Iraq Wants the US Out - Our New Saigon Moment

[High_Gravity]

Damn me and Righteous one are treating Sallow like Kobe Bryant treats white women in Colorado hotel rooms.

 

[High_Gravity]

Exactly what I thought.

Tell us about those "Arab" Iranians.

None of our Iranian friends or colleagues or one Iranian boss I had considered themselves Arabs.

The Iranians are delightful people though. Never met one yet that I didn't find likable. Of course I never met any of their radical leadership so that might have turned out differently.

Sallow knows less than zero about Iranians, if he tried to call an actual Iranian an Arab they would knock out his fucking teeth, he lost all credibility when he said that and he didn't have that much to begin with.

 

[High_Gravity]

I'm not "twisting" anything. The United States provided tech and weapons for a brutal dictator it helped put into power to attack a country which overthrew an American installed "Shah". Rumsfeld knew Saddam was a brutal person. The whole idea was "one nasty little arab dicatorship vs. another nasty little arab dictatorship..its a win-win". And this country wouldn't haven't given two shits for either country if they weren't sitting on oceans of oil.

You seriously don't know what the fuck you are talking about. You get your history from cliches and bubble gum wrappers.

Except Iranians are not Arabs, they are Persians. You have just shown you know less than zero about the subject.

Oh gosh.

Yes yes please tell us your knowledge about that Arab country Iran.

 

[(R)IGHTeous 1]

I don't know who you mean by 'we'. I certainly have spoken out against wholesale slaughter or mistreatment of civilians by anybody for a very long time now.

Perhaps if Saddam had more noble attributes, so many people wouldn't have been out to kill him.

As for conditions in Iraq during Saddam's reign, this is a pretty good synopsis of the good and bad:

Handbook 11-03: Appendix B - National and Provincial Data for Iraq

You may have protested it at the time..but the Conservative mindset was hostile to people that spoke up against it. The big conservative tv program at the time "The Morton Downey Jr. Show" got downright hostile to an audience member that spoke up against it.

What High Gravity said. You really don't know jack about it. Nice radical left sound bite though.

3rded! Awww damn! Are we triple teaming this motherfucker? LOL this is hardly necessary yall, clearly just 1 of us is more than enough to handle Sallow.

Teh street sweeper is gonna now go back to main and find "right"winger, I'm sure his dumb fake ass has made yet another attempt @ debate in that history thread by now.

I done made my point, my boy HG too, so Ima fall back, you got this if you want it FOX.

 

[High_Gravity]

You may have protested it at the time..but the Conservative mindset was hostile to people that spoke up against it. The big conservative tv program at the time "The Morton Downey Jr. Show" got downright hostile to an audience member that spoke up against it.

What High Gravity said. You really don't know jack about it. Nice radical left sound bite though.

3rded! Awww damn! Are we triple teaming this motherfucker? LOL this is hardly necessary yall, clearly just 1 of us is more than enough to handle Sallow.

Teh street sweeper is gonna now go back to main and find "right"winger, I'm sure his dumb fake ass has made yet another attempt @ debate in that history thread by now.

I done made my point, my boy HG too, so Ima fall back, you got this if you want it FOX.

I call shot gun on the mouth.

 

[Foxfyre]

AGAIN, unless you can prove THAT WE SENT THOSE WEAPONS OVER THERE FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF GASSING IRANIAN CIVILIANS, YOU HAVE NO ARGUMENT.

We were right strategically in supporting Iraq @ that time, and, OBVIOUSLY had no idea Saddam was gonna use our $ and tech for that.

Stop tryna twist shit, stop with the smoke and mirrors, shit like this is why you're on my pwned belt.

I'm not "twisting" anything. The United States provided tech and weapons for a brutal dictator it helped put into power to attack a country which overthrew an American installed "Shah". Rumsfeld knew Saddam was a brutal person. The whole idea was "one nasty little arab dicatorship vs. another nasty little arab dictatorship..its a win-win". And this country wouldn't haven't given two shits for either country if they weren't sitting on oceans of oil.

You seriously don't know what the fuck you are talking about. You get your history from cliches and bubble gum wrappers.

^^Looks like someone's starting to get they sore loser on^^

Just as I thought, you can't prove that: AGAIN, unless you can prove THAT WE SENT THOSE WEAPONS OVER THERE FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF GASSING IRANIAN CIVILIANS, YOU HAVE NO ARGUMENT.

Our hands are quite obviously clean, dry of that, WE GAVE THAT SUPPORT TO DEFEAT THE WORSE, MORE BRUTAL, IRANIAN GOVERNMENT. THAT WAS THE OBVIOUS PURPOSE OF THAT SUPPORT.

Again, you just wanna twist, distort, and revise shit so it fits your wacko lefty agenda...............sad.

