Zionist Bill Maher owned on his own show....

[Cold Front]

Cranial capacity? whats next? phrenology?

Measuring cranial capacity is a well-established scientific tool for many disciplines. It's used in everything from studying animal behavior to psychology to the evolution of hominids to forensic science.

Even within races, cranial capacity is correlated with IQ.

Besides, you were just telling me that brain size was linked to nutrition, as if black people in the United States were malnourished or something. Hard to make that argument when they are bigger in size than the larger-brained Asians.

 

[EmpireShallFall]

Can we just get all the zionists in a building and watch it explode?

 

[Cold Front]

Changing the subject yet again will do you no favors, Storm Front.

"Who won the Cold War and why?" isn't what we're arguing. Once again, "Was there resistance to US imperialism" is the question. And, obviously, answering this question by mentioning who won is completely irrelevant. People resist and lose all the time.

Yes, when they are outnumbered or outgunned. That wasn't the case with the USSR and its allies.

So answering the question of who won the Cold War puts the lie to your assumption that the U.S. was resisted everywhere while the Soviets were welcomed everywhere.

Everyone who is sane knows that's not true. But by using the outcome of the Cold War to frame the question, I was hoping to inject a little sanity into your own crazy marsupial mind.

EVERYONE involved and everyone responsible should be held accountable, Storm Front.

Nope. The rest of us want to get on with our lives.

The Cold War is over. Your side lost. Get over it.

Much of the people from those countries that did the killing have gotten tried and are in prison. Kissinger, Reagan and all the rest should have met the same fate.

Of course you're lying. For example, I was in Cambodia a few years ago, and they are still dealing with the Truth and Reconciliation process to handle the horrors brought on by the Khmer Rouge. There's still much resistance to it.

And this is the general pattern all over the world.

It appears that you were egregiously wrong about the question at hand (Did the US meet resistance?) so you shifted the question to basic, uncontroversial issues in order to save face.

I just drew out the full implications of what you're unable to face. That the Communists lost the Cold War - and they lost because they were resisted more than they were supported.

Here's some context: a Western-friendly organ like the World Court actually found the US guilty. When an institution that was set up by "your side" actually condemns you and never condemns the "other side," it really tells...

It doesn't tell you anything. International courts and other bodies often come to these conclusions. Few people take them seriously. It has no binding force and therefore the participants don't have to take it seriously.

I think it's funny that you do, though.

When the ICC indicts Kissinger for war crimes and genocide, you let me know.

And the ends justifies the means arguments are completely invalid when it comes to war crimes, Storm Front. Welcome to the 20th century.

Not true. You clearly believe, for example, the U.S. is guilty of quite a bit and yet not a single American has been indicted for war chimeras before the ICC.

I'm glad you're slowly accepting that the US did horrible things, Storm Front. Doesn't it feel good to be honest?

Easy to be honest. Hard to be smart. It's easy to see the U.S. did many bad things, for example, but it's hard to see that those things usually led to a good result.

 

[EmpireShallFall]

Send Maher to Gaza please

 

[Rod1]

Sure they were predictable. Read The Empire Trap: The Rise and Fall of U.S. Intervention to Protect American Property Overseas, 1893-2013 by the historian Noel Maurer:

It's a well written piece of scholarship. You'd be well-advised to read it to see just how complicated individual interventions were, while at the same time understanding there was still a general pattern to them which made them predictable.



I don't know much about that specific case, but I do agree that many European colonial powers made the lands they ruled better than would have the native rulers. Not always, but sometimes.

But my point was that the leaders of Central America in particular and Latin America in general had to deal with the threat of intervention quite a lot - and not just from the U.S. So they understood it was a real threat. They understood that if they backed out of deals they agreed to, then there might be real trouble.



I don't think so, either. But then the Greeks of ancient times are clearly not the same as the Greeks of today. Neither are the Germanic tribes of classical times the same as the Germans of today.

Evolution never stops working.



I didn't say the racial IQ gap was entirely genetic, but enough of it is genetic to be confident that a large gap will persist despite the countless interventions which have already taken place and will continue to take place because fools can't believe their lying eyes.

The remaining non-genetic explanation is NOT environmental, at least in the way that most people think of environmental effects. You're not going to close it with more Africna-American book clubs or by chaining black kids to a desk all day and force-feeding them knowledge.

1.- Sounds like an interesting book, i just fail to see how hindsight explains the predictability of interventionism.

2.- Again, we are not discussing the morality of interventionism, interventionism being predictable or not is inconsequential to its effects. And about european interventionism, that was true for the spanish empire as a whole, the Bourbons were turning Spanish woes around. Funny though is that creoles were the ones that resisted modernization the most, white latin americans who saw modernity as a threat to their personal wealth. It was white mexicans in the end the ones that betrayed Maximilian and it is white mexicans still the elite in the country, they are pretty smart but seem to use that smart for their own ends. Mexico doesnt has a problem because it lacks smart people, it has a problem because it has a culture of corruption and selfishness.

3.- Got any evidence on Greeks and Italians being fundamentally different genetically?

4.- Its more likely that racial biological causes for low IQ are rooted on behavourial genes which tend to shape negative cultural traits. You gave me a good insight in polygenic traits and their importance the other time when we were discussing diseases yes? yet when it comes to IQ and race prediction european admixture has little correlation to it, the most important factors in IQ and race seem to be identification (whether someone is considered black or not) and the culture in which the kid itself is raised. Enviromental factors do affect the biological potential for IQ.

 

[Rod1]

Measuring cranial capacity is a well-established scientific tool for many disciplines. It's used in everything from studying animal behavior to psychology to the evolution of hominids to forensic science.

Even within races, cranial capacity is correlated with IQ.

Besides, you were just telling me that brain size was linked to nutrition, as if black people in the United States were malnourished or something. Hard to make that argument when they are bigger in size than the larger-brained Asians.

Do you think women are dumber than men? because women have smaller cranial capacity and historically they also have lacked academic achievements compared to men.

 

[lfd0311]

NO YOU STOP! lmao (please respond with NO YOUUUUUU STOP rofl)

and it was mentioned earlier.


The divide between Sunni and Shia and the ever present conflict between the two of them was the exact reason he was so brutal. He was brutal towards the Jihadists within his own country. Fallujah at one point rose up against Saddam. Just stop with the whole "The US turned the Iraqis against each other" nonsense. The invasion wasn't even over yet and they were already killing each other. You're embarrassing yourself again.

lol please provided sources for the anti-saddam uprising in fallujah. it was looted after the government fell but it was mostly full of Saddam supporters. .

Are the Iraqis themselves good enough of a "source"? probably not, judging by the way this conversation is going. Anyone who has ever been to Fallujah will attest to the fact that the city of Fallujah has what for lack of a better term is a junk yard on top of the city. There are old junked out cars on top of the city. I asked some of the Iraqis that worked with us what that whole thing was about, and they told us that back in the mid-90s, the Tribal powers in Fallujah got fed up with Saddam about something and rebelled. Those cars on top of the city were there defense against his tanks. It never actually came to a fight, as Saddam brought his army there and agreed to a peace settlement with the Tribes. Saddam couldn't afford to have the Sunni turn on him as well. For someone who claims to be an expert on all of these things, you don't have the slightest real clue of what the actual history of the place or the religion is.

its not america's fault that the iraqi army the built and helped equip and form and support performed poorly? this is after they supported the government and fired the iraqi army who then became insurgents? all of Iraq is your fuck up. nobody asked or told you to go to Iraq. you invaded over multiple lies lol. .

They didn't "preform poorly". They sided immediately with either the Shia or Sunni sects that they were previously alligned with originally the way they were always going to, and began fighting the other group the way they were always going to. Notice how there was no resistence to Sunni ISIS whatsoever in the Sunni regions of Iraq? None whatsoever? That there wasn't any sort of armed resistance from a single member of the IA within the Sunni regions of Iraq and resistence didn't start until ISIS got into the Shia held regions of Iraq? How do you suppose ISIS suddenly knew how to drive American Tanks? Because the Iraqi army tank drivers who were Sunni and never had any real allegiance to the national government immediately joined up with the Sunni movement and began fighting against the Shia. That's how ISIS was able to "roll over" the Iraqi army. I mean, the Iraqis have a freaking air force and ISIS was driving down the highway in a column of pickup trucks. Open your eyes, dude.

no the various insurgent groups turned on AQ because of how brutal it was. then the shia government cracked down on the sunnis who threw their weight behind isis. .

