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

Great, it can be in those reports all they want. That isn't true. It was in the Sunni Triangle, in the vicinity of Lake Thar Thar. the Muthana Chemical Complex isn't in Samarra. It's near it. Samarra isn't in Al Anbar. The Muthana Chemical Complex is.

No it isn't, most of the eastern shore of Lake Thar Thar isn't in Al Anbar 33°50'00.0"N 43°46'00.0"E have a look. "The Samarra Facility" is what it was referred to in the reports dating back to the '80s, not saying that it was in Samarra itself.
It definitely wasn't producing ricin after either the 1991 or 2003 invasions, unless you're trying to say the Iraqis set up ricin production after the UNMOVIC inspectors left in early 2003.
 
Last edited:
you dont need to read my mind. you just need to read.

Oh, f**k you, kid. I tell you you need to read, so you come back with the exact same response. I did read. What you said was "The military screwed up". What a deep explanation that was, man.





YOUR GENERALS AND SECRETARY OF STATE AND MOST INFLUENTIAL ECONOMISTS SAID THE WAR IS ABOUT OIL. IRAQ IS FULL OF OIL. WESTERN COMPANIES ARE NOW IN CHARGE OF SAID OIL..

Nope, ISIS is in charge of that oil and is selling it to China. Good to see you've moved on from not knowing history to being unaware of current events.



you mean be drained of its wealth.

Yes, setting up a pure capitalist economy, then paying billions of dollars for something they could easily have just taken is exactly how you "drain it of it's wealth". Was that suppoused to make you sound like an idiot? Because it got the job done.



so retardation at work again? lmao .

Is this the type of post that you referenced when you told me earlier that you were "slapping me across the face with facts"? LOL, It's hilarious that the guy who claimed to be able to give me a break down of the history of the region since before Islam completely missed the reference to Saudi Arabia and the connection that was being made there. Way to expose yourself as a liar and a hack again. Oh well. This is getting to not be fun anymore, watching you stumble around all over the place and make a fool of yourself.



exactly this was the primary objective of the iraq war. not WMDs. not Al qaeda. not saddam but oil. welcome to the real world. where the US went after Iraq for control of energy sources not some good will gesture for iraqis.

Why did we leave then and allow that oil that we fought so hard to secure fall into the hands of jihadists that are selling it to China, a country that could turn our economy off like a light switch? Why would we do that since the entire "war for oil" theory revolves around us holind the oil hostage as a bargining tool against Russia and China? Again, logic and reasoning aren't really yoru strong suits huh? I'll take your continued refusal to even attempt to answer these questions as surrender.


you left because you idiots thought you would be welcomed with open arms and that this would be a cake walk. it wasn't. managing the shitstorm you caused came to be harder than once thought and you got out maneuvered by iran for influence over iraq.


Wait..... This position directly contradicts the position you just took in the paragaph above. We were there for oil no matter the cost, remember? We weren't really there for Saddam, Al Qaeda or even to help the Iraqis. By your own logic, it would not have mattered one single bit had they welcomed us with open arms or not, we were there to get that oil. So why did we leave? Pick a postion and stick with it, shithead. Don't just hop from one contradictory postion to the next when I bust them up.



so helping finance the war. and iran being an enemy of yours and providing military aid and military intelligence is not encouraging it? are you retarded? do you know the meaning of words?

Again, are you? Are you retarded? How many times does this need to be said? All of that happened after the war had already started, Do you get that after it had already S T A R T E D. It was already ongoing when we got involved. As in, there was no war, then Saddam invaded, then we began helping Saddam. It didn't happen that there was peace, then we suggested to Saddam that he invade Iran, then he did and a bunch of people died. Do you see the difference in those two scenarios? Is that STILL hard to comprehend?




you're the one not reading posts. thats why you missed out on the fact that i already brought up firing the iraqi army contributing to an insurgency.



troops on the ground? fuck those guys we can make a shiny new toy and spend billions more on weapons and vehicles that will never be needed in such a war. like the f-35 that'll show the insurgent airforce what our stealth multi-role fighters can do! lol

When did we start building stealth fighters? Just now, that war has wound down and we have the money. Again, you can't stop contradicting your own positions, and you don't even realize it. So you're basically admitting that you don't really know how to use the term "military industrial complex" correctly, and that it doesn't apply at all to what happened in Iraq. You're just babbling and changing your position with literally every post. Great, I'm glad we cleared that up.

the money making took a hit because of the general us economy hit but other than that profits rose with the war on terror.

Uh, no, it's because we weren't buying any weapons from them.... Something that would have been essential for the points you were trying to make to have been correct...



lol basic knowledge like the FUCKING WEAPONS PLANT YOU WENT TO HAS BEEN UNOPERATIONAL DUE TO BOMBING SINCE THE GULF WAR ROFLLLLL

LOL, that's the best you could do? Little kid, I've been there. You can keep repeating incorrect information all you want, it isn't true. You can't drop a bomb on ricin or sarin, that isn't how it works. Uninformed clowns like you will believe that, though.



pretending to be from a middle eastern culture lmao good one. you're the one showing signs of lying about going to the weapons plant. you didn't even know it had been bombed. basic knowledge says it was. but no! you knew what you saw right? Iraq was 24 hours away from building tsar bomba right?



lol abandon what. pro tip: don't fight two unrelated wars at the same time.

LOL, that was the big tactics lesson you were going to give me? We won both wars, did you miss that part? You were talking about some sort of tactical advantage that we would have had in Afghanistan that we didn't have in Iraq? Something I would have understood if only I knew either tactics or history? I'd like to hear more about this please.



im not sure anymore if you have been there. you could be lying and maybe drove past the site or you could be lying about going at all or you could be telling the truth but didn't know what the hell you were looking at since your own government disagrees with you. it doesnt look good in any way lol
[/QUOTE][/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

Oh, of course. The hipster white kid who is claiming to be "from a Middle Eastern Culture" doubts me. Don't you disagree with my government? Isn't that why yo get all your news from those alternate news sources? You're just a walking contradiction, huh?
 
No it isn't, most of the eastern shore of Lake Thar Thar isn't in Al Anbar 33°50'00.0"N 43°46'00.0"E have a look. "The Samarra Facility" is what it was referred to in the reports dating back to the '80s, not saying that it was in Samarra itself.
It definitely wasn't producing ricin after either the 1991 or 2003 invasions, unless you're trying to say the Iraqis set up ricin production after the UNMOVIC inspectors left in early 2003.

Lake Thar Thar is a huge lake. It's one of the largest inland lakes in the world. When I was there in 2008 we did several operations on the lake and around the Muthana Chemical Complex. I never realized we had left Al Anbar. You normally don't stradle provinces within a single unit's AO, but we got shopped around quite a bit.

As for what they were doing in 2003, I know that it was still fully capable of producing weapons after the invasion, and when we invaded and American troops got to Anbar, they pulled tons of recently made barrels of Sarin out of Muthana. I wasn't there then, obviously. I do know when I was there in 2008 I didn't see anything like what is printed in those reports, of bombed out buildings and destroyed tanks.
 
Lake Thar Thar is a huge lake. It's one of the largest inland lakes in the world. When I was there in 2008 we did several operations on the lake and around the Muthana Chemical Complex. I never realized we had left Al Anbar. You normally don't stradle provinces within a single unit's AO, but we got shopped around quite a bit.

As for what they were doing in 2003, I know that it was still fully capable of producing weapons after the invasion, and when we invaded and American troops got to Anbar, they pulled tons of recently made barrels of Sarin out of Muthana. I wasn't there then, obviously. I do know when I was there in 2008 I didn't see anything like what is printed in those reports, of bombed out buildings and destroyed tanks.

It doesn't make sense that they were manufacturing there in 2003. There were still buried chemicals and chemical weapons there, but the UNSCOM inspectors left in 1998, the UNMOVIC inspectors arrived in late 1999 and left in early 2003. Most of the reports on remaining stockpiles came from that site, but the facility wasn't active. The inspectors were storing and destroying the '80s stockpiles there in the mid '90s. Like I said, there were reporters there with the UN inspectors in late 2002.
As for the military bombing the place... well, it's pretty well documented for something that didn't happen.
 
It doesn't make sense that they were manufacturing there in 2003. There were still buried chemicals and chemical weapons there, but the UNSCOM inspectors left in 1998, the UNMOVIC inspectors arrived in late 1999 and left in early 2003. Most of the reports on remaining stockpiles came from that site, but the facility wasn't active. The inspectors were storing and destroying the '80s stockpiles there in the mid '90s. Like I said, there were reporters there with the UN inspectors in late 2002.
As for the military bombing the place... well, it's pretty well documented for something that didn't happen.

Maybe they tried to bomb the place, missed and claimed it was successful? I know what a building that has been hit by our ordnance looks, and it doesn't look like that.
 
Maybe they tried to bomb the place, missed and claimed it was successful? I know what a building that has been hit by our ordnance looks, and it doesn't look like that.

You can read the report, its not that long.
 
You can read the report, its not that long.

I did. I also physically went in there more than once. I've said that a number of times. I'm about to be done typing that.
 
I did. I also physically went in there more than once. I've said that a number of times. I'm about to be done typing that.

You claim that maybe they missed the mark, the report is very detailed it specifies which bunkers were hit, with what kind of ordnance and the resulting damage.

Only one bunker was destroyed the others were hit but only suffered minor or superficial damage.

I absolutely dont even know what you are arguing about, it seems whether you are arguing that the Iraqi chemical weapons program was alive and kicking, it was not in any form, Saddam allowed UN inspectors and international news agencies before the war in an effort to stave off an imminent US invasion.

It was of course meaningless since the US was going to invade Iraq one way or another, the whole WMDs was just a mockery, like Hitler claiming persecution against Germans in Poland or Putin in Crimea.

One of the worst mistakes of US policy, if i was American i would be calling for Bush to be put in chains for life for all the death and resources wasted in a country that its currently in a worse state than it was in 2003.
 
You claim that maybe they missed the mark, the report is very detailed it specifies which bunkers were hit, with what kind of ordnance and the resulting damage.

Only one bunker was destroyed the others were hit but only suffered minor or superficial damage.

And how exactly do they get such good pictures from deep within Iraq in 1996, after an airstrike?
 
You claim that maybe they missed the mark, the report is very detailed it specifies which bunkers were hit, with what kind of ordnance and the resulting damage.

Only one bunker was destroyed the others were hit but only suffered minor or superficial damage.

The damage pictures are on page 2.

fig10.gif

fig11.gif

fig12.gif
 
Last edited:
And how exactly do they get such good pictures from deep within Iraq in 1996, after an airstrike?

The Gulf War was in 1991. The pictures are from the UNSCOM inspectors that were there afterwards.
 
Oh, f**k you, kid. I tell you you need to read, so you come back with the exact same response. I did read. What you said was "The military screwed up". What a deep explanation that was, man.

gotten to lmao. no i specifically mentioned getting rid of the iraqi army and putting their enemies in power was stupid.

Nope, ISIS is in charge of that oil and is selling it to China. Good to see you've moved on from not knowing history to being unaware of current events.

the us screwed up with their plans. results#intent. they never intended for iranian influence to increase over iraq either. but it happened.

Yes, setting up a pure capitalist economy, then paying billions of dollars for something they could easily have just taken is exactly how you "drain it of it's wealth". Was that suppoused to make you sound like an idiot? Because it got the job done.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/opinion/13juhasz.html

you cant easily take it just like how you couldnt easily run iraq or just like how you couldnt easily stop iran's influence and easily couldnt stop militias from sabotaging your plans. the US miscalculated severely.




Is this the type of post that you referenced when you told me earlier that you were "slapping me across the face with facts"? LOL, It's hilarious that the guy who claimed to be able to give me a break down of the history of the region since before Islam completely missed the reference to Saudi Arabia and the connection that was being made there. Way to expose yourself as a liar and a hack again. Oh well. This is getting to not be fun anymore, watching you stumble around all over the place and make a fool of yourself.

what? you yourself admitted it wasnt a good idea but it was done. just like how firing the iraqi army wasnt a good idea. but it was done. i dont know whats worse that you stupidly think the results of an action determine its intent or that you somehow trick yourself into believing that the war was for oil and the good of the iraqi people lmao.


Why did we leave then and allow that oil that we fought so hard to secure fall into the hands of jihadists that are selling it to China, a country that could turn our economy off like a light switch? Why would we do that since the entire "war for oil" theory revolves around us holind the oil hostage as a bargining tool against Russia and China? Again, logic and reasoning aren't really yoru strong suits huh? I'll take your continued refusal to even attempt to answer these questions as surrender.

because you spent a trillion fucking dollars and made iraq into a hell hole. you thought it was safe to draw down troops due to political pressure but then shit started hitting the fan with the arab spring.

Wait..... This position directly contradicts the position you just took in the paragaph above. We were there for oil no matter the cost, remember? We weren't really there for Saddam, Al Qaeda or even to help the Iraqis. By your own logic, it would not have mattered one single bit had they welcomed us with open arms or not, we were there to get that oil. So why did we leave? Pick a postion and stick with it, shithead. Don't just hop from one contradictory postion to the next when I bust them up.

no you were there for the oil no matter the lie. you left because controlling the area with your army proved to be tougher than once thought and the puppet government you set up had been infiltrated and influenced by iran who would be a natural ally to shia iraq no matter what.

Again, are you? Are you retarded? How many times does this need to be said? All of that happened after the war had already started, Do you get that after it had already S T A R T E D. It was already ongoing when we got involved. As in, there was no war, then Saddam invaded, then we began helping Saddam. It didn't happen that there was peace, then we suggested to Saddam that he invade Iran, then he did and a bunch of people died. Do you see the difference in those two scenarios? Is that STILL hard to comprehend?

there is no way in hell that war would have lasted 8 years without US support. support started pretty early in 1982. for 6 years you helped iraq maintain its fighting capability as they slaughtered people.

When did we start building stealth fighters? Just now, that war has wound down and we have the money. Again, you can't stop contradicting your own positions, and you don't even realize it. So you're basically admitting that you don't really know how to use the term "military industrial complex" correctly, and that it doesn't apply at all to what happened in Iraq. You're just babbling and changing your position with literally every post. Great, I'm glad we cleared that up.

the only thing youve cleared up is that youre an american policy bootlicker who is too much of a coward to admit that US interests are not the same as whats best for people in those countries. i have shown


Uh, no, it's because we weren't buying any weapons from them.... Something that would have been essential for the points you were trying to make to have been correct...

okay youre right the us is using 700 billion dollars a year and a spent a trillion in iraq to mow the lawn and make sure laundry was done. lets forget that lockheed reported 36 billion dollars in arms sales in 2011 alone.

LOL, that's the best you could do? Little kid, I've been there. You can keep repeating incorrect information all you want, it isn't true. You can't drop a bomb on ricin or sarin, that isn't how it works. Uninformed clowns like you will believe that, though.

im not sure if you have been there. do you blame me? you have basic facts from government reports from multiple agencies that contradict your findings. am i to think that you are lying and never went there or that this lack of knowledge is a sign of your incompetence.


LOL, that was the big tactics lesson you were going to give me? We won both wars, did you miss that part? You were talking about some sort of tactical advantage that we would have had in Afghanistan that we didn't have in Iraq? Something I would have understood if only I knew either tactics or history? I'd like to hear more about this please.

you won both wars? this is like when US generals cried about how they won all the battles in vietnam while signing terms and withdrawing completely lol. i was talking about you crying about lack of equipment while all you did was go up against guy in sandals with small arms. bravo. the grunts always bitch like they are fighting in the toughest war of all time.

edit: also starting another war before finishing your first is the advice of a sage when it comes to how dumb american decision making is. why would you attack iraq for unprovoked reasons when youre suppose to be fighting a long term war and occupation and nation building effort in afghanistan.


Oh, of course. The hipster white kid who is claiming to be "from a Middle Eastern Culture" doubts me. Don't you disagree with my government? Isn't that why yo get all your news from those alternate news sources? You're just a walking contradiction, huh?

its not like this thread is the first time im revealing details about my ethnicity. youre angry that you being called out on your bullshit experiences (if they even happened).
 
Last edited:
gotten to lmao. no i specifically mentioned getting rid of the iraqi army and putting their enemies in power was stupid.

Oh, please. You foolishly tried to claim that the Shia and Sunni weren't even enemies until that happened. (Which is why we've been talking about the Iran Iraq war for so long)



the us screwed up with their plans. results#intent. they never intended for iranian influence to increase over iraq either. but it happened .

Again... Dude, what? We screwed up who's plans? This post makes no sense. Again, I can't read your mind. Complete sentences and complete thoughts, please.



http://mobile.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/opinion/13juhasz.html

you cant easily take it just like how you couldnt easily run iraq or just like how you couldnt easily stop iran's influence and easily couldnt stop militias from sabotaging your plans. the US miscalculated severely.

Dude, we owned that country for almost a decade. If we had wanted to simply bring in our own oil producing aparatus' and start taking oil, we could have. Nobody could have done anything. The insurgency was a minor inconvience at best. We had completely destroyed it and sent it running into Syria by 2006. Again, stop trying to pretend you know something, because you don't even know what is still relatively current affairs.

what? you yourself admitted it wasnt a good idea but it was done. just like how firing the iraqi army wasnt a good idea. but it was done. i dont know whats worse that you stupidly think the results of an action determine its intent or that you somehow trick yourself into believing that the war was for oil and the good of the iraqi people lmao.

You're doing it again. You're projecting opinions on to me that I haven't said, then attacking them. That isn't destroying anyone with facts. That's lying and misrepresenting your argument, then typing "lamo" at the end and acting like you really nailed me. You didn't. Your total and complete inability to understand basic points of made has really held back this conversation. Since you still don't understand my points, I'll lay it out for you.

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.

I think I've said all of that about a dozen times now, anything you're still confused about? I bet I get a 1 sentence reply that looks something like "LOL, yur stoopid and got pwned, LOL".



because you spent a trillion fucking dollars and made iraq into a hell hole. you thought it was safe to draw down troops due to political pressure but then shit started hitting the fan with the arab spring. .

American Liberals thought the Arab Spring was a great thing. Because the American Left thinks that every country and people in the world are just like America, and it was going to be, like, a totally sweet and, like peacefully awesome revolution bro! They have know idea what kind of culuture they're dealing with or what kind of people we're talking about.

no you were there for the oil no matter the lie. you left because controlling the area with your army proved to be tougher than once thought and the puppet government you set up had been infiltrated and influenced by iran who would be a natural ally to shia iraq no matter what.

So what happened to us blundering thinking we would be welcome? What happened to thinking we would be given flowers? If we were there for the oil, why were we there for 8 years, only to leave with no oil? Again, you aren't making sense. We left because Obama incorrectly thought the Government could stand on it's own. Really learn something, don't just proclaim knowledge you don't have, or a dude like me will just make you look foolish for days the way I've been doing.


there is no way in hell that war would have lasted 8 years without US support. support started pretty early in 1982. for 6 years you helped iraq maintain its fighting capability as they slaughtered people.

Again, total lack of historical knowledge. Tsk, tsk. Embarrassing. Saddam had the 5th largest army in the world at the time, and the largest mechinized force on the planet. All of that hardware bought from the Soviets. But yeah, sure, that was all totally our fault.



the only thing youve cleared up is that youre an american policy bootlicker who is too much of a coward to admit that US interests are not the same as whats best for people in those countries. i have shown

Uh, no. I'm the guy who has used facts, reality and history to back up his arguments. You're the guy who types "lmao" a lot and promises to deliver lessons in history that remain undelivered. I mean honestly, dude, your own graph contradicted the BS you were posting, and my beating you over the head wtih that, exposing how little you understand the subject at hand results in you responding with "uh.. Uh... You're a coward!! Yeah, that's it! You're a coward. Look at that guys, I really got him!!" Most intellifent people would realize that if they get their own evidence turned right around on them and shoved up their behind, that they just might be wrong. Not you though bro.



okay youre right the us is using 700 billion dollars a year and a spent a trillion in iraq to mow the lawn and make sure laundry was done. lets forget that lockheed reported 36 billion dollars in arms sales in 2011 alone.

uh.. They certainly weren't giving it to Lockheed Martin. Your own graph backs that up. Again, are you trying to fail on that point? IN 2011 WHAT ARE YOU NOT GETTING ABOUT THAT. WE LEFT IRAQ IN 2010, YOU CLOWN. 2011 is like, a whole year later. We upgraded our stealth fighters via lockheed martin in 2011. That's something we do every 25 years or so, same with the Navy. Good to see you saw something suspicious in that. You do know that Lockheed Martin works almost exclusively for NASA, right? And that they're an aeronautics company? Or did you just google something and just latch on to Lockheed Martin as the first name that popped up without finding out any deeper context of who they are? Oh that's what you did isn't it?!?! You, you goofball!!



im not sure if you have been there. do you blame me? you have basic facts from government reports from multiple agencies that contradict your findings. am i to think that you are lying and never went there or that this lack of knowledge is a sign of your incompetence.

I don't have any "findings". I'm not a scientist. The reports even contradict each other, if you're smart enough to pay attention (which you're clearly not) in that they claim to have completely destroyed the buildings and buried the chemical agents under rubble, yet the pictures show wholes in the tops of buildings and nothing more.




you won both wars? this is like when US generals cried about how they won all the battles in vietnam while signing terms and withdrawing completely lol. i was talking about you crying about lack of equipment while all you did was go up against guy in sandals with small arms. bravo. the grunts always bitch like they are fighting in the toughest war of all time.

Uh, yes. We won both wars. We rolled over the 5th largest army in the world, twice in a grand total of like 17 days. We took Kandahar from the Taliban in like two weeks.

When was I crying about a lack of equipment? Again, reading is hard huh? I was saying that we didn't get new or upgraded equipment because it was too expensive. Yet you claimed we invaded Iraq because "The military industrial complex, bro". You still don't get how that doesn't make any sense when compared to what happened in reality, huh? You don't start a war as justification to spend money on military equipment and make everyone rich..... only to refuse to spend any money for almost a decade...... I'm sure that made your brain hurt. Maybe lie down, drink some water and try to dicpher what I just sad.




its not like this thread is the first time im revealing details about my ethnicity. youre angry that you being called out on your bullshit experiences (if they even happened).

What is your ethnicity? Because the last time I checked "I know stuff about Tribes and stuff" isn't an ethnicity. And this isn't the first time I've discussed my time in Iraq at length. It's pretty well known in this subforum.
 
Oh, please. You foolishly tried to claim that the Shia and Sunni weren't even enemies until that happened. (Which is why we've been talking about the Iran Iraq war for so long)

please stop as was mentioned earlier in the thread. the recent uprisings of sunnis and shias have been living in the region for a very long time. mixed families existed for a very long time. when you empowered a shia government and got rid of a sunni government and army, this created an us vs them mentality. saddam had largely kept the lid on these things (albeit with an iron fist). you basically pushed the sunni into rebelling since the new shia government would not share the power pie with someone who just years earlier enjoyed a lot of power.



Again... Dude, what? We screwed up who's plans? This post makes no sense. Again, I can't read your mind. Complete sentences and complete thoughts, please.

The USA screwed up with its plans. results do not equal intent. if i intend to push you down the stairs but i trip and fall by myself it doesnt mean that i never planned on pushing you down the stairs. if i plan on using my workplace powers to abuse employees but i get reported and fired, it doesnt mean that i never planned on absuing employees.

Dude, we owned that country for almost a decade. If we had wanted to simply bring in our own oil producing aparatus' and start taking oil, we could have. Nobody could have done anything. The insurgency was a minor inconvience at best. We had completely destroyed it and sent it running into Syria by 2006. Again, stop trying to pretend you know something, because you don't even know what is still relatively current affairs.

unfortunately for you, your enemies were ready to fight for a lot longer than a decade. in fact, fighting a long drawn out war was exactly part of their plan. the insurgency may have been minor to you, but it was enough for the US military to draw down and look down on that type of occupation. when you drew down your forces, your enemies struck. the sunni still felt alienated by the shia who were now cracking down on them and threw their weight behind groups like isis. your shitty iraqi trained army melted away and had to regroup.


You're doing it again. You're projecting opinions on to me that I haven't said, then attacking them. That isn't destroying anyone with facts. That's lying and misrepresenting your argument, then typing "lamo" at the end and acting like you really nailed me. You didn't. Your total and complete inability to understand basic points of made has really held back this conversation. Since you still don't understand my points, I'll lay it out for you.

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.

so the end game was to get the oil and deny it to the chinese and Russians. We are done here. it took a while for you to cough that up. LMAO @ filling the power vacuum. you did a great job there by filling it with shia and starting a sectarian war.


American Liberals thought the Arab Spring was a great thing. Because the American Left thinks that every country and people in the world are just like America, and it was going to be, like, a totally sweet and, like peacefully awesome revolution bro! They have know idea what kind of culuture they're dealing with or what kind of people we're talking about.

the americans thought it was a great thing too when it was destroying libya and helped NATO be the airforce force for Islamist extremist groups in Libya. Hows the 'moderates' doing in Syria?

So what happened to us blundering thinking we would be welcome? What happened to thinking we would be given flowers? If we were there for the oil, why were we there for 8 years, only to leave with no oil? Again, you aren't making sense. We left because Obama incorrectly thought the Government could stand on it's own. Really learn something, don't just proclaim knowledge you don't have, or a dude like me will just make you look foolish for days the way I've been doing.

what happened to thinking you would be welcome? an insurgency and insurrection and forming of militias from both sects. you couldn't create the conditions to get the oil as you thought you would be able to. the objective was more to control the oil anyways (which you believe you have failed in as well).

Again, total lack of historical knowledge. Tsk, tsk. Embarrassing. Saddam had the 5th largest army in the world at the time, and the largest mechinized force on the planet. All of that hardware bought from the Soviets. But yeah, sure, that was all totally our fault.

size does not equal capability. come on man i thought you were a military man. The coalition had better training, preparation, equipment and planning. it was a turkey shoot on a flat desert.



Uh, no. I'm the guy who has used facts, reality and history to back up his arguments. You're the guy who types "lmao" a lot and promises to deliver lessons in history that remain undelivered. I mean honestly, dude, your own graph contradicted the BS you were posting, and my beating you over the head wtih that, exposing how little you understand the subject at hand results in you responding with "uh.. Uh... You're a coward!! Yeah, that's it! You're a coward. Look at that guys, I really got him!!" Most intellifent people would realize that if they get their own evidence turned right around on them and shoved up their behind, that they just might be wrong. Not you though bro.

honestly youre seeing what you want to see. multiple posters have shown you official documents and pictures that the site was destroyed and not operational. you asked hiw they got those pics deep in iraq during gulf war because you didnt know they went in to inspect those places after the war. you display a basic lack of knowledge which easily discredits you as any briefing would have told you all of this. so youre not the facts guy but delusional guy. but i guess it would be the destruction of a country on your conscience so its not as easy for you to admit these things.




uh.. They certainly weren't giving it to Lockheed Martin. Your own graph backs that up. Again, are you trying to fail on that point? IN 2011 WHAT ARE YOU NOT GETTING ABOUT THAT. WE LEFT IRAQ IN 2010, YOU CLOWN. 2011 is like, a whole year later. We upgraded our stealth fighters via lockheed martin in 2011. That's something we do every 25 years or so, same with the Navy. Good to see you saw something suspicious in that. You do know that Lockheed Martin works almost exclusively for NASA, right? And that they're an aeronautics company? Or did you just google something and just latch on to Lockheed Martin as the first name that popped up without finding out any deeper context of who they are? Oh that's what you did isn't it?!?! You, you goofball!!

what does departing ground forces iraq have to do with iraq being part of the war on terror. lockheed martin profited from war on terror. iraq was made a part of that war.

I don't have any "findings". I'm not a scientist. The reports even contradict each other, if you're smart enough to pay attention (which you're clearly not) in that they claim to have completely destroyed the buildings and buried the chemical agents under rubble, yet the pictures show wholes in the tops of buildings and nothing more.

the tops and holes in buildings is evidence of their destruction.

Uh, yes. We won both wars. We rolled over the 5th largest army in the world, twice in a grand total of like 17 days. We took Kandahar from the Taliban in like two weeks.

saddam's army was trash compared to coalition armies in both wars. in the 2nd war his strategy was to draw US forces into an irregular war.

When was I crying about a lack of equipment? Again, reading is hard huh? I was saying that we didn't get new or upgraded equipment because it was too expensive. Yet you claimed we invaded Iraq because "The military industrial complex, bro". You still don't get how that doesn't make any sense when compared to what happened in reality, huh? You don't start a war as justification to spend money on military equipment and make everyone rich..... only to refuse to spend any money for almost a decade...... I'm sure that made your brain hurt. Maybe lie down, drink some water and try to dicpher what I just sad

lololol the US military spent no money on iraq?

ww-fig2.png



What is your ethnicity? Because the last time I checked "I know stuff about Tribes and stuff" isn't an ethnicity. And this isn't the first time I've discussed my time in Iraq at length. It's pretty well known in this subforum.

my dad is half iraqi half afghan. my mom is afghan. we are sunnis. im not saying that i dont believe you were in iraq but some of the specifics or conclusions you've drawn i gotta question like not knowing the weapons plant was bombed and not knowing that inspectors had been visiting it in the 90s. you basically counter with 'nuh uhhhhh i was there!' the way you simplify sunni shia relations is also overly simplistic.
 
No, but I do realize that moral absolutism in foreign diplomacy is for morons and that violence for the betterment of the afflicted is morally dissimilar than violence for the continued exploitation of the afflicted. So, to be clear and to dumb this down to a hypothetical that is most likely more appealing to your proclivities, you would say that, regardless purpose, reason, or motivation, the ~150,000-250,000 killed in the Rape of Nanking is morally identical to the killing of ~150,000-250,000 by the atomic bombs given that both were wartime killings of civilian-majority populations? Do you think the killing of Confederates in the American Civil War is morally identical to ethnic cleansing of Nazi Germany, given that both were for maintenance and stability of the State?

Of course not.

But I judge those events by the *contextual* morality of events and not by ideological morality. Communism doesn't get a free pass because you think its original motives were pure. The origins of the Soviet state were soaked in blood from the beginning, long before Stalin took over.
 
The U.S. won, Possum. Perhaps you've been out on a deserted Pacific island somewhere, still fighting the Cold War, but the U.S. won. That "fierce resistance" melted away, with the U.S. becoming the model for just about everywhere in the world.

Except we're not arguing who won, now are we, Storm Front?

The argument at hand was, "Was there resistance to American intervention?" You ludicrously argued there wasn't and are now trying to change the subject.


Not in Central America, they didn't.

Bloody civil wars in Nicaragua (where the World Court condemned the US), El Salvador and Guatemala say otherwise, Storm Front.



So in other words, that "fierce resistance" you spoke of was more Central Americans directing their anger toward each other in a civil conflict, with the U.S. military rarely needing to ever get involved in a heavy-handed manner.

But don't worry, Possum. The commies were funding their side, too.

Wrong again, Storm Front.

The US's involvement was very often heavy-handed. When the most powerful nation in history is funding and training one side of a conflict in an extremely impoverished nation, the effects it has are actually VERY heavy-handed.

And yeah, the commies were funding the side that was popular with the people, hence the complete landslide victory of Ortega in the 1984 elections.

Plus, the USSR never got condemned by the World Court. The US did.



No, they wouldn't. And only an idiot would believe so. That's because the Civil War had decades of buildup in tension that had absolutely nothing to do with England.

No fucking shit, that's why I said IF, Storm Front. Do try and pay attention.

If England had, for decades, funded and aided the Confederate efforts to take over (or secede) the government, and then this instigation lead to a Civil War, England would be responsible.

That's essentially what the US did.
 
I am sadden to inform that I have such a hard time dealing with Maher's smugness that I could not even watch a short clip of him getting owned.
 
1.- Among social scientists...

When studying man scientifically, where else do you go? Physicists?

The only two physicists I know who study these questions about race (Steve Hsu and Greg Cochran) agree with me.

Steve Hsu is a very interesting case. He identifies as a Democrat, voted for Obama, and has moderate social views. But he obviously agrees in the concept of race and is sympathetic to the notion that they are inherent in some group differences. He claims he's waiting for harder data, but it's clear he expects it to come in. He's now somewhat evasive on these matters because he has taken a beating from social justice warriors eager to take his scalp.

He's also discussed sharing his ideas with other physicists. What he has to say about his discussions is illuminating. He claims that once he explains the core concepts behind his views, his colleagues immediately get it and largely agree with him.

The problem is that most physicists don't study these questions about man - it's not in their field - and so as a group they instead tend to reflect widely-held social views about these matters rather than scientifically rigorous ones. Until someone like Hsu sets them straight.

(Another interesting fact about Steve Hsu is that he was a serious jujitsu practitioner when he was younger, studying under Enson Inoue back in the nineteen-nineties.)

2.- Absolutely not, you are claiming genetic cause as the main independent factor that's well beyond the scope of social sciences.

Complete balderdash. These questions are right at the heart of the social sciences. If nothing in the environment makes sense as an explanation, then the default assumption ought to be genetic.

3.- That discussion is easy to have, absolutely nobody cried racism when it was found that the "warrior gene" was overrepresented in black people, because you cant argue against hard science.

But the more interesting social scientific question that you mentioned did set off alarm bells. Does the Warrior Gene cause blacks to be more prone to violence? Believe me, you won't bring that topic up at casual parties with mixed groups anytime soon.

4.- See thats the difference between real scientists and social scientist, real scientist dont really need to discuss said things since they can actually prove them.

Rod, you have no idea what you're talking about. The implications for the Warrior gene are hugely controversial - and the moment you try to ferret out those results you run into the same social science questions you face anywhere else.

For example, the Warrior gene is found in disproportionately high numbers among Chinese populations, yet they don't seem particularly prone to violence. There have also been studies which haven't found a correlation between the gene and anti-social behavior.

So there is nothing special about the Warrior Gene.

5.- The conclusion is that real people who are identified as black have lower IQ than those who identify as white and thats it.

No, that's not it.

Lower black IQ (than the white mean) is found everywhere in the world.

- Among former slave populations and among black populations that were never enslaved.

- Among Anglo blacks, Francophone blacks, and Hispanic blacks.

- In dozens of countries with all their various histories, cultures, and public institutions.

- In Africa and out of Africa.

- Even among wealthy black families in the United States, in which their kids score only as well on standardized tests as lower-income white kids.

- In schools run by whites and in schools run by blacks.

- In integrated schools and in segregated schools.

When you look at the consistency among all those variables, what jumps out at you? What's the simplest explanation?

It's staring right at you, Rod, but you don't have the moral and intellectual courage to accept it.

Everything else is stretching the conclusion to fit things that are not proven by said claim, you cant prove that its all because of race genetics because you cant control for independent variables. As opposed to animals which we can breed with the specific purpose of testing them.

If only you were this rigorous with your own thinking, then perhaps you wouldn't be susceptible to blaming the United States for every damn thing that goes wrong in your region.

The truth is that you are perfectly happy to come to some social science conclusion you find congenial to your prejudices - such as, that the US interventions in Central America have lowered the wealth in those targetted countries - despite the fact that you have less evidence for your thesis than I do for mine.

6.- People you find acceptable of course, whites and asians, since they have achieved the most potential clearly the existence of an asian or white culture that doesnt fits the success measure you give to their genetic qualities disproves your genetics makes culture argument.

You're confusing two questions. What I find acceptable and what actually happens.

Those are two questions, and they aren't the same at all.

Your description also doesn't credit me for understanding that not all differences favor those races you think I find acceptable. If I picking sports teams, for example, I would not stick to whites and Asians. And if I did, I would clearly pay for it.

A little over 100 years ago it was only whites, specifically northern europeans who loved to tout their supremacy until the Japanese rose to a world power status.

That's not true. EVERY group touted its superiority.

You think the Han Chinese, Koreans and Japanese learned racial superiority from whites? You think the Jews did?

But even so, more than a hundred years ago, you could still find scientists who understood the Chinese were smart - despite the fact that China was failing at every modern measure they had at the time.

In other words, China's failure did not lead scientists to believe that the Chinese were not smart.

7.- Funny you mention height, because height is highly dependant on nutrition, so much that North Koreans are on average 10 cm shorter than South Koreans, someone like you would claim that North Koreans are genetically shorter isnt?

How could I make such a claim? There is no discernible genetic difference between the Koreas, but there is an obvious environmental difference between the two sides.

IQ can also be affected by the environment. Iodine deficiencies, for example, clearly lead to lower IQ. Some countries in Africa obviously have lower IQ than their genetic potential because of these environmental deficiencies.

So a scientist could look at that and correctly predict that some places in Africa will demonstrate higher IQs in the future than they do now.

But ... and here's the rub ... those IQs will still be significantly lower than what is found in Europe. They just won't be as low as they are today.
 
please stop as was mentioned earlier in the thread. the recent uprisings of sunnis and shias have been living in the region for a very long time. mixed families existed for a very long time. when you empowered a shia government and got rid of a sunni government and army, this created an us vs them mentality. saddam had largely kept the lid on these things (albeit with an iron fist). you basically pushed the sunni into rebelling since the new shia government would not share the power pie with someone who just years earlier enjoyed a lot of power..

No, it wasn't mentioned earlier, you stop. 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.





The USA screwed up with its plans. results do not equal intent. if i intend to push you down the stairs but i trip and fall by myself it doesnt mean that i never planned on pushing you down the stairs. if i plan on using my workplace powers to abuse employees but i get reported and fired, it doesnt mean that i never planned on absuing employees.

Again, totally not making any sense. We were talking about ISIS taking over and selling oil to China, and you once again went off on a senseless rant about "But it's all America's fault!!"



unfortunately for you, your enemies were ready to fight for a lot longer than a decade. in fact, fighting a long drawn out war was exactly part of their plan. the insurgency may have been minor to you, but it was enough for the US military to draw down and look down on that type of occupation. when you drew down your forces, your enemies struck. the sunni still felt alienated by the shia who were now cracking down on them and threw their weight behind groups like isis. your shitty iraqi trained army melted away and had to regroup

LOL, the insurgency in Iraq ceased to exist after about 2006. There was not a single major combat operation after 06-07. The insurgency had been completely beaten at every level and had slunk off to Syria. really sounded like they were "ready to fight for a lot longer than 10 years". They were ready for us to leave so they could go back to doing what they do best, abusing old people and children, then talking about what warriors they are.




so the end game was to get the oil and deny it to the chinese and Russians. We are done here. it took a while for you to cough that up. LMAO @ filling the power vacuum. you did a great job there by filling it with shia and starting a sectarian war

Nope, that was a fringe benefit. The end game was to establish a Western style democracy in the Middle East, thus over time converting the entire region to Democracy. Do you read? We've been done for a while, bro. You've betting getting owned for days, and haven't had the decency to notice. And seriously, if you're going to try to twist my words, you're honestly going to have to do better than that. You aren't even smart enough to keep your own argument straight, or even read a graph correctly, don't try to step up to the big boy table and try to confuse me. You've already got enough to handle with just NOT confusing yourself.

Yes, we filled the power vaccum. For years. The Government and the military did exactly what we told them, when we told them to do it. Why you don't get that I don't know. Maybe I can put it in more simple terms you can understand. We ran shit. Is that easier?




the americans thought it was a great thing too when it was destroying libya and helped NATO be the airforce force for Islamist extremist groups in Libya. Hows the 'moderates' doing in Syria?

I don't know, why don't you ask the idiot Liberals who thought it was a good idea, and not me, the guy who clearly thought it was idiocy? Or could you not pick up on my complete contempt for them? Was I not laying it on enough for your tiny mind to pick up? Or are you just projecting opinions on to me so you can attack them again? That's cute. You don't really learn, do you?



what happened to thinking you would be welcome? an insurgency and insurrection and forming of militias from both sects. you couldn't create the conditions to get the oil as you thought you would be able to. the objective was more to control the oil anyways (which you believe you have failed in as well).


Wait.... Hold on, are we back to this again? i thought we just made that up because it was all about oil? Or did you have an aneurysm and we're back on the whole "LOL, yuz guyz thought they wud gif yuz flowears and stuff, hurr hurr" argument that you earlier said wasn't your position anymore? Come on dude, PICK A POSITION AND STICK WITH IT!! LOL, I do have to admit watching you fumble all over the place, back track and contradict yourself is wildly entertaining.


size does not equal capability. come on man i thought you were a military man. The coalition had better training, preparation, equipment and planning. it was a turkey shoot on a flat desert.

And we were talking about the Iran Iraq War, dickhead. A war you claimed could not have possibly gone on as long as it did without us. Can't even remember our own arguments, that's sad.



honestly youre seeing what you want to see. multiple posters have shown you official documents and pictures that the site was destroyed and not operational. you asked hiw they got those pics deep in iraq during gulf war because you didnt know they went in to inspect those places after the war. you display a basic lack of knowledge which easily discredits you as any briefing would have told you all of this. so youre not the facts guy but delusional guy. but i guess it would be the destruction of a country on your conscience so its not as easy for you to admit these things.

Uh, do you realize how stupid this sounds? I'm seeing what I saw with my own eyes from the benefit of being the only one of "multiple posters" to have ever actually set foot in Iraq, much less physically inside the Muthanna Chemical Complex, but hey, F all that right? just read this report from a Government that you yourself say you don't believe. Unbelievable mental gymnastics going on here.






what does departing ground forces iraq have to do with iraq being part of the war on terror. lockheed martin profited from war on terror. iraq was made a part of that war.

Dude, you make my face hurt. Are you able to follow along with your own side of this conversation? Your point since the begining of this conversation was that we invaded Iraq to support the Military Industrial Complex, which needs war to thrive, then brought up Lockheed Martin, an aeronautics company who didn't start making any money until 5 years after the war had started as your big proof. Then, when that didn't work you doubled down with all the money they started making AFTER both the invasion and 8 year occupation were over by pointing out all the money that was made by our regularly scheduled 25 year overhaul of our air capabilities. Why do I have to continue to re-explain your side of this argument to you? If you can't start even keeping up with yourself this isn't going to be fun anymore.





saddam's army was trash compared to coalition armies in both wars. in the 2nd war his strategy was to draw US forces into an irregular war.

Uh, yeah they were. They had a bunch of T-72s, but the Iraqis themselves were garbage. That's why I said we won the war. You're the one who replied with "You won both wars?!"

Again, keep your own arguments straight or go away.



lololol the US military spent no money on iraq?

ww-fig2.png





my dad is half iraqi half afghan. my mom is afghan. we are sunnis. im not saying that i dont believe you were in iraq but some of the specifics or conclusions you've drawn i gotta question like not knowing the weapons plant was bombed and not knowing that inspectors had been visiting it in the 90s. you basically counter with 'nuh uhhhhh i was there!' the way you simplify sunni shia relations is also overly simplistic.

Bro, come on now. You're doing it again. "The Military" and "military industrial complex" are in no way the same thing. The Military Industrial Complex provides specifically military equipment to the Military. Hardly any of that money was spent on military equipment. It was spent on setting up bases in Iraq, and in trying to rebuild infrastructue in Iraq.

When have I ever said that weapons inspectors never visited Iraq? I'm pretty familiar with the timeline of events leading up to the invasion of Iraq. I was 18 on 9/11 and a month from going to boot camp. I was an almost 21 year old Marine Infantryman on the day we invaded Iraq. Saddam Hussein and Iraq dominated the news when I was a young boy and teenager. I said that I have personally been in the Muthana Chemical Complex and I did not see any demolished buildings like the first report that was posted suggested.
 
Back
Top