I see no further reason to continue this "debate" I've clearly made my point, with a case, set, MATCH.

HG and I are enjoying a good laugh privately tho from your "knowledge"

Actually, a careful study of history shows that the USA didn't back either regime. But a stronger, better (USSR) supplied Iran did threaten to overrun and absorb a weaker Iraq which we did not see as a healthy situation with a huge percentage of the world's oil supplies at stake. So we supplied Saddam with enough weaponry to stave off iran. It was a conflict between the USSR and USA as much as between Iran and iraq. But Reagan figured if we kept Iran and Iraq busy beating each other up without either gaining a significant advantage, they would leave everybody else alone.

 

[High_Gravity]

I'm not "twisting" anything. The United States provided tech and weapons for a brutal dictator it helped put into power to attack a country which overthrew an American installed "Shah". Rumsfeld knew Saddam was a brutal person. The whole idea was "one nasty little arab dicatorship vs. another nasty little arab dictatorship..its a win-win". And this country wouldn't haven't given two shits for either country if they weren't sitting on oceans of oil.

You seriously don't know what the fuck you are talking about. You get your history from cliches and bubble gum wrappers.

^^Looks like someone's starting to get they sore loser on^^

Just as I thought, you can't prove that: AGAIN, unless you can prove THAT WE SENT THOSE WEAPONS OVER THERE FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF GASSING IRANIAN CIVILIANS, YOU HAVE NO ARGUMENT.

Our hands are quite obviously clean, dry of that, WE GAVE THAT SUPPORT TO DEFEAT THE WORSE, MORE BRUTAL, IRANIAN GOVERNMENT. THAT WAS THE OBVIOUS PURPOSE OF THAT SUPPORT.

Again, you just wanna twist, distort, and revise shit so it fits your wacko lefty agenda...............sad.

I see no further reason to continue this "debate" I've clearly made my point, with a case, set, MATCH.

HG and I are enjoying a good laugh privately tho from your "knowledge"

Actually, a careful study of history shows that the USA didn't back either regime. But a stronger, better (USSR) supplied Iran did threaten to overrun and absorb a weaker Iraq which we did not see as a healthy situation with a huge percentage of the world's oil supplies at stake. So we supplied Saddam with enough weaponry to stave off iran. It was a conflict between the USSR and USA as much as between Iran and iraq. But Reagan figured if we kept Iran and Iraq busy beating each other up without either gaining a significant advantage, they would leave everybody else alone.

Saddam actually got his weapons and support from several sources Germany, France, England etc. not all of this was given to the Iraqis by the US like the moron Sallow is trying to imply.

 

[Sallow]

Exactly what I thought.

Tell us about those "Arab" Iranians.

None of our Iranian friends or colleagues or one Iranian boss I had considered themselves Arabs.

The Iranians are delightful people though. Never met one yet that I didn't find likable. Of course I never met any of their radical leadership so that might have turned out differently.

Feel free to travel to Tehran. It's a lovely place. My friend went there 2 years ago.

Jean Shepard..and I am SURE you know who that guy is..describes Iran as one of the best skiing spots in the world.

Let me know how your trip went.

 

[Sallow]

I'm not "twisting" anything. The United States provided tech and weapons for a brutal dictator it helped put into power to attack a country which overthrew an American installed "Shah". Rumsfeld knew Saddam was a brutal person. The whole idea was "one nasty little arab dicatorship vs. another nasty little arab dictatorship..its a win-win". And this country wouldn't haven't given two shits for either country if they weren't sitting on oceans of oil.

You seriously don't know what the fuck you are talking about. You get your history from cliches and bubble gum wrappers.

^^Looks like someone's starting to get they sore loser on^^

Just as I thought, you can't prove that: AGAIN, unless you can prove THAT WE SENT THOSE WEAPONS OVER THERE FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF GASSING IRANIAN CIVILIANS, YOU HAVE NO ARGUMENT.

Our hands are quite obviously clean, dry of that, WE GAVE THAT SUPPORT TO DEFEAT THE WORSE, MORE BRUTAL, IRANIAN GOVERNMENT. THAT WAS THE OBVIOUS PURPOSE OF THAT SUPPORT.

Again, you just wanna twist, distort, and revise shit so it fits your wacko lefty agenda...............sad.

I see no further reason to continue this "debate" I've clearly made my point, with a case, set, MATCH.

HG and I are enjoying a good laugh privately tho from your "knowledge"

Actually, a careful study of history shows that the USA didn't back either regime. But a stronger, better (USSR) supplied Iran did threaten to overrun and absorb a weaker Iraq which we did not see as a healthy situation with a huge percentage of the world's oil supplies at stake. So we supplied Saddam with enough weaponry to stave off iran. It was a conflict between the USSR and USA as much as between Iran and iraq. But Reagan figured if we kept Iran and Iraq busy beating each other up without either gaining a significant advantage, they would leave everybody else alone.

