Comments by "Bell UH1H Huey" (@belluh-1huey102) on "GDF"
channel.
-
38
-
19
-
17
-
16
-
15
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
@yalbad5160 Mariupol, Volnovakha, Rubizhne, Popasna, Lyman, Sievierodonetsk, Mykolayiv and Zaporizhzhia compared to the cities you mentioned are significantly different in terms of battle damage. Fallujah and Mosul after U.S. invasion and battle look way more intact than the cities I mentioned. Mosul, after ISIS went into massive disarray, but that battle was led by the Iraqis. Raqqua was led by Syrians backed by Russians. Not to mention Russia did some major interventions inside Syria compared to the American's intervention there. Sirte, that city also went south from Islamic uprising and wasn't even invaded by U.S. troops in the first place. Although it had been bombed by the U.S., it doesn't look as leveled as Mariupol. The cities I mentioned, are from one Russian started conflict, imagine all the other ones Russia started in the new millennia
10
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
@Muhammad Bilal Awan lol, funny you mention Syria, guess you are a bit slow, so I will dumb it down a bit, the Russians straight up intervened in Syria, with troops and funding, causing loads of destruction in Syria. Compare Russian liberation in Syria to U.S. liberation of Iraq. One side has more destroyed cities, and one is less developed. Syria is still in conflict. ThebSyrian Civil War still continues, although in limited capacity, and as of March 16, 2023, according to Reuters, Assad keeps asking for more Russian troops in Syria. Compare Syrian reconstruction to Iraqi reconstruction, one looks more delayed and slow, any the other has some actual progress going. Meanwhile, for Latin America, the U.S. didn't intervene in anything besides Grenada and Panama in its post WW2 Phase. Look how those two countries came out. Now Yemen, U.S. didn't invade much there, and we are talking about destruction that major superpowers started. I'm pretty sure the U.S. didn't start a Yemen conflict. Syria wasn't started by Russia, I was going against the part of the U.S. wasn't doing anything in reconstruction, but my my, the cities in Syria are like Mosul x10. So yeah, what kind of legalized Cannibis you smoking? Pretty sure it's something that you should get off of, Coach Red Pill will be good friends with yah.
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@lolsilesia "Yea better for iraq, been at war for 20 years which in total has lead to hundreds of thousands dying and is now under iranian/russian control" this sentence is worded to seem that Russia and Iran started the war in Iraq and now owns it. This comment lacks context simply, and is way to vague which thus leads to more misinterpretation. I thought your nation's education system would be better telling their kids to have better context. As lack of context in messages like these, leads to unintended and unnecessary hatred. Back on topic, "My main point was that your whole operation in iraq went to the dumpster because in the end it gave more power to your adversaries." this is inherently false as cited by "russia probably have access to a lot of iraqi oil," not to mention the U.S. does not care about OPEC anymore soon, OPEC is becoming more and more irrelevant to the U.S. as the U.S. is making more oil domestically and trades a lot with Canada, why would you think many oil exporting countries in OPEC started to support China? Oh right because they lost their buyer America. Look at how much OPEC countries export to America, I used the U.S. Energy Information Administration for data on U.S. oil imports. "My main point was that your whole operation in iraq went to the dumpster because in the end it gave more power to your adversaries." This my friend is not a good argument as Russia for some reason, has the need to heavily intervene in Syria, not to mention Russia tried to occupy some oil fields in northern Syria and got obliterated. It's on the news during 2018, it's called the Battle of Khasham. U.S. not only occupied the oil fields there, but it also shows the lack of such access to oil fields in the middle east. The Operation in Iraq did not go into a dumpster fire as shown in a graph from 2003 to 2008 of U.S. and civilian casualties in Iraq cited by Statistica's "Number of documented civilian deaths in the Iraq war from 2003 to February 2023," as shown on the graph, number of documented civilian deaths went down significantly from 2007 to 2008. Want to know why there was an increase in the first place? Was because a thing called the Iraqi Civil War happened from 2006-2008. Corroborate the beginning, middle, and end of the Iraqi Civil War to other events and statistics to the Iraq war. Such as the amount of Civilians dying, or the amount of U.S. troops dying. Which leads to my main point, the reason why the war in Iraq went bad INITIALLY from the Iraqi Civil War, and to counter your part, was not from supporting U.S. adversaries. Then afterwards, it got better after the Civil War ended during U.S. occupation, casualties went down for both military and civilians, economy stabilizes, national army is somewhat functioning, and much more. Notice how much combat in Iraq happened compared in 2003-2007, to 2008-2011.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ObrnenyDrevokocur dude acting like the Arab Spring never happened. Iraq was going to be screwed by a form of ISIS in one way or another. Also, cite evidence of the U.S. directly killing civilians. If you give me a source that does not specify coalition caused deaths, then I am inclined to not believe you. Also, look at a graph of civilian deaths from violence in Iraq by the Iraq War Body Count Project and account for when the Iraq Civil War happened. The Iraq Civil War was from 2006 to 2008 which also saw a lot of civilians dying as seen in the graph, but after the Civil War ended, casualty rates among civilians dramatically went down and the U.S. leaves Iraq by 2011. Around the early 2010s, the Arab spring happened, destabilizing a lot of countries in Africa and heck, it even gaining traction in the Philippines. This allowed ISIS to grow stronger, yet that ISIS part I mentioned was more of corroboration, the U.S. itself through their intervention cannot cause a very global uprising even in countries they barely touched when the spring took place. The other stuff I mentioned about the Arab Spring was Islamic uprisings in many countries, Iraq included.
