Every Obamaton should take in a Syrian refugee...

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by bambino

If we didn't castrate the Republican Gaurd, maybe that fierce army would have protected Iraq. At one time, they were ranked as the #4 military in the world.

It was #4 in size .. as in the number of people.

You might want to read this article:
http://kurzman.unc.edu/death-tolls-o...iran-iraq-war/

Lets "assume" the countries were correct in their estimates/disclosures:

Iraq lost about 500,000 and Iran about 750,000.

Then you might want to read this assessment:
http://www.history.com/topics/iran-iraq-war

Here is a portion (over view):
"Three things distinguish the Iran-Iraq War. First, it was inordinately protracted, lasting longer than either world war, essentially because Iran did not want to end it, while Iraq could not. Second, it was sharply asymmetrical in the means employed by each side, because though both sides exported oil and purchased military imports throughout, Iraq was further subsidized and supported by Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, allowing it to acquire advanced weapons and expertise on a much larger scale than Iran. Third, it included three modes of warfare absent in all previous wars since 1945: indiscriminate ballistic-missile attacks on cities by both sides, but mostly by Iraq; the extensive use of chemical weapons (mostly by Iraq); and some 520 attacks on third-country oil tankers in the Persian Gulf-for which Iraq employed mostly manned aircraft with antishipping missiles against tankers lifting oil from Iran’s terminals, while Iran used mines, gunboats, shore-launched missiles, and helicopters against tankers lifting oil from the terminals of Iraq’s Arab backers.

"When Saddam Hussein, president of Iraq, quite deliberately started the war, he miscalculated on two counts: first, in attacking a country greatly disorganized by revolution but also greatly energized by it-and whose regime could be consolidated only by a long “patriotic” war, as with all revolutionary regimes; and second, at the level of theater strategy, in launching a surprise invasion against a very large country whose strategic depth he was not even trying to penetrate. Had Iran been given ample warning, it would have mobilized its forces to defend its borderlands; that would have made the Iraqi invasion much more difficult, but in the process the bulk of Iranian forces might have been defeated, possibly forcing Iran to accept a cease-fire on Iraqi terms. As it was, the initial Iraqi offensive thrusts landed in the void, encountering only weak border units before reaching their logistical limits. At that point, Iran had only just started to mobilize in earnest."

Now fast forward to 1991 to 2003.... or even today.

#1: Iraq ATTACKED IRAN before IRAN was "organized"!
#2: Iraq used ballistic missiles and chemicals.

Now explain to the world how Iraq would be able to "stop" Iran today?

That's why the "talking point" ANTI-BUSHERS on here don't know shit from shinola about what they post when they talk shit about Iraq being some "countermeasure" against Iran! They run the risk of justifying the 2003 RE-invasion.... but that's what happens when folks attack before thinking .... just like Iraq did ... more than once!

I'm going to say this, and that's all:
In the mid to late-60's there was more than one war in progress in the World.

The Israelis have shown their ability to "handle" the region effectively and efficiently. But I can understand why the Jew Haters don't want to admit such a thing.....THEN or NOW!

Go back to the small print on the Kuwait and 2003 efforts and find the Israeli "foot print" in both of them. #1 the Israelis know the "lay of the land" and had the scud sites identified during the Kuwait conflict and were monitoring the "mobile" scuds to neutralize them, #2 the Israelis get along with the Kurds WELL! Go back to 2003 how did the "Kurdish" area of Iraq turn out EARLY ON ... remember the Russian "convoy" escaping Baghdad into the "Kurdish" area .... ? Look it up.

[bambino]

I

Originally Posted by LexusLover

It was #4 in size .. as in the number of people.

You might want to read this article:
http://kurzman.unc.edu/death-tolls-o...iran-iraq-war/

Lets "assume" the countries were correct in their estimates/disclosures:

Iraq lost about 500,000 and Iran about 750,000.

Then you might want to read this assessment:
http://www.history.com/topics/iran-iraq-war

Here is a portion (over view):
"Three things distinguish the Iran-Iraq War. First, it was inordinately protracted, lasting longer than either world war, essentially because Iran did not want to end it, while Iraq could not. Second, it was sharply asymmetrical in the means employed by each side, because though both sides exported oil and purchased military imports throughout, Iraq was further subsidized and supported by Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, allowing it to acquire advanced weapons and expertise on a much larger scale than Iran. Third, it included three modes of warfare absent in all previous wars since 1945: indiscriminate ballistic-missile attacks on cities by both sides, but mostly by Iraq; the extensive use of chemical weapons (mostly by Iraq); and some 520 attacks on third-country oil tankers in the Persian Gulf-for which Iraq employed mostly manned aircraft with antishipping missiles against tankers lifting oil from Iran’s terminals, while Iran used mines, gunboats, shore-launched missiles, and helicopters against tankers lifting oil from the terminals of Iraq’s Arab backers.

