US service member injured in rocket attack in Iraq

Speaking of the fall of the Berlin Wall...

The fall of the Berlin Wall supposedly happened because of an East German bureaucratic accident on a very interesting date, Nov 9, which is historically called the "German day of destiny."

Ironically, both Merkel [president of Germany] and Putin [president of Russia] were in East Germany the fateful night the Berlin wall mysteriously fell. Merkel was in the crowd that fled to the West... while Putin was a KGB agent [some say he was a Stasi agent] in Dresden, Germany.

.

 

You said... "was just why Saddam needed to be so ruthless."
And go on than.... tell us all why Saddam needed to gas the Kurds. We're all eager to hear this justification of this need to go genocidal.

 

Whatever, but the story smacks of conspiracy and dark forces. The wall fell because
it was going to happen sooner or later - as it was it was later, much later. The whole
USSR collapsed and it wasn't because of some bureaucrat but the painfully slow
acknowledgement that its time had long passed.

 

In no way was there a relatively stable situation, it was utter chaos and destruction caused by the invasion.

 

This is not quite accurate referencing ethnic religious war. Saddam did not care about religion or ethnicity, all he cared about was staying in power. He murdered many of his own family and many in his own government who were mainly Sunni. The war with the Kurds, who are also Sunni, had been ongoing a long time before Saddam came into power (war since circa 1950s). In fact there is a very close family relationship between Iraqi Kurds and Iraqis living in Northern Iraq, many inter-marrying. Even now, many Iraqis who lived in cities such as Mosul fled into Kurdistan during the invasion and also when Daesh took over the north. Saddam did not kill any Shia because of their religion. For one thing, he knew that the Shia community controlled Southern Iraq from which the countries main income flowed through. The Baarth party was in the main, secular

 

I already told you Baghdadi assumed the leadership of the Islamic State in late 2013 .. This does not change the fact that the group he takes command of - is not the same as the tiny group he had command of in Iraq. .. it is a different organization by this time .. far bigger .. and is an amalgamation of all kinds of groups that were not part of the Islamic State of Iraq.

Not sure why you are having so much trouble figuring this out. Your claim that the two were exactly the same - is completely false. And you do not seem to realize that the names put in these groups do not mean much - as groups change names and affiliations all the time.

The new Islamic State - a Portion of which was presided over by Baghdadi - was a far different animal than what was formerly ISIS in Iraq which was formerly Al Qaeda in Iraq.

and at the end of the day - these distinctions within the group do not matter .. as they are all driven by the same Saudi Inspired Extremist ideology - all can be called "Al Qaeda" or Al Qaeda affiliates .

and none of what you are saying changes the fact that Obama armed and supported these Rebels.

 

Are you saying Saddam was not a ruthless head of State?

 

It got worse when we uninvaded.

 

So why does Putin constantly glorify antichrist church-destroying mass-murdering Bolshevik Stalin ??

Hopefully, it's a cover for something else.

.

 

I am sure the reason would be complicated. Stalin showed what a strong Russian
leader looks like. And Stalin is Tradition for those Russians yearning for the past.
But Putin could never do to the Russian people what Stalin did - the people won't
go down that path.

 

You can say all what you want, but he "just happened to be" ruthless against Shia and the Kuds, while he was a Sunni.
THAT, and the Saddam was given a no fly zone to protect just them.

And the context is "What was never understood before the invasion was just why Saddam needed to be so ruthless."
And he had no justification for it, other than cling on to rule the country, not because they were terrorists like ISIS.

 

I asked you why there was a NEED to be ruthless against the Shia and Kurds,... in the context that GWB had totally under estimated what was needed to control the country. I already put up why he failed to have control. If you regard them soldiers of the coalition as cops, he lacked 60% of what the US uses to police around in the country. Israel goes double of it. He simply understaffed the law and order department by a 100,000 people,... EASY out of a 180,000 he had.

 

Saddam was known to have purges of his own people. He killed anyone, no bias there.