2
-
2
-
@SefirothPH Since you say devastation, probably in terms of city damage and not like casualties, then Russia is doing worse. There's millions of crater holes in the fields and cities in Ukraine, meanwhile in Iraq from 2003-2011 aka the period the U.S. was in Iraq, the cities were minorly damaged and mostly intact. If you go look at some Bakhmut before and after videos to Fallujah or Ramadi before and after videos, one looks more intact than the other. You cannot bring in Mosul 2017 as the U.S. was checked out of Iraq in 2011 and let the national armies fight ISIS over there. Now, for civilian casualties, according to Statistica, February 24, 2022 to June 4, 2023, 8983 civilians died in Ukraine, compared to around 12k civilians dying in Iraq. Yet here is the difference between Iraq and Ukraine, Iraq is suffering from sectarian violence which means many of the Iraqis dying in Iraq are because of Iraqis themselves. This sectarian conflict has been going on for a long time, long before the U.S. came into Iraq, yet the cities that saw the most fighting under American occupation didn't come close to the amount of damage seen in Ukraine. For one, some of the cities in Ukraine look unrecognizable from their prewar status, meanwhile Iraqi cities look very recognizable to their pre-war look. We have yet to see Russia go into the counter insurgency phase, which usually and always sees more civilian casualties and damage, making it a great accomplishment to see how few bombs and artillery shells the U.S. used in Iraq. OH WAIT, an estimate of 306,887 civilians killed, as said by the United Nations in the Syrian Civil War that lasted 5 years that saw heavy Russian intervention. Now according to the Iraq Body Count which documented civilian deaths from 2003 – 14 December 2011 estimated that 103,160–113,728 civilian deaths recorded. U.S. caused less casualties and infrastructure damage in their intervention that lasted 8 years than the Russian intervention that lasted 5.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Zeerak 141 the MRSC source developed when the U.S. was fighting both in Iraq and in Afghanistan mainly. Fun fact, the peak amount of troops was in 2008 with 166k, a very small invasion force. It's a wonder how the U.S. was able to invade and occupy this land, considering Russia was struggling a lot in Chechnya, starting 2 wars in a small time frame because the 1st one was a failure. If I took GDR's words at face value, the U.S. is fighting a heavily armed force with significantly fewer numbers than colonization occupation numbers. Combat died down in Iraq in 2008 as it marked the end of the Iraq Civil War. U.S. casualties from 2006 to 2008 during the Iraq Civil War declined heavily, the period where most troops died was from 2003 to 2005, yet the yearly suicide rate has a downward trend from 2005 to 2006 till the Iraqi Civil War happened which reached peak of around 6k in 2008. Only 314 soldiers died in 2008. Peak deathcount in Iraq was 2007, but on average, a lot of troops died in 2003 to 2005, yet the suicide rate went down till after 2006. Source: Statistica, also the source cites other sources. So, why did the suicide rate go down where, on average, a lot of troops were dying? Tours last a year, which leaves post deployment suicide a hard graph to corroborate.
