Started By
Message

re: Latest Updates: Russia-Ukraine Conflict

Posted on 1/29/24 at 1:37 pm to
Posted by Hateradedrink
Member since May 2023
4156 posts
Posted on 1/29/24 at 1:37 pm to
You seem to have confused stability with morality.

It was more stable because of Saddams brutality.
Posted by DabosDynasty
Member since Apr 2017
5180 posts
Posted on 1/29/24 at 1:40 pm to
quote:

You seem to have confused stability with morality.

It was more stable because of Saddams brutality.


Correct
Posted by GOP_Tiger
Baton Rouge
Member since Jan 2005
21042 posts
Posted on 1/29/24 at 1:42 pm to
How was anything more stable with the Iran-Iraq War, the invasion of Kuwait, the Gulf War, and then the need to permanently maintain no-fly zones over parts of Iraq?

In what fantasy was that in any way stable?

If y'all were teenagers, then I'd excuse the ignorance, but I think you're old enough to know better.
Posted by No Colors
Sandbar
Member since Sep 2010
13520 posts
Posted on 1/29/24 at 1:45 pm to
quote:

you won't ever come back in here with the idea that anything was ever "better" with Saddam in power.


Who cares? We aren't the fricking world police. Should we go around overthrowing every backwater dictator we don't like?

The Iraqi people are worse off today because we invaded. The American people are worse off today because we invaded. The people in the Middle East are worse off today because we invaded.

The only group that came out a winner in the whole deal was Iran. Because now they effectively control Iraq. Which was the exact opposite of Bush the Moron's intent.

Posted by Auburn1968
NYC
Member since Mar 2019
26928 posts
Posted on 1/29/24 at 1:51 pm to
quote:

Saddam actually was trying to acquire materials from North Korea but was absolutely nowhere close to getting them let alone justifying our invasion


Saddam did gas the Kurds.

Posted by CitizenK
BR
Member since Aug 2019
16142 posts
Posted on 1/29/24 at 1:54 pm to
quote:

Good Lord. Going into Iraq was based on lies/false intel.


Yes because we were told by Iragi expats that all of the populace would flock to change. No because we know for a fact that Saddam did have the means for chem weapons. He was even prepping a small unit near San Francisco to make them. I've been there and looked at the equipment to assess for resale.

That Saddam didn't have them comes from know nothings about manufacturing. They think there is some large chemical complex needed which is false. they can be made in process units that can fit on the back of a 16 foot pull behind trailer.
Posted by GOP_Tiger
Baton Rouge
Member since Jan 2005
21042 posts
Posted on 1/29/24 at 1:59 pm to
quote:

The only group that came out a winner in the whole deal was Iran. Because now they effectively control Iraq. Which was the exact opposite of Bush the Moron's intent.



No. Iran had very little influence in Iraq until the ISIS invasion captured Mosul.

The reason that Iran has such a grip on Iraq today is because Obama listened to people like you. Obama proclaimed that Assad's use of chemical weapons was a "red line," and then he did almost nothing when that line was crossed. He encourage people to rebel against Assad and then refused to help them.

The chaos in Syria led to the rise of ISIS, and then Obama refused to do anything when ISIS invaded Iraq and captured Mosul. He eventually listened and prevented ISIS from reaching Erbil and completing its genocide against the Yezidis, but not before Iran volunteered to organize militias inside Iraq to oppose ISIS.

The instability in Iraq today, and the reason that the country has turned against America, is because Iran has a significant military control over the country through the militias.

And those militias exist, because Obama didn't want the US to intervene.
Posted by Auburn1968
NYC
Member since Mar 2019
26928 posts
Posted on 1/29/24 at 2:08 pm to
quote:

However, Russia can probably generate at least 100 MBTs a month and therefore retains the capacity to replace battlefield losses and continue this level of offensive activity for the foreseeable future.


A Javelin costs about $180,000 and one of those MBT's is about 2.2 million. Ukrainians have found that drones costing <$1000 carrying old armor piercing RPG heads into the back of the junction of the turret and the tank body have an extremely high kill ratio.

Ukraine is now using wheeled drones with a load of explosives or mines (some harvested from Russian mine fields) to drive up under tanks to detonate.

I wonder if they will get around to designing smallish remote mine detectors that will deposit sets of explosives to detonate and clear a lot of mines very discriminately?
Posted by Auburn1968
NYC
Member since Mar 2019
26928 posts
Posted on 1/29/24 at 2:14 pm to
quote:

Yes because we were told by Iragi expats that all of the populace would flock to change. No because we know for a fact that Saddam did have the means for chem weapons. He was even prepping a small unit near San Francisco to make them. I've been there and looked at the equipment to assess for resale.

That Saddam didn't have them comes from know nothings about manufacturing. They think there is some large chemical complex needed which is false. they can be made in process units that can fit on the back of a 16 foot pull behind trailer.


Not a whole lot of Sarin gas could kill an entire city given the right conditions.
Posted by DabosDynasty
Member since Apr 2017
5180 posts
Posted on 1/29/24 at 2:20 pm to
quote:

No. Iran had very little influence in Iraq until the ISIS invasion captured Mosul.


