ISIL very bad, no one else as bad as them - the media

[frigidweirdo]

In 1991 the military, which I was a part of wanted to end it right then and there and finish off Saddam. We had a very large presence there which tripled what was used in 2003. It could have been taken in a matter of a month or so..............and we had more than enough troops to crack down martial law in every city and town in the whole dang country.

I have already stated that Bush SR. said the same about it later on after Saddam stayed in power.........and after the Shiites rose up as SR. suggested only to be slaughtered because they thought we were coming. We actually urged them to attack Saddam and take back their country when he still had a very large army still intact............that we could have decimated in a matter of weeks and then the outcome would have been different........The majority of his forces were still in the open and an easy kill for U.S. forces by ending the conflict early...........At a minimum we should have finished them off before the cease fire began and then the SHiites may have taken the country without any further need of us back then.

In 2003 we had decreased the size of our military, and we didn't have the forces available as in the 1st Gulf War so we didn't have the necessary numbers to contain the areas we took..........which is a different equation................and why we couldn't stabilize the whole country.........because we needed triple the number of troops to maintain total control of Iraq..........which is one of the reasons we would have to fight the same provinces over and over again..............because the new Iraqi army couldn't hold the ground we took.

And there's often a reason why the military doesn't run things.

Also, why would Bush go in without enough numbers? Why would he get rid of the Iraqi police and Army? In fact, why did he balls the whole thing up? On purpose to grow Islamic Extremism or just sheer incompetency?

 

[eagle1462010]

In 1991 the military, which I was a part of wanted to end it right then and there and finish off Saddam. We had a very large presence there which tripled what was used in 2003. It could have been taken in a matter of a month or so..............and we had more than enough troops to crack down martial law in every city and town in the whole dang country.

I have already stated that Bush SR. said the same about it later on after Saddam stayed in power.........and after the Shiites rose up as SR. suggested only to be slaughtered because they thought we were coming. We actually urged them to attack Saddam and take back their country when he still had a very large army still intact............that we could have decimated in a matter of weeks and then the outcome would have been different........The majority of his forces were still in the open and an easy kill for U.S. forces by ending the conflict early...........At a minimum we should have finished them off before the cease fire began and then the SHiites may have taken the country without any further need of us back then.

In 2003 we had decreased the size of our military, and we didn't have the forces available as in the 1st Gulf War so we didn't have the necessary numbers to contain the areas we took..........which is a different equation................and why we couldn't stabilize the whole country.........because we needed triple the number of troops to maintain total control of Iraq..........which is one of the reasons we would have to fight the same provinces over and over again..............because the new Iraqi army couldn't hold the ground we took.

And there's often a reason why the military doesn't run things.

Also, why would Bush go in without enough numbers? Why would he get rid of the Iraqi police and Army? In fact, why did he balls the whole thing up? On purpose to grow Islamic Extremism or just sheer incompetency?

Military's fight and win Wars.........Politicians lose them............

The military was Sunni.........vast population is shiite............we were pushing democracy...........which would put the same military back in place to give the Sunni's back the power after leaving..............which in effect would be the same as ISIL winning the war now................as many of the old military.........aka Sunni's are now ISIS and ISIL.............This is a Sunni versus Shiite civil war..............as it was when Saddam was there..........but he slaughtered them..............

Which means you simply support the Sunni side of the equation over the Shiite side of the equation in Iraq..................Which is why you don't want Saddam out of power to begin with.............

WHo should rule Iraq now in your opinion...................or should Iraq have a 3 state solution.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Military's fight and win Wars.........Politicians lose them............

The military was Sunni.........vast population is shiite............we were pushing democracy...........which would put the same military back in place to give the Sunni's back the power after leaving..............which in effect would be the same as ISIL winning the war now................as many of the old military.........aka Sunni's are now ISIS and ISIL.............This is a Sunni versus Shiite civil war..............as it was when Saddam was there..........but he slaughtered them..............

