If you were running the show...

[schenkadere]

no way.
it's a perfect solution.

they'd hang in there and you could save money on equipment because you know you could pile 10 - 12 of them into one Humvee.

They can convert it to a monster Juan Deere, but I don't think there's much grass to mow over there.

 

[Dead Winter]

They can convert it to a monster Juan Deere, but I don't think there's much grass to mow over there.

In the central to northern parts of Iraq there's enough grass...some places would be quite nice if it weren't for the Iraqis.

 

[Dr.TEETH]

We will never know how affective our presence there has been because the military has not been allowed to work as they should. If we could completely unleash our military on that region and vanquish the terrorists, we would all be singing a different tune.
I would like to see the Iraqi security trained but, it ain't going to happen. Too many of them are Shiite and standby watching while mosques are attacked and people are killed.

We would need to blow that oil drenched shithole off the face of the earth, because, how do we know who the terrorists are? Until a suicide bomber does his/her dirty deed, all of the terrorists just happen to be faces in the crowd.

If they aren't going to take the leash off of our military. Bring them home and put them on the borders. Borders is plural because I want them at the border of Canada too.

That'll never happen, because the Democrats want the multicultural vote, and the Republicans want the "cheap labor for big business" campaign contributions.

 

[sknight]

The suicide bombers are the Iraqi people. They don't want us there. We make shit up like this huge problem with Al Quaida and Iranians committing insurgency, but the "insurgents" are the Iraqi people wishing us to leave so the militias with the clerics at the helms could take over.

There is also another angle that the only insurgents in Iraq are American.

 

[schenkadere]

The suicide bombers are the Iraqi people. They don't want us there. We make shit up like this huge problem with Al Quaida and Iranians committing insurgency, but the "insurgents" are the Iraqi people wishing us to leave so the militias with the clerics at the helms could take over.

There is also another angle that the only insurgents in Iraq are American.

Let them do themselves in.

 

[sknight]

There are two fronts:

For our own people and limiting the deaths, we should withdraw, or annihilate. The gentleman's war and spreading the American brand of democracy to people that didn't ask for it isn't working. Annihilate, make those people actually afraid of us, then go from there.

The other front is that the place is shit now and we have to help maintain security because sure as hell, they can't do it themselves. A strong central leader to make the police and military unite under is needed, but there is none, so they're all aligning with who their cleric and tribe is.

On the other hand, I think we're legally required to stay there.

 

[sixxswine]

As evil as Saddam was don't you think now that he kept the balance in the middle east? When he and his sons were taken out of power, it affected that balance and now we have, well a bigger mess to mop up...

 

[Dr.TEETH]

As evil as Saddam was don't you think now that he kept the balance in the middle east? When he and his sons were taken out of power, it affected that balance and now we have, well a bigger mess to mop up...

I hate to say this, but that is what the liberals were warning us about from day one.

 

[Hell_Awaits]

I hate to say this, but that is what the liberals were warning us about from day one.

Actually this is why G.H. Bush did'nt take out Saddam in the first Gulf war. He knew the score.

 

[sknight]

I hate to say this, but that is what the liberals were warning us about from day one.

Saddam was what that region needed to be under control. He also limited the power Iran had in the region. This in itself created a chain reaction with repercussions that are beginning to unfold now.

How the Iraq invasion isn't being called the greatest military bungle in American history, I don't know. We can't limit our scope of analysis to only Iraq, but the surrounding regions.

edit: looks like Al Gore said just that.

 

[Jurched]

Saddam was what that region needed to be under control. He also limited the power Iran had in the region. This in itself created a chain reaction with repercussions that are beginning to unfold now.

How the Iraq invasion isn't being called the greatest military bungle in American history, I don't know. We can't limit our scope of analysis to only Iraq, but the surrounding regions.

edit: looks like Al Gore said just that.

Oh sure! Fuckin Pig-Man-Bear, aka Algore, is gonna lecture me on history!

I still remember that video from 1993 when he was touring Monticello and pointed up to a statue, asking, "Say, who's that fellow?" The tour guide responded, "Uh, that's George Washington."

Al "Fucking retarded piece of shit" gore doesn't know who's on the $1 bill or a statue in front of his stuck-up nose, but he's gonna tell us what's the worst mistake in US history?

Great!

Personally, I rate the failure to repatriate our darker brothers to their Motherland after the civil war as colossal fuck-up Number one!

Jurched

 

[sixxswine]

I hate to say this, but that is what the liberals were warning us about from day one.

Yeah, I have to agree and I too hate to agree with the Democrats...
At this time do you see anything wrong with saying, "time to pull out it was a mistake to stick around" and have soliders picked off on a daily basis?

 

[Arg_Hamster]

As evil as Saddam was don't you think now that he kept the balance in the middle east? When he and his sons were taken out of power, it affected that balance and now we have, well a bigger mess to mop up...

Indeed. I don´t understand why this thought never occured to the president, Condie and Dick. It seemed pretty obvious to most leaders and analysts worldvide.

 

[Arg_Hamster]

Actually this is why G.H. Bush did'nt take out Saddam in the first Gulf war. He knew the score.

Ah, but that was a different time, a lot of groups were ready to overthrow Saddam after Desert Storm. They asked for back up and plans were laid. Saddam was if not outright hated, at least isolated after the attack on Kuwait. When it was decided to not keep troops there Saddam returned and took a revenge on the groups in the north and south.

The whole PR-deal about that war was to show that a modern blitzkrieg could topple any leader without sending in troops for police-duty. Guess that strategy didn´t work...

In 2003 most of the minorites didn´t give a fuck about Uncle Sam or the Brits talking about ending tyrany. Maybe some high-profile exile leaders listened with a friendly ear (people who´d be seen as corrupt marionettes) but common people in Kurdistan for example didn´t care much.

 

[Arg_Hamster]

I have this hate for PC-fantasies where soldiers embrace civilians and flowers and hugs are exchanged. Sure if someone is seen as a liberator you get that each day but it´s a fucking war and people complain when some fucker gets sniped.

How large portion of the american population thought this would be a war without casualties? That´s the fucking scary part how people can be so fucking out of touch with reality and this question comes form a person in Sweden were we haven´t had an official war since the early 19th century. But when we send troops to the hotspots over the world we know that we might get a couple of solders killed since that´s what happens when people have guns.

 

[sixxswine]

Indeed. I don´t understand why this thought never occured to the president, Condie and Dick. It seemed pretty obvious to most leaders and analysts worldvide.

I'm sure they were aware, they are playing with other people's lives and the risk didn't pay off... Tragic.

 

[Arg_Hamster]

I'm sure they were aware, they are playing with other people's lives and the risk didn't pay off... Tragic.

Sure. As long as some other motherfucker pays, who cares?