Wouldn’t have happened if Saddam were left alone.

quote:

The reason that Iran has such a grip on Iraq today is because Obama listened to people like you. Obama proclaimed that Assad's use of chemical weapons was a "red line," and then he did almost nothing when that line was crossed. He encourage people to rebel against Assad and then refused to help them.


This is further evidence it wouldn’t have happened if Saddam were left alone because Obama was weak and didn’t enforce his own redline. He’d have left Saddam alone too and you’d have multiple similarly enough powered countries in the ME not like eachother, but most likely not start a regional war over it.

quote:

The chaos in Syria led to the rise of ISIS, and then Obama refused to do anything when ISIS invaded Iraq and captured Mosul. He eventually listened and prevented ISIS from reaching Erbil and completing its genocide against the Yezidis, but not before Iran volunteered to organize militias inside Iraq to oppose ISIS.


Obama and Clinton funded and armed ISIS. It happened because they wanted it to.

quote:

The instability in Iraq today, and the reason that the country has turned against America, is because Iran has a significant military control over the country through the militias.

And those militias exist, because Obama didn't want the US to intervene.


Also likely doesn’t happen with Saddam still in power.
Posted by GOP_Tiger
Baton Rouge
Member since Jan 2005
21042 posts
Posted on 1/29/24 at 2:25 pm to
As stupid as SirWinston's fluffing Putin.
Posted by Auburn1968
NYC
Member since Mar 2019
26928 posts
Posted on 1/29/24 at 2:28 pm to
quote:


We went to Iraq under HW Bush after they invaded and conquered Kuwait and then threatened Saudi Arabia.

After than the Clinton administration began warning us about Iraq and WMDs. W bought into that and we went back in.


I recall from the time that the buy-in was actually quite bi-partisan. Saddam did gas a lot of Kurds, and he made a lot of threats, but he was caught bluffing and out of his league.
Posted by Lima Whiskey
Member since Apr 2013
22594 posts
Posted on 1/29/24 at 2:35 pm to
Iraq was not a threat to its neighbours in its hobbled state, and the war and the ensuing violence killed at least half a million directly. It also helped spark the Syrian civil war, and led to the emergence of Iran as the regional power.
Posted by doubleb
Baton Rouge
Member since Aug 2006
42759 posts
Posted on 1/29/24 at 2:39 pm to
quote:

I recall from the time that the buy-in was actually quite bi-partisan. Saddam did gas a lot of Kurds, and he made a lot of threats, but he was caught bluffing and out of his league.

It was supported by both Dems and Rs.
Posted by Lima Whiskey
Member since Apr 2013
22594 posts
Posted on 1/29/24 at 2:40 pm to
quote:

A Javelin costs about $180,000 and one of those MBT's is about 2.2 million. Ukrainians have found that drones costing <$1000 carrying old armor piercing RPG heads into the back of the junction of the turret and the tank body have an extremely high kill ratio.

Ukraine is now using wheeled drones with a load of explosives or mines (some harvested from Russian mine fields) to drive up under tanks to detonate.


It's always an arms race. The Russians have put an electronic warfare dome in mass production for their tanks. It's supposed to disable to link between the drone and the operator.
Posted by BoardReader
Arkansas
Member since Dec 2007
7410 posts
Posted on 1/29/24 at 2:47 pm to
quote:

You seem to have confused stability with morality.

It was more stable because of Saddams brutality.


Don't confuse someone else having the problems instead of you, as being stable.

During his tenure, Iraq fought wars with two of its neighbors, built and had a nuclear reactor destroyed, engaged in an actual genocide, used chemical weapons on its own people-- and its hardly a laundry list here.

Stable is not a word appropriate to describe it. Keeping one shite bag confused and at odds with another shite bag, does not lessen the amount of shite in bags in the region.
Posted by Lima Whiskey
Member since Apr 2013
22594 posts
Posted on 1/29/24 at 2:51 pm to
quote:


That Saddam didn't have them comes from know nothings about manufacturing. They think there is some large chemical complex needed which is false. they can be made in process units that can fit on the back of a 16 foot pull behind trailer.


It really wouldn't matter either way, chemical weapons aren't practical weapons, and they're not some unholy equalizer.

quote:

Yes because we were told by Iragi expats that all of the populace would flock to change.


We listened to people who were selling something that would obviously benefit them, which was a foolish. Chalabi was an Iranian agent for example.

The neocons were the single biggest factor though, the war was their idea, and it doesn't happen without them.
Posted by doubleb
Baton Rouge
Member since Aug 2006
42759 posts
Posted on 1/29/24 at 2:52 pm to
quote:

Don't confuse someone else having the problems instead of you, as being stable.


Iran and Iraq at each others throats did provide some order to the region because neither could defeat the other.
Posted by Lima Whiskey
Member since Apr 2013
22594 posts
Posted on 1/29/24 at 2:54 pm to
The Israelis really didn't understand that, which is hard to fathom. They made their situation much worse.
Posted by tigersmanager
Member since Jun 2010
11551 posts
Posted on 1/29/24 at 3:03 pm to
still wasting our money
first pageprev pagePage 3451 of 5046Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram