Mushroom
Gold Member
We have at this time less than 2 Battalions of them in the Middle East
There are 3 Regiments at Fort Bliss.
Got it, all you can do is scream nonsense, and have absolutely nothing you can even input other than screaming.
Pentagon reportedly pulling jets, anti-missile guns out of Middle East
- Thread starter Doc7505
- Start date
We have at this time less than 2 Battalions of them in the Middle East
There are 3 Regiments at Fort Bliss.
Got it, all you can do is scream nonsense, and have absolutely nothing you can even input other than screaming.
- Nov 10, 2019
- 58,431
- 37,681
- 2,490
- Moderator
- #22
Well, it is not like it is 300 thousand from central Florida or Texas. I had no investment of friends or live in Iraq, before people like you bleeding heart, thought we should totally destabilize the Middle East. The A-hole Saddam was keeping Iran at bay, the Russians were not in league with another enemy of democracy to their west, we didn't have troops guarding oil fields for the murderous prince of Saudi Arabia, the lead country that imposed an oil embargo on us and the rest of the world back in the late 70s here at home. I hold grudges against whom I want to. We had a no fly in effect in Iraq. If they flew, we shot them down. If they turned on air defense radar we blew it up and the pilots were home in time for dinner at the O club or officer's mess on ship. We gained nothing from Bush taking over the country. Sure, we captured Saddam and turned him over to the new regime we put in power. They couldn't even hold a decent hanging. We let the CIA make torture part of SOP, though considered a war crime by every civilize country on the planet as well as our own military, and did we find the weapons of mass destruction? NO. Did we find chemical weapons we did not supply to them? NO. Did we end up fighting a war involving civilians often on our side during the day on and with the enemy at night? YES. Sounds like Vietnam with the jungle, doesn't it? Some people never learn, and I think it is us.
Mushroom
Gold Member
So I am a "bleeding heart". Interesting.
Iraq was not "Keeping Iran at Bay", the Ba'athist Party (and Saddam) was trying a war of conquest, against what he thought was somebody that could not fight back and nobody would complain about.
After that, he failed, and decided to try again. The only problem is, he picked another country, that people did have a generally favorable opinion about. Kuwait. You know, the country that had a lot of gas stations all over, called "Q8".
Saddam was not "keeping Iran at bay". In fact, if anything he over time made them more expansionistic and wanting to "eliminate outside threats", more than they ever were before his invasion.
And no, you obviously do not know or understand what "No fly" was. First of all, that was not "Us", that was not the US. It was the UN that did that. And it was not even over all of Iraq. It only covered the areas South of Baghdad that were the approaches used to invade Kuwait, and the very Northern areas, where the Kurds were. In essence, anything North of the 36th parallel, and anything below the 32nd Parallel, then later the 33rd Parallel.
And it did not actually prohibit all flights. Just flights of fighter aircraft. Iraq could still fly anything they wanted North or South, just not combat aircraft.
And we did not just "shoot them down". We would (as with the Soviets) first warn them they were in restricted areas, then only after they refused to listen shoot them down when they moved towards locations where they were known to take offensive actions against those on the ground. That was the entire idea, to protect those on the ground that Iraq was attacking.
I can go on, but I have already made a point, tearing apart your very opening claims.
And "guarding us from Iran (the only country at the time in OPEC that did not join in the 1973 Oil Embargo), and then again in 1979 (where Iran was the only country that set an Embargo against the US), that alone tells me you are making some really silly claims. Oh, and 1973 was a major backfire against OPEC. In fact, several nations left them over that, and all it ultimately did was spur the nations under embargo (US, UK, Japan, Etc) to expand their own petroleum industry again. You know, like those fields in Canada and the North Sea.
And in 1979, that "Oil Crisis" was entirely Iran. The rest of OPEC laughed, and made record profits as they ignored it. That actually was largely about flow, and did not impact anything even close to 1973. OPEC had already learned its lesson, and did not participate.
