The Daily Ilhan

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.

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.

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.