The Daily Ilhan

USMChawk

HardlyClothed said:

YellowSnow said:

HardlyClothed said:

RaceBannon said:

Asked and answered @HardlyClothed

You don't have to like the answer

Do unto to others before they do it to you

Do you agree with the Death to America sentiment in the mid east? Who are you rooting for?

I just wanted his answer on if we should have overthrown Saddam in ‘03 so we could all see how dumb he is.

I don’t think the response to Death to America sentiment is to wage endless war against them and wasting our blood and treasure.

I voted for the invasion, but in hindsight feel it was a mistake and have apologized for it. That said, it wasn't like leaving Saddam in power was a great option either for stability in the region and international precedent when it comes to WMD inspections regimes. It's much like Vietnam in this respeck in that there weren't a lot of good options on the table.

The good option was to do nothing. Saddam didn’t have WMD and the IAEA said so in 2002, which the Bush admin sought to discredit. We should listen to the people that do the inspections, and probably the people who were against the war from the outset. Removing Saddam was far more disastrous for regional stability than letting him remain in power would have been.

But he did: https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2014/10/16/new-york-times-reports-wmd-found-in-iraq

RaceBannon

PurpleThrobber said:

YellowSnow said:

HardlyClothed said:

YellowSnow said:

HardlyClothed said:

RaceBannon said:

Asked and answered @HardlyClothed

You don't have to like the answer

Do unto to others before they do it to you

Do you agree with the Death to America sentiment in the mid east? Who are you rooting for?

I just wanted his answer on if we should have overthrown Saddam in ‘03 so we could all see how dumb he is.

I don’t think the response to Death to America sentiment is to wage endless war against them and wasting our blood and treasure.

I voted for the invasion, but in hindsight feel it was a mistake and have apologized for it. That said, it wasn't like leaving Saddam in power was a great option either for stability in the region and international precedent when it comes to WMD inspections regimes. It's much like Vietnam in this respeck in that there weren't a lot of good options on the table.

The good option was to do nothing. Saddam didn’t have WMD and the IAEA said so in 2002, which the Bush admin sought to discredit. We should listen to the people that do the inspections, and probably the people who were against the war from the outset. Removing Saddam was far more disastrous for regional stability than letting him remain in power would have been.

Yes, the good less bad option was to leave him in power.

We? should have gone in hard without lube on Saddam during Desert Swarm when the entire fucking world was on our? side.

Then pivoted and rammed it hard into Iran after a brief refractory period just because we? were tanned and ready.

This

I remember 1979 as one of the working stiffs when I saw a guy with a Bomb Iran shirt

Should have nipped that shit in the bud

YellowSnow

RaceBannon said:

PurpleThrobber said:

YellowSnow said:

HardlyClothed said:

YellowSnow said:

HardlyClothed said:

RaceBannon said:

Asked and answered @HardlyClothed

You don't have to like the answer

Do unto to others before they do it to you

Do you agree with the Death to America sentiment in the mid east? Who are you rooting for?

I just wanted his answer on if we should have overthrown Saddam in ‘03 so we could all see how dumb he is.

I don’t think the response to Death to America sentiment is to wage endless war against them and wasting our blood and treasure.

I voted for the invasion, but in hindsight feel it was a mistake and have apologized for it. That said, it wasn't like leaving Saddam in power was a great option either for stability in the region and international precedent when it comes to WMD inspections regimes. It's much like Vietnam in this respeck in that there weren't a lot of good options on the table.

The good option was to do nothing. Saddam didn’t have WMD and the IAEA said so in 2002, which the Bush admin sought to discredit. We should listen to the people that do the inspections, and probably the people who were against the war from the outset. Removing Saddam was far more disastrous for regional stability than letting him remain in power would have been.

Yes, the good less bad option was to leave him in power.

We? should have gone in hard without lube on Saddam during Desert Swarm when the entire fucking world was on our? side.

Then pivoted and rammed it hard into Iran after a brief refractory period just because we? were tanned and ready.

This

I remember 1979 as one of the working stiffs when I saw a guy with a Bomb Iran shirt

Should have nipped that shit in the bud

Many of our problems in the Middle East (and Persia) stem from our not going in dry on the Ayatollah in 1979. That was an act of war that required blowing them back into the stone age. Embassies are sovereign soil.