ROFL. No, actually we killed them. We also killed a whole bunch of Shia militiamen too. It's funny that your recollection of history seems to have forgotten that. How do you think ISIS, formerly Al Qaeda in Iraq, got to Syria to help kick off the Syrian revolution to start out with? Again, facts and reality contradict your version of the truth.

no according to your secretary of defence you were 'there for oil not for figs'. if you were there for democracy, a WMD lie and saddam being buddies with AQ lie and Saddam being an imminent threat to the US lie would not be necessary. whats next idiot? that the nazis invaded russia to free the russians from communism and help them prosper? lmao .

Sad, again, reading is real, what did I say? I laid my position out to you in detail, and you still didn't understand. That isn't a reflection on my intelligence, that's a reflection on yours. Nice try pretending that your inability to understand makes me stupid, though...

you ran shit into the ground. you built a house of cards that needed help continous help against guys with small arms in pick up trucks. you knocked out the biggest hurdle for iran. saddam. good job. .

LOL, who did we need "help" from? The problem was that their allegiances never waviered from the tribal and religious sects that they'd always supported. They were never loyal to the Iraqi government. That was the real problem, and we should never have expected them to be, just because we said so. Our own arrogance was the real problem.

dont weasel out and turn this into a liberal vs repub issue. the US has a clear and traceable history of arming rebels and tyrants and religious extremists as proxy forces. from afghanistan's freedom fighters to syria's moderates. .

Who is attempting to weasel out or turn it into a Lib vs Conservative issue? It's a common problem with America in general. And LOL at that second line. The Aghanis we armed are now the Government of Aghanistan, and there has never been any such thing as "moderate Rebels in Syria".

damn son. i really struck a nerve with the welcomed with flowers. were you one of the idiots that thought iraq was going to be all roses and peaches? lmao .

Uh, no. You've constantly, horribly contradicted yourself. You first said we invaded to bring democracy and thought that we'd be welcomed with flowers, then it became just about nothing but the oil. It's a total contradiction that you don't recognize, and still don't.

it was about oil. but youd need to pacify the region to get that going..

Case in point...

my memory is far better than your's. you didnt know weapons inspectors had been to the weapons plant in the 90s after the gulf war until this thread. .

LOL, sure thing dude. You cann't even keep your own argument straight, or even remember what it is, or manage to stick to just a single argument, but I'm the one with the bad memory. Just stop. And again, we were talking about the Iran Iraq war? How many times have you screwed that up now? That war would not have gone on for as long as it did if we weren't involved because of how small and poorly equipped Saddam's military was, despite the fact that he had the 5th largest army in the world and the biggest tank army on the planet? Ringing any bells? No?

And again, history was going to prove how stupid we were for not just staying in Afghanistan? I'm still waiting for that one.

youre like one of those idiots who say they saw aliens. when people present proof you are full of shit you just keep saying 'i was there! i know what i saw!' .

LOL, I love people like you. Yes, an internet link is "proof" that I didn't see what I saw. Got it. Shows your true level of intellgegence. But... But.... IT WAS ON THE INTERNET!!! LOL, and the worst part is you don't even realize how stupid that makes you sound.

so they need to make a profit 5 minutes after the war starts? hahhahahhahaha if america's military and policy makers are morons like you, the world is up for a lot more instability..

Uh, or you could at least make a profit at the time we were actually in Iraq. Or on something other than refurbishing our fighter jets, something we do pretty much on schedule every 25-30 years, at this point 6 years after withdrawing from Iraq. Hard to make any sort of connection to "we invaded cuz da military industrial complex" given those facts, but we've seen how well you do with those.

you didnt win the war its still going on. this is a prime example of american military not understanding irregular wars. the people fighting you are not calling this iraq war 3. its the same war as 2003 in a different phase. the americans tuck tail and drew down their ground forces but the besieged shia government is still there.

But wait, I thought we won because Saddam had a shitty army? TSK, TSK, there is that incosistent flip flopping again!!!

its okay you were stupid enough to fall for WMDs and Saddam being an imminent threat and democracy and iraq's well being as the primary objective. someone like you will naturally have problems with critical thinking.

For the like 11th time DO YOU READ? what did I say was the ulitimate objective? If you could read, you would understand that "deomcracy" was not the ulitimate objective. You can't do that, though. Because reading comprehension isn't something you're very good at.

they are in the same bed idiot. sounds like you didnt take president eisenhower seriously when he warned the US about it.

Eisenhower has been dead for 47 years. But you're right, he totally called this one...

you asked how they took those pictures during the gulf war when anybody who is even vaguely familiar with this knows that the photos were taken after the war. the saddest part of it all was the whole 'maybe the missed' nonsense. when the pictures were posted you looked like an idiot. serious? maybe they missed? unintentional comedy gold..

And what did the first report, the one you posted from the CIA say? That the complex was completely destroyed, correct? That is directly refuted by both the photos and me having physically been there. and been inside the building. I guess you also missed that, and also don't have the ability to make that connection after the 4th time I've said that. That's what was "unintentional comedic gold". But, like i've said before, keep with this, maybe it will get you somewhere.

at this point on an internet forum nobody cares what you claim you saw when multiple reports are saying otherwise. if you even had a the barest of spines you'd be contacting these people for getting their official reports wrong. go ahead let em know it was not bombed and destroyed because you know what you saw.

The barest of spine? I'm sure the fact that I was there in 2008, 5 years after the invasion, (and the fact that those pictures show that the buildings are still intact, lol, good to see you failed to comprehend that AS WELL, YOU F**KING CLOWN) they already know. Remember your link said the buildings were totally destroyed, right? Yet those pictures show two pictures of the storage facilities simply having holes in them. God, you're stupid. Your ability to think and reason is utterly embarrasing.

 

[tramendous]

Are the Iraqis themselves good enough of a "source"? probably not, judging by the way this conversation is going. Anyone who has ever been to Fallujah will attest to the fact that the city of Fallujah has what for lack of a better term is a junk yard on top of the city. There are old junked out cars on top of the city. I asked some of the Iraqis that worked with us what that whole thing was about, and they told us that back in the mid-90s, the Tribal powers in Fallujah got fed up with Saddam about something and rebelled. Those cars on top of the city were there defense against his tanks. It never actually came to a fight, as Saddam brought his army there and agreed to a peace settlement with the Tribes. Saddam couldn't afford to have the Sunni turn on him as well. For someone who claims to be an expert on all of these things, you don't have the slightest real clue of what the actual history of the place or the religion is.

maybe in the US military, this type of thing is acceptable. but out in the real world when debating between 2 people, sources have to better than 'i saw this and x said that'. you cant honestly expect me to believe you over the reports.

