Can US save Iraq ?

  • 86 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Posted by indzman (16380 posts) -

Iraq crisis: Kerry vows 'intense support' to counter Isis

Is this the end of Iraq?

US Secretary of State John Kerry has vowed "intense and sustained support" for Iraq after meeting key politicians in the capital, Baghdad.

He said attacks by Sunni militants were a threat to Iraq's existence, and the next days and weeks would be critical.

The insurgents are expanding their control of towns in the north and west.

They are bearing down on a vital dam near Haditha, and have captured all of the border crossings to Syria and Jordan from government forces.

The key airport in the northern town of Tal Afar has also fallen, with some reports saying the town itself has been captured.

....

Some serious shit is going down there ... 'again' :( Can US aid will be able to save Iraq from ISIS OT ?

#2 Posted by Serraph105 (27560 posts) -

I guess the question I have is, was there ever any hope from the moment we went in? I'm not so sure there was tbh.

#3 Posted by GazaAli (22491 posts) -

The U.S won't get involved in hostilities, there could be no question about this. Two options remain possible:

1-The U.S goes the drones' and airstrikes' route and we all know how destructive and brutal that one is, leading to countless deaths among civilians and killing indiscriminately without justifying its staggering death toll via tangible and substantial results.

2-The U.S feverishly increases its support to Malki's Shiite regime, the same regime that proved itself to be incompetent and sectarian par excellence. It could also green light Iran to wreak havoc in Iraq in support of its Shia delegation that is the Malki's regime. It is rather self-evident that this route would only exacerbate the situation.

Of course the U.S could practice with Iraq the same strategy it has been practicing with Syria: do nothing and make sure that no one is allowed to effectively do something either.

#4 Posted by lamprey263 (22412 posts) -

Yes, first we'd have to invent time travel, then we invent a Terminator, then we send one back in time to stop Dubya from being born.

#5 Posted by xdude85 (4313 posts) -

No, fuck that place, let them kill each other.

#6 Posted by GazaAli (22491 posts) -

I guess the question I have is, was there ever any hope from the moment we went in? I'm not so sure there was tbh.

Except that there was nothing wrong when you decided to go in, except for the sanctions that is. You know, when you think about it, the war against Iraq was and remains a travesty on an international scale. I'm still unable of getting my head around the purpose of that war. Why would a state go to war with another one across the globe and return empty handed? And how is such a country allowed to do so without any sort of accountability?

#7 Posted by ad1x2 (5399 posts) -

The issue with Iraq is too many people who have the guns want to go back to the way of life where Islamic laws and traditions (to include killing non-Muslims) are enforced. The US has the firepower to erase them in the amount of time it takes to read this post but the collateral damage would be too great. It doesn't help that unlike traditional force on force battles, insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan don't wear uniforms so we can tell them apart from civilians.

Also, one tactic they like to do that a lot of people are unaware of is they will go to a man who isn't an insurgent and tell him that he will either bury an IED or they will kill his whole family. Between some men he never met before and the people he loves, who do you think he would rather see die?

With the buddies I lost in Iraq, I don't think we should waste time and men trying to send a large force over there since they would just be targets for insurgents. Sending Special Ops over there to train their forces as well as offering air support with drones is doable, although the Special Ops guys would still be targets as well.

#8 Posted by uninspiredcup (6754 posts) -

The Iraq people seems pretty vocal and decent at attempting to fight Americans.
But when America (world savour) left, they ran like a bunch of pussies.

At this point, a child with a supersoaker 2000 would probably be more effective.

#9 Edited by AmazonTreeBoa (16429 posts) -

@indzman said:

Can US save Iraq ?

Not with Obama leading us.

#10 Edited by lamprey263 (22412 posts) -

@AmazonTreeBoa said:

Not with Obama leading us.

suuure, because it was clearly Obama's fault that the established "democracy" was destined to fail

#11 Posted by foxhound_fox (86812 posts) -

The US has a very bombastic attitude towards warfare, and aren't very well-liked by anyone in the Middle East.

Canada, the UK, Australia and other NATO countries have a significantly better chance of helping than the US does. Especially considering they often will get dirty and clear out hideouts by hand rather than sending in the drones.

