Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.

The Daily Ilhan

1235

Comments

  • RaceBannon
    RaceBannon Member, Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 113,663 Founders Club
    HardlyClothed said:

    RaceBannon said:

    HardlyClothed said:

    PostGameOrangeSlices said:

    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
    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.
    Root root root for the away team

    If they don't win its a shame

    For its one two three nuclear strikes and its the old ball game
    Some Condi “we don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud” fear mongering right here.
    Thank God for strong women

    Something your team actively prevents
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • HardlyClothed
    HardlyClothed Member Posts: 937
    RaceBannon said:

    HardlyClothed said:

    RaceBannon said:

    HardlyClothed said:

    PostGameOrangeSlices said:

    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
    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.
    Root root root for the away team

    If they don't win its a shame

    For its one two three nuclear strikes and its the old ball game
    Some Condi “we don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud” fear mongering right here.
    Thank God for strong women

    Something your team actively prevents
    I prefer my strong women not to be war criminals
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • RaceBannon
    RaceBannon Member, Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 113,663 Founders Club
    HardlyClothed said:

    RaceBannon said:

    HardlyClothed said:

    RaceBannon said:

    HardlyClothed said:

    PostGameOrangeSlices said:

    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
    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.
    Root root root for the away team

    If they don't win its a shame

    For its one two three nuclear strikes and its the old ball game
    Some Condi “we don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud” fear mongering right here.
    Thank God for strong women

    Something your team actively prevents
    I prefer my strong women not to be war criminals
    You like them in a burka a few steps behind
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • HardlyClothed
    HardlyClothed Member Posts: 937
    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.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • SFGbob
    SFGbob Member Posts: 33,183
    HardlyClothed 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.

    Supporting Saddam was great realpolitik
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • HardlyClothed
    HardlyClothed Member Posts: 937
    SFGbob said:

    HardlyClothed 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.

    Supporting Saddam was great realpolitik
    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?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • SFGbob
    SFGbob Member Posts: 33,183
    A million dead on each side sounds to me like a good start.

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • PostGameOrangeSlices
    PostGameOrangeSlices Member Posts: 27,142
    edited April 2019
    HardlyClothed said:

    SFGbob said:

    HardlyClothed 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.

    Supporting Saddam was great realpolitik
    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?

    I like to blame America for Sunni vs Shia violence
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • SFGbob
    SFGbob Member Posts: 33,183
    PostGameOrangeSlices said:

    HardlyClothed said:

    SFGbob said:

    HardlyClothed 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.

    Supporting Saddam was great realpolitik
    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?

    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.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • TurdBomber
    TurdBomber Member Posts: 20,034 Standard Supporter
    It's almost as if @HardlyClothed isn't aware of a country called Kuwait.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Pitchfork51
    Pitchfork51 Member Posts: 27,661
    Swaye said:

    Pitchfork51 said:

    GrundleStiltzkin said:

    Swaye said:

    Doogles said:

    The way she can barely contain her laughter...it's amazing the left can't see she hates America. She's not even trying to hide it.

    What Derek just said. A good chunk of the left hates America right there with her. Obviously the electorate in Minnesota does. They knew what she was, and elected her anyway. Nothing good comes from Minnesota. Except Prince.
    Progressives seem to have a chinstinctive revulsion to the familiar, a certain homophobia of their own. Transexuals are celebrated simply because they are different, for example. This is most evident with progressive relationship to the Middle East and Islam. Their values couldn't be more different. However, Middle Eastern countries are opposed to the United States and thus are adopted as allies of the progressives, closer held by progressives the more virulent opposed to the US those countries are. By extension, Muslims are upheld by progressives because they believe Islamic values most challenge mainstream American values. Other than perhaps Islam's economic teachings, it's hard to see ideological comity between the two value sets.
    They mostly just hate white people
    So do I. But I hate sand people too. I basically hate everyone except Orthodox Jews.
    As long as you hate yourself equally
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Pitchfork51
    Pitchfork51 Member Posts: 27,661
    I'm a bit behind. I read back on page 2 that the case was closed and it was the end of the discussion.

    I guess not
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • TurdBomber
    TurdBomber Member Posts: 20,034 Standard Supporter
    Swaye said:

    Pitchfork51 said:

    GrundleStiltzkin said:

    Swaye said:

    Doogles said:

    The way she can barely contain her laughter...it's amazing the left can't see she hates America. She's not even trying to hide it.

    What Derek just said. A good chunk of the left hates America right there with her. Obviously the electorate in Minnesota does. They knew what she was, and elected her anyway. Nothing good comes from Minnesota. Except Prince.
    Progressives seem to have a chinstinctive revulsion to the familiar, a certain homophobia of their own. Transexuals are celebrated simply because they are different, for example. This is most evident with progressive relationship to the Middle East and Islam. Their values couldn't be more different. However, Middle Eastern countries are opposed to the United States and thus are adopted as allies of the progressives, closer held by progressives the more virulent opposed to the US those countries are. By extension, Muslims are upheld by progressives because they believe Islamic values most challenge mainstream American values. Other than perhaps Islam's economic teachings, it's hard to see ideological comity between the two value sets.
    They mostly just hate white people
    So do I. But I hate sand people too. I basically hate everyone except Orthodox Jews.
    It's their best-in-the-world Joobs that exempts them, isn't it?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • USMChawk
    USMChawk Member Posts: 1,800
    HardlyClothed said:

    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.
    He had chemical weapons that were supposed to have been destroyed, as per the unconditional surrender of Desert Storm. Weaponized chemical weapons that were buried to hide them from the inspectors. Don’t make it out that he misplaced his Tonka truck in a sandbox.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • HardlyClothed
    HardlyClothed Member Posts: 937
    YellowSnow said:

    HardlyClothed said:

    RaceBannon said:

    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
    Modern Iran is just like Nazi Germany. We must defeat them into total submission in order to secure us from their nefarious activity.
    No shit Sherlock. Iran is and has never been an existential threat in the way Nazi Germany was. But how can you have deterrence without a credible threat of force. Iran has is led by radical religious zealots and has been destabilizing the region for 40 years. If we had made them pay in 1979 the world would be a better place. Our getting it wrong on Iraq War 2.0 doesn’t change this.
    “Destabilizing the region” like when they prevented ISIS from sweeping through Damascus and Baghdad in 2015? I’m not big on Iran but pretending they’ve been a bigger force for destabilization than the Saudis is laughable. Or the single biggest event that destabilized the region in the 21st century, the Iraq War.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • HardlyClothed
    HardlyClothed Member Posts: 937
    PostGameOrangeSlices said:

    HardlyClothed said:

    SFGbob said:

    HardlyClothed 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.

    Supporting Saddam was great realpolitik
    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?

    I like to blame America for Sunni vs Shia violence

    How much sectarian violence was there in Iraq before we made it explode in 2003?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • MisterEm
    MisterEm Member Posts: 6,685
    HardlyClothed said:

    YellowSnow said:

    HardlyClothed said:

    RaceBannon said:

    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
    Modern Iran is just like Nazi Germany. We must defeat them into total submission in order to secure us from their nefarious activity.
    No shit Sherlock. Iran is and has never been an existential threat in the way Nazi Germany was. But how can you have deterrence without a credible threat of force. Iran has is led by radical religious zealots and has been destabilizing the region for 40 years. If we had made them pay in 1979 the world would be a better place. Our getting it wrong on Iraq War 2.0 doesn’t change this.
    “Destabilizing the region” like when they prevented ISIS from sweeping through Damascus and Baghdad in 2015? I’m not big on Iran but pretending they’ve been a bigger force for destabilization than the Saudis is laughable. Or the single biggest event that destabilized the region in the 21st century, the Iraq War.
    Answer the fucking question, @HardlyClothed.

    Were the foreign US embassy get-togethers terrorism or, nah?

    Buck up, buttercup.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • HardlyClothed
    HardlyClothed Member Posts: 937
    MisterEm said:

    HardlyClothed said:

    YellowSnow said:

    HardlyClothed said:

    RaceBannon said:

    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
    Modern Iran is just like Nazi Germany. We must defeat them into total submission in order to secure us from their nefarious activity.
    No shit Sherlock. Iran is and has never been an existential threat in the way Nazi Germany was. But how can you have deterrence without a credible threat of force. Iran has is led by radical religious zealots and has been destabilizing the region for 40 years. If we had made them pay in 1979 the world would be a better place. Our getting it wrong on Iraq War 2.0 doesn’t change this.
    “Destabilizing the region” like when they prevented ISIS from sweeping through Damascus and Baghdad in 2015? I’m not big on Iran but pretending they’ve been a bigger force for destabilization than the Saudis is laughable. Or the single biggest event that destabilized the region in the 21st century, the Iraq War.
    Answer the fucking question, @HardlyClothed.

    Were the foreign US embassy get-togethers terrorism or, nah?