Which means you simply support the Sunni side of the equation over the Shiite side of the equation in Iraq..................Which is why you don't want Saddam out of power to begin with.............

WHo should rule Iraq now in your opinion...................or should Iraq have a 3 state solution.

Would having the Sunni military in place have been better or worse than the military turning into insurgents and then killing those who were in place to supposedly keep the peace?

Who should rule Iraq?

Well personally I think Iraq should be split up. It should never have been a country in the first place, no one is happy with Iraq being a country, the West have this idea that countries should remain countries, China and other countries with local issues like Tibet, XinJiang, Taiwan don't want this sort of thing going on for their own benefits, the US wouldn't push for it.
Turkey would oppose separation and is an important part of the US's policy in the area, so it won't happen.

You want democracy in Iraq?

Shia make up 60-65% of the population. In such a state there is never going to be democracy with freedom and fairness for all. So what's the point?

Unless you could have a federal system that works, and I don't think it ever will, then separation is the only way forwards.

Basically the West needs to pull out, let Iraq take its own direction and let it be.

 

[eagle1462010]

Military's fight and win Wars.........Politicians lose them............

The military was Sunni.........vast population is shiite............we were pushing democracy...........which would put the same military back in place to give the Sunni's back the power after leaving..............which in effect would be the same as ISIL winning the war now................as many of the old military.........aka Sunni's are now ISIS and ISIL.............This is a Sunni versus Shiite civil war..............as it was when Saddam was there..........but he slaughtered them..............

Which means you simply support the Sunni side of the equation over the Shiite side of the equation in Iraq..................Which is why you don't want Saddam out of power to begin with.............

WHo should rule Iraq now in your opinion...................or should Iraq have a 3 state solution.

Would having the Sunni military in place have been better or worse than the military turning into insurgents and then killing those who were in place to supposedly keep the peace?

Who should rule Iraq?

Well personally I think Iraq should be split up. It should never have been a country in the first place, no one is happy with Iraq being a country, the West have this idea that countries should remain countries, China and other countries with local issues like Tibet, XinJiang, Taiwan don't want this sort of thing going on for their own benefits, the US wouldn't push for it.
Turkey would oppose separation and is an important part of the US's policy in the area, so it won't happen.

You want democracy in Iraq?

Shia make up 60-65% of the population. In such a state there is never going to be democracy with freedom and fairness for all. So what's the point?

Unless you could have a federal system that works, and I don't think it ever will, then separation is the only way forwards.

Basically the West needs to pull out, let Iraq take its own direction and let it be.

You left the Kurds out of that response........some call that a 3 state solution.............shiite their areas, sunni their areas...........and Kurds theirs.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Military's fight and win Wars.........Politicians lose them............

The military was Sunni.........vast population is shiite............we were pushing democracy...........which would put the same military back in place to give the Sunni's back the power after leaving..............which in effect would be the same as ISIL winning the war now................as many of the old military.........aka Sunni's are now ISIS and ISIL.............This is a Sunni versus Shiite civil war..............as it was when Saddam was there..........but he slaughtered them..............

Which means you simply support the Sunni side of the equation over the Shiite side of the equation in Iraq..................Which is why you don't want Saddam out of power to begin with.............

WHo should rule Iraq now in your opinion...................or should Iraq have a 3 state solution.

Would having the Sunni military in place have been better or worse than the military turning into insurgents and then killing those who were in place to supposedly keep the peace?

Who should rule Iraq?

Well personally I think Iraq should be split up. It should never have been a country in the first place, no one is happy with Iraq being a country, the West have this idea that countries should remain countries, China and other countries with local issues like Tibet, XinJiang, Taiwan don't want this sort of thing going on for their own benefits, the US wouldn't push for it.
Turkey would oppose separation and is an important part of the US's policy in the area, so it won't happen.

You want democracy in Iraq?

Shia make up 60-65% of the population. In such a state there is never going to be democracy with freedom and fairness for all. So what's the point?

Unless you could have a federal system that works, and I don't think it ever will, then separation is the only way forwards.

Basically the West needs to pull out, let Iraq take its own direction and let it be.

You left the Kurds out of that response........some call that a 3 state solution.............shiite their areas, sunni their areas...........and Kurds theirs.

Er... why should I specifically mention the Kurds? Do you need me to put it down in writing? I'm making the assumption that people know why Turkey doesn't want a separation of Iraq, and it's because of the Kurds.

Bizarre.

 

[eagle1462010]

Military's fight and win Wars.........Politicians lose them............

The military was Sunni.........vast population is shiite............we were pushing democracy...........which would put the same military back in place to give the Sunni's back the power after leaving..............which in effect would be the same as ISIL winning the war now................as many of the old military.........aka Sunni's are now ISIS and ISIL.............This is a Sunni versus Shiite civil war..............as it was when Saddam was there..........but he slaughtered them..............

Which means you simply support the Sunni side of the equation over the Shiite side of the equation in Iraq..................Which is why you don't want Saddam out of power to begin with.............

WHo should rule Iraq now in your opinion...................or should Iraq have a 3 state solution.

Would having the Sunni military in place have been better or worse than the military turning into insurgents and then killing those who were in place to supposedly keep the peace?

Who should rule Iraq?

Well personally I think Iraq should be split up. It should never have been a country in the first place, no one is happy with Iraq being a country, the West have this idea that countries should remain countries, China and other countries with local issues like Tibet, XinJiang, Taiwan don't want this sort of thing going on for their own benefits, the US wouldn't push for it.
Turkey would oppose separation and is an important part of the US's policy in the area, so it won't happen.

You want democracy in Iraq?

Shia make up 60-65% of the population. In such a state there is never going to be democracy with freedom and fairness for all. So what's the point?

Unless you could have a federal system that works, and I don't think it ever will, then separation is the only way forwards.

Basically the West needs to pull out, let Iraq take its own direction and let it be.

You left the Kurds out of that response........some call that a 3 state solution.............shiite their areas, sunni their areas...........and Kurds theirs.

Er... why should I specifically mention the Kurds? Do you need me to put it down in writing? I'm making the assumption that people know why Turkey doesn't want a separation of Iraq, and it's because of the Kurds.

Bizarre.

The Kurds are part of the 3 state solution..........Iraq..............Which is why I stated it...........Do the Turks have final say on what happens in Iraq.

 

[Treeshepherd]

Turkey has built and is building more dams on the upper Tigris and Euphrates. They have a significant say in how much water makes it to Syria and Iraq.

Water or no, Iraq is a quagmire. It's not good to get mired in quag.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The Kurds are part of the 3 state solution..........Iraq..............Which is why I stated it...........Do the Turks have final say on what happens in Iraq.

Is that for me to decide? The reality is the Iraqis need to solve this problem, and if they choose to separate then they choose to separate. Problem is they don't seem to have that choice.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

And within your fucked up mind the United states is as bad as the ISIS. You're a traitor and that is a fact frigidweirdo.

Please join the isis and fight for something in your life.

Oh, right. So someone is a traitor to suggest that the US is wasting US soldier's lives on getting cheaper oil? That the US only cares about places which have oil and not places that don't?

Or maybe you're just using the word traitor in order to put people down, to try and shut them up because you don't like to hear the truth, right?

It's a very usual tactic of the right. In fact it's one reason why they like to have a common enemy in the first place, in order to have names they can call those they disagree with.

This is the reason why, after 8 years of democrats and no common enemy to fight again, Bush pushed Islam to be the new common enemy, the reason why he was willing to send 4,000 or so US soldiers to their deaths in Iraq, 10 times this number to get maimed and injured, and for the western world to be far less secure, and oil prices are higher ANYWAY.

I'd say people like Bush and those who support him are the traitors.

How dya like them apples?

LBJ sent 50,000 american lives to die in the jungle over a communist threat halfway around the world.

 

[frigidweirdo]

LBJ sent 50,000 american lives to die in the jungle over a communist threat halfway around the world.

And?