- Banned
- #41
You do realize that the toppling of Saddam is what freed any of this to happen so your theory has no merit.
You may (or not) have noticed that I stated OUR TROOPS....never stated
"Had we listened to him, thousands of our troops would still be alive or not maimed....trillions of our dollars saved"
He indeed predicted, or proposed this years ago however your quoted piece above presupposes that the Shia and the Sunni would now just sing kumbaya an smoke a bowl together as pals.
You do realize that the toppling of Saddam is what freed any of this to happen so your theory has no merit.
Of course, I do....we DID basically start a civil war in Iraq....something that your ilk should be very "proud" of......
AND, wingers should also be getting a big "THANK YOU" note
from Iran for helping them get rid of Hussein.
Finally you may have notice that I stated OUR TROOPS not dying in that hell hole.
You don't seem too bright.
I'll try and dumb it down for you.
You see "our troops" were/are already there.
Splitting the country up will not stop the violence in the region, it would not have prevented it in the beginning either....there would still have been a "civil war" there will never be peace there (which is why we don't belong there).
Shia will/would still be killing Sunni.
Everyone would still hate the Kurds.
And Isis?
Nobody can really say, these groups come and go and they seem to always try and "out" terror the last one.
The ONLY thing that would have kept ANY of his (aside from Isis) would have been to leave Saddam alone.
It was/is a huge blunder to be there.
Now I fully understand that this may confuse you even more because in your tiny little brain it won't fit your little "ilk" stereotype.