#12 Posted by Jag85 (4230 posts) -

This is just another Vietnam situation all over again. The Americans thought they won and left, but then the Viet Cong took control of Vietnam and won the war. And now ISIS is doing the same thing, taking control of Iraq. There's not much America can do other than just accept that they're losing what was a pointless war to begin with. Anything America, or its possible ally Iran, does at this point, will only exacerbate the situation and earn more Sunni support for ISIS.

#13 Edited by Chutebox (36166 posts) -

We can do nothing in the middle east. Nothing. I don't know why they keep trying. Let it go. The second we leave the same shit will happen. Forever. MOVE ON.

#14 Edited by whipassmt (13811 posts) -

@lamprey263: Preventing Bush from being born would be immoral. Besides even if he wasn't born that wouldn't guarantee that the Iraq War wouldn't have happened. I think many other people would have also invaded Iraq under the same circumstances (post-9/11, fears of WMDs, the attempts of previous presidents to either contain Iraq or effect regime change without invading appear to have failed) had they been president.

@GazaAli said:

The U.S won't get involved in hostilities, there could be no question about this. Two options remain possible:

1-The U.S goes the drones' and airstrikes' route and we all know how destructive and brutal that one is, leading to countless deaths among civilians and killing indiscriminately without justifying its staggering death toll via tangible and substantial results.

2-The U.S feverishly increases its support to Malki's Shiite regime, the same regime that proved itself to be incompetent and sectarian par excellence. It could also green light Iran to wreak havoc in Iraq in support of its Shia delegation that is the Malki's regime. It is rather self-evident that this route would only exacerbate the situation.

Of course the U.S could practice with Iraq the same strategy it has been practicing with Syria: do nothing and make sure that no one i allowed to effectively do something either.

I think there might be some substantial results to an air-strike. If nothing else it would prevent ISIS from being able to seize Baghdad. And yeah greenlighting Iran seems to be a bad idea (who knows if it weren't for Iran maybe Iraq would be quite a bit more stable).

@Serraph105: I think there was hope. In hindsight the U.S. could've made different decisions (a larger invasion force, not disbanding the Iraqi army). The Surge seemed to be pretty successful. ISIS probably would not have been able to get at strong as they are now if it weren't for the civil war in Syria. Perhaps if the U.S. had kept a residual force in Iraq we would've been able to prevent ISI from getting so strong and we may have been able to keep our ties with the Awakening Councils.

#15 Posted by GazaAli (22491 posts) -

I think there might be some substantial results to an air-strike. If nothing else it would prevent ISIS from being able to seize Baghdad. And yeah greenlighting Iran seems to be a bad idea (who knows if it weren't for Iran maybe Iraq would be quite a bit more stable).

The problem is that ISIS is gaining substantial support from the Sunni population because of the marginalizing policies and agenda of the Malki's regime; not to mention its strong ties to Iran, a longtime Iraqi rival and hostile state.

Generally speaking, if it was not for sectarianism Iraq would have been much more stable; that same sectarianism that emerged after the American invasion of Iraq and the instatement of the Malki's regime. Truth of the matter is, civil unrest and strife have persisted for quite the time in Iraq, long before the more recent hostilities broke out. The Malki's regime chose to ignore them at first, then it went down the oppression road. The current violence is the natural progression of events. There is nothing "Islamic" about the ISIS fighters in Iraq seeing how they're working hand in hand with the generals of Saddam's regime, a regime that was overwhelmingly secular and possibly anti-religion in a sense. The only Islamic thing about ISIS-Iraq is that it is heavenly comprised of members with Sunni backgrounds that are attempting not to be completely marginalized and vanquished by the Shiite regime of Malki and its strong ties to Iran.

#16 Posted by whipassmt (13811 posts) -

@GazaAli said:

@whipassmt said:

I think there might be some substantial results to an air-strike. If nothing else it would prevent ISIS from being able to seize Baghdad. And yeah greenlighting Iran seems to be a bad idea (who knows if it weren't for Iran maybe Iraq would be quite a bit more stable).

The problem is that ISIS is gaining substantial support from the Sunni population because of the marginalizing policies and agenda of the Malki's regime; not to mention its strong ties to Iran, a longtime Iraqi rival and hostile state.