Iran overrun Iraq????

That takes the cake!

 

[Foxfyre]

Tell us about those "Arab" Iranians.

None of our Iranian friends or colleagues or one Iranian boss I had considered themselves Arabs.

The Iranians are delightful people though. Never met one yet that I didn't find likable. Of course I never met any of their radical leadership so that might have turned out differently.

Feel free to travel to Tehran. It's a lovely place. My friend went there 2 years ago.

Jean Shepard..and I am SURE you know who that guy is..describes Iran as one of the best skiing spots in the world.

Let me know how your trip went.

Do you always miss the point or use non sequiturs to this extreme on every thread you post in?

 

[(R)IGHTeous 1]

LOL ok guys, this has been glorious and all, but I gotta keep my cred. up, gotta go respond to threads I know lefties spazed on me bout by now.

This was teh fun tho, thanks again for that useful bit of info. Fox.

 

[Foxfyre]

^^Looks like someone's starting to get they sore loser on^^

Just as I thought, you can't prove that: AGAIN, unless you can prove THAT WE SENT THOSE WEAPONS OVER THERE FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF GASSING IRANIAN CIVILIANS, YOU HAVE NO ARGUMENT.

Our hands are quite obviously clean, dry of that, WE GAVE THAT SUPPORT TO DEFEAT THE WORSE, MORE BRUTAL, IRANIAN GOVERNMENT. THAT WAS THE OBVIOUS PURPOSE OF THAT SUPPORT.

Again, you just wanna twist, distort, and revise shit so it fits your wacko lefty agenda...............sad.

I see no further reason to continue this "debate" I've clearly made my point, with a case, set, MATCH.

HG and I are enjoying a good laugh privately tho from your "knowledge"

Actually, a careful study of history shows that the USA didn't back either regime. But a stronger, better (USSR) supplied Iran did threaten to overrun and absorb a weaker Iraq which we did not see as a healthy situation with a huge percentage of the world's oil supplies at stake. So we supplied Saddam with enough weaponry to stave off iran. It was a conflict between the USSR and USA as much as between Iran and iraq. But Reagan figured if we kept Iran and Iraq busy beating each other up without either gaining a significant advantage, they would leave everybody else alone.

Iran overrun Iraq????

That takes the cake!

Yeah. Those of us who actually read history books rather than get our education from Huff post or Daily Kos actually pick up on stuff like that. Try it. You might be really surprised. And also understand why Iranians are not Arabs.

 

[High_Gravity]

Actually, a careful study of history shows that the USA didn't back either regime. But a stronger, better (USSR) supplied Iran did threaten to overrun and absorb a weaker Iraq which we did not see as a healthy situation with a huge percentage of the world's oil supplies at stake. So we supplied Saddam with enough weaponry to stave off iran. It was a conflict between the USSR and USA as much as between Iran and iraq. But Reagan figured if we kept Iran and Iraq busy beating each other up without either gaining a significant advantage, they would leave everybody else alone.

Iran overrun Iraq????

That takes the cake!

Yeah. Those of us who actually read history books rather than get our education from Huff post or Daily Kos actually pick up on stuff like that. Try it. You might be really surprised. And also understand why Iranians are not Arabs.

Anyone that thinks Iranians are Arabs has no right to make any comments on this subject.

 

[Sallow]

Tell us about those "Arab" Iranians.

None of our Iranian friends or colleagues or one Iranian boss I had considered themselves Arabs.

The Iranians are delightful people though. Never met one yet that I didn't find likable. Of course I never met any of their radical leadership so that might have turned out differently.

Sallow knows less than zero about Iranians, if he tried to call an actual Iranian an Arab they would knock out his fucking teeth, he lost all credibility when he said that and he didn't have that much to begin with.

No one would knock out my teeth chief.

A. To late they've been knocked out.

B. They'd be flattened if they tried.

And losing "credibility" with you and your buddy is no great shakes.

You don't know jack.

 

[Sallow]

Iran overrun Iraq????

That takes the cake!

Yeah. Those of us who actually read history books rather than get our education from Huff post or Daily Kos actually pick up on stuff like that. Try it. You might be really surprised. And also understand why Iranians are not Arabs.

Anyone that thinks Iranians are Arabs has no right to make any comments on this subject.

 

[Sallow]

Actually, a careful study of history shows that the USA didn't back either regime. But a stronger, better (USSR) supplied Iran did threaten to overrun and absorb a weaker Iraq which we did not see as a healthy situation with a huge percentage of the world's oil supplies at stake. So we supplied Saddam with enough weaponry to stave off iran. It was a conflict between the USSR and USA as much as between Iran and iraq. But Reagan figured if we kept Iran and Iraq busy beating each other up without either gaining a significant advantage, they would leave everybody else alone.