RaceBannon

YellowSnow said:

RaceBannon said:

PurpleThrobber said:

YellowSnow said:

HardlyClothed said:

YellowSnow said:

HardlyClothed said:

RaceBannon said:

Asked and answered @HardlyClothed

You don't have to like the answer

Do unto to others before they do it to you

Do you agree with the Death to America sentiment in the mid east? Who are you rooting for?

I just wanted his answer on if we should have overthrown Saddam in ‘03 so we could all see how dumb he is.

I don’t think the response to Death to America sentiment is to wage endless war against them and wasting our blood and treasure.

I voted for the invasion, but in hindsight feel it was a mistake and have apologized for it. That said, it wasn't like leaving Saddam in power was a great option either for stability in the region and international precedent when it comes to WMD inspections regimes. It's much like Vietnam in this respeck in that there weren't a lot of good options on the table.

The good option was to do nothing. Saddam didn’t have WMD and the IAEA said so in 2002, which the Bush admin sought to discredit. We should listen to the people that do the inspections, and probably the people who were against the war from the outset. Removing Saddam was far more disastrous for regional stability than letting him remain in power would have been.

Yes, the good less bad option was to leave him in power.

We? should have gone in hard without lube on Saddam during Desert Swarm when the entire fucking world was on our? side.

Then pivoted and rammed it hard into Iran after a brief refractory period just because we? were tanned and ready.

This

I remember 1979 as one of the working stiffs when I saw a guy with a Bomb Iran shirt

Should have nipped that shit in the bud

Many of our problems in the Middle East (and Persia) stem from our not going in dry on the Ayatollah in 1979. That was an act of war that required blowing them back into the stone age. Embassies are sovereign soil.

You and I do agree on a lot

HardlyClothed

USMChawk said:

HardlyClothed said:

YellowSnow said:

HardlyClothed said:

RaceBannon said:

Asked and answered @HardlyClothed

You don't have to like the answer

Do unto to others before they do it to you

Do you agree with the Death to America sentiment in the mid east? Who are you rooting for?

I just wanted his answer on if we should have overthrown Saddam in ‘03 so we could all see how dumb he is.

I don’t think the response to Death to America sentiment is to wage endless war against them and wasting our blood and treasure.

I voted for the invasion, but in hindsight feel it was a mistake and have apologized for it. That said, it wasn't like leaving Saddam in power was a great option either for stability in the region and international precedent when it comes to WMD inspections regimes. It's much like Vietnam in this respeck in that there weren't a lot of good options on the table.

The good option was to do nothing. Saddam didn’t have WMD and the IAEA said so in 2002, which the Bush admin sought to discredit. We should listen to the people that do the inspections, and probably the people who were against the war from the outset. Removing Saddam was far more disastrous for regional stability than letting him remain in power would have been.

But he did: https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2014/10/16/new-york-times-reports-wmd-found-in-iraq

He had some old chemical weapons buried in the ground. That’s a far cry from being weaponized or the “smoking gun mushroom cloud” that we were sold. No active nuclear weapons program. No biological weapons. No weaponized chemical agents. And no evidence any of those materials would be given to Al Qaeda.

PostGameOrangeSlices

RaceBannon said:

YellowSnow said:

RaceBannon said:

PurpleThrobber said:

YellowSnow said:

HardlyClothed said:

YellowSnow said:

HardlyClothed said:

RaceBannon said:

Asked and answered @HardlyClothed

You don't have to like the answer

Do unto to others before they do it to you

Do you agree with the Death to America sentiment in the mid east? Who are you rooting for?

I just wanted his answer on if we should have overthrown Saddam in ‘03 so we could all see how dumb he is.

I don’t think the response to Death to America sentiment is to wage endless war against them and wasting our blood and treasure.

I voted for the invasion, but in hindsight feel it was a mistake and have apologized for it. That said, it wasn't like leaving Saddam in power was a great option either for stability in the region and international precedent when it comes to WMD inspections regimes. It's much like Vietnam in this respeck in that there weren't a lot of good options on the table.

The good option was to do nothing. Saddam didn’t have WMD and the IAEA said so in 2002, which the Bush admin sought to discredit. We should listen to the people that do the inspections, and probably the people who were against the war from the outset. Removing Saddam was far more disastrous for regional stability than letting him remain in power would have been.

Yes, the good less bad option was to leave him in power.

We? should have gone in hard without lube on Saddam during Desert Swarm when the entire fucking world was on our? side.