Generally speaking, if it was not for sectarianism Iraq would have been much more stable; that same sectarianism that emerged after the American invasion of Iraq and the instatement of the Malki's regime. Truth of the matter is, civil unrest and strife have persisted for quite the time in Iraq, long before the more recent hostilities broke out. The Malki's regime chose to ignore them at first, then it went down the oppression road. The current violence is the natural progression of events. There is nothing "Islamic" about the ISIS fighters in Iraq seeing how they're working hand in hand with the generals of Saddam's regime, a regime that was overwhelmingly secular and possibly anti-religion in a sense. The only Islamic thing about ISIS-Iraq is that it is heavenly comprised of members with Sunni backgrounds that are attempting not to be completely marginalized and vanquished by the Shiite regime of Malki and its strong ties to Iran.

Yeah. Had Maliki and Iran acted differently things could have turned out differently. Hence I don't agree with those who say that this fate was destined to occur from the moment the coalition invaded.

@GazaAli said:

@Serraph105 said:

I guess the question I have is, was there ever any hope from the moment we went in? I'm not so sure there was tbh.

Except that there was nothing wrong when you decided to go in, except for the sanctions that is. You know, when you think about it, the war against Iraq was and remains a travesty on an international scale. I'm still unable of getting my head around the purpose of that war. Why would a state go to war with another one across the globe and return empty handed? And how is such a country allowed to do so without any sort of accountability?

I don't know if I would say "there was nothing wrong". Hussein was a pretty brutal dictator.

#17 Posted by comp_atkins (31109 posts) -

what does "saving Iraq" even mean?

it does not appear that iraqis want to cooperate with each other to maintain and defend a stable nation. why should we get involved again at this point when they do not want to work with each other for their own good?

#18 Edited by -TheSecondSign- (9155 posts) -

Isn't the question not if we could actually pull it off or not but if it's worth it in the end?

I dont' follow politics.

#19 Edited by lamprey263 (22412 posts) -

@lamprey263: Preventing Bush from being born would be immoral. Besides even if he wasn't born that wouldn't guarantee that the Iraq War wouldn't have happened. I think many other people would have also invaded Iraq under the same circumstances (post-9/11, fears of WMDs, the attempts of previous presidents to either contain Iraq or effect regime change without invading appear to have failed) had they been president.n able to keep our ties with the Awakening Councils.

We don't know unless we try, in the large scale of things morals aren't my concern, this is a logistical argument, and no there's no guarantee things would have turned out the same, for instance there's no knowing that any other president would have ignored the Cliton administrations handover of vital intelligence on impending Al Qaeda activity, and ignore intelligent briefings about imminent strikes because he spent half his time on vacation at his Texas ranch, 9/11 may have very well been stopped in anybody else's hands, that another president would have wanted to wage a war of vanity in that country is also doubtful, that they would have invaded with inadequate forces is also another thing... heck, if 9/11 were avoided there would have been no political good will to invade Iraq

But you're right, if we invent time travel and Terminators, there's no saying somebody else couldn't send a Sarah Palin T-X into the past to keep the future on course.

#20 Posted by AFBrat77 (23986 posts) -

The US has a very bombastic attitude towards warfare, and aren't very well-liked by anyone in the Middle East.

Canada, the UK, Australia and other NATO countries have a significantly better chance of helping than the US does. Especially considering they often will get dirty and clear out hideouts by hand rather than sending in the drones.

Might be nice if they actually DID as much as the U.S. does instead of alot of talk. The U.S. always takes the lionshare of the burden.

#21 Posted by tocool340 (20410 posts) -

Why the fuck should we? Can someone please give me a good reason why we should care what goes on over there where no other major country seem to care themselves?...

I'm feeling like Alonzo on Training Day. "Just let the animals wipe themselves out. God willing!" So why don't we just let nature run its course and stop sticking our nose in other peoples politics? Unless it affects us on a major scale, let them do as they wish....

#22 Posted by airshocker (28191 posts) -

Only US troops can save Iraq. The Iraqi Security Forces have turned tail and run from almost every engagement they've had with ISIS.

But Iraq is pretty much lost as it stands. We won't be going back in.

#23 Posted by Iszdope (9383 posts) -

Dunno...

I'll give it my all though.

#24 Edited by foxhound_fox (86812 posts) -

@AFBrat77 said:

@foxhound_fox said:

The US has a very bombastic attitude towards warfare, and aren't very well-liked by anyone in the Middle East.

Canada, the UK, Australia and other NATO countries have a significantly better chance of helping than the US does. Especially considering they often will get dirty and clear out hideouts by hand rather than sending in the drones.

Might be nice if they actually DID as much as the U.S. does instead of alot of talk. The U.S. always takes the lionshare of the burden.

Because they are the only country willing to put their country into trillions of dollars of debt for their military. I know Canada can't afford it.

#25 Posted by GazaAli (22491 posts) -

Yeah. Had Maliki and Iran acted differently things could have turned out differently. Hence I don't agree with those who say that this fate was destined to occur from the moment the coalition invaded.

The problem is, the U.S endorsed and backed the Malki's regime, despite its alarming sectarian agenda and its manifest Iranian ties. Don't you find it extremely bewildering that the U.S would do such a thing? Furthermore, wouldn't you say that the U.S is somehow responsible for the actions and the policies of the regime it helped instate and establish? seeing how the U.S was the occupying force in control of post-Saddam Iraq.

I don't know if I would say "there was nothing wrong". Hussein was a pretty brutal dictator.

He was a brutal dictator, granted, but he was Iraq's dictator and it was up to the Iraqis to do something about it and oust him. Him being a dictator did not stop the U.S from having him as an ally when it was expedient and beneficial to the U.S. Besides that, the world is full of dictators and for the most part, I don't see the U.S concerning itself with them, unless they happen to be Middle Eastern dictators in which case the benevolence and valor of the U.S get blown out of proportions. Lastly, Iraq has always been a resource-rich state and had it not been for sanctions following the first Gulf war the country wouldn't have suffered miserable economic conditions and regional and international segregation as it did through the decade following the Gulf war.

In any case, one of the chief measures of the success or failure of an action is the simple comparison of reality pre and post that action. Take a look at pre and post-U.S invasion Iraq and reach your verdict on the matter.

#27 Edited by Jebus213 (8695 posts) -
@comp_atkins said:

what does "saving Iraq" even mean?

it does not appear that iraqis want to cooperate with each other to maintain and defend a stable nation. why should we get involved again at this point when they do not want to work with each other for their own good?

But dividing the country would lead to more bloodshed they said.

Blame the British, they're the Imperialists who drew the fucking lines.

#28 Posted by LJS9502_basic (149437 posts) -

Let someone else sort it out....

#29 Posted by GazaAli (22491 posts) -
@Jebus213 said:
@airshocker said:

Only US troops can save Iraq. The Iraqi Security Forces have turned tail and run from almost every engagement they've had with ISIS.

But Iraq is pretty much lost as it stands. We won't be going back in.

But I was going to sign-up to kill some Iraqi's.

Then go back home completely deranged, seeing and hearing things all day and wetting your bed all night.

#30 Posted by Wilfred_Owen (20794 posts) -

If I flush the toilet can I save the shit that just went down it?

#32 Posted by GazaAli (22491 posts) -

@Jebus213 said:
@GazaAli said:
@Jebus213 said:
@airshocker said:

Only US troops can save Iraq. The Iraqi Security Forces have turned tail and run from almost every engagement they've had with ISIS.

But Iraq is pretty much lost as it stands. We won't be going back in.

But I was going to sign-up to kill some Iraqi's.

Then go back home completely deranged, seeing and hearing things all day and wetting your bed all night.

I'd come back home, proud that I killed a muslim.

I'd rather die than wet my bed as an adult.

#33 Edited by alim298 (988 posts) -

@Jebus213 said:

I'd come back home, proud that I killed a muslim.

You have misogyny then.(beware my two edged sword)

#34 Posted by LJS9502_basic (149437 posts) -

@alim298: Uh you might want to look up the definition of misogyny dude...

#35 Edited by comp_atkins (31109 posts) -

@Jebus213 said:
@comp_atkins said:

what does "saving Iraq" even mean?

it does not appear that iraqis want to cooperate with each other to maintain and defend a stable nation. why should we get involved again at this point when they do not want to work with each other for their own good?

But dividing the country would lead to more bloodshed they said.

Blame the British, they're the Imperialists who drew the fucking lines.

exactly. you draw a circle on a map and tell the people inside the circle who dislike each other that they're all now one country... what the hell do you expect?

#36 Posted by alim298 (988 posts) -

@alim298: Uh you might want to look up the definition of misogyny dude...

I know what it means bro...

#37 Posted by LJS9502_basic (149437 posts) -

@alim298 said:

@LJS9502_basic said:

@alim298: Uh you might want to look up the definition of misogyny dude...

I know what it means bro...

Then use it correctly.....because you come off as uneducated here dude.

#38 Edited by indzman (16380 posts) -

@Jebus213 said:
@GazaAli said:
@Jebus213 said:
@airshocker said:

Only US troops can save Iraq. The Iraqi Security Forces have turned tail and run from almost every engagement they've had with ISIS.

But Iraq is pretty much lost as it stands. We won't be going back in.

But I was going to sign-up to kill some Iraqi's.

Then go back home completely deranged, seeing and hearing things all day and wetting your bed all night.

I'd come back home, proud that I killed a muslim.

What if a muslim ends up killing you first ? =P You know there is no garuntee who lives who dies in warfare lol.

#39 Posted by LJS9502_basic (149437 posts) -

@indzman said:

@Jebus213 said:

I'd come back home, proud that I killed a muslim.

What if a muslim ends up killing you first ? =P You know there is no garuntee who lives who dies in warfare lol.

Unless drone......but it's kind of twisted to be proud of killing anyone....ever.

#40 Posted by Treflis (11365 posts) -

Let it run it's course.

#41 Edited by indzman (16380 posts) -

@indzman said:

@Jebus213 said:

I'd come back home, proud that I killed a muslim.

What if a muslim ends up killing you first ? =P You know there is no garuntee who lives who dies in warfare lol.

Unless drone......but it's kind of twisted to be proud of killing anyone....ever.

Drone ? Wut ?

#43 Edited by Darkman2007 (17894 posts) -

can the US save Iraq? maybe but why woud they? if they side with Maliki , they are essentially siding with the Iranians at the expense of their relation with the rest of the region, and obviously they would not side with Daash.

Iraq is a near dead state anyway ,the best course of action is to oversee its breakup along ethnic and religious lines, it might not sound nice to people who consider lines on a map to be holy. but its not any crazier than Yugoslavia , Sudan or Czechoslovakia breaking up based on ethnic/religious lines.

trying to impose a heterogeneous state system like the US , Canada or Australia on societies that didn't go through a similar process to the European enlightenment or rapid urbanization is bound to be a mess.

#44 Posted by LJS9502_basic (149437 posts) -

@indzman said:

@LJS9502_basic said:

@indzman said:

What if a muslim ends up killing you first ? =P You know there is no garuntee who lives who dies in warfare lol.

Unless drone......but it's kind of twisted to be proud of killing anyone....ever.

Drone ? Wut ?

If you are back using a drone.....you will be safer. You said no guarantees....that makes the odds tilt in your favor....no?

#45 Posted by indzman (16380 posts) -

@indzman said:

@LJS9502_basic said:

@indzman said:

What if a muslim ends up killing you first ? =P You know there is no garuntee who lives who dies in warfare lol.

Unless drone......but it's kind of twisted to be proud of killing anyone....ever.

Drone ? Wut ?

If you are back using a drone.....you will be safer. You said no guarantees....that makes the odds tilt in your favor....no?

Ahhh yeah . But i doubt Jebus gonna use drone and brag about killing lol , Hes gonna charge straight into enemy base ( Thats why i'm skeptical who's gonna come out winner ROFL ).

#46 Edited by GazaAli (22491 posts) -

can the US save Iraq? maybe but why woud they? if they side with Maliki , they are essentially siding with the Iranians at the expense of their relation with the rest of the region, and obviously they would not side with Daash.

Iraq is a near dead state anyway ,the best course of action is to oversee its breakup along ethnic and religious lines, it might not sound nice to people who consider lines on a map to be holy. but its not any crazier than Yugoslavia , Sudan or Czechoslovakia breaking up based on ethnic/religious lines.

trying to impose a heterogeneous state system like the US , Canada or Australia on societies that didn't go through a similar process to the European enlightenment or rapid urbanization is bound to be a mess.

