of Iraqis. He rounded up and killed (tens of) thousands of people who threatened him. He jailed tens of thousands. This is not keeping the peace.

Yes, but did anyone really get hurt?

Just a bunch of brown people so it doesn't really count.

Brown people piss me off.

With me, it's only their noses that get me riled.

 

[rustycolts]

Iraq under Saddam did not keep the peace. The killed hundreds of thousands of people. The only difference is the US wasn't involved.

No, this is incorrect. Saddam kept a stable nation, and also provided a buffer against Iran. When he got out of line (invaded Kuwait) we contained him, but did not overthrow him (which was the correct decision.)

He gassed and killed 10,000 of thousands of Iraqis. He rounded up and killed (tens of) thousands of people who threatened him. He jailed tens of thousands. This is not keeping the peace.

Yes, but did anyone really get hurt?

Just a bunch of brown people so it doesn't really count.

Brown people piss me off.

With me, it's only their noses that get me riled.

Short people for me.They really have no reason to live for.

 

[Josie Maran]

Iraq under Saddam did not keep the peace. The killed hundreds of thousands of people. The only difference is the US wasn't involved.

No, this is incorrect. Saddam kept a stable nation, and also provided a buffer against Iran. When he got out of line (invaded Kuwait) we contained him, but did not overthrow him (which was the correct decision.)

He gassed and killed 10,000 of thousands of Iraqis. He rounded up and killed (tens of) thousands of people who threatened him. He jailed tens of thousands. This is not keeping the peace.

Yes, but did anyone really get hurt?

The narrative of Saddam was a stabilizing (or kept the peace - WTF) factor bugs me to no end. I wasn't in favor of the war, but Saddam was not good for the region.

Boatloads better than the alternative.