"When Saddam Hussein, president of Iraq, quite deliberately started the war, he miscalculated on two counts: first, in attacking a country greatly disorganized by revolution but also greatly energized by it-and whose regime could be consolidated only by a long “patriotic” war, as with all revolutionary regimes; and second, at the level of theater strategy, in launching a surprise invasion against a very large country whose strategic depth he was not even trying to penetrate. Had Iran been given ample warning, it would have mobilized its forces to defend its borderlands; that would have made the Iraqi invasion much more difficult, but in the process the bulk of Iranian forces might have been defeated, possibly forcing Iran to accept a cease-fire on Iraqi terms. As it was, the initial Iraqi offensive thrusts landed in the void, encountering only weak border units before reaching their logistical limits. At that point, Iran had only just started to mobilize in earnest."

Now fast forward to 1991 to 2003.... or even today.

#1: Iraq ATTACKED IRAN before IRAN was "organized"!
#2: Iraq used ballistic missiles and chemicals.

Now explain to the world how Iraq would be able to "stop" Iran today?

That's why the "talking point" ANTI-BUSHERS on here don't know shit from shinola about what they post when they talk shit about Iraq being some "countermeasure" against Iran! They run the risk of justifying the 2003 RE-invasion.... but that's what happens when folks attack before thinking .... just like Iraq did ... more than once!

I'm going to say this, and that's all:
In the mid to late-60's there was more than one war in progress in the World.

The Israelis have shown their ability to "handle" the region effectively and efficiently. But I can understand why the Jew Haters don't want to admit such a thing.....THEN or NOW!

Go back to the small print on the Kuwait and 2003 efforts and find the Israeli "foot print" in both of them. #1 the Israelis know the "lay of the land" and had the scud sites identified during the Kuwait conflict and were monitoring the "mobile" scuds to neutralize them, #2 the Israelis get along with the Kurds WELL! Go back to 2003 how did the "Kurdish" area of Iraq turn out EARLY ON ... remember the Russian "convoy" escaping Baghdad into the "Kurdish" area .... ? Look it up.

First off, I'm not anti Bush. But you don't have to agree with everything he did. Hindsight is always 20/20. We were backing Iraq in their war with Iran. Hussein was against supporting the fundamentalists. We could have easily contained Saddam without taking him out and destroying his military. Hussein knew he couldn't survive a war with the U.S. IMHO, if he and his military were left intact, Iran would not be as strong in the region as they are today and ISIS would not control parts of Iraq.

http://mearsheimer.uchicago.edu/pdfs/A0032.pdf

[WTF]

Originally Posted by bambino

I

First off, I'm not anti Bush. But you don't have to agree with everything he did. Hindsight is always 20/20. We were backing Iraq in their war with Iran. Hussein was against supporting the fundamentalists. We could have easily contained Saddam without taking him out and destroying his military. Hussein knew he couldn't survive a war with the U.S. IMHO, if he and his military were left intact, Iran would not be as strong in the region as they are today and ISIS would not control parts of Iraq.

http://mearsheimer.uchicago.edu/pdfs/A0032.pdf

Let us not forget that Saddam had no problem with the Christians in Iraq. They lived in relative safety. I'm sure LL will spin just how the GWB induced invasion in 2003 improved their lives.

[southtown4488]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

You can't get much more stupid than this. A gun owning household probably has more than one gun which means if more than one person lives there then they both have access to gun. No slaughter, no massacre and more likely to repel a criminal than without a gun.

riiiight, people who live in a home with a gun. . .are more likely to be killed with a gun than someone who lives in a home without a gun. dummy.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by bambino

I

First off, I'm not anti Bush. But you don't have to agree with everything he did. Hindsight is always 20/20. We were backing Iraq in their war with Iran. Hussein was against supporting the fundamentalists. We could have easily contained Saddam without taking him out and destroying his military. Hussein knew he couldn't survive a war with the U.S. IMHO, if he and his military were left intact, Iran would not be as strong in the region as they are today and ISIS would not control parts of Iraq.

http://mearsheimer.uchicago.edu/pdfs/A0032.pdf

I'm not being "argumentative" just for the sake of intellectual stimulation.

I do disagree that Iraq was a "counter-strength" against Iran.

The Israelis had already kicked Iraq around in the late 60's, along with any other Arab country who thought they would gang up on Israel.