Iran overrun Iraq????

That takes the cake!

Yeah. Those of us who actually read history books rather than get our education from Huff post or Daily Kos actually pick up on stuff like that. Try it. You might be really surprised. And also understand why Iranians are not Arabs.

Okay.

History question.

When was the last time Iran attacked another country?

 

[High_Gravity]

Iran overrun Iraq????

That takes the cake!

Yeah. Those of us who actually read history books rather than get our education from Huff post or Daily Kos actually pick up on stuff like that. Try it. You might be really surprised. And also understand why Iranians are not Arabs.

Okay.

History question.

When was the last time Iran attacked another country?

Iranians have been providing support for the Taliban and Iraqi insurgents for years clown.

They also shelled Kurdistan in Northern Iraq.

Iran shells Iraqi Kurdistan village | Reuters

Again, you know less than zero on this subject.

 

[Sallow]

Yeah. Those of us who actually read history books rather than get our education from Huff post or Daily Kos actually pick up on stuff like that. Try it. You might be really surprised. And also understand why Iranians are not Arabs.

Okay.

History question.

When was the last time Iran attacked another country?

Iranians have been providing support for the Taliban and Iraqi insurgents for years clown.

They also shelled Kurdistan in Northern Iraq.

Iran shells Iraqi Kurdistan village | Reuters

Again, you know less than zero on this subject.

Not "provided support" which is dubious to begin with..

Actually attack.

And if you want to be anal retentive little shmuck about the whole thing..

Are you saying that there are NO arabs in Iran?

Iranian Arabs - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[BlindBoo]

I'm not "twisting" anything. The United States provided tech and weapons for a brutal dictator it helped put into power to attack a country which overthrew an American installed "Shah". Rumsfeld knew Saddam was a brutal person. The whole idea was "one nasty little arab dicatorship vs. another nasty little arab dictatorship..its a win-win". And this country wouldn't haven't given two shits for either country if they weren't sitting on oceans of oil.

You seriously don't know what the fuck you are talking about. You get your history from cliches and bubble gum wrappers.

^^Looks like someone's starting to get they sore loser on^^

Just as I thought, you can't prove that: AGAIN, unless you can prove THAT WE SENT THOSE WEAPONS OVER THERE FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF GASSING IRANIAN CIVILIANS, YOU HAVE NO ARGUMENT.

Our hands are quite obviously clean, dry of that, WE GAVE THAT SUPPORT TO DEFEAT THE WORSE, MORE BRUTAL, IRANIAN GOVERNMENT. THAT WAS THE OBVIOUS PURPOSE OF THAT SUPPORT.

Again, you just wanna twist, distort, and revise shit so it fits your wacko lefty agenda...............sad.

I see no further reason to continue this "debate" I've clearly made my point, with a case, set, MATCH.

HG and I are enjoying a good laugh privately tho from your "knowledge"

Actually, a careful study of history shows that the USA didn't back either regime. But a stronger, better (USSR) supplied Iran did threaten to overrun and absorb a weaker Iraq which we did not see as a healthy situation with a huge percentage of the world's oil supplies at stake. So we supplied Saddam with enough weaponry to stave off iran. It was a conflict between the USSR and USA as much as between Iran and iraq. But Reagan figured if we kept Iran and Iraq busy beating each other up without either gaining a significant advantage, they would leave everybody else alone.

When Iran was about to overrun Iraq the USA most definantly backed Saddam. The Russians boycotted military supplies to both Iran and Iraq. The hope was to get Iran back in the fold because they needed spare parts for all the US made weapons they had. Didn't work because Vietnam had plenty of spare US parts. Don't forget beside granting Iraq billions and allowing Western companies(from many nations) to supply Iraq, during the war, Raygun sold missiles to Iran as well. It should be noted that soon after this news became public, Iraq attacked the USS STARK, killing 37 US sailors. Many have speculated that this was in response to Raygun dealings with Iran. Iraq called it a mistake and quickly apologized.

Yeah Raygun figured it was Arab on Arab so the rest of the world really wouldn't care if over a million of them died.

 

[Marc39]

Iran overrun Iraq????

That takes the cake!

Yeah. Those of us who actually read history books rather than get our education from Huff post or Daily Kos actually pick up on stuff like that. Try it. You might be really surprised. And also understand why Iranians are not Arabs.

Okay.

History question.

When was the last time Iran attacked another country?

Iran's proxy, Hamas, attacks Israel on a daily basis. Iran's other proxy, Hizballah, has attacked Israel numerous times and illegally occupies Lebanon, where it massacred 300 Marines in Beirut and terrorizes the Lebanese daily.

Next question. Make it smarter, this time