Breaking: Iraqi President appoints new prime minister, and It's not Maliki

[That Guy]

Maliki agreed to leave.

Good, at least he realizes that his leaving is for the best. Credit where credit is due, he earns my respect for that much at least.

Also, article confirms this...
BBC News - Iraq crisis: Maliki quits as PM to end deadlock

 

[IR1907]

So lets see what Iraq has gone through since modern times, just the big events.

- 3 wars with Israel
- Several military coups
- 8 year war with Iran costing a million lifes and $500 billion gone to hell.
- Infrastructure completely destroyed by the US in a war where massive firepower was used (1991)
- Heavy sanctions on iraq of a decade, caused lack of food and medicine result is 500.000 dead children ( admitted by Madeline Albright on vid)
- Between 1991 and 2003 several hundreds of tomahawk missiles fired on Iraq.
- 2003 another war removing Saddam
-2006 start of a civil war because of the Askari mosque bombings lasting 2 years.
- Ongoing ISIS insurgency ( most capable terror group in the world)

So Pakistan went through worse?

If that guy really argues with this then it is all clear what he is all about. No country after WWII have gone through the $hit like Iraq did.

Also why do we bring Pakistan into this ? What have they to do with Iraq at all ? Let them deal with their own problems, the Pakistani sectarian terrorists are unwanted in Iraq.

 

[That Guy]

Is that worse? What a joke, India is not USA

Now if you don't mind eat some USAF bombardement, you wouldn't stand long against the US

then you can speak

Clearly you haven't read about the Indian-Pakistani wars. Pakistan and India are and have for the longest time been leagues ahead of any Arab state when it comes to military prowess, and that includes Iraq. While Pakistan would probably lose to the US, I highly doubt that the US would have such an easy time of it like they did in Iraq, where half the military just collapsed on itself.

Anyways, you're arguing something totally different than what the point originally was.

 

[1000]

Clearly you haven't read about the Indian-Pakistani wars. Pakistan and India are and have for the longest time been leagues ahead of any Arab state when it comes to military prowess, and that includes Iraq. While Pakistan would probably lose to the US, I highly doubt that the US would have such an easy time of it like they did in Iraq, where half the military just collapsed on itself.

Anyways, you're arguing something totally different than what the point originally was.

India-Pakistan wars, not too many died for all I know, if it's not over million then it doesn't mean much more then the arab wars

I don't remember the US having an easy time, 1991 was a battle of heavy equipments.
Tanks and airpower mainly. Technology did the work. Pakistani air force wouldn't last an hour against the USAF either. As for a ground invasion the mountains and large population make it harder but those natural factors are irrelevant

If you mean 2003, no one was interested in fighting conventional war against a much stronger force while the state was dieing under sanctions, people wanted change.

I like to ruin the thread, topic has been discussed

 

[That Guy]

India-Pakistan wars, not too many died for all I know, if it's not over million then it doesn't mean much more then the arab wars

I don't remember the US having an easy time, 1991 was a battle of heavy equipments.
Tanks and airpower mainly. Technology did the work. Pakistani air force wouldn't last an hour against the USAF either. As for a ground invasion the mountains and large population make it harder but those natural factors are irrelevant

If you mean 2003, no one was interested in fighting conventional war against a much stronger force while the state was dieing under sanctions, people wanted change.

You don't understand the basic costs of war, do you? You continue to look at the human and military costs, not the financial and material resource costs. Simple example, World war 2, for the US, cost close to $350 billion; compare that to the 2003 Iraq war, which has cost the US $1.7 trillion.

Despite the fact that the US lost hundreds of thousands of more soldiers in world war 2, it was still far cheaper than Iraq, where their total dead was less than 5,000.

Almost every single war between Pakistan and India has involved heavy equipment, your point is meaningless. PAF may not be as good as the USAF, but it would certainly last longer, and do more damage than the Iraqi air force ever has.

Again, your arguments are pointless.

 

[1000]

You don't understand the basic costs of war, do you? You continue to look at the human and military costs, not the financial and material resource costs. Simple example, World war 2, for the US, cost close to $350 billion, compare that to the 2003 Iraq war, which has cost the US $1.7 trillion.

Despite the fact that the US lost hundreds of thousands of more soldiers in world war 2, it was still far cheaper than Iraq, where their total dead was less than 5,000.

Almost single war between Pakistan and India has involved heavy equipment, your point is meaningless. PAF may not be as good as the USAF, but it would certainly last longer, and do more damage than the Iraqi air force ever has.

Again, your arguments are pointless.

So your point is Pakistan lost a lot of money in it's wars, iran iraq war, $ 500 bil cost I don't think all Pak wars combined reach that cost

PAF F16 will be blinded by USAF electronic warfare, they built it and know everything about it.
J7 = trash
JF17, unproven and won't stand the f15/18
Mirage 2000 your only chance.

'would' never happened so the above might be the scenario instead. None of your posts on this thread had valuable points either just news reports being repeated

 

[That Guy]

So your point is Pakistan lost a lot of money in it's wars, iran iraq war, $ 500 bil cost I don't think all Pak wars combined reach that cost

PAF F16 will be blinded by USAF electronic warfare, they built it and know everything about it.
J7 = trash
JF17, unproven and won't stand the f15/18
Mirage 2000 your only chance.

'would' never happened so the above might be the scenario instead. None of your posts on this thread had valuable points either just news reports being repeated

This post proves how little you know about war. It's not just the machine that counts, it's the pilot behind the machine.

Pakistan has lot a lot more than $500 billion. Considering that you know little about this topic, I suggest you stop making a fool out of yourself.

 

[mahatir]

This post proves how little you know about war. It's not just the machine that counts, it's the pilot behind the machine.

Pakistan has lot a lot more than $500 billion. Considering that you know little about this topic, I suggest you stop making a fool out of yourself.

To be fair I think the Shia and Sunni Arabs in iraq are not worth toilet paper , my sympathy goes only with the kurds who deserve independence while the subhuman shias and sunnis can continue slaughtering each other over the basement dude .

 

[That Guy]

To be fair I think the Shia and Sunni Arabs in iraq are not worth toilet paper , my sympathy goes only with the kurds who deserve independence while the subhuman shias and sunnis can continue slaughtering each other over the basement dude .

That assertion isn't fair at all. It's late here, so I'm not going to start a new argument, but I suggest you look at the history of the region starting after WW2, it'll give you a better understand, and show you that the Kurdish groups are pretty bad as well.

 

[ejaz007]

Iraq needs a strong military man as PM.
any Generals worthy to lead?

How about General Bush. He has plenty of experience creating problems in other countries.

 

[1000]

This post proves how little you know about war. It's not just the machine that counts, it's the pilot behind the machine.

Pakistan has lot a lot more than $500 billion. Considering that you know little about this topic, I suggest you stop making a fool out of yourself.

Yes you have good pilots but so does the USAF + better equipment

To be fair I think

The opinion of a bedouin is irrelevant.

 

[That Guy]

Yes you have good pilots but so does the USAF + better equipment

Again, I didn't say Pakistan would win, rather, it would certainly do a lot more damage than Iraq ever could.

The opinion of a bedouin is irrelevant.

No less than yours or mine, I suspect. I disagree with him, just as you seem to do, but you can hardly call this conversation on a forum any more relevant than his comment.