But yes, I guess I am a "Bleeding Heart", simply because I care about over 300,000 civilians slaughtered and dumped into mass graves. Am I a bleeding heart also because I care about the over 1.3 million killed by Communists in Cambodia> Or the over 7 million killed by the NSDAP?
That is the difference, I see no difference if they are in Texas or Iraq, it is the job of real Warriors to fight to protect civilians, no matter where they are. Of course, that is also why it is that I do what I do.
Oh, and we did indeed find Chemical Weapons in Iraq.
I find it hilarious that people still insist that none were found. Hell, even WIkileaks released classified documents saying what was found, and where.
WikiLeaks Show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq - With Surprising Results
By late 2003, even the Bush White House’s staunchest defenders were starting to give up on the idea that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. But WikiLeaks’ newly-released Iraq war documents reveal that for years afterward, U.S. troops continued to find chemical weapons labs...
And to top it all off, you have when in 2009, Iraq finally signed off on the Chemical Weapons Convention. And immediately turned over more than 2 bunkers full of chemicals, weapons, and precursors.
Holy hell, even Wikileaks and the UN admitted there were such weapons, as has Iraq itself. Have you really been living under a rock for the last 15 years?
Last edited:
harmonica
Diamond Member
- Sep 1, 2017
- 43,841
- 20,043
- 2,300
..let me get this straight: you say, the troops overseas are on the US border????!!!!!!!
hhshhahahahhahahahahahhaha
- Nov 10, 2019
- 58,431
- 37,681
- 2,490
- Moderator
- #25
I care more about the thousands of American lives lost than you, or those like you. You can decide it was worth it, probably because you did not know and server with many of them. We gained nothing. We never stood a chance of gaining anything, but a wartime economy. You cannot export an American style democracy and mindset of the populace, and you cannot sell it to people at the point of a gun, in a war built on lies.
So I am a "bleeding heart". Interesting.
Iraq was not "Keeping Iran at Bay", the Ba'athist Party (and Saddam) was trying a war of conquest, against what he thought was somebody that could not fight back and nobody would complain about.
After that, he failed, and decided to try again. The only problem is, he picked another country, that people did have a generally favorable opinion about. Kuwait. You know, the country that had a lot of gas stations all over, called "Q8".
Saddam was not "keeping Iran at bay". In fact, if anything he over time made them more expansionistic and wanting to "eliminate outside threats", more than they ever were before his invasion.
And no, you obviously do not know or understand what "No fly" was. First of all, that was not "Us", that was not the US. It was the UN that did that. And it was not even over all of Iraq. It only covered the areas South of Baghdad that were the approaches used to invade Kuwait, and the very Northern areas, where the Kurds were. In essence, anything North of the 36th parallel, and anything below the 32nd Parallel, then later the 33rd Parallel.
And it did not actually prohibit all flights. Just flights of fighter aircraft. Iraq could still fly anything they wanted North or South, just not combat aircraft.
And we did not just "shoot them down". We would (as with the Soviets) first warn them they were in restricted areas, then only after they refused to listen shoot them down when they moved towards locations where they were known to take offensive actions against those on the ground. That was the entire idea, to protect those on the ground that Iraq was attacking.
I can go on, but I have already made a point, tearing apart your very opening claims.
And "guarding us from Iran (the only country at the time in OPEC that did not join in the 1973 Oil Embargo), and then again in 1979 (where Iran was the only country that set an Embargo against the US), that alone tells me you are making some really silly claims. Oh, and 1973 was a major backfire against OPEC. In fact, several nations left them over that, and all it ultimately did was spur the nations under embargo (US, UK, Japan, Etc) to expand their own petroleum industry again. You know, like those fields in Canada and the North Sea.
And in 1979, that "Oil Crisis" was entirely Iran. The rest of OPEC laughed, and made record profits as they ignored it. That actually was largely about flow, and did not impact anything even close to 1973. OPEC had already learned its lesson, and did not participate.