They didn't "preform poorly". They sided immediately with either the Shia or Sunni sects that they were previously alligned with originally the way they were always going to, and began fighting the other group the way they were always going to. Notice how there was no resistence to Sunni ISIS whatsoever in the Sunni regions of Iraq? None whatsoever? That there wasn't any sort of armed resistance from a single member of the IA within the Sunni regions of Iraq and resistence didn't start until ISIS got into the Shia held regions of Iraq? How do you suppose ISIS suddenly knew how to drive American Tanks? Because the Iraqi army tank drivers who were Sunni and never had any real allegiance to the national government immediately joined up with the Sunni movement and began fighting against the Shia. That's how ISIS was able to "roll over" the Iraqi army. I mean, the Iraqis have a freaking air force and ISIS was driving down the highway in a column of pickup trucks. Open your eyes, dude.

lmao. i think you have trouble with the english language. case in point the little rant above. you say they didnt perform poorly, then go on a tirade about them ditching their posts and joining the enemy. what the fuck do you call that other than performing poorly? especially all the iraqi troops that deserted their uniforms and were captured and executed

ROFL. No, actually we killed them. We also killed a whole bunch of Shia militiamen too. It's funny that your recollection of history seems to have forgotten that. How do you think ISIS, formerly Al Qaeda in Iraq, got to Syria to help kick off the Syrian revolution to start out with? Again, facts and reality contradict your version of the truth.

this is like the whole shit about how many viet cong the US army killed. your bloated kill numbers still chalked up to a loss.the US sucks at these types of wars because of shitty strategy from the top down and geo strategical intetests that conflict with their short term goals. i.e. arming sunni rebels in libya even though a lot of those guys were iraq war insurgents and have gone over to syria and iraq again now. but fuck it, they kill iranians right? lets rebrand them as 'the moderates'

LOL, who did we need "help" from? The problem was that their allegiances never waviered from the tribal and religious sects that they'd always supported. They were never loyal to the Iraqi government. That was the real problem, and we should never have expected them to be, just because we said so. Our own arrogance was the real problem.

uhhhh you needed the iraqis? but besides that my point wasnt about you needing help its the iraqi government. the house of cards as i called it.

Who is attempting to weasel out or turn it into a Lib vs Conservative issue? It's a common problem with America in general. And LOL at that second line. The Aghanis we armed are now the Government of Aghanistan, and there has never been any such thing as "moderate Rebels in Syria".

no SOME if the afghanis you armed are the afghan government others like hezb e islami are not and others joined up with the taliban.

Uh, no. You've constantly, horribly contradicted yourself. You first said we invaded to bring democracy and thought that we'd be welcomed with flowers, then it became just about nothing but the oil. It's a total contradiction that you don't recognize, and still don't.

it was always about taking control of iraq. oil being the primary reason. democracy and interests of iraqis was always a smoke screen to get dumb patriotic grunts like you to go along with it. you've gotten people killed and helped destroy a country. your conscience will not allow you to take responsibility and even question why you were there much less conclude it was a bullshit war.

Case in point...

lol okay like i said the iraq war has been about oil. you weaseled out and said this is merely a bonus but as any fucking guy knows thats bullshit. this was never about the interests of iraqis.

LOL, sure thing dude. You cann't even keep your own argument straight, or even remember what it is, or manage to stick to just a single argument, but I'm the one with the bad memory. Just stop. And again, we were talking about the Iran Iraq war? How many times have you screwed that up now? That war would not have gone on for as long as it did if we weren't involved because of how small and poorly equipped Saddam's military was, despite the fact that he had the 5th largest army in the world and the biggest tank army on the planet? Ringing any bells? No?

biggest tank army on the planet? source?

And again, history was going to prove how stupid we were for not just staying in Afghanistan? I'm still waiting for that one.

okay. you spent a shit load if money and attention on iraq from afghanistan. that money and troops and intelligence could have been used on afghanistan. how is this rocket science? you do you need an essay and elaborate points? its a very simple idea that is obvious to everyone.

LOL, I love people like you. Yes, an internet link is "proof" that I didn't see what I saw. Got it. Shows your true level of intellgegence. But... But.... IT WAS ON THE INTERNET!!! LOL, and the worst part is you don't even realize how stupid that makes you sound.

motherfucker, you are on the internet lmao. on the one hand the internet source is some random guy. on the other hand are internet sources from official government websites. GTFO

Uh, or you could at least make a profit at the time we were actually in Iraq. Or on something other than refurbishing our fighter jets, something we do pretty much on schedule every 25-30 years, at this point 6 years after withdrawing from Iraq. Hard to make any sort of connection to "we invaded cuz da military industrial complex" given those facts, but we've seen how well you do with those.

of course you did. the military industrial complex, securing energy rich areas of the world and denying these to your adversaries are the reasons. too bad for you it didnt really work out that way.

But wait, I thought we won because Saddam had a shitty army? TSK, TSK, there is that incosistent flip flopping again!!!

lol let me spell it out for you:

1. 1st gulf war you won because US army is really good and saddam's army is really bad compared to western armies. this is true for the arab world in general. high level of incompetence. the us also enjoyed technological/equipment superiority and training.

2. the 2nd time the iraqi army was in an even worse situation but this time they decided to goad you into an assymetrical war. this is what the war evolved to.

For the like 11th time DO YOU READ? what did I say was the ulitimate objective? If you could read, you would understand that "deomcracy" was not the ulitimate objective. You can't do that, though. Because reading comprehension isn't something you're very good at.

you listed them earlier and put oil on the bottom of the list. im asking you what was the #1 reason that the US went into iraq? was it WMDs and AQ connection? which proved to be false?

Eisenhower has been dead for 47 years. But you're right, he totally called this one...

its american tradition to have short historical memory.

And what did the first report, the one you posted from the CIA say? That the complex was completely destroyed, correct? That is directly refuted by both the photos and me having physically been there. and been inside the building. I guess you also missed that, and also don't have the ability to make that connection after the 4th time I've said that. That's what was "unintentional comedic gold". But, like i've said before, keep with this, maybe it will get you somewhere.

you dont count as a source since this argument is between me and you. thats not how this shit works. you need to provide sources for both your anti saddam fallujah uprising claim and your assertion that the facility was not destroyed. if you cant, fuck off and get off internet forums and try to get your government's reports corrected.

The barest of spine? I'm sure the fact that I was there in 2008, 5 years after the invasion, (and the fact that those pictures show that the buildings are still intact, lol, good to see you failed to comprehend that AS WELL, YOU F**KING CLOWN) they already know. Remember your link said the buildings were totally destroyed, right? Yet those pictures show two pictures of the storage facilities simply having holes in them. God, you're stupid. Your ability to think and reason is utterly embarrasing.

lol the facility was destroyed and not operational. get over it you liar. you got schooled by some fucking google searches about your bullshit experience at that place. but no. you expect me to believe you over the UN and actual reports lmfao

 

[lfd0311]

maybe in the US military, this type of thing is acceptable. but out in the real world when debating between 2 people, sources have to better than 'i saw this and x said that'. you cant honestly expect me to believe you over the reports.

... the reports that contradicted each other? You aren't even smart enough to understand that, are you? The one you posted said the place was completely destroyed. The other one said some bombs were dropped that started fires in two of the buildings that they believed housed chemicals and that the resulting fires destroyed the chemcials. The pictures showed a hole in the roof of one ceiling, and another showed a picture of an intact door. You're right, I've clearly been exposed.....

lmao. i think you have trouble with the english language. case in point the little rant above. you say they didnt perform poorly, then go on a tirade about them ditching their posts and joining the enemy. what the fuck do you call that other than performing poorly? especially all the iraqi troops that deserted their uniforms and were captured and executed

Gee, for someone who again claims to be an expert on this situation, your total lack of undestanding of the situation is once again impressive. I said they preformed well when they fought. There were a number of fights around the Muthana Chemical Complex (there it is again) and COP Golden, by Iraqi army soldiers I helped train. Many of them were Shia. Because finally, by 2008 we realized that we weren't achomplishing anythign by buying up entire militia groups, making them int Iraqi Army units and then keeping them in the area they already lived in. Again, you don't seem to 1.) actually know anything about this conflict or 2.) be interested in having a real discussion about past "LMAO, Nu uh". Those Captured Iraqi troops were probably Shia. Again, how did ISIS learn to drives tanks on the very first day of the invasion? Why did you breeze right past that question?

this is like the whole shit about how many viet cong the US army killed. your bloated kill numbers still chalked up to a loss.the US sucks at these types of wars because of shitty strategy from the top down and geo strategical intetests that conflict with their short term goals. i.e. arming sunni rebels in libya even though a lot of those guys were iraq war insurgents and have gone over to syria and iraq again now. but fuck it, they kill iranians right? lets rebrand them as 'the moderates'

LOL, so wait, you're back to not believing the government again when it fits your argument? Shocker!! You can't honestly expect me to believe you over the reports....

uhhhh you needed the iraqis? but besides that my point wasnt about you needing help its the iraqi government. the house of cards as i called it.