It is not really about lines on a map being holy, its more about the fact that breaking up a state to several ones along ethnic, religious or any other attributive lines usually do not result in prosperous and healthy states and isn't usually conducive to a better status quo considering the great scheme of things. Eastern Europe is full of such states that resulted from breaking up former states and I don't think I need to tell you about the conditions of these newly established states. Not to mention Africa that is full of landlocked states that are dirt poor and unable of sustaining themselves. You don't just take a country and break it up to several ones and expect things to work out. Besides, I'm pretty sure that there isn't a single state or nation out there that would willingly assent to that. They'd fight to death before allowing it to happen. Even though the American constitution gives the right to any state to secede if it acquires enough votes, I highly doubt the federal government would set back and allow that to happen.

I agree with you on the notion that trying to impose any economical, social and/or political system on any state is bound to prove itself to be futile at best, which is why Iraq should have been left alone. Why does the world seem to have the memory span of a toddler when it examines Iraq and what should and should not have come into being there? Am I the only one interested in accountability and culpability here? Or are parts of the world have gotten so hubristic that they're always ready to acquit themselves of any responsibility and just shrug it off?

#47 Posted by GazaAli (22491 posts) -

@alim298 said:

I know what it means bro...

I'm not sure you do man, sorry.

#48 Edited by Darkman2007 (17894 posts) -

@GazaAli said:

@Darkman2007 said:

can the US save Iraq? maybe but why woud they? if they side with Maliki , they are essentially siding with the Iranians at the expense of their relation with the rest of the region, and obviously they would not side with Daash.

Iraq is a near dead state anyway ,the best course of action is to oversee its breakup along ethnic and religious lines, it might not sound nice to people who consider lines on a map to be holy. but its not any crazier than Yugoslavia , Sudan or Czechoslovakia breaking up based on ethnic/religious lines.

trying to impose a heterogeneous state system like the US , Canada or Australia on societies that didn't go through a similar process to the European enlightenment or rapid urbanization is bound to be a mess.

It is not really about lines on a map being holy, its more about the fact that breaking up a state to several ones along ethnic, religious or any other attributive lines usually do not result in prosperous and healthy states and isn't usually conducive to a better status quo considering the great scheme of things. Eastern Europe is full of such states that resulted from breaking up former states and I don't think I need to tell you about the conditions of these newly established states. Not to mention Africa that is full of landlocked states that are dirt poor and unable of sustaining themselves. You don't just take a country and break it up to several ones and expect things to work out. Besides, I'm pretty sure that there isn't a single state or nation out there that would willingly assent to that. They'd fight to death before allowing it to happen. Even though the American constitution gives the right to any state to secede if it acquires enough votes, I highly doubt the federal government would set back and allow that to happen.

I agree with you on the notion that trying to impose any economical, social and/or political system on any state is bound to prove itself to be futile at best, which is why Iraq should have been left alone. Why does the world seem to have the memory span of a toddler when it examines Iraq and what should and should not have come into being there? Am I the only one interested in accountability and culpability here? Or are parts of the world have gotten so hubristic that they're always ready to acquit themselves of any responsibility and just shrug it off?

I'm not claiming that breaking up those states will turn them into heavens, but it will remove to some extent the sectarian problems, think about it, even with the current problems in those countries, do you think countries like Serbia and Bosnia are better off in separate states, or together? . most other states in Eastern Europe didn't really go through that and their problems are mainly political and economic leftovers from 60 years of bad economic policies and neglect although they are still far more stable and prosperous than countries like Iraq or Libya, and thats with Iraq and Libya having huge amounts of oil and gas.

Even in the Middle East, countries that don't face as much sectarian issues like the Gulf states , Egypt or Tunisia , have much less chance of breaking up. Fair enough , Egypt and Tunisia have alot of political and economic issues, but its arguably much easier to solve those issues when society is stable and political arena at least somewhat functioning.

of course , no higher authority whether in Baghdad , Washington or Teheran wants this to happen , which is why I think it would end up in a very brutal bloodbath, Daash isn't necessarily winning battles on its own , its allied to alot of local Sunni tribes and such ,and they won't give up unless either the Iraqi government manages to retake the country, or Daash wins and takes the rest of the country, neither of which is going to happen that quickly, what you end up with is a de facto stalemate/border

now fair enough , the country might not officially break up , but it will for all intents and purposes, heck the Kurds are basically independent anyway.

#49 Posted by alim298 (988 posts) -

@GazaAli said:

@alim298 said:

I know what it means bro...

I'm not sure you do man, sorry.

ehh... hating women? Isn't that what misogyny means?

#50 Edited by hoosier7 (3656 posts) -