Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: tommywishbone on May 13, 2007, 12:26:29 PM
-
;D ;D ;D
Looks like bush & his gang didn't realize mass murder and genocide weren't that much fun.
end of rant...
-
Explain Tommy.
-
;D ;D ;D
Looks like bush & his gang didn't realize mass murder and genocide weren't that much fun.
end of rant...
yeah as a future god i will not put up with this shit anymore ;D
bench
-
Fox News seems to think everything is going OK for us in Iraq. ::)
-
hahaha! @ your sig sars ;D
-
hahaha! @ your sig sars ;D
hahahahahahaha.
-
Some think we have been successful and will continue to be and some think it's been an utter failure. Since it only really depends on who you ask and both sides of the argument have a good case either way I think we'll just have to wait and see what happens in the end. I guess it's not how you start but how you end up.
-
Faux News hahahahaha ::) Are there really people out there who think that Faux is real news and not propaganda ?
-
Explain Tommy.
It's my opinion, that our entire Iraq debacle, is a complete absolute failure. That country is on fire and we poured the gas and lit the match. Our soldiers die by the 1000's. Their citizens die by the 10's-of-thousands. Our leaders laugh all the way to the bank. Their leaders get blown to pieces.
end of rant #2...
-
both sides of the argument have a good case
let's hear the case for "we're winning".
-
These american infidels are destroying Saddams legacy.
-
;D ;D ;D
Looks like bush & his gang didn't realize mass murder and genocide weren't that much fun.
end of rant...
You can thank your boys Clinton and Tenat for that.......and please explain the genocide and mass murder comment...........please think before you post!
-
Clinton & George T. invaded Iraq? The truth is tough... you might want to be the same. Suck it up. Your man is right there with Pol, Joe, Benny & friends.
-
Clinton & George T. invaded Iraq? The truth is tough... you might want to be the same. Suck it up. Your man is right there with Pol, Joe, Benny & friends.
Read on, there are many more just like it
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=148302.0
-
You're right, Tenat was a complete disaster, and absolutely wrong about WMD's, but he's long gone. The continued insanity is all on bushcheney.
Tenat should spend the rest of his life in prison.
Clinton is free & clear on the Iraq madness.
-
You're right, Tenat was a complete disaster, and absolutely wrong about WMD's, but he's long gone. The continued insanity is all on bushcheney.
Tenat should spend the rest of his life in prison.
Clinton is free & clear on the Iraq madness.
There's a lot that most of the US populace wasn't priviledged to. It was a fact that Saddam attempted to maintain his weapons manufacturing facilities and violate every UN imposed sanction. He even went mobile with them and sent a great deal of "goods" to Syria prior to the invasion. Anyone who says Saddam didn't have something to hide is fooling themselves. Not to mention the hundreds of reasons to oust him in the first place.
Saddam is dead. Most of his hierarchy is dead or in exile. Millions of Iraqis turned out for the first democratic election in that region. The US have suffered the fewest losses of any war we've engaged in. Except for the period of turmoil to be expected after a war I think in a few years Iraq will be a much improved area of the world and liberals who stood against the war for no other reason than a personal hatred of Bush will feel really stupid... I can wait for that.
-
let's hear the case for "we're winning".
Al Queda slaughtered 200 people in a Spanish rail system as "revenge for Spanish support of the war in Iraq."
Anyone who says there was no link between Al Queda and the Iraqi regime we just destroyed have 200+ dead Spanish citizens who say otherwise.
Obviously we've been doing something over there that bothers terrorists.
-
Clusterfuck on both sides. Read Cobra II.
Bush's current "strategy" of letting our troops mill around to be targets of roadside bombs is deplorable.
-
Clusterfuck on both sides. Read Cobra II.
Bush's current "strategy" of letting our troops mill around to be targets of roadside bombs is deplorable.
Funny how the behavior of troops commanded by generals on the ground is quickly blamed on Bush. War IS a clusterfuck.. mistakes are always made.
And dealing with IEDs and suicide bombers are a relatively new threat we've had to encounter so I wouldn't be surprised if we haven't come up with a more effective way to fight an urban war with ground troops yet.