But yes, I guess I am a "Bleeding Heart", simply because I care about over 300,000 civilians slaughtered and dumped into mass graves. Am I a bleeding heart also because I care about the over 1.3 million killed by Communists in Cambodia> Or the over 7 million killed by the NSDAP?
That is the difference, I see no difference if they are in Texas or Iraq, it is the job of real Warriors to fight to protect civilians, no matter where they are. Of course, that is also why it is that I do what I do.
Oh, and we did indeed find Chemical Weapons in Iraq.
I find it hilarious that people still insist that none were found. Hell, even WIkileaks released classified documents saying what was found, and where.
WikiLeaks Show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq - With Surprising Results
By late 2003, even the Bush White House’s staunchest defenders were starting to give up on the idea that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. But WikiLeaks’ newly-released Iraq war documents reveal that for years afterward, U.S. troops continued to find chemical weapons labs...www.wired.com
And to top it all off, you have when in 2009, Iraq finally signed off on the Chemical Weapons Convention. And immediately turned over more than 2 bunkers full of chemicals, weapons, and precursors.
Holy hell, even Wikileaks and the UN admitted there were such weapons, as has Iraq itself. Have you really been living under a rock for the last 15 years?
Mushroom
Gold Member
I care more about the thousands of American lives lost than you, or those like you. You can decide it was worth it, probably because you did not know and server with many of them. We gained nothing. We never stood a chance of gaining anything, but a wartime economy. You cannot export an American style democracy and mindset of the populace, and you cannot sell it to people at the point of a gun, in a war built on lies.
So I am a "bleeding heart". Interesting.
Iraq was not "Keeping Iran at Bay", the Ba'athist Party (and Saddam) was trying a war of conquest, against what he thought was somebody that could not fight back and nobody would complain about.
After that, he failed, and decided to try again. The only problem is, he picked another country, that people did have a generally favorable opinion about. Kuwait. You know, the country that had a lot of gas stations all over, called "Q8".
Saddam was not "keeping Iran at bay". In fact, if anything he over time made them more expansionistic and wanting to "eliminate outside threats", more than they ever were before his invasion.
And no, you obviously do not know or understand what "No fly" was. First of all, that was not "Us", that was not the US. It was the UN that did that. And it was not even over all of Iraq. It only covered the areas South of Baghdad that were the approaches used to invade Kuwait, and the very Northern areas, where the Kurds were. In essence, anything North of the 36th parallel, and anything below the 32nd Parallel, then later the 33rd Parallel.
And it did not actually prohibit all flights. Just flights of fighter aircraft. Iraq could still fly anything they wanted North or South, just not combat aircraft.
And we did not just "shoot them down". We would (as with the Soviets) first warn them they were in restricted areas, then only after they refused to listen shoot them down when they moved towards locations where they were known to take offensive actions against those on the ground. That was the entire idea, to protect those on the ground that Iraq was attacking.
I can go on, but I have already made a point, tearing apart your very opening claims.
And "guarding us from Iran (the only country at the time in OPEC that did not join in the 1973 Oil Embargo), and then again in 1979 (where Iran was the only country that set an Embargo against the US), that alone tells me you are making some really silly claims. Oh, and 1973 was a major backfire against OPEC. In fact, several nations left them over that, and all it ultimately did was spur the nations under embargo (US, UK, Japan, Etc) to expand their own petroleum industry again. You know, like those fields in Canada and the North Sea.
And in 1979, that "Oil Crisis" was entirely Iran. The rest of OPEC laughed, and made record profits as they ignored it. That actually was largely about flow, and did not impact anything even close to 1973. OPEC had already learned its lesson, and did not participate.
But yes, I guess I am a "Bleeding Heart", simply because I care about over 300,000 civilians slaughtered and dumped into mass graves. Am I a bleeding heart also because I care about the over 1.3 million killed by Communists in Cambodia> Or the over 7 million killed by the NSDAP?
That is the difference, I see no difference if they are in Texas or Iraq, it is the job of real Warriors to fight to protect civilians, no matter where they are. Of course, that is also why it is that I do what I do.
