Iraq. Is it better now?? (AKA ISIS/ISIL/IS/name-of-the-week-here) (31 Viewers)

Is Iraq better now?

  • Yes

  • No


Results are only viewable after voting.

Seven

In bocca al lupo, Fabio.
Jun 25, 2003
39,307
#85
Why not? I figure they'd be a fan of Vendee.
Don't you know what happened to a lot of priests? And the anti-Church attitude of the Legislative Assembly? One could say they had their own type of religion in the sense that they believed all of their own bullshit, but all in all they were rather radical in throwing religion down from the top position in society.

ßöмßäяðîëя;2673576 said:
Probably because the French people overthrew a king, and kings in those days represented "God" on Earth.

So the Muslims would probably have followed such a person into the depths of hell.
In a way yes.
 

X Æ A-12

Senior Member
Contributor
Sep 4, 2006
87,934
#86
Funny how no one in this country knew what a 'Kurd' was before the invasion. These 'little' details are fed to people to excuse campaigns like this.
Thats dumb, even I knew what Kurds were long before the war.

I don't know if Iraq is better or worse now. IMO its probably about the same just different problems.
 

Enron

Tickle Me
Moderator
Oct 11, 2005
75,658
#87
Don't you know what happened to a lot of priests? And the anti-Church attitude of the Legislative Assembly? One could say they had their own type of religion in the sense that they believed all of their own bullshit, but all in all they were rather radical in throwing religion down from the top position in society.
I know they killed all the Catholics. I thought everyone was down with that.:D
 

swag

L'autista
Administrator
Sep 23, 2003
84,749
#88
Funny how no one in this country knew what a 'Kurd' was before the invasion. These 'little' details are fed to people to excuse campaigns like this.
No way, Jo-Zé. We certainly knew who Kurds were around the time that Moustache Master gassed the crap out of them. Long before that example became an excuse to invade.

ßöмßäяðîëя;2673584 said:
I knew what a kurd was, Miss Muffitt ate them.
Or, as I learned while on an AC Transit bus in West Oakland at 1am once where a drunken homeless guy threw up all over the bus floor in front of me, "Look at the curds! Look at the curds!!"

Thats dumb, even I knew what Kurds were long before the war.
And Kyle wasn't even born yet. :agree:
 

Zé Tahir

JhoolayLaaaal!
Moderator
Dec 10, 2004
29,281
#89
Stop assuming things.
Sadly you, Andy, and Burke don't really accurately represent the rest of America. In the 10 years I've lived here I've noticed most Americans are oblivious to what happens around the world.

What? Dude, are you serious?
Yeah.

Err.. I think you don't really understand what happened in those days, Ze.
Ok, so then what did you mean?

No way, Jo-Zé. We certainly knew who Kurds were around the time that Moustache Master gassed the crap out of them. Long before that example became an excuse to invade.
Of course but those were people old enough to remember. You guys have to realize something: most people outside this country, anyone ranging from the age of 11+ knows a lot about the world which most of the time just isn't true for people here. You guys have to sit in a 4th class in a European country to realize the level of world knowledge kids have there vs here.
 
OP

ReBeL

The Jackal
Jan 14, 2005
22,871
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread Starter #90
    I gotta like not having a dickhead for a dictator, though I gotta be pissed off about my neighbors blowing shit up all the time.
    What was the solution to the pre-invasion conditions in Iraq you think?
    without the US help, the Saddam family was going to stay for 100 years.. there was no other way than this.
    You make me feel Saddam was the only dictator in the region.:lol:

    If it was just about dictatorship, they should have invaded Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Morocco, Tunisia, Yemen and many others.

    The real reason was just the greed for oil. Nothing else.

    From my viewpoint and seeing more than half million Iraqis living in this country after they were living in their OWN country, it is very sad to see anybody justifying what happened.
     

    Martin

    Senior Member
    Dec 31, 2000
    56,913
    #91
    You make me feel Saddam was the only dictator in the region.:lol:

    If it was just about dictatorship, they should have invaded Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Morocco, Tunisia, Yemen and many others.

    The real reason was just the greed for oil. Nothing else.

    From my viewpoint and seeing more than half million Iraqis living in this country after they were living in their OWN country, it is very sad to see anybody justifying what happened.
    Because most regimes in the region are controlled by the US, so there is no problem to solve. But Saddam refused to cooperate, they didn't have enough power over him.
     
    OP

    ReBeL

    The Jackal
    Jan 14, 2005
    22,871
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread Starter #92
    Because most regimes in the region are controlled by the US, so there is no problem to solve. But Saddam refused to cooperate, they didn't have enough power over him.
    Exactly.

    The worrying thing is that there are still people who try to make Saddam the only tyrant in the region and that everybody else is an angel while in fact many others were (are) more horrible.
     

    Martin

    Senior Member
    Dec 31, 2000
    56,913
    #93
    Exactly.

    The worrying thing is that there are still people who try to make Saddam the only tyrant in the region and that everybody else is an angel while in fact many others were (are) more horrible.
    I don't think anyone ever claimed that Saddam was the only tyrant. But people believe what you tell them and Bush told his people that Saddam is a very bad man. He didn't mention anything else. And thus everyone knew Saddam is a very bad man.
     

    Seven

    In bocca al lupo, Fabio.
    Jun 25, 2003
    39,307
    #94
    I don't think anyone ever claimed that Saddam was the only tyrant. But people believe what you tell them and Bush told his people that Saddam is a very bad man. He didn't mention anything else. And thus everyone knew Saddam is a very bad man.
    Which he was. It's sort of cheap to claim that the American government has manipulated information to justify a wrongful attack on Iraq and then go on and say that Saddam's regime was not all bad.

    Although initially there was little talk of the fact that he was a dictator. It was all about WMD's. As soon as it turned out there weren't any, the climate changed and they started saying they had succesfully removed a dictator.
     

    Fred

    Senior Member
    Oct 2, 2003
    41,113
    #95
    Seven, who said that Saddam's regime was not all bad? I'd really like to see you quote a post that said that. Not necessarily mine, but anyone.
     

    Fred

    Senior Member
    Oct 2, 2003
    41,113
    #96
    Oh and if things became better, why has the number of Iraqi's in gulf countries doubled after the invasion, why has the number of Iraqi's in Jordan in particular tripled at the very least after the invasion. One would think that if things became better more people would be going back to Iraq ever since 2003, but its been the complete opposite, more and more people are trying to get out of there ever since 2003.
     

    Seven

    In bocca al lupo, Fabio.
    Jun 25, 2003
    39,307
    #97
    Seven, who said that Saddam's regime was not all bad? I'd really like to see you quote a post that said that. Not necessarily mine, but anyone.
    Well you did. You claimed there was some measure of safety and security. The way I see it those are good things. So you said the regime was not all bad. Either way saying that you wanted to remove a dictator is a pretty decent argument (if there would be any decent arguments to invade another country besides self defense that is). Saddam's regime was that bad and it's a good thing that he's not there anymore.

    That they have completely fucked up the situation afterwards and that the initial reason was not the dictatorship does not make the argument any less valid.

    In any case it's difficult to tell if it's better or worse. Better in some aspects, much much worse in others.
     

    king Ale

    Senior Member
    Oct 28, 2004
    21,689
    #98
    You make me feel Saddam was the only dictator in the region.:lol:

    If it was just about dictatorship, they should have invaded Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Morocco, Tunisia, Yemen and many others.

    The real reason was just the greed for oil. Nothing else.

    From my viewpoint and seeing more than half million Iraqis living in this country after they were living in their OWN country, it is very sad to see anybody justifying what happened.
    Well I thought you asked people if they believe the situation is better now in Iraq.
     

    king Ale

    Senior Member
    Oct 28, 2004
    21,689
    #99
    Oh and if things became better, why has the number of Iraqi's in gulf countries doubled after the invasion, why has the number of Iraqi's in Jordan in particular tripled at the very least after the invasion. One would think that if things became better more people would be going back to Iraq ever since 2003, but its been the complete opposite, more and more people are trying to get out of there ever since 2003.
    Are you for real? :wth:
     

    Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 25)