Is this accurate?
Other urls found in this thread:
It's way too simplified to detail any broader point
Saddam was based. The Iraqi Baathist party was NatSoc. He fired missiles into Israel that missed their targets because Iraqi missiles had shit accuracy.
Israel wanted to take him out first after Iran failed to take him off.
But also, the Syrian army isn't ready to take Golan back, since they lost it because they're weak, so no wonder Bashar is ignoring it.
So, I'd say Saddam was better than Bashar. I don't know if I'd call him a puppet, pragmatic but more influenced, especially now, by foreign powers. Say whatever you want about Russian interference in Syria, but it subverts his independence in Syria.
>killed 30,000 American soldiers
Source on that, the first gulf war ended with less then 200 Americans dead and nearly a third of that was due to friendly fire. Then the second gulf war less then 20k American soldiers died and that was over the course of 15 years and spread out in other countries. Plus by the first year or so Saddam was already out of the equation so lets say he killed 1k American soldiers at best which when added together is just a fraction of what the picture claims.
It's actually accurate
At any point within the countless media interviews Assad could have uttered the words "oded yinon" when describing the "civil war" in Syria since it is eventually aimed at balkanising the countries surrounding Israel wich includes Syria
Imagine the reaction that would get in this age of the Internet
eat shit jews
gtfo shill
>30k US soldiers
What?
You don't know about the 300K that died!?!
Saddam never killed 30,000 US soldiers.