-
Well, if the U.N. would have actually enforced any one of the 16 resolutions that were levied against Iraq after the first Gulf War, we not be in the pickle that we are in right now. Instead Saddam flagrantly violated each and every last one with nary a bat of an eye from the world. That's not to say this war has been a big mess, but Iras been a debacle for the world, through the UN, for a while now. Many politicians during the lat 90's , on both sides, spoke out about the threat the Iraq was. Clinton even launched Desert Fox in 1998 to retard Saddams WMD production capacity. There were still several hundred tons of mustard gas unnaccoutned for....you get the picture. It was not that just Iraq was a silent front until Bush and his cabinet planned to invade it. All of the little steps and failures to act along the way have helped bring us to this point.
Oh, and Gen. Pratraeus and his new 'Counter-Insurgencey' strategy has the troops no longer going on long patrols and becoming moving targets in a shooting gallery. They now are immbedded with Iraqi soldiers conducting joint operations in the sections of Bagdhad. That's the difference. Taking and holding not commuting to emergencies.
Oh, and please, can we drop the "Faux" News. I love how it is treated by some people, yet those that criticize it will glady go watch CNN or turn on Olberrmann or Chris fucking Mathews over on MSNBC. Because let me guess, CNN and MSNBC are split right down the ole' middle when it comes to coverage. Give me a fucking break. Every news outlet is slanted, most of them to the left, people just usually want to watch something that tells them what they want to hear.
-
Funny how the behavior of troops commanded by generals on the ground is quickly blamed on Bush. War IS a clusterfuck.. mistakes are always made.
And dealing with IEDs and suicide bombers are a relatively new threat we've had to encounter so I wouldn't be surprised if we haven't come up with a more effective way to fight an urban war with ground troops yet.
Bush appointed Rumsfeld who was the ultimate mastermind of the clusterfuck in Iraq. Like I said, read Cobra II. You will absolutely not believe the utter fuktardery of Rummy and Franks.
Shocking and jaw dropping.
Powell was 100% right all along.
-
Well, if the U.N. would have actually enforced any one of the 16 resolutions that were levied against Iraq after the first Gulf War, we not be in the pickle that we are in right now. Instead Saddam flagrantly violated each and every last one with nary a bat of an eye from the world. That's not to say this war has been a big mess, but Iras been a debacle for the world, through the UN, for a while now. Many politicians during the lat 90's , on both sides, spoke out about the threat the Iraq was. Clinton even launched Desert Fox in 1998 to retard Saddams WMD production capacity. There were still several hundred tons of mustard gas unnaccoutned for....you get the picture. It was not that just Iraq was a silent front until Bush and his cabinet planned to invade it. All of the little steps and failures to act along the way have helped bring us to this point.
Oh, and Gen. Pratraeus and his new 'Counter-Insurgencey' strategy has the troops no longer going on long patrols and becoming moving targets in a shooting gallery. They now are immbedded with Iraqi soldiers conducting joint operations in the sections of Bagdhad. That's the difference. Taking and holding not commuting to emergencies.
Oh, and please, can we drop the "Faux" News. I love how it is treated by some people, yet those that criticize it will glady go watch CNN or turn on Olberrmann or Chris fucking Mathews over on MSNBC. Because let me guess, CNN and MSNBC are split right down the ole' middle when it comes to coverage. Give me a fucking break. Every news outlet is slanted, most of them to the left, people just usually want to watch something that tells them what they want to hear.
Well said... bout time we saw some down to earth objectivity in here.
-
Bush appointed Rumsfeld who was the ultimate mastermind of the clusterfuck in Iraq. Like I said, read Cobra II. You will absolutely not believe the utter fuktardery of Rummy and Franks.
Shocking and jaw dropping.
Powell was 100% right all along.
Rumsfeld was a scapegoat.. compounded by his portrayal in the media. And people say reporters are lazy.. HA!
-
;D ;D ;D
Looks like bush & his gang didn't realize mass murder and genocide weren't that much fun.
end of rant...
its not an invasion...its a liberation ;)
we r liberating iraq of its oil and people at a record pace! :)
god told bush to liberate iraq..soo actually its like a jihad..buut its ok when christians do it :)
-
Rumsfeld was a scapegoat.. compounded by his portrayal in the media. And people say reporters are lazy.. HA!
No. Rummy deserved 100% of the blame.
