quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967



So you don't think 100 kilometers is any different than crossing an unmarked border? So how far does an armed force have to penetrate before it becomes an invasion?

If Obama was so smart, why did he involve us in Libya, Yemen, and possibly Syria?Wasn't his promise to get us OUT of the Middle East?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967



So you don't think 100 kilometers is any different than crossing an unmarked border? So how far does an armed force have to penetrate before it becomes an invasion?

If Obama was so smart, why did he involve us in Libya, Yemen, and possibly Syria?Wasn't his promise to get us OUT of the Middle East?

By your logic about the border, illegals shouldn't be arrested till they get to LA

If a military force crosses a border deliberately without permission, it's invading. it doesn't matter if it's a hundred meters or a hundred Km.

Our involvement in Libya had exactly ZERO, count em, ZERO ground troops.
Yemen happens to be the hotspot for Al Quaida right now. Next month, it might be Indonesia or the Southern Philippines.
Syria has shown no indications that we're going to put troops on the ground. (They don't have enough oil). Weren't you one of the Dittoheads years ago that was saying "We either fight em over there or we're gonna be fighting them over here."?
By the way, you forgot about "Killing Christians in Africa" but I'll give ya a pass on that one for now.

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967



My logic? I asked YOU how far an invader needed to travel, before he's considered an invader.

Actually no, I said we should be fighting a black ops war, and not using standard troops.

What did Syria, Yemen, or Libya have to do with 911? Didn't your side cry that Bush attacked Iraq, despite their having no connection to the terrorist attacks? Now it's ok to attack Syria, Libya, and Yemen?.

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

Bush, Collateral damage measured in hundreds of thousands. Obama, collateral damage measured in dozens.

There's a bit o difference there me laddie.

One, we don't know how much collateral damage Bush caused, he was credited with Shia on Sunni & vice versa deaths too
Two, you're missing my point, it's quite apparent that people who were vehemently opposed to Bush, are cheering on Obama, which is quite hypocritical, wouldn't you agree?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53
Will kindly explained it for you and you still dont get it.

If Bush hadnt declared war on Iraq, who didnt have anything to do with 9/11, then there would have been no Sunni/Shia fighting in Iraq.

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53
Will kindly explained it for you and you still dont get it.

If Bush hadnt declared war on Iraq, who didnt have anything to do with 9/11, then there would have been no Sunni/Shia fighting in Iraq.

Prove it! Prove the sanctions posed by the UN wouldn't have pissed the Sunni off enough for them to take on the Shia minority and win.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

Lmfao..... I think all the dead bodies prove it. You dont even know wtf you are talking about. It was the Sunni who were both in power and the minority of the population, it is laughable you dont even know that simple fact, yet ask me to "Prove it"

Even on the brink of invasion someone had to explain the difference between Shia and Sunni to GWB. Suggesting his post war planning was almost non existent.

quote:


Ba'athist Iraq: 1968–2003
Main article: History of Iraq (1968–2003)

In contrast to the 1963 coup, the 1968 coup led by civilian Ba'ath Party members. The President of Iraq Abdul Rahman Arif, who had taken over from his brother, was a weak leader according to historian Con Coughlin. Hussein, through the Jihaz Haneen, managed to get in contact with several military officers before the coup who either supported the Ba'ath Party, or wanted to use the party as a vehicle to power. Some officers, such as Hardan al-Tikriti, were already members of the party, while Abdul Razzak Nayif, the deputy head of military intelligence, and Colonel Ibrahim Daud, the commander of the Republican Guard were neither party members or sympathetic to their cause. In a surprising turn of events, on 16 July 1968, Nayif and Daud were summoned to the Presidential Palace to Arif, where he asked them if they knew of a imminent coup against him. Both Nayid and Daud denied knowledge of any coup. However, when the Ba'ath Party leadership got a hold on this information, they quickly convened a meeting at al-Bakr's house. The meeting came to the conclusion that the coup had to be initiated as quickly as possible, even if they had to concede to give Nayif and Daud the posts of Prime Minister and Defense Minister, respectively. Hussein, at the meeting, declared, "I am aware that the two officers have been imposed on us and that they want to stab the Party in the back in the service of some interest or other, but we have no choice. We should collaborate with them and liquidate immediately during, or after, the revolution. And I volunteer to carry out the task".[37]
Then Iraqi President Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr, right, and Saddam Hussein as seen in Baghdad, 1978.

The so-called 17 July Revolution was in the purest sense, a military coup, and not a popular revolt against the incumbent government. In comparison to the coups of 1958 and 1963, the 1968 coup was, according to historian Con Coughlin, a "relatively civil affair". The coup, which begun in the early morning of 17 July, was initiated by the seizing of several key positions by the military and Ba'ath Party activists, such as the headquarters of the Ministry of Defense and television-, radio- and the electricity station. All the city's bridges were captured, all telephone lines were cut and at exactly 3 A.M. the order was given to march on the Presidential Palace. President Arif, who was fast asleep, had no control over the situation whatsoever.[38] The plot was masterminded by al-Bakr,[39] but led on the ground by Hussein and Saleh Omar al-Ali.[38] A power struggle, which was anticipated and planned by al-Bakr, between the Ba'ath Party and the military, represented by Nayif and Daud, began.[40] Daud lost his ministership during an official visit to Jordan, while Nayid was exiled after Hussein threatened him and his family with death.[41]

At the time of the party's seizure of power, only 5,000 people were members;[42] by the late 1970s it had increased to 1.2 million members.[43] In 1974 the Iraqi Ba'athists formed the National Progressive Front to broaden support for the government's initiatives. Wranglings within the party continued, and the government periodically purged its dissident members;[44] among them was Fuad al-Rikabi, the party's first Secretary General of the Regional Command.[45] Emerging as the party strongman,[46] Hussein eventually used his growing power[47] to push al-Bakr aside in 1979 and ruled Iraq until the 2003 Invasion of Iraq.[48] Under al-Bakr's tenure, before the Iran–Iraq War, Iraq experienced its most dramatic and successful period of economic growth,[49] with its citizens enjoying standards of health care, housing, instruction and salaries/stipends well comparable to those of European countries. Several major infrastructures were laid down to help with the country's growth,[50] and the Iraqi oil industry was nationalised[51] with help from the Soviet Union; Alexei Kosygin, the Chairman of the USSR Council of Ministers, signed the bilateral treaty, the Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation in 1972.[47]

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53
Will kindly explained it for you and you still dont get it.

If Bush hadnt declared war on Iraq, who didnt have anything to do with 9/11, then there would have been no Sunni/Shia fighting in Iraq.

Prove it! Prove the sanctions posed by the UN wouldn't have pissed the Sunni off enough for them to take on the Shia minority and win.

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967

Sorry to revive a dead thread, but the old man is stalking me in an active thread... Here ya go, old man.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

Lmfao..... I think all the dead bodies prove it. You dont even know wtf you are talking about. It was the Sunni who were both in power and the minority of the population, it is laughable you dont even know that simple fact, yet ask me to "Prove it"

Even on the brink of invasion someone had to explain the difference between Shia and Sunni to GWB. Suggesting his post war planning was almost non existent.

Actually, the group in power was the socialist Ba'ath party, which I mistook for Shia.

So we were BOTH wrong, old man.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53
No stupid, we were not both wrong, you alone were wrong in stating that the Shia were the minority religion. If you knew sweet fa about anything, you would know Saddam Hussein had his power base in the SUNNI northern triangle, with his stronghold in Tikrit.

I am old by date of birth, and cant change that. You at least have the advantage of reading a little so you stop appearing so stupid.

quote:


"Its population of around 23 million is ethnically and religiously diverse. Appro ximately 77% are Arabs. Sunni Muslims form around 17% of the Arab population and dominate the government. About 60% of Iraqis are Shias and 2% are Kurds. The remaining 3% of the population consists of Assyrians, Turkmans, Armenians, Christians and Yazidis."
United Kingdom Joint Intelligence Committee (UKJIC), "Iraq's WMD, The Assessment of the British Government," 09/24/02

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

Rob, you still dont fucking get it do you. Your own post above states that the Shia form 60% of the population and the Sunnis 17%. That would, in any normal persons book, make the Shia the majority. Your post also goes on to state that the Sunni dominate the government. Your own post backs up the points of mine you quoted !!

I`m not making that up its all in your own juvenille post about me needing meds. Everything in it is the opposite of your original position.

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967

I admitted my mistake old man... But neither Saddam Hussein or his Ba'athist party were Sunni, they were secular socialist, and in charge! Hence my comment about the majority growing the balls to overthrow the minority.

I screwed up the sects, but you screwed up everything else... I admitted my mistake, now you can stop whining and admit yours.