    Buck up, buttercup.
    Calling it terrorism or an act of war is subjective so fuck your terms. None of the hostages were eventually killed? So is psychological terrorism a better term? Who fucking cares.

    Should we have killed Iranians in retaliation? Yes or no? All of you regime change cheerleaders want to. What does calling the embassy seizures “terrorism” do but justify another stupid, pointless war of regime change.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • TurdBomber
    TurdBomber Member Posts: 20,034 Standard Supporter
    HardlyClothed said:

    MisterEm said:

    HardlyClothed said:

    YellowSnow said:

    HardlyClothed said:

    RaceBannon said:

    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
    Modern Iran is just like Nazi Germany. We must defeat them into total submission in order to secure us from their nefarious activity.
    No shit Sherlock. Iran is and has never been an existential threat in the way Nazi Germany was. But how can you have deterrence without a credible threat of force. Iran has is led by radical religious zealots and has been destabilizing the region for 40 years. If we had made them pay in 1979 the world would be a better place. Our getting it wrong on Iraq War 2.0 doesn’t change this.
    “Destabilizing the region” like when they prevented ISIS from sweeping through Damascus and Baghdad in 2015? I’m not big on Iran but pretending they’ve been a bigger force for destabilization than the Saudis is laughable. Or the single biggest event that destabilized the region in the 21st century, the Iraq War.
    Answer the fucking question, @HardlyClothed.

    Were the foreign US embassy get-togethers terrorism or, nah?

    Buck up, buttercup.
    Calling it terrorism or an act of war is subjective so fuck your terms. None of the hostages were eventually killed? So is psychological terrorism a better term? Who fucking cares.

    Should we have killed Iranians in retaliation? Yes or no? All of you regime change cheerleaders want to. What does calling the embassy seizures “terrorism” do but justify another stupid, pointless war of regime change.
    Note to HC: It's 20-Fucking-19.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • HardlyClothed
    HardlyClothed Member Posts: 937
    TurdBuffer said:

    HardlyClothed said:

    PostGameOrangeSlices said:

    HardlyClothed said:

    SFGbob said:

    HardlyClothed 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.

    Supporting Saddam was great realpolitik
    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?

    I like to blame America for Sunni vs Shia violence

    How much sectarian violence was there in Iraq before we made it explode in 2003?
    100,000 dead Kurds, 200,000 dead Shiia and 1.8 million refugees in the post-war suppression by Hussein in 1991 would say the sectarian violence before 2003 was significant.
    Good thing we weighed that before going in. How could we have known that creating a power vacuum would explode sectarian tensions into violence when the Iraqis would welcome us like liberated Parisians according to Cheney.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • HardlyClothed
    HardlyClothed Member Posts: 937
    TurdBuffer said:

    HardlyClothed said:

    MisterEm said:

    HardlyClothed said:

    YellowSnow said:

    HardlyClothed said:

    RaceBannon said:

    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
    Modern Iran is just like Nazi Germany. We must defeat them into total submission in order to secure us from their nefarious activity.
    No shit Sherlock. Iran is and has never been an existential threat in the way Nazi Germany was. But how can you have deterrence without a credible threat of force. Iran has is led by radical religious zealots and has been destabilizing the region for 40 years. If we had made them pay in 1979 the world would be a better place. Our getting it wrong on Iraq War 2.0 doesn’t change this.
    “Destabilizing the region” like when they prevented ISIS from sweeping through Damascus and Baghdad in 2015? I’m not big on Iran but pretending they’ve been a bigger force for destabilization than the Saudis is laughable. Or the single biggest event that destabilized the region in the 21st century, the Iraq War.
    Answer the fucking question, @HardlyClothed.

    Were the foreign US embassy get-togethers terrorism or, nah?

    Buck up, buttercup.
    Calling it terrorism or an act of war is subjective so fuck your terms. None of the hostages were eventually killed? So is psychological terrorism a better term? Who fucking cares.

    Should we have killed Iranians in retaliation? Yes or no? All of you regime change cheerleaders want to. What does calling the embassy seizures “terrorism” do but justify another stupid, pointless war of regime change.
    Note to HC: It's 20-Fucking-19.
    And chickenhawks on here still want to go to war because of a fucking embassy seizure 40 years ago where no one was killed.

    How many morons say “we invaded the wrong country” in 2003 as if a war in Iran wouldn’t have been just as doomed. They also had nothing to do with 9/11 for posterity’s sake.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • SFGbob
    SFGbob Member Posts: 33,183
    After 9/11 our foreign policy should have been like the end of Godfather Part I. Settle business with all of the families. NK, Iraq and Iran.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter