Do you think that our involvement in the Middle East is worth it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VirtualG

Great comment. Agreed.
For those of you who dont know the president before Suddam was assasinated by the CIA in a black ops mission. The Us the position Saddam as leader in a fixed election as they had an agreement to allow the US to have access to the oil deposits beneath the land. After a certain amount of time Suddam realised his potential power over the US and started the war by refusing access to teh oil deposits causing retaliation from the United States.

---

I have read Iraqi history briefly and the President which Saddam overthrew was overthrown because he was old and was a weak leader, and as far as I know lived for quite a number of years after being ousted from office. If you track the transformation of Iraq from the period Saddam Hussein took over you would have a different opinion of him, especially when compared to other middle eastern leaders he looked like a pussycast, as he allowed women to have higher positions in society, allowed them to wear western clothes and abolished Sharia courts - along with transforming Iraq from the dustroad hell hole it was into a regional power.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ardemax

the soviets fought the same people like 10 years before the start - they lost 12,000 troops and lots of helicopters

so we need more helicopters? so they can get blown up?

the small american droids are doing wonders, let's use them

---

We need more helicopters to win the battle, along with the fact rescue missions are taking far too long because lack of helicopters therefore endangering our lives. This is what always infuriates me about the left, we have money for other countrys, the European Union, art projects and so on yet we dont have money for our own troops - pure and utter arrogance and treason.

You don't enter a battle with a pitchfolk faced with machine guns.

ukip, i think britain will have more experience with spears against pistols if u know what i mean

more helicopters will cost us money for them to be destroyed again

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ardemax

ukip, i think britain will have more experience with spears against pistols if u know what i mean

more helicopters will cost us money for them to be destroyed again

---

..then you should know the basics of war, we dont have helicopters, ships, guns, tanks and so on for the hell of it to sit in docks/barracks and look pretty. If we have more helicopters they'll be in good use, yes some will be lost but the majority will come home and can be used again, along with protecting our soldiers.

if in doubt pull out

I think we should never have gone there in the first place. (and the leader before saddam was assasinated, Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr, if you check, was forced to step down and was removed due to "health reasons" but they never disclosed what type of illness, and how many others were executed due to "espionage"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VirtualG

I think we should never have gone there in the first place. (and the leader before saddam was assasinated, Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr, if you check, was forced to step down and was removed due to "health reasons" but they never disclosed what type of illness, and how many others were executed due to "espionage"

---

He was in bad health whilst in office and was no threat to the new Ba'ath leadership, he died in 1982 I think which is three to four years after Saddam Hussein took over the leadership.

I just googled it...

I also did to check on it again, and it came up with exactly as I said, he was in ill health at the time he was overthrown (1979) and died in 1982, which points to the fact that he was no threat to the new government of Iraq and the interests of the CIA & United States.

Sorry, I still disagree. I trust my proof.