The Daily Ilhan
Comments
-
Thank God for strong womenHardlyClothed said:
Some Condi “we don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud” fear mongering right here.RaceBannon said:
Root root root for the away teamHardlyClothed said:
Chickenhawk wants to go to war against every country in which our embassy was attacked. Gotta be ready to deploy in dozens of them. It’s just common sense.PostGameOrangeSlices said:HardlyClothed said:YellowSnow said:
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 said:
ThisPurpleThrobber said:
We? should have gone in hard without lube on Saddam during Desert Swarm when the entire fucking world was on our? side.YellowSnow said:
Yes, theHardlyClothed said:
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.YellowSnow said:
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.HardlyClothed said:
I just wanted his answer on if we should have overthrown Saddam in ‘03 so we could all see how dumb he is.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 don’t think the response to Death to America sentiment is to wage endless war against them and wasting our blood and treasure.goodless bad option was to leave him in power.
Then pivoted and rammed it hard into Iran after a brief refractory period just because we? were tanned and ready.
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
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.YellowSnow said:
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 said:
ThisPurpleThrobber said:
We? should have gone in hard without lube on Saddam during Desert Swarm when the entire fucking world was on our? side.YellowSnow said:
Yes, theHardlyClothed said:
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.YellowSnow said:
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.HardlyClothed said:
I just wanted his answer on if we should have overthrown Saddam in ‘03 so we could all see how dumb he is.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 don’t think the response to Death to America sentiment is to wage endless war against them and wasting our blood and treasure.goodless bad option was to leave him in power.
Then pivoted and rammed it hard into Iran after a brief refractory period just because we? were tanned and ready.
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
Islam knows all about pointless brutal war. I guess embassies can get attacked with 0 consequences
If they don't win its a shame
For its one two three nuclear strikes and its the old ball game
Something your team actively prevents -
I prefer my strong women not to be war criminalsRaceBannon said:
Thank God for strong womenHardlyClothed said:
Some Condi “we don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud” fear mongering right here.RaceBannon said:
Root root root for the away teamHardlyClothed said:
Chickenhawk wants to go to war against every country in which our embassy was attacked. Gotta be ready to deploy in dozens of them. It’s just common sense.PostGameOrangeSlices said:HardlyClothed said:YellowSnow said:
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 said:
ThisPurpleThrobber said:
We? should have gone in hard without lube on Saddam during Desert Swarm when the entire fucking world was on our? side.YellowSnow said:
Yes, theHardlyClothed said:
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.YellowSnow said:
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.HardlyClothed said:
I just wanted his answer on if we should have overthrown Saddam in ‘03 so we could all see how dumb he is.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 don’t think the response to Death to America sentiment is to wage endless war against them and wasting our blood and treasure.goodless bad option was to leave him in power.
Then pivoted and rammed it hard into Iran after a brief refractory period just because we? were tanned and ready.
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
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.YellowSnow said:
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 said:
ThisPurpleThrobber said:
We? should have gone in hard without lube on Saddam during Desert Swarm when the entire fucking world was on our? side.YellowSnow said:
Yes, theHardlyClothed said:
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.YellowSnow said:
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.HardlyClothed said:
I just wanted his answer on if we should have overthrown Saddam in ‘03 so we could all see how dumb he is.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 don’t think the response to Death to America sentiment is to wage endless war against them and wasting our blood and treasure.goodless bad option was to leave him in power.
Then pivoted and rammed it hard into Iran after a brief refractory period just because we? were tanned and ready.
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
Islam knows all about pointless brutal war. I guess embassies can get attacked with 0 consequences
If they don't win its a shame
For its one two three nuclear strikes and its the old ball game
Something your team actively prevents -
You like them in a burka a few steps behindHardlyClothed said:
I prefer my strong women not to be war criminalsRaceBannon said:
Thank God for strong womenHardlyClothed said:
Some Condi “we don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud” fear mongering right here.RaceBannon said:
Root root root for the away teamHardlyClothed said:
Chickenhawk wants to go to war against every country in which our embassy was attacked. Gotta be ready to deploy in dozens of them. It’s just common sense.PostGameOrangeSlices said:HardlyClothed said:YellowSnow said:
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 said:
ThisPurpleThrobber said:
We? should have gone in hard without lube on Saddam during Desert Swarm when the entire fucking world was on our? side.YellowSnow said:
Yes, theHardlyClothed said:
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.YellowSnow said:
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.HardlyClothed said:
I just wanted his answer on if we should have overthrown Saddam in ‘03 so we could all see how dumb he is.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 don’t think the response to Death to America sentiment is to wage endless war against them and wasting our blood and treasure.goodless bad option was to leave him in power.
Then pivoted and rammed it hard into Iran after a brief refractory period just because we? were tanned and ready.
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
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.YellowSnow said:
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 said:
ThisPurpleThrobber said:
We? should have gone in hard without lube on Saddam during Desert Swarm when the entire fucking world was on our? side.YellowSnow said:
Yes, theHardlyClothed said:
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.YellowSnow said:
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.HardlyClothed said:
I just wanted his answer on if we should have overthrown Saddam in ‘03 so we could all see how dumb he is.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 don’t think the response to Death to America sentiment is to wage endless war against them and wasting our blood and treasure.goodless bad option was to leave him in power.
Then pivoted and rammed it hard into Iran after a brief refractory period just because we? were tanned and ready.
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
Islam knows all about pointless brutal war. I guess embassies can get attacked with 0 consequences
If they don't win its a shame
For its one two three nuclear strikes and its the old ball game
Something your team actively prevents -
Supporting Saddam in the brutal Iran-Iraq war was bad enough, but these chickenhawks think we should’ve gotten our own troops involved and bombed a few thousand Persians ourselves. Just a “common sense” response to an “act of war” like seizing an embassy.
-
Supporting Saddam was great realpolitikHardlyClothed said:Supporting Saddam in the brutal Iran-Iraq war was bad enough, but these chickenhawks think we should’ve gotten our own troops involved and bombed a few thousand Persians ourselves. Just a “common sense” response to an “act of war” like seizing an embassy.
-
Was it? The Iraqi invasion was repelled and it ended in stalemate with the Iranian regime still in place and close to a million dead on each side when the fighting ended. Of course an idiot like you thinks that’s brilliant “realpolitik”. Mass unnecessarily death for the sake of your high-minded “realpolitik”. Was overthrowing Saddam in ‘03 brilliant “realpolitik” as well?SFGbob said:
Supporting Saddam was great realpolitikHardlyClothed said:Supporting Saddam in the brutal Iran-Iraq war was bad enough, but these chickenhawks think we should’ve gotten our own troops involved and bombed a few thousand Persians ourselves. Just a “common sense” response to an “act of war” like seizing an embassy.
-
A million dead on each side sounds to me like a good start.
-
HardlyClothed said:
Was it? The Iraqi invasion was repelled and it ended in stalemate with the Iranian regime still in place and close to a million dead on each side when the fighting ended. Of course an idiot like you thinks that’s brilliant “realpolitik”. Mass unnecessarily death for the sake of your high-minded “realpolitik”. Was overthrowing Saddam in ‘03 brilliant “realpolitik” as well?SFGbob said:
Supporting Saddam was great realpolitikHardlyClothed said:Supporting Saddam in the brutal Iran-Iraq war was bad enough, but these chickenhawks think we should’ve gotten our own troops involved and bombed a few thousand Persians ourselves. Just a “common sense” response to an “act of war” like seizing an embassy.
I like to blame America for Sunni vs Shia violence -
Well we created a "mindset" when we called them evil that made this all possible.PostGameOrangeSlices said:HardlyClothed said:
Was it? The Iraqi invasion was repelled and it ended in stalemate with the Iranian regime still in place and close to a million dead on each side when the fighting ended. Of course an idiot like you thinks that’s brilliant “realpolitik”. Mass unnecessarily death for the sake of your high-minded “realpolitik”. Was overthrowing Saddam in ‘03 brilliant “realpolitik” as well?SFGbob said:
Supporting Saddam was great realpolitikHardlyClothed said:Supporting Saddam in the brutal Iran-Iraq war was bad enough, but these chickenhawks think we should’ve gotten our own troops involved and bombed a few thousand Persians ourselves. Just a “common sense” response to an “act of war” like seizing an embassy.
I like to blame America for Sunni vs Shia violence -
It's almost as if @HardlyClothed isn't aware of a country called Kuwait.