Dude, could you pay attention just once to what I've said? How many times have I said that we expected the Iraqis to be loyal to a government of our creation, just because we said so? About 10. Good grief.

no SOME if the afghanis you armed are the afghan government others like hezb e islami are not and others joined up with the taliban.

The Bulk of who we armed in the Afghan/Soviet war was the Northern Alliance. AKA, the current Afghani government.

it was always about taking control of iraq. oil being the primary reason. democracy and interests of iraqis was always a smoke screen to get dumb patriotic grunts like you to go along with it. you've gotten people killed and helped destroy a country. your conscience will not allow you to take responsibility and even question why you were there much less conclude it was a bullshit war.

That's not what you said earlier, sweetheart!! You're all over the place!! I know exactly why we were there. I've said it about 4 times now, you're just too stupid to comprehend what I said, because you can't read and aren't very intelligent. That is of course somehow my fault, though, in your eyes. Go back and read again what I thought our reasons for invading Iraq were. Read slow. See if you can understand. See if you can get on my level, intellectually. Because you can't get past "Dur, hurr, democracy, Murica, durr hurr." And that isn't what I'm saying. That's because you aren't very smart.

lol okay like i said the iraq war has been about oil. you weaseled out and said this is merely a bonus but as any fucking guy knows thats bullshit. this was never about the interests of iraqis.

Again, Why did we leave then? And for the 6th time, I never said it was about the interests of the Iraqis, you dumb f**k, GO BACK AND READ. Slowly. Maybe have someone else read it to you, because you can't seem to understand what I said. Again, you're just apparently not intellectually on a level where you can understand the points I made. That isn't my fault. Oil was a fringe benefit. If that was the main reason, we would still be there. If the basic interests of the Iraqis was the point, we would have gone back in by now, if we would have ever left.

biggest tank army on the planet? source?

LOL, yet another example of Mr. "I can tell you the entire history of the region like it's cool" not knowing simple facts about something he's talking about. How old are you, son? This is common knowledge? Again, you don't have the basic intelligence to keep up with me in this conversation, that's pretty apparent. You claim to know history... but don't know simple stuff like this? Saddam sat on a whole bunch of oil. He had tons of money. He'd been buying tanks from the Soviet Union as it collapsed for years, and had attempted to build his own knock off of the T-72. He had between 5 and 7000 tanks. Come on man.

okay. you spent a shit load if money and attention on iraq from afghanistan. that money and troops and intelligence could have been used on afghanistan. how is this rocket science? you do you need an essay and elaborate points? its a very simple idea that is obvious to everyone.

It's not rocket science because you originally threw down the "anyone who understands history knows you should have just focused on Afghanistan" angle. So explain what in history about Afghanistan specifically indicates to you that taht was the better option? Because I've asked that three times now and you've either ignored it or came back with pointless, empty posting like this.

And the colored part is hilarious to anyone with even a basic knowledge of real history. That's my main point. You're just a shit talker who doesn't know anything, and most specifically about either history in general or the history of Afghanistan specifically.

motherfucker, you are on the internet lmao. on the one hand the internet source is some random guy. on the other hand are internet sources from official government websites. GTFO

Yes, I am. Iraq was not on the internet. Way to misunderstand what I said. Official government websites that contradict each other, and coming from a guy who just in this very post goes on a rant about how he doesn't trust the Government to report anything honestly because of vietnam and inflated kill numbers and what not. Congratulations, champ. You knocked all of the contradictions out of the park in one fell swoop.

of course you did. the military industrial complex, securing energy rich areas of the world and denying these to your adversaries are the reasons. too bad for you it didnt really work out that way.

Of course we did what? Was that supposed to be some sort of a complete thought? And again, who hypothetically owns those oil rights? The Dutch and the Engilsh. Sounds like America totally showed everybody how to make a profit off of some war....

lol let me spell it out for you:

1. 1st gulf war you won because US army is really good and saddam's army is really bad compared to western armies. this is true for the arab world in general. high level of incompetence. the us also enjoyed technological/equipment superiority and training.

2. the 2nd time the iraqi army was in an even worse situation but this time they decided to goad you into an assymetrical war. this is what the war evolved to.



you listed them earlier and put oil on the bottom of the list. im asking you what was the #1 reason that the US went into iraq? was it WMDs and AQ connection? which proved to be false?

Well good, at least we won this time... Notice you flipped on that position again... I've been pretty clear about my point the entie time. Our goal was to destabilize the entire region and collapse governments we didn't like without having to invade them, or at least put ourselves in a favorable position to invade Iran from both angles if it became necessary. Good to see I literally had to say all that for you to pick up on it.

its american tradition to have short historical memory.

At least we agree on that.

you dont count as a source since this argument is between me and you. thats not how this shit works. you need to provide sources for both your anti saddam fallujah uprising claim and your assertion that the facility was not destroyed. if you cant, fuck off and get off internet forums and try to get your government's reports corrected.

Yes, I do. Personal experience and the personal experience of others counts. If we were having a discussion about something to do with, say Seattle for instance, And I were to say something like "well, I read online recently that this was occuring in Seattle..." And your response to that was "Dude, I live in Seattle, that isn't in any way true." I would just take that for what it is. I wouldn't be like "OH REALLY? provide me with a link to you living in Seattle!! Show me another link that says this link isn't true!!" The internet is full of BS. You've used as "proof" two links that contradict each other as the basis of you "winning" and dont even see the contradiction in that. Oh well.

lol the facility was destroyed and not operational. get over it you liar. you got schooled by some fucking google searches about your bullshit experience at that place. but no. you expect me to believe you over the UN and actual reports lmfao

Nope, that isn't at all the truth. The storage facility was damaged. Nowhere did it say taht it was bombed to ruin (and the pictures didn't reflect taht either) the way the link you provided suggested. just stop that, because you're making yourself look stupid. You can doubt my experience all you want because it hurts your crappy argument, but it still remains that I've been there and you haven't. And LOL at "schooled" the only one here who got "schooled" was you, by your two contradictory links.

 

[tramendous]

... the reports that contradicted each other? You aren't even smart enough to understand that, are you? The one you posted said the place was completely destroyed. The other one said some bombs were dropped that started fires in two of the buildings that they believed housed chemicals and that the resulting fires destroyed the chemcials. The pictures showed a hole in the roof of one ceiling, and another showed a picture of an intact door. You're right, I've clearly been exposed.....

considering you weren't even aware of this until this thread, i'd say yes you were kind of exposed. now you are being petty and saying well there was some rubble and an intact door so thus the place was not destroyed. by your definition, the apartments in aleppo that have floors and sides missing and have been pock marked and have holes in the roof are not destroyed either. LOOK AN INTACT DOOR!

Gee, for someone who again claims to be an expert on this situation,

never claimed to be an expert.

your total lack of undestanding of the situation is once again impressive. I said they preformed well when they fought. There were a number of fights around the Muthana Chemical Complex (there it is again) and COP Golden, by Iraqi army soldiers I helped train. Many of them were Shia. Because finally, by 2008 we realized that we weren't achomplishing anythign by buying up entire militia groups, making them int Iraqi Army units and then keeping them in the area they already lived in. Again, you don't seem to 1.) actually know anything about this conflict or 2.) be interested in having a real discussion about past "LMAO, Nu uh". Those Captured Iraqi troops were probably Shia. Again, how did ISIS learn to drives tanks on the very first day of the invasion? Why did you breeze right past that question?

they performed well when they fought. Okay well thats great but the fact is that a lot of them chose not to fight. some of them as you said joined the enemy. many of them deserted their posts and threw down their uniforms. its like saying this car works great except for the majority of the times its a shit box. what part of what you said disproves the fact that that army sucked and didn't do what it was trained to do?

LOL, so wait, you're back to not believing the government again when it fits your argument? Shocker!! You can't honestly expect me to believe you over the reports....

what are you saying? lol

Dude, could you pay attention just once to what I've said? How many times have I said that we expected the Iraqis to be loyal to a government of our creation, just because we said so? About 10. Good grief.

you created the iraqi government. iraqi government not as loyal to you as you hoped. this is an american failure again lol.