Troops in Afghanistan have needed, begged, and wished for FIXED ARTILLERY. Fixed artillery is not subject to weather or time of day like the C130 gunships.
Rummy denied fixed artillery in Afghanistan. Why? Because he didn't want us to "look like the Soviets". That's why. He was more worried about image than lives.
Rummy fragmented combat troops who have trained together as a unit for DECADES. Why? He wanted a mobile force. So, a fragment of the group goes into combat without the support that they have trained with FOR DECADES. Good call? Not really.
Rummy utterly fucked the the way the U.S. military deploys for combat. Why? Image. No other reason. Rummy has cost many lives.
-
its not an invasion...its a liberation ;)
we r liberating iraq of its oil and people at a record pace! :)
god told bush to liberate iraq..soo actually its like a jihad..buut its ok when christians do it :)
Riiiigggghhhht.
-
Riiiigggghhhht.
soo people aren't dying?
wasn't this called "operation iraqi freedom'?
didn't bush HIMSELF say god told him to bring democracy to the people of iraq??
u tell me.. :)
-
No. Rummy deserved 100% of the blame.
Troops in Afghanistan have needed, begged, and wished for FIXED ARTILLERY. Fixed artillery is not subject to weather or time of day like the C130 gunships.
Rummy denied fixed artillery in Afghanistan. Why? Because he didn't want us to "look like the Soviets". That's why. He was more worried about image than lives.
Rummy fragmented combat troops who have trained together as a unit for DECADES. Why? He wanted a mobile force. So, a fragment of the group goes into combat without the support that they have trained with FOR DECADES. Good call? Not really.
Rummy utterly fucked the the way the U.S. military deploys for combat. Why? Image. No other reason. Rummy has cost many lives.
Hmm.... interesting points. Thanks for bringing them up and motivating me to see for myself.
What's your view on the war as a whole?
-
Oh, and please, can we drop the "Faux" News. I love how it is treated by some people, yet those that criticize it will glady go watch CNN or turn on Olberrmann or Chris fucking Mathews over on MSNBC. Because let me guess, CNN and MSNBC are split right down the ole' middle when it comes to coverage. Give me a fucking break. Every news outlet is slanted, most of them to the left, people just usually want to watch something that tells them what they want to hear.
Fox News is biased. It's a bullshit news station, which now has been pitching Hillary Clinton as the only Democratic alternative for a good while.
CNN, while it deserve a lot of critisism for self-censoring a lot the years following the 9-11, is still a news outlet that has an objective to bring news in a unbiased manner.
It is a fact, not an opinion, that the Republican presidential candidate has gotten the most airtime on the major networks since the mid 80's.
The Media owners tend to be conservative, while the journalists tend to be Democrats. There is still a slight bias, the media is favoring the corporate America, those who buy their ads.
Remember however, that in the code of journalism, objectivity is focal. It is only FOX which has left that.
The Australian Rupert Murdoch dictates how a lot of Americans will vote, through his FOX Network. Even though I am not American, I don't feel too good about how one man can have so much influence on the most important country in the world.
-Hedge
-
soo people aren't dying?
wasn't this called "operation iraqi freedom'?
didn't bush HIMSELF say god told him to bring democracy to the people of iraq??
u tell me.. :)
It's a war dummy... of course people are dying.
You have a beef with the name? Did I imagine an Iraqi election? Was that a dream?
He's a religious man.. so what. Either way when this is all over (assuming it's left to us and we don't let the UN take over) they might actually have a chance of not ending up under another brutal, murderous dictator.
-
Fox News is biased. It's a bullshit news station, which now has been pitching Hillary Clinton as the only Democratic alternative for a good while.
CNN, while it deserve a lot of critisism for self-censoring a lot the years following the 9-11, is still a news outlet that has an objective to bring news in a unbiased manner.
It is a fact, not an opinion, that the Republican presidential candidate has gotten the most airtime on the major networks since the mid 80's.
The Media owners tend to be conservative, while the journalists tend to be Democrats. There is still a slight bias, the media is favoring the corporate America, those who buy their ads.
Remember however, that in the code of journalism, objectivity is focal. It is only FOX which has left that.
The Australian Rupert Murdoch dictates how a lot of Americans will vote, through his FOX Network. Even though I am not American, I don't feel too good about how one man can have so much influence on the most important country in the world.
-Hedge
No it's not. Fox news presents both sides. If you spent more time watching it for yourself instead of reading about what clowns say about it on the internet.
I think you've been watching more biased networks for so long you actually consider them to be "middle of the road." .. laughable.
They report stuff that makes the other news networks and the left as a whole look foolish... they interview and debate those other networks are afraid to.. I see a lot more objectivity in that than CNN, MSNBC, NBC, and ABC ever have.
-
hahahahahahah
right.
-
True story:
When I was a little kid, I had a little kitten. Kitten's name was Puff. Some how little Puff wandered outside, and I guess he bothered a neighbor. I found little Puff tied up in a plastic bag. I don't know who killed Puff... most likely never will. That was 30 years ago, and if I ever find out who killed my kitten, I'll kill them and their entire family. True story.
Moral of the story? Iraq is insanity.
-
hahahahahahah
right.
You think I'm shitting you? Okay..
On no other network will you find conservative guests and liberal guests evenly matched.
On the other networks you might have 6/1 to 3/1 liberal and on Fox the average is more like 1/1.
Hate all you want but the stats speak for themselves.
-
True story:
When I was a little kid, I had a little kitten. Kitten's name was Puff. Some how little Puff wandered outside, and I guess he bothered a neighbor. I found little Puff tied up in a plastic bag. I don't know who killed Puff... most likely never will. That was 30 years ago, and if I ever find out who killed my kitten, I'll kill them and their entire family. True story.
Moral of the story? Iraq is insanity.
I offer the above argument as testament to the way liberals argue.
-
I offer the above argument as testament to the way liberals argue.
Liberal? ;D I'm a Secular Humanist, it ain't quite the same young man.
-
No it's not. Fox news presents both sides. If you spent more time watching it for yourself instead of reading about what clowns say about it on the internet.
I think you've been watching more biased networks for so long you actually consider them to be "middle of the road." .. laughable.
They report stuff that makes the other news networks and the left as a whole look foolish... they interview and debate those other networks are afraid to.. I see a lot more objectivity in that than CNN, MSNBC, NBC, and ABC ever have.
Let me give you an example:
This was a report on Fox. Since I live in Sweden, it was very easy for me, with a few calls, check the facts of this story.
I called the Emergency Central, and asked them what their procedures were like when driving out to the neighborhoods in question. They told me they had no extra arrangements made.
Then I asked them about if there ever was a police car escorting. No, they said. But a lot of times, a police car would already be at the scene of the event, since police, at least in Sweden, gets called out on most incidents and accidents.
Fox twisted the facts into making a part of Sweden look like a war zone, to feed the Muslim hate.
That's bullshit and not even journalism.
It's propaganda.
A side note: I am highly critical of all things Muslim, but I don't like lies. More than anything, I hate lies. And Fox was lying here. The truth needs to be told.
This was just one example.
And I was able to call the bluff with a few simple phone calls. It blows my mind how much bullshit Fox must be pulling everyday.
No, it's not about Fox being conservative. I would be just as critical of it, had it been doing the same for the Democrats. And I've been bringing attention to the shift in Fox's agenda for a long while now. Fox is backing Hillary Clinton as well as the Republicans.
I am against any hidden agendas in the media.
Therefore, I've lashed out against Olbermann in the past too. The type of journalism which he and O'Reilly does, commentary (or rather, telling their viewers how to think) is stupid, and not creative.
I am a big fan of Tim Russert.
-Hedge
-
It's a war dummy... of course people are dying.
You have a beef with the name? Did I imagine an Iraqi election? Was that a dream?
He's a religious man.. so what. Either way when this is all over (assuming it's left to us and we don't let the UN take over) they might actually have a chance of not ending up under another brutal, murderous dictator.
;D ;D ;D
It ain't no war dummy. It's rape. It's tourture. It's robbery. It's brigidage. It ain't war.
Was Stalingrad a war? Of course not, it was mass murder, and the killers got exactly what they deserved.
-
;D ;D ;D
It ain't no war dummy. It's rape. It's tourture. It's robbery. It's brigidage. It ain't war.
It's a war to the likes no one has ever seen, the rape, tourture and robbery is all done by the insurgents, strapping bombs on and blowing themselves up where innocent people are like pizza parlours and weddings, hiding in places like hospitals and schools, like I said, it's was that NO ONE have ever seen!!
-
No, Stalingrad was one of the most, if not the most, significant battles on any front during World War II. Both sides were fighting for an objective and ended up killing a lot of eachother. Mass murder would be something more along the lines Rowanda or Darfur or any other 'cleansing'. Oh, then who were the "killers" during the "mass-murder" of Stalingrad? The Wermacht? or the Red Army? The SS? Paulus? I'm going to go ahead and say all of these soldiers killed plenty of each other, sooooo they all got what they deserved? Walk me through this minefield of logic you are using.
And the "rape, robbery, torture" is nonsensical. Iraq is a war ,albiet often times an asymetrical one, between not only the Coalition and various insurgent groups, but the democratically elected Iraqi government and against those various insurgent groups. Saddam Hussien gassing and commiting acts of genocide against the Kurds to the tune of 100,000 dead or the Turks massacring the Armeniens, now that is mass murder. Man, it seems that the lenses of the glasses through which you look at this information are just a bit dirty, better clean them up.
Hope This Helps!
-
"...Hope This Helps!"
No, no it doesn't. You need a lesson in violence and death young man. Dying for someone elses noble cause, is still dying.
Stalingard was insanity on the Germans part... we're the Germans in Iraq. We're going to lose, and we're going to lose huge.
Edit: Or perhaps you still think the Germans were still right?
-
We are not the Germans in Iraq. We are the Americans in Iraq. Quite a big difference. Using battles from World War II and trying to compare them to the American war in Iraq makes little sense. You are trying to make connections where there are little to none. Different rationales for engaging, different home fronts, different enemies, tactics etc. Stalingrad was a gamble on Germany's part, a gamble in which they lost.
And what are your reasons for us losing, and "losing huge" You're language and demeanor in this exchange leads me to believe you are rooting for a loss. I could be wrong, maybe, maybe not. Also, were the Germans right about what? The entire war, Barbarossa, or the push into Stalingrad to capture the Caucasus mountains? And "tommywishbone" please give me the lessons that I need so desperately I do need a lecture from you!!! (end obvious sarcasm) Please, quit with the "young man" bullshit, you have no idea how hold I am or the age of many other people on this board. Dispense with the condescension, especially because you have shown you are not above anyone else on here.
Hope This Helps!
-
"...You're language and demeanor in this exchange leads me to believe you are rooting for a loss....'
;D ;D Of course I'm rooting for a loss. I'm always on the side on the right. The people who are right. They're right and we're wrong. That's got to be easy to grasp.
PS.The only way to win this arguement is for you to admit that bush is right and Iraq needs to be destroyed, and all it's people killed. Your play my friend...
-
We're the Germans in Iraq?
I don't think so.
Circa 1940 Germans wouldn't put up with 1/100 of the bullshit we do.
(No shooting at mosque, etc.)
-
;D ;D ;D
Looks like bush & his gang didn't realize mass murder and genocide weren't that much fun.
end of rant...
before the invasion you killed about 2.5 million with sanctions ... so another 500k with sectraian violence isnt really that bad
bush and cheney knew exactly how this war would progress ... all they wanted was to establish permanent bases on the other side of iran (the first side being afgan) ... now they are flanked and once negoiatins with othr surrounding states are secured for logisics regarding air support and whatnot ... boom ... more death, er i mean freedom !
-
Hey we're just giving them the freedom to think our way or not at all ;D
-
Actually, no, that is not the only way to win this argument. Nice try though. And where did Bush say that "Iraq needs to be destroyed and all its people killed", because he would have actually needed to say that for me to agree with it.
And now that we are where we are in Iraq, who is "right"? Those who voted in the two democratically held elections and want peace or those who choose to fight and murder civilians and turn Iraq into a well funded breeding ground for genocide and terrorism? I really think that should be easy to grasp.also if you are referring to the latter as being those that are "right" then I think you need to reexamine your position. You sound like Michael Moore when he tried to compare that mass murding thugs that are currently blowing up children to our Revolutionary period Minutemen.... ::) It's good to try and sound profound once and a while but geeze
-
Iraq is a big pile of oil and location.
Saddam was old, and his kids were clods.
SOMEONE was gonna rob them. If it was China or Rus or Iran, we would have suffered. Gas prices, security, and overall economy.
Better us than them. You're a moron if you think it's not about oil or position.
-
Iraq is a big pile of oil and location.
Saddam was old, and his kids were clods.
SOMEONE was gonna rob them. If it was China or Rus or Iran, we would have suffered. Gas prices, security, and overall economy.
Better us than them. You're a moron if you think it's not about oil or position.
Enough with the "it's all about the oil crap".
BTW, like everything else, it was bound to go up, I pay over three bucks a gallon for milk for my kid and coffee is even more..........it's all relative, if I'm not mistaken the US prices are still cheaper than Cananda and Europe and most Asian countries, I haven't researched, but I think I am correct.
And if you think we're stealing the oil, where the hell is it?
-
you are securing access to resources, stroking your economy, and (some people) are looting the treasury
stick to the bible joe :D
-
you are securing access to resources, stroking your economy, and (some people) are looting the treasury
stick to the bible joe :D
Jimmy, what the hell are you talking about?
-
issues you clearly havent researched, im saying you shoulndt give an opinion if you have made no effort to understand the issue
-
issues you clearly havent researched, im saying you shoulndt give an opinion if you have made no effort to understand the issue
Sure I have, I just don't research from BS conspiracy sites.
-
Enough with the "it's all about the oil crap".
BTW, like everything else, it was bound to go up, I pay over three bucks a gallon for milk for my kid and coffee is even more..........it's all relative, if I'm not mistaken the US prices are still cheaper than Cananda and Europe and most Asian countries, I haven't researched, but I think I am correct.
And if you think we're stealing the oil, where the hell is it?
It's still under Iraq, Joe. You don't set up a thousand mile pipeline overnight. parts work, parts don't. When we're done, it'll be fully functional.
One of us is dead wrong, man. Either you or me. We're there for the oil, or we're not. I guess time will tell.
-
Jimmy, what the hell are you talking about?
To support the war - which is an imperialist effort to take resources from them for us - directly contradicts that COmmandment about stealing.
I support the war - but it's because I have the guts to admit I'm okay with aggressive US action to maintain my standard of living. I don't sugarcoat it by saying "that oil talk is crap" - I researched it, saw that yes, it's how the world works - and I have accepted it. But for you to scold others as talking "conspiracy crap" without understanding it, well, that's strange.
-
To support the war - which is an imperialist effort to take resources from them for us - directly contradicts that COmmandment about stealing.
I support the war - but it's because I have the guts to admit I'm okay with aggressive US action to maintain my standard of living. I don't sugarcoat it by saying "that oil talk is crap" - I researched it, saw that yes, it's how the world works - and I have accepted it. But for you to scold others as talking "conspiracy crap" without understanding it, well, that's strange.
Are you ok with the sacrifice of thousands and more thousands civilian lives and US soldier lives?
-Hedge
-
Good thread till asstard joined in..anyway we have to begin a phased withdrawal. maybe a year, which will ensure that we can maintain contol of oil resources.
-
Good thread till asstard joined in..anyway we have to begin a phased withdrawal. maybe a year, which will ensure that we can maintain contol of oil resources.
I think that's a great point and that is what is going to happen. We'll ultimately leave enough military force in Iraq to keep the new US bases secure.
-
Its what we need to do. Internally we will have to allocate a huge amount of cash to rebuild the Army...new Humvee's ..a new line of lite vehicles that are impervious to IEDS...we have em just not enough yet. New light arms replacements for the m-16. Alot is already in the pipe line but we need stuff now. We have new armor kits for the m1 series coming on line. The one good thing about war is that it speads up procurement of stuff. Generally we don't know what we need until we are well into combat.
-
I think that's a great point and that is what is going to happen. We'll ultimately leave enough military force in Iraq to keep the new US bases secure.
US bases would always be a target in Iraq which is why we won't have any.
Plus after the civil war concludes the new religious govt. will order us out if we are still there, which is doubtful. Bottom line is we will have the same number of bases there as we do in VietNam.
-
Having been there..u can secure those bases we need especially Blad and those still operating in the western desert. I'm not for staying beyond two years. I'm realy not sure what the government would look like. If the the current folks can be given cart blanche to kill off those that are causing problems..it should ensure their survival.
