We have, and not just in Africa and the ME. But since you selected the Middle East, let's point to Iraqi Kurdistan, which is an ocean of stability compared to the southern part of the country where your Arab brethren have gotten back to slitting each other's throats, as usual. You're right - Saddam should have never invaded Kuwait and then violated the terms of the Gulf War I ceasefire agreement.
And no Arab/Islamic state ever funded and supported a coup against a government it didn't like, and/or sanctioned a country that didn't do what it told them to do. Derka Allah, it's getting deep in here...
lol yes, lets see. Well, first of all Mecca wasn't a country and Muhammad (pbuh) didn't actually attack Mecca. They surrendered after violating the treaty of Hudaibiyah. Secondly, what does this have to do with the 21st century? Thirdly, the US was oh-so close to invading Syria, and supports the people invading Syria to begin with along with the so-called Islamic states I already mentioned I do not support. Speaking of being ignorant about history Yes it did. Relevance to my post? Which I do not support. I thought I made that clear. I'm not talking about history, I'm talking about today. The 21st century. So who's the ignorant one?
Another interesting post. You do realize that you have just invalidated your original statement? Why would the US need to arm Iraq (a Muslim nation) against Iran (another Muslim nation) if Islamic nations do not invade one another? You want a list? How about the Chechens, the Iranians, the Yemenis, the Muslim factions in Somalia, Muslim Factions in the Philippines, and the Palestinians.
Get back to me after Kurdistan declares independence from Iraq. Sorry, but the invasion of Kuwait had nothing to do with the invasion of Iraq in 2001. This is hilarious though.
No need. The difference in the stability of the Kurdish and Arab regions in Iraq has been noticeable for years and it's still noticeable today. I'm sorry that logic isn't your strong suit, but there would have never been a Gulf War I ceasefire agreement for Saddam to violate if he hadn't invaded Kuwait in the first place. PS. The Coalition invaded Iraq in March 2003. Guffaw.
Judge Napolitano: House Benghazi Special Committee on Benghazi Can SUBPOENA OBAMA (Video) by Jim Hoft on Monday May 5, 2014 An armed man outside the burning US consulate in Benghazi, Libya Judge Andrew Napolitano told Megyn Kelly tonight that the House Special Committee on Benghazi could subpoena Barack Obama to testify. [video=youtube;ZMJmT3PkfXU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMJmT3PkfXU[/video] (Excerpt) Read more: http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...ittee-on-benghazi-could-subpoena-obama-video/ This is why Democraps are scared witless. The Select Committee is now powerful enough to get the truthful answers Americans have been waiting for.
The United States seems to think otherwise. Okay cool, I put 1 instead of 3. *high five* The UN didn't find any WMD's in Iraq, and the US didn't find any WMD's in Iraq... so where is the violation in UN resolution 1441? What do you think justifies the 2003 invasion?
I don't understand what's going on in this thread, but for the fifth time, I haven't said no Muslims ever invaded a country or that America is the only one who's ever invaded countries and causes stability. I'm speaking about the present day.
Ok the present day: 1. North/South Korea: There is still a state of war between the US and North Korea. North Koreans are the ones who made a surprise attack on the South, after the green light from China and the Soviets. The US didn't start that war, but we still have to militarily respond to it, in the present. 2. Darfur: Still some war going on in Darfur that the US has nothing to do with. 3. Syria: Again, the US is not responsible for the war in Syria. That would be a radical Muslim dictator. 4. Ukraine: Another obvious Russian military takeover of sovereign nations. 5. Iraq: Still war there, US gone... 6. Nigeria: War there, again, not us. 7. Mali: War, this time the French vs AQ. 8. Pakistan: War, between what's left of the Pakistani govt who are not radical Islamists, and the Taliban and AQ. Not us. 9. Libya and Yemen have their own states of civil war going on right now, and guess who is on one side? That's right, our old pals AQ. 10. And ofc Afghanistan, again, being waged by AQ, Taliban, and likely elements of Iranian and Pakistani govts. I'm sure I missed some, but that's situations of war occurring right now. None of which are the fault of the US.
It is obvious that you "don't understand what's going on in this thread". But here is how things work. You post something stupid, and someone will point out why it is stupid. So, help me out here. Didn't you post: Now, please identify one country "in modern history" that the US invaded that did not have Canadian troop support. So, if Canada supplies troops, then aren't they also the invading country? Additionally, in my last post, I provided a list of Islamic states and organizations that are currently involved in supporting coups against countries that they don't like. Therefore your statement was stupid, and no matter how many times that you claim "recent history" it will remain stupid. Btw, I am sure that your fellow Muslims would appreciate it if you would stop making them look bad.
Revisionist history at best. First of all, Mecca was the home of the Quraish tribe, and constituted as close to a country as anything else in that part of the world at that time. Secondly, the treaty was between Mohammed and the Quraish tribe. One of the stipulations of the treaty was that anyone from Mecca entered Medina would be allowed to leave. But when a woman Umm Kulthum entered Medina her brother requested her return to Mecca. Mohammed refused. Thereby violating the treaty. Finally, after Mohammed had already violated the treaty, the Muslims attempted to make their first pilgrimage to Mecca as allowed in the treaty, and they were attacked by the Banu Bakr tribe (not included in the treaty). Because the Banu Bakr tribe was an ally of the Quraish tribe, Mohammed asked that the treaty be dissolved. If you read my statement, it said "History is full of Muslims attacking other nations from Mohammed's attack on Mecca to the present day armies fighting in Syria." You had claimed that Islamic states do not invade others that they do not agree with. You did not add in the "21st century" stipulation until after you were called on the statement. But that really does not matter. I have already provided a list of Muslims that are fighting those that they disagree with. Speaking of being ignorant about history .[/quote] Close only counts for horseshoes and hand grenades. Further, the fact that you do not support your country does not change the facts. Contrary to your statement, they are invaders just like the US. Again, you claimed Islamic states do not invade those that they do not agree with. Thus, Iraq invading Kuwait disproves your statement. Irrelevant. Your lack of support does not change the facts. A stipulation added until after the fact, and still completely false. So once again, you lose.
