late one night drop loads of marijuana... junk food... all across the country
and the next night sneak attack
member nejbody
AGuSTiN wrote:I don't see how requiring more people to die honors those already dead.
I don't see how you can ever really "finish the job" in Iraq. Terrorists can setup anywhere. From the mountains of Pakistan to London itself.
I say, let them have a civil war, and we don't like the victor, we mop them up.
You know, that happened to this other place in the Mid-east... damn.. what's it called again... Af... Ag... Stani... damn... oh wait!!! It was in Europe... ummm you, slave... go? hrmmm it'll come to me sometime.
You finish the job by:
- Making the country autonomous
- Making the country united as a single entity instead of divided along ethnic boundaries
- Move them away from a theocratic government to a secularized gov't.
- Have a nationally loyal Police and Military.
- Rebuild their Government, Economy and Infrastructure.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
|L?M (The Kilted One)]
You know, that happened to this other place in the Mid-east... damn.. what's it called again... Af... Ag... Stani... damn... oh wait!!! It was in Europe... ummm you, slave... go? hrmmm it'll come to me sometime.
You finish the job by:
- Making the country autonomous
- Making the country united as a single entity instead of divided along ethnic boundaries
- Move them away from a theocratic government to a secularized gov't.
- Have a nationally loyal Police and Military.
- Rebuild their Government, Economy and Infrastructure.
And 2 years after we've done that, they'll have a coup, overthrow all our hard work, and be right back to a religious nut for a leader.
Gam, you're missing one key point in this.. They want a religious leader running their nation. It's the basis for the impending civil war, and nothing we do will change their religion. No matter what we do, no matter how good we make their infrastructure or economy, in the end their faith will cause an uprising against the government.
John Wilken
2002 Cavalier
2.2 Vin code 4
Auto
They didn't have a secular candidate during the parliamentary elections (As I remember), and the representatives are over 70% Shi'ia.
The same fears arose in the 50's before Saddam had become President, but Iraqi Kings in the late 40's to mid 50's actually modernized the country into a really pro-western force.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
John Wilken wrote:|L?M (The Kilted One)]
You know, that happened to this other place in the Mid-east... damn.. what's it called again... Af... Ag... Stani... damn... oh wait!!! It was in Europe... ummm you, slave... go? hrmmm it'll come to me sometime.
You finish the job by:
- Making the country autonomous
- Making the country united as a single entity instead of divided along ethnic boundaries
- Move them away from a theocratic government to a secularized gov't.
- Have a nationally loyal Police and Military.
- Rebuild their Government, Economy and Infrastructure.
And 2 years after we've done that, they'll have a coup, overthrow all our hard work, and be right back to a religious nut for a leader.
Gam, you're missing one key point in this.. They want a religious leader running their nation. It's the basis for the impending civil war, and nothing we do will change their religion. No matter what we do, no matter how good we make their infrastructure or economy, in the end their faith will cause an uprising against the government.
Like GAM said, most of them were from one religious idea. The problem with them is that they are all the same religion by name, with 1000 sects in between. I think, for the first election there was something like in 14 canidates. But high majority was from one sect. There is no such thing as a religious leader in the middle east. He was lost back in the WWII days when his great friendship with Hitler was obviously ended. Their only threat iis now the extremist religious facists. Thats why we need to stay there for another....IDK 10, 20 ,45 years. We have set the middle east into somthing they never thought they would see. Not only that, if we stay there, Iraq will be the biggest target for terrorists, not the US.
Rollinredcavi wrote:Thats why we need to stay there for another....IDK 10, 20 ,45 years. We have set the middle east into somthing they never thought they would see. Not only that, if we stay there, Iraq will be the biggest target for terrorists, not the US.
A few problems with that idea -
1. Iraq being a target for terrorist does not mean that the US is no longer a target - or even a lessor target than before. That aside - I'd say that Israel has been, and still is, the biggest target for terrorist by a large margin - a concept which has failed to spare the US, Spain, and the United Kingdom from terrorist attacks. The terrorist attacks in Spain and the UK happened DURING OUR OCCUPATION OF IRAQ. Consider that notion a myth.