-
US bases would always be a target in Iraq which is why we won't have any.
Absolutely UNTRUE.
Our 14 bases are permanent and will be there 50 years. They are there to flank iran, defend against any indian/Chinese asian/ western invasion, and as a quick response against anyone in that region should the US be hit at home.
Today's weapons are very good. If Russia or China or anyone else was able to knock out our satelite system (china showed us last year they can do it) and hit 90% of our continental launch sites with suitcase weapons, we're be in some shit shape. Being able to flatten their country from over there is a terrific deterrant.
We aren't spending billions on 14 bases to pull them out in 2 years. no way. I'll take any wager :)
-
You can thank your boys Clinton and Tenat for that.
Your boys? Mr Lib.....your confused. YOU voted for Clinton correct?
Get you facts straight!!
-
Our 14 bases are permanent and will be there 50 years.
True, there just won't be US troops there. Iraq thanks you. :-\
-
Nope 3-4 major bases..well guarded and well away from population centers. They will be able to over fly the oil fields and dispatch troops when neccesary. I don't see us there for 50 years but places like Kuwait. Sure
-
Nope 3-4 major bases..well guarded and well away from population centers. They will be able to over fly the oil fields and dispatch troops when neccesary. I don't see us there for 50 years but places like Kuwait. Sure
Dispatch troops like they do now? Yeah that has worked so well. :-\ Kuwait yes, Iraq no.
-
Not to conduct BS patrols....ahab the arab gets his guys together to start some crap..we roll in and crush him and roll out. or we roll in to protect the oil stations...avoiding the major cities which will become the job of the Iraqi army and police.
-
Absolutely UNTRUE.
Our 14 bases are permanent and will be there 50 years. They are there to flank iran, defend against any indian/Chinese asian/ western invasion, and as a quick response against anyone in that region should the US be hit at home.
Today's weapons are very good. If Russia or China or anyone else was able to knock out our satelite system (china showed us last year they can do it) and hit 90% of our continental launch sites with suitcase weapons, we're be in some shit shape. Being able to flatten their country from over there is a terrific deterrant.
We aren't spending billions on 14 bases to pull them out in 2 years. no way. I'll take any wager :)
I'll take that wager.
$100?
If the Military haven't started leaving the bases in 2 years, I'll send you $100. If they have, you will send me the money.
-Hedge
-
this wager is too complicated... what if military personnel is partially replaced with technology that does the same thing, of DOD mercs?
rob is right in spirit ... this is a long haul war
-
There are about 15,000 mercs from various security firms like Blackstone there as well.
-
I'll take that wager.
$100?
If the Military haven't started leaving the bases in 2 years, I'll send you $100. If they have, you will send me the money.
-Hedge
There's the rub. We STARTED leaving S. Korea 50+ years ago.
-
Calling them mercs is wrong..once these guys are allowed to undertake offensive operations have at it. I mean once what their doing is out in the late of day. There are plenty of instances that these guys operate outside the mandates of their contract. But so far nobody is kicking doors with government approval. Afghanistan is completely different.
-
Calling them mercs is wrong..once these guys are allowed to undertake offensive operations have at it. I mean once what their doing is out in the late of day. There are plenty of instances that these guys operate outside the mandates of their contract. But so far nobody is kicking doors with government approval. Afghanistan is completely different.
Paging Dr. Freud?
-
Not to conduct BS patrols....
99% of all patrols in Iraq are BS. Are guys are SITTING DUCKS and they know it.
-
Wow, 99%?! That's a pretty tight statistic to be sighting as evidence...any links to back this back this up?
-
It's a war to the likes no one has ever seen, the rape, tourture and robbery is all done by the insurgents,
All because the mental midget in the WH was bent on war with a country that was no threat to the USA.
As Colin Powell said "you break it....you own it"
Bush OWNS Iraq.
-
All because the mental midget in the WH was bent on war with a country that was no threat to the USA.
As Colin Powell said "you break it....you own it"
Bush OWNS Iraq.
He was already an obvious imminent threat to the region and quite possibly the security of every western country in the world. Would you rather have waited until he was an IMMINENT threat to us? Just curious.
-
He was already an obvious imminent threat to the region and quite possibly the security of every western country in the world. Would you rather have waited until he was an IMMINENT threat to us? Just curious.
Saddam was not. Saddam was a predictable bully we had our thumbs on, just looking for any excuse to invade. He wasn't a threat to anyone in his situation before the invasion.
Look at a couple of points:
- His government was not motivation, influence or controlled by religious fanatics
- By the very nature of a dictator he was not going to do anything that would cause him to lose his power which would include: Invading another country, using WMD's against another country.
Saddam was a brutal evil person but he wasn't stupid and he knew what would cause him to lose his power.
As a result look at the mess we've created:
- Unstable country on the brink of full scale civil war.
- Increased terrorism
- No reasonable solution in sight
- 400 billion in debt and counting with no way out.
-
Wow, 99%?! That's a pretty tight statistic to be sighting as evidence...any links to back this back this up?
With the surge , the plan was to base guys in neigborhoods...nota bad ideaz. gte to know the folks, who belongs who doesn't. It will alow the guys to make alliances with the local sheiks. The Army is also deploying the cougar and their hard as hell to blow up.
-
Saddam was not. Saddam was a predictable bully we had our thumbs on, just looking for any excuse to invade. He wasn't a threat to anyone in his situation before the invasion.
Look at a couple of points:
- His government was not motivation, influence or controlled by religious fanatics
- By the very nature of a dictator he was not going to do anything that would cause him to lose his power which would include: Invading another country, using WMD's against another country.
Saddam was a brutal evil person but he wasn't stupid and he knew what would cause him to lose his power.
As a result look at the mess we've created:
- Unstable country on the brink of full scale civil war.
- Increased terrorism
- No reasonable solution in sight
- 400 billion in debt and counting with no way out.
You mean like invading Kuwait, slaughtering Kurds in the north with WMD's?
Wow, you're amazing. You've ignored everything that's ever happened in Iraq or that region before 2003.
As far as increased terrorism and the potential for civil war, since when were these NOT factors in a full scale war? And let's not forget that while we slaughter terrorists and Islamic fanatics over there by the thousands we've greatly hampered their ability to murder where THEY would want to kill our men, women and children abroad.
-
You mean like invading Kuwait, slaughtering Kurds in the north with WMD's?
Wow, you're amazing. You've ignored everything that's ever happened in Iraq or that region before 2003.
As far as increased terrorism and the potential for civil war, since when were these NOT factors in a full scale war? And let's not forget that while we slaughter terrorists and Islamic fanatics over there by the thousands we've greatly hampered their ability to murder where THEY would want to kill our men, women and children abroad.
No I haven't ignored a thing, the only thing i did was not confuse it with what was happening at present when we invaded.
Are you so narrow minded that you can't count back to 1991 from 2003? Much had changed since Saddam invaded Kuwait and gassed the Kurds. But I'm being reasonable and that's not acceptable in warmongering from an easy chair.
Also was our goal to increase terrorism? Was our goal to put Iraq on the verge of civil war? No. And all wars do not have these results, in fact most don't.
Again, don;t confuse the terrorist activity in Iraq.....they are there because WE made it EASY for THEM to be there and KILL us. the borders are open there, just like in Mexico! So let's not get confused.
-
It's a war to the likes no one has ever seen, the rape, tourture and robbery is all done by the insurgents, strapping bombs on and blowing themselves up where innocent people are like pizza parlours and weddings, hiding in places like hospitals and schools, like I said, it's was that NO ONE have ever seen!!
The atrocities of Iraq aren't even in the same ballpark as hideous war crimes committed during the civil war in Rwanda.
At least 1/2 million Tutsis were killed by the Hutus. And rapes, chopping of arms, and other disgusting acts were committed more times than either you or I could care imagine of.
-Hedge
-
He was already an obvious imminent threat to the region and quite possibly the security of every western country in the world. Would you rather have waited until he was an IMMINENT threat to us? Just curious.
How was Iraq a threat to the United States?
-
Dammit Decker RESPECT MY AUTHORITIIIII ;D
-
Dammit Decker RESPECT MY AUTHORITIIIII ;D
Sir yes sir!.
Shit, it's been out a long day. I need a rest.
Have great one HH.
-
I will, be safe bro..up to my ass in boring paperwork..i think if we dumped all the paperwork Uncle Sam generates, on Iran..not to kill..but to make em do it, they'd just surrender.