by American Imperial State » Wed Mar 16, 2016 9:05 pm
by The Black Forrest » Wed Mar 16, 2016 9:06 pm
by Farnhamia » Wed Mar 16, 2016 9:08 pm
by American Imperial State » Wed Mar 16, 2016 9:09 pm
The Black Forrest wrote:Are you suggesting you can't give people democracy?
by Alyakia » Wed Mar 16, 2016 9:10 pm
by The Republic of Pantalleria » Wed Mar 16, 2016 9:13 pm
by The Republic of Pantalleria » Wed Mar 16, 2016 9:15 pm
The Black Forrest wrote:Are you suggesting you can't give people democracy?
by Saiwania » Wed Mar 16, 2016 9:27 pm
The Republic of Pantalleria wrote:Obviously, I mean if the Iraqi madman were still in power today, the Sunni majority wouldn't be angry, as a result they wouldn't support ISIS, any type of ISIS like group will be gassed or tortured by the regime preventing them from growing.
by Dahon » Wed Mar 16, 2016 9:28 pm
by Dahon » Wed Mar 16, 2016 9:31 pm
The Republic of Pantalleria wrote:The Black Forrest wrote:Are you suggesting you can't give people democracy?
Name me a single Middle Eastern country (with a Musim majority population) that became 'democratic' and follows U.N. Human Rights Laws, which became pro-American and didn't once say death to America...
by Crockerland » Wed Mar 16, 2016 9:32 pm
American Imperial State wrote:Certainly saddam might be an exception because of his external aggressions. But imagine if we had never invaded iraq and supported the syrian and libyan regimes.
by Jamzmania » Wed Mar 16, 2016 9:38 pm
The Alexanderians wrote:"Fear no man or woman,
No matter what their size.
Call upon me,
And I will equalize."
-Engraved on the side of my M1911 .45
by To Quoc Duc » Wed Mar 16, 2016 9:39 pm
Saiwania wrote:The Republic of Pantalleria wrote:Obviously, I mean if the Iraqi madman were still in power today, the Sunni majority wouldn't be angry, as a result they wouldn't support ISIS, any type of ISIS like group will be gassed or tortured by the regime preventing them from growing.
The Shia are the majority in Iraq, so Saddam would have quite a problem if he got into any future confrontations with Iran. The short answer is that yes, Saddam and Gaddafi should've been kept. Even when Iraq was a check against Iran however, Iran still had the upper hand from Iraq having a sizable fifth column that might've defected to Iran at the first opportunity. Saddam being removed was a huge boon to Iran.
The United Colonies of Earth wrote:I prefer To Quoc Duc to willful ignorance any day!
by The Republic of Pantalleria » Wed Mar 16, 2016 9:41 pm
by The Republic of Pantalleria » Wed Mar 16, 2016 9:44 pm
Saiwania wrote:The Republic of Pantalleria wrote:Obviously, I mean if the Iraqi madman were still in power today, the Sunni majority wouldn't be angry, as a result they wouldn't support ISIS, any type of ISIS like group will be gassed or tortured by the regime preventing them from growing.
The Shia are the majority in Iraq, so Saddam would have quite a problem if he got into any future confrontations with Iran. The short answer is that yes, Saddam and Gaddafi should've been kept. Even when Iraq was a check against Iran however, Iran still had the upper hand from Iraq having a sizable fifth column that might've defected to Iran at the first opportunity. Saddam being removed was a huge boon to Iran.
by New Austzeland » Wed Mar 16, 2016 9:45 pm
by The Islamic Cooperative » Wed Mar 16, 2016 9:48 pm
The Black Forrest wrote:Are you suggesting you can't give people democracy?
by USS Monitor » Wed Mar 16, 2016 9:51 pm
by To Quoc Duc » Wed Mar 16, 2016 9:51 pm
New Austzeland wrote:Although they were absolute bastards in their own ways, Daesh likely wouldn't even exist and the region would possibly be more stable today if they were still in power.
The United Colonies of Earth wrote:I prefer To Quoc Duc to willful ignorance any day!
by USS Monitor » Wed Mar 16, 2016 9:52 pm
New Austzeland wrote:Although they were absolute bastards in their own ways, Daesh likely wouldn't even exist and the region would possibly be more stable today if they were still in power.
by Saiwania » Wed Mar 16, 2016 9:54 pm
The Republic of Pantalleria wrote:Wasn't it the Sunnis when he was in power? Or were they just the majority in the West part of the country?
by The Islamic Cooperative » Wed Mar 16, 2016 9:54 pm
by Alyakia » Wed Mar 16, 2016 9:57 pm
Jamzmania wrote:People seem to forget that Saddam had a propensity towards invading his neighbors and a history of using chemical weapons against his own people. He was not a stabilizing force.
by To Quoc Duc » Wed Mar 16, 2016 9:57 pm
Saiwania wrote:The Republic of Pantalleria wrote:Wasn't it the Sunnis when he was in power? Or were they just the majority in the West part of the country?
Iraq has a roughly three way geographic split where it is Kurds to the north, Sunnis to the west, and Shia to the south and east. Relations between the central Iraqi government and Iran are now so great that the Shia portion could very well decide to want to formally be annexed by Iran. But Iran doesn't just yet want to gain jurisdiction over a large area outside of its current national borders.
The United Colonies of Earth wrote:I prefer To Quoc Duc to willful ignorance any day!
by Utilitarian Garibaldi » Wed Mar 16, 2016 10:00 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: American Legionaries, Austria-Bohemia-Hungary, Herador, Likhinia, Maximum Imperium Rex, Plan Neonie, Repreteop, Senkaku, The Vooperian Union, Torisakia, Tungstan
Advertisement