Then pivoted and rammed it hard into Iran after a brief refractory period just because we? were tanned and ready.

This

I remember 1979 as one of the working stiffs when I saw a guy with a Bomb Iran shirt

Should have nipped that shit in the bud

Many of our problems in the Middle East (and Persia) stem from our not going in dry on the Ayatollah in 1979. That was an act of war that required blowing them back into the stone age. Embassies are sovereign soil.

You and I do agree on a lot

It's almost like people with common sense see things similarly.

HardlyClothed

YellowSnow said:

RaceBannon said:

PurpleThrobber said:

YellowSnow said:

HardlyClothed said:

YellowSnow said:

HardlyClothed said:

RaceBannon said:

Asked and answered @HardlyClothed

You don't have to like the answer

Do unto to others before they do it to you

Do you agree with the Death to America sentiment in the mid east? Who are you rooting for?

I just wanted his answer on if we should have overthrown Saddam in ‘03 so we could all see how dumb he is.

I don’t think the response to Death to America sentiment is to wage endless war against them and wasting our blood and treasure.

I voted for the invasion, but in hindsight feel it was a mistake and have apologized for it. That said, it wasn't like leaving Saddam in power was a great option either for stability in the region and international precedent when it comes to WMD inspections regimes. It's much like Vietnam in this respeck in that there weren't a lot of good options on the table.

The good option was to do nothing. Saddam didn’t have WMD and the IAEA said so in 2002, which the Bush admin sought to discredit. We should listen to the people that do the inspections, and probably the people who were against the war from the outset. Removing Saddam was far more disastrous for regional stability than letting him remain in power would have been.

Yes, the good less bad option was to leave him in power.

We? should have gone in hard without lube on Saddam during Desert Swarm when the entire fucking world was on our? side.

Then pivoted and rammed it hard into Iran after a brief refractory period just because we? were tanned and ready.

This

I remember 1979 as one of the working stiffs when I saw a guy with a Bomb Iran shirt

Should have nipped that shit in the bud

Many of our problems in the Middle East (and Persia) stem from our not going in dry on the Ayatollah in 1979. That was an act of war that required blowing them back into the stone age. Embassies are sovereign soil.

YellowSnow said:

RaceBannon said:

PurpleThrobber said:

YellowSnow said:

HardlyClothed said:

YellowSnow said:

HardlyClothed said:

RaceBannon said:

Asked and answered @HardlyClothed

You don't have to like the answer

Do unto to others before they do it to you

Do you agree with the Death to America sentiment in the mid east? Who are you rooting for?

I just wanted his answer on if we should have overthrown Saddam in ‘03 so we could all see how dumb he is.

I don’t think the response to Death to America sentiment is to wage endless war against them and wasting our blood and treasure.

I voted for the invasion, but in hindsight feel it was a mistake and have apologized for it. That said, it wasn't like leaving Saddam in power was a great option either for stability in the region and international precedent when it comes to WMD inspections regimes. It's much like Vietnam in this respeck in that there weren't a lot of good options on the table.

The good option was to do nothing. Saddam didn’t have WMD and the IAEA said so in 2002, which the Bush admin sought to discredit. We should listen to the people that do the inspections, and probably the people who were against the war from the outset. Removing Saddam was far more disastrous for regional stability than letting him remain in power would have been.

Yes, the good less bad option was to leave him in power.

We? should have gone in hard without lube on Saddam during Desert Swarm when the entire fucking world was on our? side.

Then pivoted and rammed it hard into Iran after a brief refractory period just because we? were tanned and ready.

This

I remember 1979 as one of the working stiffs when I saw a guy with a Bomb Iran shirt

Should have nipped that shit in the bud

Many of our problems in the Middle East (and Persia) stem from our not going in dry on the Ayatollah in 1979. That was an act of war that required blowing them back into the stone age. Embassies are sovereign soil.

Come see the chickenhawks call for more pointless brutal war. What great threat does modern Iran represent that we needed to level their country now or 40 years ago.

RaceBannon

HardlyClothed said:

YellowSnow said:

RaceBannon said:

PurpleThrobber said:

YellowSnow said:

HardlyClothed said:

YellowSnow said:

HardlyClothed said:

RaceBannon said:

Asked and answered @HardlyClothed

You don't have to like the answer

Do unto to others before they do it to you

Do you agree with the Death to America sentiment in the mid east? Who are you rooting for?

