#31
You mean the media is mostly liberal? I’m shocked.
#32
I see we are answering a question with a question?Originally Posted by jettyman
As you seem to know, it seems I should ask... rather than assume I know.
To me from afar, I t seemed like Saddam was providing somewhat of a stabilising role in the region, and that the invasion destabilised the region.
Q2: What is you assessment of ^that^?
And from the same post...
Q1: Did the Iranian general's work take an unswing in frequency and rate after 9/11, or was he always doing that terrorist work?
#33
By Saddam being a stabilizing role are you referring to when he marched into the Iraqi Federal Council and had all opposing lawmakers escorted outside and shot in the head on the front steps? Or is it when once he gained control invade Iran and start a war with them. Or maybe it was when he decided to invade the tiny country of Kuwait and steal all their oil fields and cash and approve of his soldiers raping all the women and killing all the men. But then there was his plan to invade Saudi Arabia and take over the majority of oil in the middle east until we stopped that. Which stabilizing role are you referring to there. Or wait, maybe you're talking about him being responsible for killing 300,000-500,000 Iraqi's. Tell me which one you're talking about?
As for Soleimani, he has always pushed the shiite cause in the Mideast. He was a main supporter of the Islamic revolution. He was responsible for killing many thousands of innocent people in Iran, Syria, Iraq and throughout the world. His activities weren't an increase or upswing as you put it. He's been a committed murderer his whole life.
#34
Thanks for responding.
i understand Kuwait,
i was mostly trying to find the external effect upon Soleimani and his ilk.
i also understand somewhat how each side want the other side to be dead. But they say that the lord works in mysterious ways.
#35
Our gov't never really wanted the other side dead. We never got involved with Iraq and Saddam until he started trying to take over all the oil in the middle east. Saudi Arabia might be the worst people in the middle east. They have attacked us repeatedly but we haven't attacked them. Just the opposite actually. We haven't invaded or really attacked Iran in spite of all their terrorist activities. We never invaded or attacked Afghanistan until they decided to side with Bin Laden and attack us. We even helped them during the war with Russia. Anyone who has been over there knows nothing will ever change there. Sooner or later another murderous dictator will take control of Iraq and he'll be pretty much like Saddam. During my times in Iraq our trauma units had WAY more injured and mutilated Iraqi's from infighting than from the US military. We were in a bad war with them and they were still killing each other more. A lot more. The only people that want the other side dead are the Islamic people themselves. They hate each other.
#36
Perhaps I missed a detail or 2 somewhere, but does it strike anyone else as odd that something on the order of 20 'ballistic missiles' hit a populated base and there were no casualties?
#37
The odd thing is that they picked Al Asad. I've spent time on a lot of bases in Iraq and if I were trying to kill americans the last base I would fire at would be Al Asad. Al Asad is a big base. Big in terms of size. Everything is spread out there. It's in the middle of nowhere. We felt totally safe there as there is no town anywhere near Al Asad. All you can see is desert in all directions. So Iran avoided attacking the other bases. Balad, Victory, so many other bases would be much much easier to conflict damage/casualties/injuries. When I first saw they attacked Al Asad I thought they were either extremely incompetent or they weren't really trying to kill anyone.
#38
I'd be inclined to go with that one.
And then a quick announcement that 'all is well'. 'They appear to be standing down'. Almost like the thing was orchestrated to give the illusion of retaliation and then - OK, we're even. I'm just gonna go full conspiracy theorist here and note that the timing of it all makes for an awful convenient distraction and/or political stunt.
The downed jet though - tosses a wrench right in that one. Just a bizarre chain of events either way
#39
If you're referring to the sham impeachment headed to the senate next week just watch. It will be exposed for the sham/coup it is. Trump isn't worried about next week.
As far as Iran goes. They were scared shitless to kill any American. They haven't forgotten when Reagan called them and said "if our hostages aren't released and out of Iranian airspace in 24 hours we will bomb where you sleep and destroy your military. You have 24 hours". They released the hostages the first day Reagan took office.
#40
[QUOTE=jettyman;53072]If you're referring to the sham impeachment headed to the senate next week just watch. It will be exposed for the sham/coup it is. Trump isn't worried about next week.[/QUOTE]
As far as Iran goes. They were scared shitless to kill any American. They haven't forgotten when Reagan called them and said "if our hostages aren't released and out of Iranian airspace in 24 hours we will bomb where you sleep and destroy your military. You have 24 hours". They released the hostages the first day Reagan took office.
I doubt there will be any exposure of a sham, but I also do not expect the Senate majority to take Trump's impeachment seriously.
Maybe they are scared to kill Americans, but how to explain downing an airliner full of innocent passengers - among them plenty of our Canadian allies?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote