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.