What's new

Iraq Near Implosion

you can't shoo away the cat when it has already entered the hen house.


GW-2 was simply an extension or Phase-2 of GW (where phase-1 of GW was GW-1. )

as GW-1 never ended.

Iraq was constantly bombed even after the official end of GW-1

Read what "stormin' Norman" was saying at the "official end" of GW-1.

Maybe for the US, it was a continuation.

But to dispel my conspiracy theories. Can you please enlighten us about the presence of Saudi, Egyptian and Syrian troops among the invaders of Iraq in 2003 as is claimed by you.
 
Maybe for the US, it was a continuation.

But to dispel my conspiracy theories. Can you please enlighten us about the presence of Saudi, Egyptian and Syrian troops among the invaders of Iraq in 2003 as is claimed by you.

you know I was talking about GW-1

And KSA has been part and parcel of American policies since then.

A single statement by one minister or the other will not change the big picture
 
hahahaha


As usual bunch of conspiracy theories are being hatched by the usual constipated conspiracy theorists.


Iraq will be cherished and protected by first and foremost "IRAQIS" if they believe in the concept of Iraqi nation

Iraq will be dumped on and destroyed by first and foremost "IRAQIS" if they DO NOT believe in the concept of Iraqi nation


others will only come in to "help" whichever way Iraqis want to go

mate, your comment came of as sarcastic as well as meaning full at the same time, a hard thing to achieve, I too believe that external forces can only catalyze whatever the Iraqis as a people are trying to do, be it their own destruction or their prosperity.....
 
Was this really Israel's and KSA's doing? The invasion of Iraq turned an anti-Iran state into a solid Iranian client. If Israel and KSA didn't foresee this, then I have a low opinion of their intellect for foreign policy.

he is talking about 1990 war
 
you know I was talking about GW-1

Exactly my point. You started calling me names without even reading what you were commenting on.

And KSA has been part and parcel of American policies since then.

A single statement by one minister or the other will not change the big picture

It was a bit more than a single statement. It was the official Saudi position. Here is what King Abdullah of Jordan was saying. Along term ally of Saudi Arabia.
"King Abdullah, a key partner in the war against terror, warned Mr Blair that military strikes will open a "Pandora's box" and trigger an Arab uprising. The King, in London on his way to meet President Bush, said: "Ask our friends in China, Moscow, in England, in Paris - everybody will tell you that we have concerns about military actions against Iraq.

"In the light of the failure to move the Israeli-Palestinian process forward, military action against Iraq would really open a Pandora's box. All of us are saying, 'Hey, United States, we don't think this is a very good idea'."
Link to full story is here. IRAQ ATTACK PLAN 'ILLEGAL, IMMORAL' King Abdullah Military action against Saddam would open a Pandora's Box Sir Michael Rose ..not enough open debate on moral justification or practicality Lord Bramall Petrol rather than water would have been poured on the flames Tam Dalyell MP Is it being contemplated that we occupy a resentful Iraq? - Free Online Library
 
Exactly my point. You started calling me names without even reading what you were commenting on.



It was a bit more than a single statement. It was the official Saudi position. Here is what King Abdullah of Jordan was saying. Along term ally of Saudi Arabia.

Well you are arguing with the wrong person.

you gotta explain that to Saudis and Jordanians as to why they are still pro-US even when they were against US actions in the region.

Hope you understand
 
Everyone is commenting on this except of Iraqis themselves.
@Doritos11 what do you think?
Has it got worse- yes, it's pretty bad with some areas turned into a war zone.

The reports is biased though. Especially with the "war against Sunnis". I mean if the terrorists just happen to be Sunnis, the ISIL is Sunni, is the Iraqi governemnt supposed to stand aside and let them kill and destroy?

That's a major problem in Iraq. It seems every move is reported in the Sunni-Shia view. We didn't hear about this when the Iraqi army attacked Shia militias in 2008. I have a relative who fought 2 days non-stop against the Shia Mahdi army in 2008. Right now he want to Anbar to take part in the operations against terrorists there. You see the dirty propaganda?
 
Well you are arguing with the wrong person.

you gotta explain that to Saudis and Jordanians as to why they are still pro-US even when they were against US actions in the region.

Hope you understand

I have no desire of arguing with you. In fact you were the one, who jumped in with wrong statement, and on top of that started calling me a conspiracy theorist. When I answered you back with facts and figures you started another circus.

You are supposedly a think tank of PDF, try act like one, read things before you jump to conclusion. Write like a mature person, haha this and hehehe that cheapens your argument.
 
Has it got worse- yes, it's pretty bad with some areas turned into a war zone.

The reports is biased though. Especially with the "war against Sunnis". I mean if the terrorists just happen to be Sunnis, the ISIL is Sunni, is the Iraqi governemnt supposed to stand aside and let them kill and destroy?

That's a major problem in Iraq. It seems every move is reported in the Sunni-Shia view. We didn't hear about this when the Iraqi army attacked Shia militias in 2008. I have a relative who fought 2 days non-stop against the Shia Mahdi army in 2008. Right now he want to Anbar to take part in the operations against terrorists there. You see the dirty propaganda?
That means you are Iraqi?
 
Back
Top Bottom