 

I agreed with you that George misjudged them nearly as badly as Custer did the Indians. The only way to keep a lid on that area is to screw it down tight which is how Saddam did it. It's not the American way though and failing to do so gave us this mess we're in now.

 

Not

sure what segway you two got off on - but .. we were standing beside Saddam as he gassed the Kurds - so apparently someone felt there was a need to be ruthless .. or that the ends justified the means .. or some such convoluted logic.

Rotten Ronnie - threatened Veto of the "Prevention of Genocide Act" - after getting near unanimous bipartisan approval in the House - it then died in the Senate.

not sure what the convoluted logic was - figured using Saddam as a proxy to get at Iran was worth it I guess.

Daddy Bush increased support to Saddam - never mind the Sanctions recommended in the above POG act.

 

Ah the ol' conspiracy trick. Nothing is what it seems, apparently.
What can you expect from a nation that faked its moon landing,
killed JFK, attacked the innocent people in Nth Viet and Cambodia,
staged the 911 attack, poison us with GM food and even designed
microwave ovens to radiate us to death?

 

Why are you raving on about Conspiracies ? It is not a conspiracy that we were supporting Saddam in his war with Iran - while he was gassing the kurds . . and Iranians.

It is history dude -- don't confuse historical fact with your wild conspiracy theories.

 

You aren't following at all, one more try. The only way to control Iraq was ruthless oppression which is what Saddam did till we destroyed his ability to do so. Bush's plan was to provide security while Iraqi's formed a new government, never suspecting it would be almost as hard as uniting Democrats and Republicans here. Now that isn't condoning ruthless oppression, just accepting that it worked for Saddam and kept him in power.

 

And vaccination chips, don't forget those.

 

I followed what you were saying - but you have not tied it to Iran - which is the topic. I agree that these dictators maintained control - kind of a no brainer that one -- hind sight being 20/20 but completely predictable given the way the whole thing was orchestrated.

When has regime change gone well .. I supposed one could argue that things have turned out ok for Chile .. don't think Pinochet was required for that one..

Most of the rest have been goblin fests .. Central America the ME - Regime change in Iran - how did that go .. Iraq ? Libya ? Syria ? Yemen? Nicaragua ? El Salvador ? Guatemala ? Hondura's ?

 

So, why we were supporting another nation against Iran?

 

No, you just want to support your friend Assad in his dictatorship so you cast anyone who opposes him as an Islamic fundamentalist.

 

It makes no difference no difference why we did what we did - as this does not change the Historical Fact - that we were supporting Saddam and on his side during the Iraq/Iran war.

Upon hearing this history - you screeched and shouted - "Conspiracy - Conspiracy" - in a fit of name calling and demonization of the messenger tactics.

You may first concede your error - then we can get into the why.

 

"Why" we do things is seriously important. It's the stuff of history. We supported Iran's
enemies on the simple basis that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. And Iran has
shown itself to be quite an enemy. Its Next Step will be to go nuclear, and overnight
Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey go nuclear. So there's big issues involved.

 

No Bob - once again you have it backwards - desperate to deny the reality before you by trying to demonize the messenger.

The people of Syria did not like Assad much either - but as it turned out - the army opposing Assad - those doing the actual fighting against Assad - were indeed Islamic Fundamentalists .. and they created a New Islamic State within Syria.

You keep trying to claim that the Islamic State - were "Moderates" claiming that Obama was only supporting Moderate Rebels - because your mind can not handle the already written historical fact - that Obama was Arming and Supporting Al Qaeda and the other groups who went on to form this new Islamic State.

So massive is your desperation to avoid this horrible thought - that for 10 posts you tried to claim that the folks fighting Assad - were the Kurds - which was shown to be abject nonsense 10 times . told that you were not even in the right time period .. . yet you kept returning to the same vomit - over and over - like a parrot on a broken record.

So absurd is this mind twisting mental absurdity - that one might consider such actions to be that of a Paid Shill for Saudi Arabia - do deep is your love and devotion -