The Bulk of who we armed in the Afghan/Soviet war was the Northern Alliance. AKA, the current Afghani government.

"the northern alliance" didn't exist until the various groups formed together to oppose the new movement against the southern alliance AKA the groups that made up the taliban. if you are saying that the US didn't support Pashtun insurgencies through their Pakistani allies well that would be highly inaccurate.

That's not what you said earlier, sweetheart!! You're all over the place!! I know exactly why we were there. I've said it about 4 times now, you're just too stupid to comprehend what I said, because you can't read and aren't very intelligent. That is of course somehow my fault, though, in your eyes. Go back and read again what I thought our reasons for invading Iraq were. Read slow. See if you can understand. See if you can get on my level, intellectually. Because you can't get past "Dur, hurr, democracy, Murica, durr hurr." And that isn't what I'm saying. That's because you aren't very smart.

here is what you said:

1.) Invade Iraq to depose Saddam

2.) Set up a Western Style Democracy, fill the power vaccum that would be caused by Saddam's toppling that we were unprepared to fill in 1991 with US troops until a stable, secular Iraqi government could be built.

3.) This would also give us the added bonus of a Democracy in the Middle East that could in theory undermine the Tribal and religious authoritarian regimes of the region, as everyone would be like, totally inspired to live like we do, man, after seeing our lifestyle, thus undermining from within nations that are hostile towards us like Iran and Syria. This New Iraqi Government would also provide us another benefit of allowing us to control by proxy a large quantity of the most valuable resource in the world, keeping it away from the Russians and the Chinese.

Control of Oil was the number 1 reason of going to war in Iraq. I love how you not once mentioned the WMDs or Saddam's link to AQ which was always the stated primary cassus belli of attacking and invading iraq. it only became 'democracy' after those things were lies. the war was never about making life better for iraqis or doing them favors. it was a modern day imperial takeover.

Again, Why did we leave then? And for the 6th time, I never said it was about the interests of the Iraqis, you dumb f**k, GO BACK AND READ. Slowly. Maybe have someone else read it to you, because you can't seem to understand what I said. Again, you're just apparently not intellectually on a level where you can understand the points I made. That isn't my fault. Oil was a fringe benefit. If that was the main reason, we would still be there. If the basic interests of the Iraqis was the point, we would have gone back in by now, if we would have ever left.

lol i've responded to each one of your paragraphs throughout the entire discussion. I'll lay out my points for you again and you can dispute them if you like:

The primary reason for attacking has been and always has been the control of oil. The united states lied and deceived the public that Saddam was an imminent danger to the world with WMDs and that he had links to AQ. The war was never about the interests or benefits of the Iraqis. It never will be. The United States, specifically dick cheyney, knew how fragile Iraq was and that "pieces of it could fly off" if the central government was removed. despite this, the United States still went through with the invasion.

What part of the above do you dispute? so we can get back on track because we are literally just quoting dozens of mini paragraphs.

LOL, yet another example of Mr. "I can tell you the entire history of the region like it's cool" not knowing simple facts about something he's talking about. How old are you, son? This is common knowledge? Again, you don't have the basic intelligence to keep up with me in this conversation, that's pretty apparent. You claim to know history... but don't know simple stuff like this? Saddam sat on a whole bunch of oil. He had tons of money. He'd been buying tanks from the Soviet Union as it collapsed for years, and had attempted to build his own knock off of the T-72. He had between 5 and 7000 tanks. Come on man.

Again I am challenging your assertion and asking you to please provide a source. It shouldn't be too hard to find. I checked myself and couldn't come up with anything close to 7000 tanks. so again I'm going to need a source on Saddam having largest tank forces in the world. at the onset of the iran war he couldn't have had more than a couple of thousands and i'd be surprised if he had more than 5000 at the end of the iran war. Russia today has about 15000 tanks. I can't see them being behind iraq in 1980-1988 or 1991.

It's not rocket science because you originally threw down the "anyone who understands history knows you should have just focused on Afghanistan" angle. So explain what in history about Afghanistan specifically indicates to you that taht was the better option? Because I've asked that three times now and you've either ignored it or came back with pointless, empty posting like this.

how about the soviet war in afghanistan? that there was a real risk of an insurgency and that afghanistan was going to be a long term committment? that since its a nation securing effort, it would be best to focus your intelligence assets there instead of going off on the WMD fiasco. That it would not be wise to knock off a secular baathist Iraq at this stage because surely, sunni extremists would take advantage of the situation and also, the United States would lose confidence with the Muslim world. And again I assert that this is a very simple yet sound idea and advice. this isn't bullshit hindsight 20/20. it was common sense at the time as well. Thats why they tried to lie about saddam being with AQ so they could trick people to making it sound more legitimate.

Yes, I am. Iraq was not on the internet. Way to misunderstand what I said. Official government websites that contradict each other, and coming from a guy who just in this very post goes on a rant about how he doesn't trust the Government to report anything honestly because of vietnam and inflated kill numbers and what not. Congratulations, champ. You knocked all of the contradictions out of the park in one fell swoop.

something being on the internet doesn't automatically make it illegitimate if the source is legitimate. you are not a legitimate source. when in a debate, you don't say well the evidence is I know what I saw. The findings and reports are collaborated with UNSCOM. The US would have no reason to lie about this and at the time, would be in their interests to brag about this.

Of course we did what? Was that supposed to be some sort of a complete thought? And again, who hypothetically owns those oil rights? The Dutch and the Engilsh. Sounds like America totally showed everybody how to make a profit off of some war....

look lol I'll say this again the results of something doesn't indicate the intent of it. If i aim at your head and miss it doesnt mean that I wasn't aiming for your head. if you try to harm someone, but they arent harmed in the way you planned, that doesn't mean that the intent was not to harm.

Well good, at least we won this time... Notice you flipped on that position again... I've been pretty clear about my point the entie time. Our goal was to destabilize the entire region and collapse governments we didn't like without having to invade them, or at least put ourselves in a favorable position to invade Iran from both angles if it became necessary. Good to see I literally had to say all that for you to pick up on it.

what are you talking about? my whole contention was that you have not won both wars since iraq war 2 is still going on.

At least we agree on that.

glad to hear it. This discussion is getting really too long anyways. Iets both try and calm it down with the insults anyways and get things back to civil again. i even went back and cleaned up this post lol

Yes, I do. Personal experience and the personal experience of others counts. If we were having a discussion about something to do with, say Seattle for instance, And I were to say something like "well, I read online recently that this was occuring in Seattle..." And your response to that was "Dude, I live in Seattle, that isn't in any way true." I would just take that for what it is. I wouldn't be like "OH REALLY? provide me with a link to you living in Seattle!! Show me another link that says this link isn't true!!" The internet is full of BS. You've used as "proof" two links that contradict each other as the basis of you "winning" and dont even see the contradiction in that. Oh well.

I wouldn't say go and provide links I'd just go with the report of what was occurring in Seattle. If the guy claims the opposite and is simply someone on the internet i'm having a debate with, thats not going to cut it. I need a source or evidence. not what he experiences in terms of anecdotes.

Nope, that isn't at all the truth. The storage facility was damaged. Nowhere did it say taht it was bombed to ruin (and the pictures didn't reflect taht either) the way the link you provided suggested. just stop that, because you're making yourself look stupid. You can doubt my experience all you want because it hurts your crappy argument, but it still remains that I've been there and you haven't. And LOL at "schooled" the only one here who got "schooled" was you, by your two contradictory links.

this level of semantics is just petty. The place got bombed and the United States and the UN felt that the place was knocked out of action and was not really used and was then monitored by the UNSCOM. it was hit repeatedly and the facility was destroyed. if it was operational, it would not have holes in the ceiling like that and be under such bad maintenance. There are wrecks of tanks after they get destroyed. just because their body is left, doesn't mean they aren't destroyed.

 

[lfd0311]

considering you weren't even aware of this until this thread, i'd say yes you were kind of exposed. now you are being petty and saying well there was some rubble and an intact door so thus the place was not destroyed. by your definition, the apartments in aleppo that have floors and sides missing and have been pock marked and have holes in the roof are not destroyed either. LOOK AN INTACT DOOR!.

1.) Let's not pretend you even knew the Muthana Chemical Complex existed prior to this thread.

2.) Did you even bother to actually look at the pictures, and compare them to to the first link you provided? One showed a hole in a roof. The other showed an intact steel door that was supposed to show fire damage FROM THE INSIDE OF THE BUILDING. This directly contradicts your first link that stated that the Complex was completely destroyed.It's hard to go into buildings and take pictures of alleged fire damage if there are no buildings to begin with. You're failing again. Glad to see I had to explain that to you.

never claimed to be an expert.

Oh, the F**k you didn't.

I understand people from that part of the world better than you ever will. Not only was I born in a country with that type of mentality, it has an extreme tribal past that western governments can't wrap their head around because of a cultural difference. I am closer culturally to how locals over there think than you who who was a foreigner following orders from a bunch of liars laughing at your dead. .

no you don't. I can recite the history of the region from just before islam to the current era with some ancient history as well. I understand the culture of the people far more than you since and the religion as well. this is why the US hires people with actual knowledge of the place instead of 'ya i was there for 5 seconds. trust me i'm an expert.'[/QUOTE]

This is you, remember? You're the dude that knows the culuture better than I do and can give me a full run down of the history from before Islam, to the current era, plus Ancient History. Yet you don't even know relevant info from 25 years ago. Sit down and shut up already.

they performed well when they fought. Okay well thats great but the fact is that a lot of them chose not to fight. some of them as you said joined the enemy. many of them deserted their posts and threw down their uniforms. its like saying this car works great except for the majority of the times its a shit box. what part of what you said disproves the fact that that army sucked and didn't do what it was trained to do?

You didn't read what I wrote again!! What did I say?

"the northern alliance" didn't exist until the various groups formed together to oppose the new movement against the southern alliance AKA the groups that made up the taliban. if you are saying that the US didn't support Pashtun insurgencies through their Pakistani allies well that would be highly inaccurate.

What started that divison? A dislike of an attachment to the west amongst the more fundamentalist.

here is what you said:

1.) Invade Iraq to depose Saddam

2.) Set up a Western Style Democracy, fill the power vaccum that would be caused by Saddam's toppling that we were unprepared to fill in 1991 with US troops until a stable, secular Iraqi government could be built.

3.) This would also give us the added bonus of a Democracy in the Middle East that could in theory undermine the Tribal and religious authoritarian regimes of the region, as everyone would be like, totally inspired to live like we do, man, after seeing our lifestyle, thus undermining from within nations that are hostile towards us like Iran and Syria. This New Iraqi Government would also provide us another benefit of allowing us to control by proxy a large quantity of the most valuable resource in the world, keeping it away from the Russians and the Chinese.

Control of Oil was the number 1 reason of going to war in Iraq. I love how you not once mentioned the WMDs or Saddam's link to AQ which was always the stated primary cassus belli of attacking and invading iraq. it only became 'democracy' after those things were lies. the war was never about making life better for iraqis or doing them favors. it was a modern day imperial takeover.

Again, your ability to misunderstand something is impressive. Look up the difference between "Reasons" and "Justifications" to understand why I didn't bring up WMDs. And how many times are you going to use that lame "democracy" line? it's pretty pathetic, considering I've said multiple times that the welfare of the Iraqi people was not our main concern? Given what I've said, that outline is pretty self explanitory to anyone with basic reading comprehension, I.E., not you. You still don't get my point, after explaining it rather bluntly 6 to 10 times now.

lol i've responded to each one of your paragraphs throughout the entire discussion. I'll lay out my points for you again and you can dispute them if you like:

The primary reason for attacking has been and always has been the control of oil. The united states lied and deceived the public that Saddam was an imminent danger to the world with WMDs and that he had links to AQ. The war was never about the interests or benefits of the Iraqis. It never will be. The United States, specifically dick cheyney, knew how fragile Iraq was and that "pieces of it could fly off" if the central government was removed. despite this, the United States still went through with the invasion.

And then you bounced around to "you invaded because you thought they were going to like you" and "The military industrial complex and stuff". You don't havea cohesive point.

Again I am challenging your assertion and asking you to please provide a source. It shouldn't be too hard to find. I checked myself and couldn't come up with anything close to 7000 tanks. so again I'm going to need a source on Saddam having largest tank forces in the world. at the onset of the iran war he couldn't have had more than a couple of thousands and i'd be surprised if he had more than 5000 at the end of the iran war. Russia today has about 15000 tanks. I can't see them being behind iraq in 1980-1988 or 1991.

Well, where did you check? Let's just start with that. "Russia today" didn't exist in 1991. Good to see historical context continues to go right over your head. The Soviet Union had just collapsed and China was still relatively stuck in the stone age. We're talking about 25 years ago, not today. Good to see you can't grasp that either.

how about the soviet war in afghanistan? that there was a real risk of an insurgency and that afghanistan was going to be a long term committment? that since its a nation securing effort, it would be best to focus your intelligence assets there instead of going off on the WMD fiasco. That it would not be wise to knock off a secular baathist Iraq at this stage because surely, sunni extremists would take advantage of the situation and also, the United States would lose confidence with the Muslim world. And again I assert that this is a very simple yet sound idea and advice. this isn't bullshit hindsight 20/20. it was common sense at the time as well. Thats why they tried to lie about saddam being with AQ so they could trick people to making it sound more legitimate.

Boom. Thanks for finally getting around to walking yourself down the path I've been trying to get you to go down for a week now. What happened to the Soviets in the Afghan war? They got crushed, and were having a lot of trouble even before we intervened. We had learned from history what happened to a modern army that got sucked into those mountains and trapped by an insurgent force that knew the ground and had won a war there. On top of that, we knew if the Soviets couldn't do through sheer brutality reverent going to be able to do through following the Geneva Convention. So yeah, fighting it out in Afghanistan was totally the right thing to do. I ca t take any of this serious any more

 

[tramendous]

1.) Let's not pretend you even knew the Muthana Chemical Complex existed prior to this thread.

2.) Did you even bother to actually look at the pictures, and compare them to to the first link you provided? One showed a hole in a roof. The other showed an intact steel door that was supposed to show fire damage FROM THE INSIDE OF THE BUILDING. This directly contradicts your first link that stated that the Complex was completely destroyed.It's hard to go into buildings and take pictures of alleged fire damage if there are no buildings to begin with. You're failing again. Glad to see I had to explain that to you.

1. Im not the one claiming to have been there.

2. im not failing. you're acting like the guys that micro-examine the hell out of moon landing pictures and try to poke conspiracies into them. the place was destroyed, bombed and attacked and not operational. multiple reports deal with and describe said attack.

Oh, the F**k you didn't.





no you don't. I can recite the history of the region from just before islam to the current era with some ancient history as well. I understand the culture of the people far more than you since and the religion as well. this is why the US hires people with actual knowledge of the place instead of 'ya i was there for 5 seconds. trust me i'm an expert.'

This is you, remember? You're the dude that knows the culuture better than I do and can give me a full run down of the history from before Islam, to the current era, plus Ancient History. Yet you don't even know relevant info from 25 years ago. Sit down and shut up already.

what part of the above quote has me saying I'm an expert? My standards for expertise are a lot higher than that. amateur astronomers can name loads of stars and constellations but that doesn't make them an expert. I'm done with the insults btw.

You didn't read what I wrote again!! What did I say?

i read what you said. its details that chalk up to my original point of you building a shitty army. there are details and specifics about this but I don't see how going into the specifics of this which proves me right about you building a shitty iraqi army actually ends as a point for you.

What started that divison? A dislike of an attachment to the west amongst the more fundamentalist.

The division was started because the various mujahideen rebel groups couldn't come to an agreement to share power after they ousted the Kabul government. They began to abuse the population and reduced Kabul to rubble. Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and Rabbani and other warlords started a fight amongst themselves over who would takeover the country. The taliban at this point came in as the third group. They were well supplied and armed by the Pakistanis and had all their infrastructure outside of Afghanistan. Unlike the mujahideen they were very effective at restoring law and order (although brutal). after a string of victories, many rebel groups joined them while others fled kabul to the north of the country to continue the fight. AKA the "Northern Alliance"

Again, your ability to misunderstand something is impressive. Look up the difference between "Reasons" and "Justifications" to understand why I didn't bring up WMDs. And how many times are you going to use that lame "democracy" line? it's pretty pathetic, considering I've said multiple times that the welfare of the Iraqi people was not our main concern? Given what I've said, that outline is pretty self explanitory to anyone with basic reading comprehension, I.E., not you. You still don't get my point, after explaining it rather bluntly 6 to 10 times now.

this discussion is now pointless then since this is what I have been trying to say all along. I summed up my points again in a paragraph. please state what it is you actually disagree with:

Control of Oil was the number 1 reason of going to war in Iraq. The US lied about 2 different cassus bellis. namely that Saddam had links to Al Qaeda and that Saddam's WMD program was real and was an imminent and clear threat to the United States. the war was never about making life better for iraqis or doing them favors. it was a modern day imperial takeover.

And then you bounced around to "you invaded because you thought they were going to like you" and "The military industrial complex and stuff". You don't havea cohesive point.

The US went ahead with the reasons I stated above because they stated they would be welcomed as liberators. there is evidence that they lied about this too since cheney was on video blabbering about how invading during gulf war 1 was not a good idea since it would turn into a different type of war and that there would be dead americans. but nonetheless it has to be said that the US underestimated the practicality and unpredictability of their enemies and the mission. Now they are stuck in a mess.

Well, where did you check? Let's just start with that. "Russia today" didn't exist in 1991. Good to see historical context continues to go right over your head. The Soviet Union had just collapsed and China was still relatively stuck in the stone age. We're talking about 25 years ago, not today. Good to see you can't grasp that either.

sigh. I said Russia as in Russians. Don't act like the US itself hasn't called them that during the SU times. Again: I challenge you in the spirit of this debate for a source. Please find me a credible source that Iraq had the largest tank army in the world. Ever.

Boom. Thanks for finally getting around to walking yourself down the path I've been trying to get you to go down for a week now. What happened to the Soviets in the Afghan war? They got crushed, and were having a lot of trouble even before we intervened. We had learned from history what happened to a modern army that got sucked into those mountains and trapped by an insurgent force that knew the ground and had won a war there. On top of that, we knew if the Soviets couldn't do through sheer brutality reverent going to be able to do through following the Geneva Convention. So yeah, fighting it out in Afghanistan was totally the right thing to do. I ca t take any of this serious any more

Come on man. The US shifted its focus to Iraq from Afghanistan and had troop shortages in Afghanistan a couple of times. They didn't have enough forces to secure the entire country. There is a clear sign of deterioration in Afghanistan as the US shifted its focus to Iraq. The Taliban also are nowhere near as well supported as the mujahideen were from the local Afghans and Muslim countries around the world. Neither do they have a super power backing them. Their main at the moment unofficial patron seems to be Pakistan which is covertly supporting them. That money that went into Iraq could have been spent on Infrastructure and security in Afghanistan and it would have gone a longer way towards defeating AQ/taliban. hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and or at the very least thousands of US troops would be alive today. After 9/11 large parts of the world were with the US in solidarity. There were even Iranians out in the streets of Iran throwing up candle light vigils.

 

[rearnakedchoke]

Its a combination of a bunch of things. What is biggest contributor? Who knows.

Islam is 500 years behind christianity in evolution. Christians were doing stupid shit hundreds of years ago. Hopefully people who follow this butt fuck religion dont take shit too literal like xtians have learned to do.

Also, think about the brown and muslim people that are beat up after events like 9/11. Not many, but it happens and that was one event. Now grow up when all you see on tv or hear at the mosque is that shit getting blown up is because of the west. Dumb people are bound to get angry and take revenge.

When was it that muslims started being terrorist fucks? Around the end of ww2? Sounds like the time when shit in their land started getting fucked with.

 

[lfd0311]

1. Im not the one claiming to have been there.

2. im not failing. you're acting like the guys that micro-examine the hell out of moon landing pictures and try to poke conspiracies into them. the place was destroyed, bombed and attacked and not operational. multiple reports deal with and describe said attack.

LOL, No. I'm trying to micro examine them? It's not hard to see the massive contradictions if you are capable of just a modicum of crtical thinking. One says "totally destroyed". The other has pictures taken from inside the buildings. (Again, they bombed two of the roughly 10 buildings on the site. The ones dealing only with storage. You can add critical thinking to your list of shit you need to get better at.)

what part of the above quote has me saying I'm an expert? My standards for expertise are a lot higher than that. amateur astronomers can name loads of stars and constellations but that doesn't make them an expert. I'm done with the insults btw.

The part where you labeled yourself an expert. Thats the part that has you saying you're an expert. Claiming to be able to give a full run down of a regions history and culture is claiming to be an expert. Now trying to back off from that simply exposes that even more for what I knew it to be to begin with, "Back off buddy" tactics to keep you from having to reveal how little you actually know.

i read what you said. its details that chalk up to my original point of you building a shitty army. there are details and specifics about this but I don't see how going into the specifics of this which proves me right about you building a shitty iraqi army actually ends as a point for you.

If you read what I wrote, you didn't comprehend. The Shia fought the Sunni. The Iraqi army stopped ISIS dead whenever they met them. One tiny group of Shia in Anbar held off ISIS for months. When the bulk of ISIS fighters met the Kurds and the American trained Shia sects of the Iraqi army the they got it handed to them.

The division was started because the various mujahideen rebel groups couldn't come to an agreement to share power after they ousted the Kabul government. They began to abuse the population and reduced Kabul to rubble. Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and Rabbani and other warlords started a fight amongst themselves over who would takeover the country. The taliban at this point came in as the third group. They were well supplied and armed by the Pakistanis and had all their infrastructure outside of Afghanistan. Unlike the mujahideen they were very effective at restoring law and order (although brutal). after a string of victories, many rebel groups joined them while others fled kabul to the north of the country to continue the fight. AKA the "Northern Alliance"

The Taliban formed essentially due to there resentment of the ties many of the other groups had to the West. It's more fundamentalism coming into play. That fundamentalism has and always will be the downfall of these groups, though given the Muslim world in general's history with the West I can't say I blame them for being leery of the West.

this discussion is now pointless then since this is what I have been trying to say all along. I summed up my points again in a paragraph. please state what it is you actually disagree with:

Control of Oil was the number 1 reason of going to war in Iraq. The US lied about 2 different cassus bellis. namely that Saddam had links to Al Qaeda and that Saddam's WMD program was real and was an imminent and clear threat to the United States. the war was never about making life better for iraqis or doing them favors. it was a modern day imperial takeover.

And Saddam did have a WMD program, and there was no lie. You've proven over the course of this discussion that you don't know anything about the actual timeline of the events that led up to the invasion of Iraq beyond "Uh, Bush lied" talking points that have can be easily refuted by anyone with a basic understanding of history, something you've claimed but clearly lack. Where did the intelligence, the real intelligence come from?

The US went ahead with the reasons I stated above because they stated they would be welcomed as liberators. there is evidence that they lied about this too since cheney was on video blabbering about how invading during gulf war 1 was not a good idea since it would turn into a different type of war and that there would be dead americans. but nonetheless it has to be said that the US underestimated the practicality and unpredictability of their enemies and the mission. Now they are stuck in a mess.

He was "blathering" about how it wasn't a good idea since they did not have a plan in place for what would happen

sigh. I said Russia as in Russians. Don't act like the US itself hasn't called them that during the SU times. Again: I challenge you in the spirit of this debate for a source. Please find me a credible source that Iraq had the largest tank army in the world. Ever.

Yeah, and then you quoted Russia's tank numbers from today, and acted like that proved something while failing to put into historical context what was going on in Russia at the time. The Soviet Union was collapsing under the weight of it's massive debts, selling off all of it's military equipment. One of it's main buyers was Saddam. Again, learn a little bit about history. Don't just say "show me a link, bro!!" That doesn't make you educated. Actually back up your nonsense about being an authority on history by really being one. Saddam invaded Kuwait with like a 3rd of his army. He occupied it with about the same amount of troops. When the US invaded he lost in the neighborhood of 4000 tanks and 2500 mechanized vehicles. Again, for someone who can "Give a history of the region, including ancient times" you shouldn't need me to educate you on these things.

Come on man. The US shifted its focus to Iraq from Afghanistan and had troop shortages in Afghanistan a couple of times. They didn't have enough forces to secure the entire country. There is a clear sign of deterioration in Afghanistan as the US shifted its focus to Iraq. The Taliban also are nowhere near as well supported as the mujahideen were from the local Afghans and Muslim countries around the world. Neither do they have a super power backing them. Their main at the moment unofficial patron seems to be Pakistan which is covertly supporting them. That money that went into Iraq could have been spent on Infrastructure and security in Afghanistan and it would have gone a longer way towards defeating AQ/taliban. hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and or at the very least thousands of US troops would be alive today. After 9/11 large parts of the world were with the US in solidarity. There were even Iranians out in the streets of Iran throwing up candle light vigils.

Afghanistan has and always will be a special forces party for the most part. And LOL at never having enough forces .We've never fully committed our military to either of these wars. Eve during the surge there were only 180,000 troops in Iraq. There are 7 million people in just Baghdad.

The Taliban bounce back and forth into Pakistan whenever they want to and are supported directly by both the Pakistani government and military. Look at where Osama Bin Laden was killed. Come on, dude. We've dumped billions of dollars into both countries. Again, the greater purpose was to destabilize the entire region, removing safe havens from Islamic terrorists.

 

[tramendous]

LOL, No. I'm trying to micro examine them? It's not hard to see the massive contradictions if you are capable of just a modicum of crtical thinking. One says "totally destroyed". The other has pictures taken from inside the buildings. (Again, they bombed two of the roughly 10 buildings on the site. The ones dealing only with storage. You can add critical thinking to your list of shit you need to get better at.)

take it up with your government. if i was there and did what you did, i'd make sure the government had its facts straight than arguing on a forum.

The part where you labeled yourself an expert. Thats the part that has you saying you're an expert. Claiming to be able to give a full run down of a regions history and culture is claiming to be an expert. Now trying to back off from that simply exposes that even more for what I knew it to be to begin with, "Back off buddy" tactics to keep you from having to reveal how little you actually know.

no expert is a word youre using not me. being knowledgeable and having expertise on something is not the same thing. but yes i can give you a rundown of the place. like most americans with an interest in american history should be able to give you a rundown from george washington until now.

If you read what I wrote, you didn't comprehend. The Shia fought the Sunni. The Iraqi army stopped ISIS dead whenever they met them. One tiny group of Shia in Anbar held off ISIS for months. When the bulk of ISIS fighters met the Kurds and the American trained Shia sects of the Iraqi army the they got it handed to them.

how does it change the shameful abandonment of their posts, the equipment they left behind, the ones that changed sides, the constant outside help that they still need vs a militia that has no air support whatsoever. what you are doing is damage control to its core.

The Taliban formed essentially due to there resentment of the ties many of the other groups had to the West. It's more fundamentalism coming into play. That fundamentalism has and always will be the downfall of these groups, though given the Muslim world in general's history with the West I can't say I blame them for being leery of the West.

no the taliban formed due to pakistan's desire to control afghanistan via proxy and their abandonment of the other militias. the other groups like hezb i islami were and still are just as extreme as the taliban. the difference is that the taliban werent as exhausted as them and the taliban enjoyed lots of popular support because they were able to quell fighting and restore some form if law and order in the areas they controlled.

And Saddam did have a WMD program, and there was no lie. You've proven over the course of this discussion that you don't know anything about the actual timeline of the events that led up to the invasion of Iraq beyond "Uh, Bush lied" talking points that have can be easily refuted by anyone with a basic understanding of history, something you've claimed but clearly lack. Where did the intelligence, the real intelligence come from?

lol a lot of countries have had wmd programs including the US itself. was he an imminent threat to the united states? where were these weapons of mass destruction when his country got invaded? why didnt he use them? it would have been easy for saddam to tell his army to use them assymetrically. i.e. chemically armed mortar rounds or bio attacks on US forces etc. he had lots of time to organize this. The intelligence was wrong because it was mostly based on imprecise intelligence and not facts. publically though, the us said it was facts not assertions.

He was "blathering" about how it wasn't a good idea since they did not have a plan in place for what would happen

we will be welcomed with open arms. and get rid fire the iraqi army. great plan lol

Yeah, and then you quoted Russia's tank numbers from today, and acted like that proved something while failing to put into historical context what was going on in Russia at the time. The Soviet Union was collapsing under the weight of it's massive debts, selling off all of it's military equipment. One of it's main buyers was Saddam. Again, learn a little bit about history. Don't just say "show me a link, bro!!" That doesn't make you educated. Actually back up your nonsense about being an authority on history by really being one. Saddam invaded Kuwait with like a 3rd of his army. He occupied it with about the same amount of troops. When the US invaded he lost in the neighborhood of 4000 tanks and 2500 mechanized vehicles. Again, for someone who can "Give a history of the region, including ancient times" you shouldn't need me to educate you on these things.

are you going go give me any sources or not? if you dodge this question again, its a clear admission that what you said is not true.

i brought up russia's tank numbers from today because there is no way that iraq had more than them in 1980-1991. a country that mostly buys tanks will not have the most tanks vs countries that mass produce them. again i challenge you for evidence that iraq ever had the largest tank army.

Afghanistan has and always will be a special forces party for the most part. And LOL at never having enough forces .We've never fully committed our military to either of these wars. Eve during the surge there were only 180,000 troops in Iraq. There are 7 million people in just Baghdad.

troop shortages in Afghanistan: take it up with NATO commander.

https://www.thestar.com/news/2007/0..._shortage_is_hindering_afghanistan_gains.html

The Taliban bounce back and forth into Pakistan whenever they want to and are supported directly by both the Pakistani government and military.

and the pakistani government receive US military aid lololol. but hey unlike poor old iraq, pakistan actually has WMDs. no regime change there right? lol

who gives a fuck that they cause countless afghani civilian deaths, undermine afghanistan's government and provide safe haven for the most wanted terrorist in the world and give aid to groups fighting the US right? but i digress back to iraq.

Look at where Osama Bin Laden was killed. Come on, dude. We've dumped billions of dollars into both countries.

maybe instead of invading Iraq you should have made an effort to secure afghanistan. maybe you should have used that money on 100s of other civilian causes in the US. spending it on Iraq was a waste.

Again, the greater purpose was to destabilize the entire region, removing safe havens from Islamic terrorists.

well you definitely accomplished destabalizing the fuck out of the region. thanks.

and about the safe haven part, how does removing a regime that was vehemently against AQ and religious extremists, help in removing safe havens for terrorists?

 

[tonni]

Yes, it appears so. Smaller cranial capacities and consistently lower IQs.

Just because his name is Cold Front and he has a storm AV so it might be "stormfront" and he hates black people doesn't mean he's racist ignorant mods

 

[Streeter]

Bill Maher hates on ever religion ........ why is,Islam special?

 

[Bloody Pulp]

Just because his name is Cold Front and he has a storm AV so it might be "stormfront" and he hates black people doesn't mean he's racist ignorant mods

 

[HomerThompson]

Just because his name is Cold Front and he has a storm AV so it might be "stormfront" and he hates black people doesn't mean he's racist ignorant mods

SMDH. So very unfair.

 

[ObamaPhoneLady]

Maher actually has people with opposing viewpoints on his show and let's them speak. But instead of recognizing how much better that is than modern CNN/FOX News bullshit, instead we've had two threads in as many days about how 'ZOMG Maher got fukkin' PWNED on his own show!!!1!!'

If we want to see why the MSM only speaks to the retards, we need look no further than our own War Room.