Oh, and we did indeed find Chemical Weapons in Iraq.
I find it hilarious that people still insist that none were found. Hell, even WIkileaks released classified documents saying what was found, and where.
WikiLeaks Show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq - With Surprising Results
By late 2003, even the Bush White House’s staunchest defenders were starting to give up on the idea that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. But WikiLeaks’ newly-released Iraq war documents reveal that for years afterward, U.S. troops continued to find chemical weapons labs...
And to top it all off, you have when in 2009, Iraq finally signed off on the Chemical Weapons Convention. And immediately turned over more than 2 bunkers full of chemicals, weapons, and precursors.
Holy hell, even Wikileaks and the UN admitted there were such weapons, as has Iraq itself. Have you really been living under a rock for the last 15 years?
I have done combat deployments myself. I have also lost friends.
And want to know something? I have long thought the State Department were complete and utter morons for insisting "Democracy" in Iraq and Afghanistan. Both should have had their monarchies restored, but with a Constitutional Monarchy, with a strong Parliament along the lines of the UK to ease them into a more modern political system. The entire "Democracy" has been a failure in both nations, as neither one has any foundation in that form of government.
But as I said, that is the failure of the State Department, the military does not make those decisions.
But yes, I would not know and never served. *laugh*
- Nov 10, 2019
- 58,431
- 37,681
- 2,490
- Moderator
- #27
Yep. I hear where and better understand where you are coming from. We were just the enforcement side of the equation, a dirty job, only of profit to others in the industrial military complex of business and politics, echelons above reality.I care more about the thousands of American lives lost than you, or those like you. You can decide it was worth it, probably because you did not know and server with many of them. We gained nothing. We never stood a chance of gaining anything, but a wartime economy. You cannot export an American style democracy and mindset of the populace, and you cannot sell it to people at the point of a gun, in a war built on lies.
So I am a "bleeding heart". Interesting.
Iraq was not "Keeping Iran at Bay", the Ba'athist Party (and Saddam) was trying a war of conquest, against what he thought was somebody that could not fight back and nobody would complain about.
After that, he failed, and decided to try again. The only problem is, he picked another country, that people did have a generally favorable opinion about. Kuwait. You know, the country that had a lot of gas stations all over, called "Q8".
Saddam was not "keeping Iran at bay". In fact, if anything he over time made them more expansionistic and wanting to "eliminate outside threats", more than they ever were before his invasion.
And no, you obviously do not know or understand what "No fly" was. First of all, that was not "Us", that was not the US. It was the UN that did that. And it was not even over all of Iraq. It only covered the areas South of Baghdad that were the approaches used to invade Kuwait, and the very Northern areas, where the Kurds were. In essence, anything North of the 36th parallel, and anything below the 32nd Parallel, then later the 33rd Parallel.
And it did not actually prohibit all flights. Just flights of fighter aircraft. Iraq could still fly anything they wanted North or South, just not combat aircraft.
And we did not just "shoot them down". We would (as with the Soviets) first warn them they were in restricted areas, then only after they refused to listen shoot them down when they moved towards locations where they were known to take offensive actions against those on the ground. That was the entire idea, to protect those on the ground that Iraq was attacking.
I can go on, but I have already made a point, tearing apart your very opening claims.
And "guarding us from Iran (the only country at the time in OPEC that did not join in the 1973 Oil Embargo), and then again in 1979 (where Iran was the only country that set an Embargo against the US), that alone tells me you are making some really silly claims. Oh, and 1973 was a major backfire against OPEC. In fact, several nations left them over that, and all it ultimately did was spur the nations under embargo (US, UK, Japan, Etc) to expand their own petroleum industry again. You know, like those fields in Canada and the North Sea.
And in 1979, that "Oil Crisis" was entirely Iran. The rest of OPEC laughed, and made record profits as they ignored it. That actually was largely about flow, and did not impact anything even close to 1973. OPEC had already learned its lesson, and did not participate.
But yes, I guess I am a "Bleeding Heart", simply because I care about over 300,000 civilians slaughtered and dumped into mass graves. Am I a bleeding heart also because I care about the over 1.3 million killed by Communists in Cambodia> Or the over 7 million killed by the NSDAP?
That is the difference, I see no difference if they are in Texas or Iraq, it is the job of real Warriors to fight to protect civilians, no matter where they are. Of course, that is also why it is that I do what I do.
Oh, and we did indeed find Chemical Weapons in Iraq.
I find it hilarious that people still insist that none were found. Hell, even WIkileaks released classified documents saying what was found, and where.
WikiLeaks Show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq - With Surprising Results
By late 2003, even the Bush White House’s staunchest defenders were starting to give up on the idea that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. But WikiLeaks’ newly-released Iraq war documents reveal that for years afterward, U.S. troops continued to find chemical weapons labs...
And to top it all off, you have when in 2009, Iraq finally signed off on the Chemical Weapons Convention. And immediately turned over more than 2 bunkers full of chemicals, weapons, and precursors.
Holy hell, even Wikileaks and the UN admitted there were such weapons, as has Iraq itself. Have you really been living under a rock for the last 15 years?
I have done combat deployments myself. I have also lost friends.
And want to know something? I have long thought the State Department were complete and utter morons for insisting "Democracy" in Iraq and Afghanistan. Both should have had their monarchies restored, but with a Constitutional Monarchy, with a strong Parliament along the lines of the UK to ease them into a more modern political system. The entire "Democracy" has been a failure in both nations, as neither one has any foundation in that form of government.
But as I said, that is the failure of the State Department, the military does not make those decisions.
But yes, I would not know and never served. *laugh*
Not sure, in this age, we could actually ever give any country a new governmental start of a style chosen by us, democratic or otherwise that would be to our choosing or lasting advantage that would stick. The only winning move was not to play. In my opinion, that goes for the people of that country as well as us.
Mushroom
Gold Member
Yep. I hear where and better understand where you are coming from. We were just the enforcement side of the equation, a dirty job, only of profit to others in the industrial military complex of business and politics, echelons above reality.I care more about the thousands of American lives lost than you, or those like you. You can decide it was worth it, probably because you did not know and server with many of them. We gained nothing. We never stood a chance of gaining anything, but a wartime economy. You cannot export an American style democracy and mindset of the populace, and you cannot sell it to people at the point of a gun, in a war built on lies.
So I am a "bleeding heart". Interesting.
Iraq was not "Keeping Iran at Bay", the Ba'athist Party (and Saddam) was trying a war of conquest, against what he thought was somebody that could not fight back and nobody would complain about.
After that, he failed, and decided to try again. The only problem is, he picked another country, that people did have a generally favorable opinion about. Kuwait. You know, the country that had a lot of gas stations all over, called "Q8".
Saddam was not "keeping Iran at bay". In fact, if anything he over time made them more expansionistic and wanting to "eliminate outside threats", more than they ever were before his invasion.
And no, you obviously do not know or understand what "No fly" was. First of all, that was not "Us", that was not the US. It was the UN that did that. And it was not even over all of Iraq. It only covered the areas South of Baghdad that were the approaches used to invade Kuwait, and the very Northern areas, where the Kurds were. In essence, anything North of the 36th parallel, and anything below the 32nd Parallel, then later the 33rd Parallel.
And it did not actually prohibit all flights. Just flights of fighter aircraft. Iraq could still fly anything they wanted North or South, just not combat aircraft.
And we did not just "shoot them down". We would (as with the Soviets) first warn them they were in restricted areas, then only after they refused to listen shoot them down when they moved towards locations where they were known to take offensive actions against those on the ground. That was the entire idea, to protect those on the ground that Iraq was attacking.
I can go on, but I have already made a point, tearing apart your very opening claims.
And "guarding us from Iran (the only country at the time in OPEC that did not join in the 1973 Oil Embargo), and then again in 1979 (where Iran was the only country that set an Embargo against the US), that alone tells me you are making some really silly claims. Oh, and 1973 was a major backfire against OPEC. In fact, several nations left them over that, and all it ultimately did was spur the nations under embargo (US, UK, Japan, Etc) to expand their own petroleum industry again. You know, like those fields in Canada and the North Sea.
And in 1979, that "Oil Crisis" was entirely Iran. The rest of OPEC laughed, and made record profits as they ignored it. That actually was largely about flow, and did not impact anything even close to 1973. OPEC had already learned its lesson, and did not participate.
But yes, I guess I am a "Bleeding Heart", simply because I care about over 300,000 civilians slaughtered and dumped into mass graves. Am I a bleeding heart also because I care about the over 1.3 million killed by Communists in Cambodia> Or the over 7 million killed by the NSDAP?
That is the difference, I see no difference if they are in Texas or Iraq, it is the job of real Warriors to fight to protect civilians, no matter where they are. Of course, that is also why it is that I do what I do.
Oh, and we did indeed find Chemical Weapons in Iraq.
I find it hilarious that people still insist that none were found. Hell, even WIkileaks released classified documents saying what was found, and where.
WikiLeaks Show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq - With Surprising Results
By late 2003, even the Bush White House’s staunchest defenders were starting to give up on the idea that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. But WikiLeaks’ newly-released Iraq war documents reveal that for years afterward, U.S. troops continued to find chemical weapons labs...
And to top it all off, you have when in 2009, Iraq finally signed off on the Chemical Weapons Convention. And immediately turned over more than 2 bunkers full of chemicals, weapons, and precursors.
Holy hell, even Wikileaks and the UN admitted there were such weapons, as has Iraq itself. Have you really been living under a rock for the last 15 years?
I have done combat deployments myself. I have also lost friends.
And want to know something? I have long thought the State Department were complete and utter morons for insisting "Democracy" in Iraq and Afghanistan. Both should have had their monarchies restored, but with a Constitutional Monarchy, with a strong Parliament along the lines of the UK to ease them into a more modern political system. The entire "Democracy" has been a failure in both nations, as neither one has any foundation in that form of government.
But as I said, that is the failure of the State Department, the military does not make those decisions.
But yes, I would not know and never served. *laugh*
Not sure, in this age, we could actually ever give any country a new governmental start of a style chosen by us, democratic or otherwise that would be to our choosing or lasting advantage that would stick. The only winning move was not to play. In my opinion, that goes for the people of that country as well as us.
The problem was in forcing a system down their throat which they had never had before, and did not trust.
It must be remembered, that both Iraq and Afghanistan had popular Monarchies before they were overthrown by coups. Hell, the last King of Afghanistan was beloved by his people, and the entire Mujahedeen movement was started to kick out the Marxists and restore him to power. Mohammed Zahir Shah was even named "Father of Afghanistan" by popular acclimation, and it was only due to pressure from the State Department he agreed to not try and restore the Monarchy.
There is a lot to be said for a "Modern Constitutional Monarchy", as there is very little difference in most nations between that and actual "Democracy". But the King gives them an individual to rally around, who can help unify the various groups into a common cause. But remove that, and as we have seen in both Iraq and Afghanistan it is largely "mob rule", with none of the various groups talking to each other, or willing to compromise. And both have largely been failed states because of this.
Now as for the rest, I only see "Conspiracy theory - MIC - blah-blah-blah". But I also think we needed to go into both nations. The death tolls by both the Taliban and Ba'ath Parties was a shame and disgrace, and both needed to be put down for the mad dogs that they were.
- Nov 10, 2019
- 58,431
- 37,681
- 2,490
- Moderator
- #29
It is a known problem going back at least 5000 years, not confined to the Middle East or Southwest Asia and always will be. Some people just cannot let of "what if" and "if we just went about it this way or that way".Yep. I hear where and better understand where you are coming from. We were just the enforcement side of the equation, a dirty job, only of profit to others in the industrial military complex of business and politics, echelons above reality.I care more about the thousands of American lives lost than you, or those like you. You can decide it was worth it, probably because you did not know and server with many of them. We gained nothing. We never stood a chance of gaining anything, but a wartime economy. You cannot export an American style democracy and mindset of the populace, and you cannot sell it to people at the point of a gun, in a war built on lies.
So I am a "bleeding heart". Interesting.
Iraq was not "Keeping Iran at Bay", the Ba'athist Party (and Saddam) was trying a war of conquest, against what he thought was somebody that could not fight back and nobody would complain about.
After that, he failed, and decided to try again. The only problem is, he picked another country, that people did have a generally favorable opinion about. Kuwait. You know, the country that had a lot of gas stations all over, called "Q8".
Saddam was not "keeping Iran at bay". In fact, if anything he over time made them more expansionistic and wanting to "eliminate outside threats", more than they ever were before his invasion.
And no, you obviously do not know or understand what "No fly" was. First of all, that was not "Us", that was not the US. It was the UN that did that. And it was not even over all of Iraq. It only covered the areas South of Baghdad that were the approaches used to invade Kuwait, and the very Northern areas, where the Kurds were. In essence, anything North of the 36th parallel, and anything below the 32nd Parallel, then later the 33rd Parallel.
And it did not actually prohibit all flights. Just flights of fighter aircraft. Iraq could still fly anything they wanted North or South, just not combat aircraft.
And we did not just "shoot them down". We would (as with the Soviets) first warn them they were in restricted areas, then only after they refused to listen shoot them down when they moved towards locations where they were known to take offensive actions against those on the ground. That was the entire idea, to protect those on the ground that Iraq was attacking.
I can go on, but I have already made a point, tearing apart your very opening claims.
And "guarding us from Iran (the only country at the time in OPEC that did not join in the 1973 Oil Embargo), and then again in 1979 (where Iran was the only country that set an Embargo against the US), that alone tells me you are making some really silly claims. Oh, and 1973 was a major backfire against OPEC. In fact, several nations left them over that, and all it ultimately did was spur the nations under embargo (US, UK, Japan, Etc) to expand their own petroleum industry again. You know, like those fields in Canada and the North Sea.
And in 1979, that "Oil Crisis" was entirely Iran. The rest of OPEC laughed, and made record profits as they ignored it. That actually was largely about flow, and did not impact anything even close to 1973. OPEC had already learned its lesson, and did not participate.
But yes, I guess I am a "Bleeding Heart", simply because I care about over 300,000 civilians slaughtered and dumped into mass graves. Am I a bleeding heart also because I care about the over 1.3 million killed by Communists in Cambodia> Or the over 7 million killed by the NSDAP?
That is the difference, I see no difference if they are in Texas or Iraq, it is the job of real Warriors to fight to protect civilians, no matter where they are. Of course, that is also why it is that I do what I do.
Oh, and we did indeed find Chemical Weapons in Iraq.
I find it hilarious that people still insist that none were found. Hell, even WIkileaks released classified documents saying what was found, and where.
WikiLeaks Show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq - With Surprising Results
By late 2003, even the Bush White House’s staunchest defenders were starting to give up on the idea that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. But WikiLeaks’ newly-released Iraq war documents reveal that for years afterward, U.S. troops continued to find chemical weapons labs...
And to top it all off, you have when in 2009, Iraq finally signed off on the Chemical Weapons Convention. And immediately turned over more than 2 bunkers full of chemicals, weapons, and precursors.
Holy hell, even Wikileaks and the UN admitted there were such weapons, as has Iraq itself. Have you really been living under a rock for the last 15 years?
I have done combat deployments myself. I have also lost friends.
And want to know something? I have long thought the State Department were complete and utter morons for insisting "Democracy" in Iraq and Afghanistan. Both should have had their monarchies restored, but with a Constitutional Monarchy, with a strong Parliament along the lines of the UK to ease them into a more modern political system. The entire "Democracy" has been a failure in both nations, as neither one has any foundation in that form of government.
But as I said, that is the failure of the State Department, the military does not make those decisions.
But yes, I would not know and never served. *laugh*
Not sure, in this age, we could actually ever give any country a new governmental start of a style chosen by us, democratic or otherwise that would be to our choosing or lasting advantage that would stick. The only winning move was not to play. In my opinion, that goes for the people of that country as well as us.
The problem was in forcing a system down their throat which they had never had before, and did not trust.
It must be remembered, that both Iraq and Afghanistan had popular Monarchies before they were overthrown by coups. Hell, the last King of Afghanistan was beloved by his people, and the entire Mujahedeen movement was started to kick out the Marxists and restore him to power. Mohammed Zahir Shah was even named "Father of Afghanistan" by popular acclimation, and it was only due to pressure from the State Department he agreed to not try and restore the Monarchy.
There is a lot to be said for a "Modern Constitutional Monarchy", as there is very little difference in most nations between that and actual "Democracy". But the King gives them an individual to rally around, who can help unify the various groups into a common cause. But remove that, and as we have seen in both Iraq and Afghanistan it is largely "mob rule", with none of the various groups talking to each other, or willing to compromise. And both have largely been failed states because of this.
Now as for the rest, I only see "Conspiracy theory - MIC - blah-blah-blah". But I also think we needed to go into both nations. The death tolls by both the Taliban and Ba'ath Parties was a shame and disgrace, and both needed to be put down for the mad dogs that they were.
It was never in the card, no matter how it was attempted to stack the deck.
tyroneweaver
Diamond Member
Looka like the new Oregon, Washington, Idaho map
Mushroom
Gold Member
DudleySmith
Diamond Member
- Dec 21, 2020
- 22,369
- 15,940
- 2,288
All pulling out does is leave a clear field for the Soviets and Red Chinese to move in and run them as puppet states, which of course is the real Biden plan. They don't have any restraints, being criminal regimes, and no 'nation building' and 'human rights' factions back home to dragthem down.
DudleySmith
Diamond Member
- Dec 21, 2020
- 22,369
- 15,940
- 2,288
Is that you in the red trunks sitting in the background there, with zero hope of scoring with either of those two chicks?
- Nov 10, 2019
- 58,431
- 37,681
- 2,490
- Moderator
- #34
Russia already lost that one once. Doubt they will go down the same road again now. They are really thinking more about Eastern Europe and being a general pain in the ass, as usual, but doubt they will go to the same place right now. Red Chinese? Maybe with Iran, but just too early for me to say or guess.
Mushroom
Gold Member
Oh yes, because we all know exactly how well that worked last time.
Dayton3
Gold Member
- May 3, 2009
- 3,407
- 1,306
- 198
Actually, the zionist's goal has always been to carve out a Greater Israel as per your map. ...
What would be wrong with that? Most of us could live with it just fine.
AZrailwhale
Diamond Member
We don't have any weapons or equipment in Israel.We also need to pull all of our military weapons and equipment out of the terrorist state of Israel. ...
AZrailwhale
Diamond Member
Without the US holding them back, the Israelis would already own Syria, Lebanon, part of Egypt, all of Saudi Arabia and probably the UAE. The Arab states have lost every war they have fought with the IsraelisActually, the zionist's goal has always been to carve out a Greater Israel as per your map. ...
fncceo
Diamond Member
- Nov 29, 2016
- 47,421
- 42,032
- 3,615
I don't know how The Saudis feel. But, The Israelis have always been able to take care of themselves.
Israel kicked major ass in three wars while under an arms embargo from the US and most European countries.
They learned to make their own weapons...
Dayton3
Gold Member
- May 3, 2009
- 3,407
- 1,306
- 198
Note quite true.
In the 1973 Yom Kippur War Israel faced massive shortages of military hardware and the U.S. airlifted a vast amount as part of "Operation Nickel Grass".
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
-
32,000 Street Lights Are Out in Democrat Hellhole LA, Mostly Tied to Rampant Copper Theft- Started by excalibur
- Replies: 8
-