2. Iraq is unstable - very unstable. It may not be long before there is a full scale civil war(really it already kinda is a small scale civil war). If there is we really won't be able to stop it and the current "Government" there will mean nothing. There is at least a decent chance that this civil war may spread to other countries in the region too. Forget the high oil prices this will cause - we'll be really up a creek without a paddle when we have to ration gas(you can only purchase "X" gallons a month etc) or even better when most of your local gas stations are flat out of gas.
3. The Iraq government cannot handle being a high priority terrorist target in the long term. Hell it isn't handling things so well with the greatest military in the world backing them up - how are they gonna do when we leave or even when we start reducing troop counts?! As is - what are they gonna do if the insurgency grows any larger?!
4. For many many years - many in the middle east believed that the US wanted to conquer the region. Then we attacked Afghanistan - and rightfully so - but that aroused a little more suspicion in a few. The fact that we had a right to go there made it not that bad though - most people didn't buy the idea. THEN - we invaded Iraq. What used to sound like conspiracy theory talk before started looking alot more like reality - and honestly I can see where they would get that impression to some extent. Hell I'm not so sure that wasn't Bush's plan - to use Afghanistan and Iraq as a staging ground for taking over more countries - Syria, Iran, etc - in fact there has been plenty of talk by us on potentially using military force against them - while we're still not even done in Iraq or Afghanistan!!
5. See reason 4. Iraq is a major source of inspiration in radical young and uneducated Islamic men. Sure most of the middle east hated us before - but there is a difference between hating someone and actively trying to kill someone. For many - Iraq IS that difference.
6. If we fail in Iraq - no matter if the government collapses or if there is a full scale civil war there that we're powerless to stop - terrorist WILL claim this as a victory of "the soldiers of God over the forces of evil"(that is how they see it anyways). This will greatly multiply problem 5.
7. This sham of a war is costing our soldiers dearly - and this is I price I would never have asked them too pay. The cost is too high. The juice(assuming we EVER see any "juice" out of this) is not worth the squeeze.
Fact is - now there are a lot more terrorist than there used to be - and more terrorist means that they can more easily strike anywhere across the globe - they don't have to "focus attacks" on Israel, Iraq, the US, or anywhere in particular. They generally launch rouge cells - the leadership isn't even that important outside of backrolling it all(why OSB still is dangerous). Kill all their leaders and they can still launch attacks against everyone - esp. with the additional recruits they have gotten out of this. Iraq has made us safer?! I think not. Iraq has made the entire world a more dangerous place to live.
I'm sure some of you still think that it has made us safer - and will point to the lack of any more sucessful attacks against us as the "proof" of this. People may feel the same way about Bush too and will use the same "proof." Well I have a rock that keeps tigers out of my yard. I can prove it too - look in my yard... no tigers anywhere around - that proves that it works
If fact I don't even see tigers anywhere in my neighborhood!! Wait a minute - no terrorist in my neighborhood either... THIS ROCK IS AWESOME!!
I've never heard of this "part throttle" before. Does it just bolt on?
Well If I had my way, I'd start off the war by....
Using Welsh bowman to attack the flank, troops from France will land to the north, and Irish conscripts will approach from the southwest...........wait, something tells me this plan wouldn't work out too well.
"Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines." -- Steven Wright
i would do the best that i can to train iraqi soldiers to fight for themselves. i know this is pointless because they are not ready after 2 years of it who knows when they will be. anyways after they were able to take care of the situation then get our troops the heck out of iraq. we cant leave now no matter how much i or anyone else wants to. we will only have another iran or north korea on our hands if we do not finish it. on that note i think we need to get out as soon as we can so we can worry about the crazy bastards in korea and iran. we really dont want a nuclear power who hates our guts and has a nutcase for a leader to stay around to long.
i also wanna say that even though you dont think the war is right and you dont want to see the troops over in iraq does not mean you do not care and support the troops who are protecting us. i have heard time and again that i dont support the troops because i want us to get out of iraq as soon as we can. i want this war to be over so the troops dont have to be in that situation anymore. anyways thats my $.02
Obviously the Iraqi soldier training program leaves a bit to be desired so as far as training Iraqi soldiers go - set up American style boot camps and hand the trainees over to Marine drill instructors
I've never heard of this "part throttle" before. Does it just bolt on?
Bastardking3000 wrote:Obviously the Iraqi soldier training program leaves a bit to be desired so as far as training Iraqi soldiers go - set up American style boot camps and hand the trainees over to Marine drill instructors
American DI's...
DI: You eyeballin me?
Iraqi : What is eyeballing?
DI: Oh, you're a funny man. Look everybody, it's Steve freakin Martin
Iraqi: Who is Steve freakin martin?
DI: Jesus, Mary and Joseph. What's wrong with you numbnuts?
Iraqi: I don't know Jesus, Mary or Joseph either. And my nuts aren't numb. They're chafing.
John Wilken
2002 Cavalier
2.2 Vin code 4
Auto
Bastardking3000 wrote:Rollinredcavi wrote:Thats why we need to stay there for another....IDK 10, 20 ,45 years. We have set the middle east into somthing they never thought they would see. Not only that, if we stay there, Iraq will be the biggest target for terrorists, not the US.
A few problems with that idea -
1. Iraq being a target for terrorist does not mean that the US is no longer a target - or even a lessor target than before. That aside - I'd say that Israel has been, and still is, the biggest target for terrorist by a large margin - a concept which has failed to spare the US, Spain, and the United Kingdom from terrorist attacks. The terrorist attacks in Spain and the UK happened DURING OUR OCCUPATION OF IRAQ. Consider that notion a myth.
2. Iraq is unstable - very unstable. It may not be long before there is a full scale civil war(really it already kinda is a small scale civil war). If there is we really won't be able to stop it and the current "Government" there will mean nothing. There is at least a decent chance that this civil war may spread to other countries in the region too. Forget the high oil prices this will cause - we'll be really up a creek without a paddle when we have to ration gas(you can only purchase "X" gallons a month etc) or even better when most of your local gas stations are flat out of gas.
3. The Iraq government cannot handle being a high priority terrorist target in the long term. Hell it isn't handling things so well with the greatest military in the world backing them up - how are they gonna do when we leave or even when we start reducing troop counts?! As is - what are they gonna do if the insurgency grows any larger?!
4. For many many years - many in the middle east believed that the US wanted to conquer the region. Then we attacked Afghanistan - and rightfully so - but that aroused a little more suspicion in a few. The fact that we had a right to go there made it not that bad though - most people didn't buy the idea. THEN - we invaded Iraq. What used to sound like conspiracy theory talk before started looking alot more like reality - and honestly I can see where they would get that impression to some extent. Hell I'm not so sure that wasn't Bush's plan - to use Afghanistan and Iraq as a staging ground for taking over more countries - Syria, Iran, etc - in fact there has been plenty of talk by us on potentially using military force against them - while we're still not even done in Iraq or Afghanistan!!
5. See reason 4. Iraq is a major source of inspiration in radical young and uneducated Islamic men. Sure most of the middle east hated us before - but there is a difference between hating someone and actively trying to kill someone. For many - Iraq IS that difference.
6. If we fail in Iraq - no matter if the government collapses or if there is a full scale civil war there that we're powerless to stop - terrorist WILL claim this as a victory of "the soldiers of God over the forces of evil"(that is how they see it anyways). This will greatly multiply problem 5.
7. This sham of a war is costing our soldiers dearly - and this is I price I would never have asked them too pay. The cost is too high. The juice(assuming we EVER see any "juice" out of this) is not worth the squeeze.
Fact is - now there are a lot more terrorist than there used to be - and more terrorist means that they can more easily strike anywhere across the globe - they don't have to "focus attacks" on Israel, Iraq, the US, or anywhere in particular. They generally launch rouge cells - the leadership isn't even that important outside of backrolling it all(why OSB still is dangerous). Kill all their leaders and they can still launch attacks against everyone - esp. with the additional recruits they have gotten out of this. Iraq has made us safer?! I think not. Iraq has made the entire world a more dangerous place to live.
I'm sure some of you still think that it has made us safer - and will point to the lack of any more sucessful attacks against us as the "proof" of this. People may feel the same way about Bush too and will use the same "proof." Well I have a rock that keeps tigers out of my yard. I can prove it too - look in my yard... no tigers anywhere around - that proves that it works If fact I don't even see tigers anywhere in my neighborhood!! Wait a minute - no terrorist in my neighborhood either... THIS ROCK IS AWESOME!!
No offense, but your thinking is askew. Yeah there is not tiger or terroris in your front yard. But did you ever have to use your rock? I doubt it. So you really dont know if that works or not. The invasion of Iraq has not neccisarily made our country safer at the imediate moment, But if we can get the middle east to turn to democracy like Iraq has, we will no dout see an increase in safety from terrorist attacks. You might get shot by some yahoo but your chances of getting blown up by a terrorist's bomb will be much less likely.
It seriously is amusing to me how some of the people on here argue. Though many have good points. The other lack to see the other side. Basically, when you actually have to use that rock, come back to me and say that Iraq is a @!#$ up. Well nevermind, cuz if or when it happens, you wont call it a @!#$ up, you'll wish there was more people like my 2 best friends helping your country stay free.
Your chances of dying in a terrorist attack were greater by far than the odds of winning Powerball... twice... in a row.. with giant jackpots.
You have a better chance of dying of botulism. Why not commit more resources to food safety?
Hell, GI-MRE's are f-ing terrible!
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
I have a tree in my front yard that does the same thing. Its pretty awesome.
Rock, tree... hell, all we need is scissors.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:I have a tree in my front yard that does the same thing. Its pretty awesome.
Rock, tree... hell, all we need is scissors.
Rock, TREE scissors?
Guess that's the Canuckistan version of Rock, PAPER scissors!
Do you guys play "russian roulette" with a semi-auto pistol too?
John Wilken
2002 Cavalier
2.2 Vin code 4
Auto
Nah, we leave those kinds of games to people that need killing.
Okay so: Boulder, Tree, Chainsaw. happy?
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
Bastardking3000 wrote:Rollinredcavi wrote:Bastardking3000 wrote:I'm sure some of you still think that it has made us safer - and will point to the lack of any more sucessful attacks against us as the "proof" of this. People may feel the same way about Bush too and will use the same "proof." Well I have a rock that keeps tigers out of my yard. I can prove it too - look in my yard... no tigers anywhere around - that proves that it works If fact I don't even see tigers anywhere in my neighborhood!! Wait a minute - no terrorist in my neighborhood either... THIS ROCK IS AWESOME!!
No offense, but your thinking is askew. Yeah there is not tiger or terroris in your front yard. But did you ever have to use your rock? I doubt it. So you really dont know if that works or not. The invasion of Iraq has not neccisarily made our country safer at the imediate moment, But if we can get the middle east to turn to democracy like Iraq has, we will no dout see an increase in safety from terrorist attacks. You might get shot by some yahoo but your chances of getting blown up by a terrorist's bomb will be much less likely.
It seriously is amusing to me how some of the people on here argue. Though many have good points. The other lack to see the other side. Basically, when you actually have to use that rock, come back to me and say that Iraq is a @!#$ up. Well nevermind, cuz if or when it happens, you wont call it a @!#$ up, you'll wish there was more people like my 2 best friends helping your country stay free.
I don't think that you quite caught that I was being fecicious about the rock thing - aka I wasn't being serious. I was using my magic rock anology to point out the bad logic of people who point to the fact that - America hasn't suffered a terrorist attack on our own soil since 9/11 - as proof that either the Iraq war and/or Bush's policies have made us safer from terrorist. The logic of "my rock keeps tigers away' is faulty on purpose - to point out the faulty logic of "my president and/or Iraq keeps terrorists away."
I hope you see what I'm getting at now.
I understand what you were saying. But yet understand what I am saying. There will never be "PROOF" that anything makes us "safer". But to me, doing somthing is better than nothing. Establish a base in the middle east then you have a perfect operation zone to take action agains the whole middle ease/asia/africa. It is the same thing communism tried to do in Asia with USSR, China, Vietnam. But its pretty much proven that communism doesnt work (note to the democrats out there, it doesnt work), because china is now moving away from communism, Russia, basically completely away from communism. So in other words what I am getting at is that democracy works, it is proven. 200 years is a benchmark for politics in a country, and we are still moving, at a great course at that. Prove to me where anyone has said Iraq has made us safer from terrorism at the moment, but everyone is smart enough to know that if we pursue the terrorists for an extended period of time, we will be safer.