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@HICHAM_CHD Fun fact, under Saddam, he exasperated the issue of secularism and started great fear mongering of Shias in Iraq when Iran underwent a revolution, the Shia uprising in Iraq, also known as the "1979–1980 Shia uprising in Iraq," was the growth of the Shia community Iraq during the Iranian revolution. The uprising stopped with the April 1980 arrest of the leader of Shia Iraqis, Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr and his subsequent execution. So, idk what Middle Eastern pot you smoking to not notice these things happening. Not to mention, Al Qaeda was in Iraq, regardless of it supporting Saddam or not. Then there is this relatively unknown event that happened in the 2010s, known as the Arab Spring, which was a series of anti-government protests, uprisings and armed rebellions that spread across much of the Arab world in the early 2010s. It began in Tunisia in response to corruption and economic stagnation, which soon fled over to Iraq, which is why we have ISIS. What you are saying completely ignores the Arab spring, and a person who does not have knowledge of this event, does not know what they are talking about. " I ask myself every time why after 2003 they were so many problems in iraq" Iraqis squabbling with each other till a new sense of national unity rose against the Islamic state. The successor to Al Sadr is a hero and a smart man, for doing the smart thing of changing the country for the better by slowly taking over the Iraqi parliament.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@maksimoltu8236 Planes and missiles are accurate, artillery isn't, not to mention Russia caused a lot of civilian casualties in Syria, not to mention Russia has never reached the counter insurgency phase. Also looking at battle damage in Ukraine, the bombs and shells are scattered over a large area, like you can see crater holes landing far off target. Most civilians in Iraq died during the occupational phase. You see, when in a insurgency, you cannot prep the battlefield, but in an invasion you can warn people to get out of the way. Wait, I am looking at the civ deaths for Operation Phantom Fury which is 800 according to the red cross and 1.3k civilian deaths in the Siege of Mariupol according to the UN, Russia says it's 3000. Both of which were major battles. There is something funny about the Iraq War, especially in the Battle of Baghdad 2003, no civilian casualties reported weirdly, not to mention during the battle the U.S. dropped leaflets to tell civlians to stay in their homes or evacuate. This is one of many cases where the U.S. warns civilians in Iraq. There is also another thing to factor, secterian violence in Iraq, Iraqis killed eachother frequently because of Shia Sunni relations which led to a civil war in Iraq during 2006-2008, which also matches up with the huge spike in civil casualties. Now let's factor the Syrian Civil War, according to the UN 306,887 died in the conflict from 2012-2022 , now in Iraq according to the Iraq Body Count Project 2003-2019, around 205,785 civilians died. Boy oh boy, Russian support led to more civilians dying in a decade than U.S. "unrestricted and un warned bombing" and a whole bunch of other stuff in 20 years.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@blacktulip8990 the study from the 1 million deaths was from a flawed survey by Opinion Research Business, the reason why it is flawed is if you read the peer review paper, "Conflict Deaths in Iraq: A Methodological Critique of the ORB Survey Estimate," concluded that the concludes that the ORB poll is "too flawed, exaggerated and ill-founded to contribute to discussion of the human costs of the Iraq war." The more reliable Iraq Body Count Project utilized documented deaths instead of just estimation, and if you know how to do research and math, that documentation is mostly more accurate than estimation. Which puts the death toll at 183k to 205k civilians from 2003 to 2019. To add to this, they even provided a graph for us to look at and when you look at the peak civilian casualties during the Iraq War, that most civilian deaths were from the Iraqi Civil War 2006 to 2008. Casualties after the Civil War were at a all time low from 2009 to 2011. But, when the U.S. left Iraq in 2011, civilian casualties rose significantly past the amount during the invasion of Iraq in 2014. When the U.S. entered into Iraq again around late 2014, civilian casualties lowered. So tell me, what probably killed more? U.S. warcrimes or Iraqi warcrimes? Remember, more casualties happened due to Iraqi futile conflict over which version of Islam was right.
1
-
1
-
@blacktulip8990 if you got eyeballs and the internet, search up footage of the battles for Baghdad, Mosul, Fallujah, Ramadi, or any battle in Iraq from 2003 to 2011 during the U.S. invasion and occupation. Then, search up footage of battles in Ukraine 2022 onward, such as at Marioupol, Kyiv, Bakhmut, Advika, etc. We can look at 2014 and see how trashed Donetsk airport is, but we are going to stick with modern. Now with your eyes tell me which country's cities, in the time periods I mentioend, looks more intact. Not to mention it's only one year and Russia hasn't gotten to the point of occupying the entire country, committing counter insurgency operations in which the insurgents utilize dirty tactics like hiding in cities and using body shields. Plus, that intervention Russia did into Syria caused more damage and casualties in a shorter time span than the U.S. in Iraq.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1