Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Show your support for what this community means to you:


Choose a Donation Amount
Username (required for credit)



Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. If you dare criticize Jimmy Lake, you won't last long.

The Daily Ilhan

1234568

Comments

  • HardlyClothedHardlyClothed Posts: 697
    250 Answers 500 Comments 250 Up Votes 100 Awesomes

    SFGbob 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?
  • MisterEmMisterEm Posts: 6,254
    Swaye's Wigwam 5000 Comments 250 Answers Fifth Anniversary

    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.

    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.
    HardlyClothedRaceBannonpawzSledog
  • HardlyClothedHardlyClothed Posts: 697
    250 Answers 500 Comments 250 Up Votes 100 Awesomes
    MisterEm 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.

    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.
    RaceBannonGrundleStiltzkinMisterEm
  • TurdBufferTurdBuffer Posts: 6,673
    Standard Supporter 5000 Comments 250 Answers 500 Awesomes

    MisterEm 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.

    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.
    HardlyClothedRaceBannonMisterEm
  • HardlyClothedHardlyClothed Posts: 697
    250 Answers 500 Comments 250 Up Votes 100 Awesomes

    SFGbob 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.
    RaceBannonGrundleStiltzkinMisterEm
  • HardlyClothedHardlyClothed Posts: 697
    250 Answers 500 Comments 250 Up Votes 100 Awesomes

    MisterEm 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.

    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.
    RaceBannonGrundleStiltzkinMisterEm
  • SFGbobSFGbob Posts: 5,975
    Standard Supporter 5000 Comments 250 Answers 500 Awesomes
    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.
    RaceBannonHardlyClothedMisterEm
  • HardlyClothedHardlyClothed Posts: 697
    250 Answers 500 Comments 250 Up Votes 100 Awesomes
    SFGbob said:

    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.

    “After 9/11 we should have started wars against three countries that had nothing to do with it”

    -The dumbest person on the planet
    CirrhosisDawg
  • HardlyClothedHardlyClothed Posts: 697
    250 Answers 500 Comments 250 Up Votes 100 Awesomes

    I'm cool with Iran holding @HardlyClothed and his family captive for 444 days with no retaliation as long as no one is killed.










    Imagine thinking like this.


    So justify why war was a preferable alternative as a result of the embassy seizure and hostage taking where no blood was shed. If you really wanted to get the hostages killed dropping a few bombs on Tehran would have done the trick. Imagine thinking like this.
    GrundleStiltzkin
  • TurdBufferTurdBuffer Posts: 6,673
    Standard Supporter 5000 Comments 250 Answers 500 Awesomes

    SFGbob said:

    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.

    “After 9/11 we should have started wars against three countries that had nothing to do with it”

    -The dumbest person on the planet
    Second dumbest at best. Everyone recognizes you as #1.
    HardlyClothedSwayeCirrhosisDawgMisterEm
  • TurdBufferTurdBuffer Posts: 6,673
    Standard Supporter 5000 Comments 250 Answers 500 Awesomes

    SFGbob 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.
    We did weigh that before the invasion. Along with 10 years of UN sanctions, no fly zones in the North & South and a host of other regime offenses prior to 2003.

    What are you, ten years old? How do you not know this shit?
    HardlyClothedCirrhosisDawg
  • HardlyClothedHardlyClothed Posts: 697
    250 Answers 500 Comments 250 Up Votes 100 Awesomes

    SFGbob 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.
    We did weigh that before the invasion. Along with 10 years of UN sanctions, no fly zones in the North & South and a host of other regime offenses prior to 2003.

    What are you, ten years old? How do you not know this shit?
    What the fuck are you talking about? I’m referencing that we were promised that we would be greeted as liberators and that democratizing Iraq would be easy. Also that we’d find WMD.

    Clearly the years of sanctions and enforced no fly zones didn’t inform us enough to avoid fucking up the country for well over a decade.
    TurdBuffer
  • 2001400ex2001400ex Posts: 23,429
    Swaye's Wigwam 10000 Comments 250 Answers Fifth Anniversary
    Bob got destroyed in this thread.
    MikeDamoneRaceBannonpawzCirrhosisDawgTurdBufferMisterEmHoustonHusky
  • TurdBufferTurdBuffer Posts: 6,673
    Standard Supporter 5000 Comments 250 Answers 500 Awesomes
    edited April 14

    SFGbob 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.
    We did weigh that before the invasion. Along with 10 years of UN sanctions, no fly zones in the North & South and a host of other regime offenses prior to 2003.

    What are you, ten years old? How do you not know this shit?
    What the fuck are you talking about? I’m referencing that we were promised that we would be greeted as liberators and that democratizing Iraq would be easy. Also that we’d find WMD.

    Clearly the years of sanctions and enforced no fly zones didn’t inform us enough to avoid fucking up the country for well over a decade.
    That country was already severely fucked up and divided along ethnic and sectarian lines for decades before we invaded. It wasn't all candy and roses like Michael Moore portrayed it. Wake up, dummy.
    RaceBannon
  • pawzpawz Posts: 6,436
    Swaye's Wigwam 5000 Comments 250 Answers Fifth Anniversary
    2001400ex said:

    Bob got destroyed in this thread.

    Imagine not understanding the meaning of destroyed.
    SwayeMisterEmHoustonHusky
Sign In or Register to comment.