I just wanted his answer on if we should have overthrown Saddam in ‘03 so we could all see how dumb he is.

I don’t think the response to Death to America sentiment is to wage endless war against them and wasting our blood and treasure.

I voted for the invasion, but in hindsight feel it was a mistake and have apologized for it. That said, it wasn't like leaving Saddam in power was a great option either for stability in the region and international precedent when it comes to WMD inspections regimes. It's much like Vietnam in this respeck in that there weren't a lot of good options on the table.

The good option was to do nothing. Saddam didn’t have WMD and the IAEA said so in 2002, which the Bush admin sought to discredit. We should listen to the people that do the inspections, and probably the people who were against the war from the outset. Removing Saddam was far more disastrous for regional stability than letting him remain in power would have been.

Yes, the good less bad option was to leave him in power.

We? should have gone in hard without lube on Saddam during Desert Swarm when the entire fucking world was on our? side.

Then pivoted and rammed it hard into Iran after a brief refractory period just because we? were tanned and ready.

This

I remember 1979 as one of the working stiffs when I saw a guy with a Bomb Iran shirt

Should have nipped that shit in the bud

Many of our problems in the Middle East (and Persia) stem from our not going in dry on the Ayatollah in 1979. That was an act of war that required blowing them back into the stone age. Embassies are sovereign soil.

YellowSnow said:

RaceBannon said:

PurpleThrobber said:

YellowSnow said:

HardlyClothed said:

YellowSnow said:

HardlyClothed said:

RaceBannon said:

Asked and answered @HardlyClothed

You don't have to like the answer

Do unto to others before they do it to you

Do you agree with the Death to America sentiment in the mid east? Who are you rooting for?

I just wanted his answer on if we should have overthrown Saddam in ‘03 so we could all see how dumb he is.

I don’t think the response to Death to America sentiment is to wage endless war against them and wasting our blood and treasure.

I voted for the invasion, but in hindsight feel it was a mistake and have apologized for it. That said, it wasn't like leaving Saddam in power was a great option either for stability in the region and international precedent when it comes to WMD inspections regimes. It's much like Vietnam in this respeck in that there weren't a lot of good options on the table.

The good option was to do nothing. Saddam didn’t have WMD and the IAEA said so in 2002, which the Bush admin sought to discredit. We should listen to the people that do the inspections, and probably the people who were against the war from the outset. Removing Saddam was far more disastrous for regional stability than letting him remain in power would have been.

Yes, the good less bad option was to leave him in power.

We? should have gone in hard without lube on Saddam during Desert Swarm when the entire fucking world was on our? side.

Then pivoted and rammed it hard into Iran after a brief refractory period just because we? were tanned and ready.

This

I remember 1979 as one of the working stiffs when I saw a guy with a Bomb Iran shirt

Should have nipped that shit in the bud

Many of our problems in the Middle East (and Persia) stem from our not going in dry on the Ayatollah in 1979. That was an act of war that required blowing them back into the stone age. Embassies are sovereign soil.

Come see the chickenhawks call for more pointless brutal war. What great threat does modern Iran represent that we needed to level their country now or 40 years ago.

We're rooting for America

I understand that you aren't

Agree to disagree

You let someone attack without consequence they keep attacking. You would have made a great Hitler apologist too

HardlyClothed

PostGameOrangeSlices said:

RaceBannon said:

YellowSnow said:

RaceBannon said:

PurpleThrobber said:

YellowSnow said:

HardlyClothed said:

YellowSnow said:

HardlyClothed said:

RaceBannon said:

Asked and answered @HardlyClothed

You don't have to like the answer

Do unto to others before they do it to you

Do you agree with the Death to America sentiment in the mid east? Who are you rooting for?

I just wanted his answer on if we should have overthrown Saddam in ‘03 so we could all see how dumb he is.

I don’t think the response to Death to America sentiment is to wage endless war against them and wasting our blood and treasure.

I voted for the invasion, but in hindsight feel it was a mistake and have apologized for it. That said, it wasn't like leaving Saddam in power was a great option either for stability in the region and international precedent when it comes to WMD inspections regimes. It's much like Vietnam in this respeck in that there weren't a lot of good options on the table.

The good option was to do nothing. Saddam didn’t have WMD and the IAEA said so in 2002, which the Bush admin sought to discredit. We should listen to the people that do the inspections, and probably the people who were against the war from the outset. Removing Saddam was far more disastrous for regional stability than letting him remain in power would have been.

Yes, the good less bad option was to leave him in power.

We? should have gone in hard without lube on Saddam during Desert Swarm when the entire fucking world was on our? side.

Then pivoted and rammed it hard into Iran after a brief refractory period just because we? were tanned and ready.

This

I remember 1979 as one of the working stiffs when I saw a guy with a Bomb Iran shirt

Should have nipped that shit in the bud

Many of our problems in the Middle East (and Persia) stem from our not going in dry on the Ayatollah in 1979. That was an act of war that required blowing them back into the stone age. Embassies are sovereign soil.

You and I do agree on a lot

It's almost like people with common sense see things similarly.

When I think people with common sense I think of brutal military campaigns on the other side of the world against countries that don’t threaten the United States. Just common sense.

PostGameOrangeSlices

HardlyClothed said:

YellowSnow said:

RaceBannon said:

PurpleThrobber said:

YellowSnow said:

HardlyClothed said:

YellowSnow said:

HardlyClothed said:

RaceBannon said:

Asked and answered @HardlyClothed

You don't have to like the answer

Do unto to others before they do it to you

Do you agree with the Death to America sentiment in the mid east? Who are you rooting for?

I just wanted his answer on if we should have overthrown Saddam in ‘03 so we could all see how dumb he is.

I don’t think the response to Death to America sentiment is to wage endless war against them and wasting our blood and treasure.

I voted for the invasion, but in hindsight feel it was a mistake and have apologized for it. That said, it wasn't like leaving Saddam in power was a great option either for stability in the region and international precedent when it comes to WMD inspections regimes. It's much like Vietnam in this respeck in that there weren't a lot of good options on the table.

The good option was to do nothing. Saddam didn’t have WMD and the IAEA said so in 2002, which the Bush admin sought to discredit. We should listen to the people that do the inspections, and probably the people who were against the war from the outset. Removing Saddam was far more disastrous for regional stability than letting him remain in power would have been.

Yes, the good less bad option was to leave him in power.

We? should have gone in hard without lube on Saddam during Desert Swarm when the entire fucking world was on our? side.

Then pivoted and rammed it hard into Iran after a brief refractory period just because we? were tanned and ready.

This

I remember 1979 as one of the working stiffs when I saw a guy with a Bomb Iran shirt

Should have nipped that shit in the bud

Many of our problems in the Middle East (and Persia) stem from our not going in dry on the Ayatollah in 1979. That was an act of war that required blowing them back into the stone age. Embassies are sovereign soil.

YellowSnow said:

RaceBannon said:

PurpleThrobber said:

YellowSnow said:

HardlyClothed said:

YellowSnow said:

HardlyClothed said:

RaceBannon said:

Asked and answered @HardlyClothed

You don't have to like the answer

Do unto to others before they do it to you

Do you agree with the Death to America sentiment in the mid east? Who are you rooting for?

I just wanted his answer on if we should have overthrown Saddam in ‘03 so we could all see how dumb he is.

I don’t think the response to Death to America sentiment is to wage endless war against them and wasting our blood and treasure.

I voted for the invasion, but in hindsight feel it was a mistake and have apologized for it. That said, it wasn't like leaving Saddam in power was a great option either for stability in the region and international precedent when it comes to WMD inspections regimes. It's much like Vietnam in this respeck in that there weren't a lot of good options on the table.

The good option was to do nothing. Saddam didn’t have WMD and the IAEA said so in 2002, which the Bush admin sought to discredit. We should listen to the people that do the inspections, and probably the people who were against the war from the outset. Removing Saddam was far more disastrous for regional stability than letting him remain in power would have been.

Yes, the good less bad option was to leave him in power.

We? should have gone in hard without lube on Saddam during Desert Swarm when the entire fucking world was on our? side.

Then pivoted and rammed it hard into Iran after a brief refractory period just because we? were tanned and ready.

This

I remember 1979 as one of the working stiffs when I saw a guy with a Bomb Iran shirt

Should have nipped that shit in the bud

Many of our problems in the Middle East (and Persia) stem from our not going in dry on the Ayatollah in 1979. That was an act of war that required blowing them back into the stone age. Embassies are sovereign soil.

Come see the chickenhawks call for more pointless brutal war. What great threat does modern Iran represent that we needed to level their country now or 40 years ago.

Islam knows all about pointless brutal war. I guess embassies can get attacked with 0 consequences