I also disagree with the notion that "Hussein knew he couldn't survive a war with the U.S.," because #1 I believe he believed in 1991 that we would not resist him invading Kuwait and #2 I believe he believed we wouldn't hit him again in 2003, because we didn't in 1998 and we pussy footed around with the U.N. Toe-to-toe, one-on-one he would be delusional to have thought he could defeat the U.S., but to maintain his "grip" he had to talk shit and beat his chest.....and play an "ace in the hole" like he did against Iran.

I believe that Saddam believed this country didn't have the stomach for a protracted urban ground war and if he could string it out long enough we would quit. I believe that is what former NV military decisions makers informed him and history proved it.....and it is being proven again today as we post.

The short is ... Iraq attacked Iran .. and then a decade later Kuwait.

Clinton had it right and I agree with him at the time. I thought he would follow through and get it done. He didn't. Neither will his wife, btw.

[bambino]

Originally Posted by southtown4488

riiiight, people who live in a home with a gun. . .are more likely to be killed with a gun than someone who lives in a home without a gun. dummy.

Great! Go buy a gun cuntface, then shoot yourself.

[bambino]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

I'm not being "argumentative" just for the sake of intellectual stimulation.

I do disagree that Iraq was a "counter-strength" against Iran.

The Israelis had already kicked Iraq around in the late 60's, along with any other Arab country who thought they would gang up on Israel.

I also disagree with the notion that "Hussein knew he couldn't survive a war with the U.S.," because #1 I believe he believed in 1991 that we would not resist him invading Kuwait and #2 I believe he believed we wouldn't hit him again in 2003, because we didn't in 1998 and we pussy footed around with the U.N. Toe-to-toe, one-on-one he would be delusional to have thought he could defeat the U.S., but to maintain his "grip" he had to talk shit and beat his chest.....and play an "ace in the hole" like he did against Iran.

I believe that Saddam believed this country didn't have the stomach for a protracted urban ground war and if he could string it out long enough we would quit. I believe that is what former NV military decisions makers informed him and history proved it.....and it is being proven again today as we post.

The short is ... Iraq attacked Iran .. and then a decade later Kuwait.

Clinton had it right and I agree with him at the time. I thought he would follow through and get it done. He didn't. Neither will his wife, btw.

I didn't say you were being argumentative. I'll agree to disagree. For better or worse, Saddam kept Iraq whole, not fragmented like it is today. It's pretty much gone now, prolly never return. Iran and ISIS now control large parts of Iraq, that wasn't the case when Saddam was in power. That's a fact. So, Hussien was a deterrent to Iran and extremists.

[southtown4488]

Originally Posted by bambino

Great! Go buy a gun cuntface, then shoot yourself.

Typical angry republicunt. Go fuck ur mother again, have another inbred gun loving ape child.

[bambino]

Originally Posted by southtown4488

Typical angry republicunt. Go fuck ur mother again, have another inbred gun loving ape child.

Who's angry cuntface? Just using your favorite word to describe you. I think it's you that is angry, and stupid.

[southtown4488]

Originally Posted by bambino

Who's angry cuntface? Just using your favorite word to describe you. I think it's you that is angry, and stupid.

just returning the favor. im glad to debate adults on an adult level. if u wanna throw insults cause u have a weak argument then ill will be kind enough to give it back to u. cunt.

[bambino]

Originally Posted by southtown4488

just returning the favor. im glad to debate adults on an adult level. if u wanna throw insults cause u have a weak argument then ill will be kind enough to give it back to u. cunt.

Really? Your title says Republicunts. So you were insulting from the getgo. And you continually call people cunts. You're a dirtball, don't try to portray yourself as something different.

[southtown4488]

Originally Posted by bambino

Really? Your title says Republicunts. So you were insulting from the getgo. And you continually call people cunts. You're a dirtball, don't try to portray yourself as something different.

Republicunts is a term of endearment. u gonna cry now? U pussies love to dish it it out but cant take it in return. That's why Trump cries when people call him out for what he is, fuck him and fuck u too. Half ape knuckle dragger.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by WTF

Let us not forget that Saddam had no problem with the Christians in Iraq.

Deflecting again. You really are an amateur.

[Rey Lengua]

Originally Posted by southtown4488

Republicunts is a term of endearment. u gonna cry now? U pussies love to dish it it out but cant take it in return. That's why Trump cries when people call him out for what he is, fuck him and fuck u too. Half ape knuckle dragger.

Patras, chapete, patras !

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by southtown4488

....Trump cries when people call him out .....

Originally Posted by Rey Lengua

Patras, chapete, patras !

Trump could write a check to buy that TownClown ....

.. and think it was monthly service charge for his personal account.