Originally posted by wibOur next prime minister should be Gordon Brown. I'm look forward to the Brown Rice summits.
Well I couldn't find anyone in the succession named "White" or I would have chosen him for Prez along with Rice. Then we could have had the "White - Rice" ticket.
"Brown" of course would also be funny.
No, no second election. This country can barely get through one every 4 years without anally impaling ourselves on our own voting machines. Plus another election so soon would cause our media to spontaneously combust.
More seriously in Iraq it is no longer about winning and losing. I believe the coalition's job now is to:
Maintain security
Train Iraq's security services
Protect those rebuilding Iraq
Stop disstabilising forces and amoury entering Iraq
If we cannot fulfil these or they would be fulfilled better locally we should get out. On balance I feel we should leave now.
I cannot see Bush/Blair pulling out before May. If they do they will lose face, oil revenue, votes and a foothold in the region.
It might be a Brown Rice pudding before this is sorted.
Originally posted by slimjimIt makes sense to quit immediately if by persisting one only makes a situation worse. Having miscarried in the past is a poor argument for continuing to miscarry in the future.
You make some very valid points. What do you suggest we do? Leave now and say screw the 1900 who gave their lives in defense of the idea of a free Iraq. Have we become a nation of quitters who cut and run at the first sign of trouble? I wonder what you would have thought if you were around when the D-day invasion occured and we lost over 5000 troops in one d ...[text shortened]... o end. We need to send a stronger message to Syria and Iran to quit meddling in Iraq's affairs.
Now, I can't actually tell whether it's better for the troops to stay or go. So maybe they should stay. But it seems likely that they are as much creating a problem, by baiting islamofascists and nationalists, as they are contributing to its solution, by shoring up fledgling democracy.
Originally posted by wibThank you for your support....and, no, it's not a perfect plan, but I think it would be cheaper in the long run...I don't want us (U.S) in Iraq anymore than the mose virulent pacifist, but since we are there, we need to finish the job. Cutting and running on a half-finished job is like asking for the Islamofascists to "finish" our arses for good.....
See, this is a plan. Now it's a violent, extremely bloody, and wildly expensive plan, but at least it's an F'ing plan!
It's actually one of only two ways I can see to solve the Iraq "problem".
1. The Chancre/SlimJim plan. I've included slim because I think he'd go along with it. We seal the borders and terminate all resistance in Iraq. We kill e ...[text shortened]... feeling is that the people running this war right now have no idea what the hell they're doing.
Speaking of holidays, I think Ramadan is starting for Muslims soon. May I remind you, that last year, G.W Bush ordered a brutal invasion of the city of Fallujah on the weekend holidays of Ramadan, he basicly razed the entire city and killed everything and anyone left in it. Ramadan is like the equivalent of our Christmas to Muslims. Even the German Nazis didn't attack the allies during Christmas, and their was a brief cease fire during the holidays. So in a way, what Bush did, was more brutal, disrespectful, and inconsiderate to one's culture then Hitler. It's not just "terrorists" shooting at you, they shoot at you, because they HATE you, they feel you have destroyed their country and families, and they want to avenge Iraqi dead at your hands. And to be honest, I agree with them on that...
For example, one time Fox was reporting that some insurgents were shouting "Jihad, kill the infidels!" in the background while firing at USA soldiers. Well, it turns out I understand Arabic somewhat, and I can tell you FAUX news, they were not shouting "Jihad!", the direct translation was, "we do this for the fallen!" I want Americans to ponder what that phrase means and why so many are shooting at you...
Originally posted by UmalakasPhuk not waging war on these creeps during Ramadan and your benevolent views on these 11th century cretins....smash them to hell or heaven so they can be with their 70 virgins, Ramadan or not...wage war on the cretins 24-7 until they are all dead...guess what, we do this "for the fallen also"....5,000 so far...after they're done firing at us, if successful, they'll be firing at YOU.......ponder what that means
Speaking of holidays, I think Ramadan is starting for Muslims soon. May I remind you, that last year, G.W Bush ordered a brutal invasion of the city of Fallujah on the weekend holidays of Ramadan, he basicly razed the entire city and killed everything and anyone left in it. Ramadan is like the equivalent of our Christmas to Muslims. Even the German Nazis di ...[text shortened]... llen!" I want Americans to ponder what that phrase means and why so many are shooting at you...
Originally posted by chancremechanicYou attacked them, they didn't attack you, yanker.
Phuk not waging war on these creeps during Ramadan and your benevolent views on these 11th century cretins....smash them to hell or heaven so they can be with their 70 virgins, Ramadan or not...wage war on the cretins 24-7 until they are all dead...guess what, we do this "for the fallen also"....5,000 so far...after they're done firing at us, if successful, they'll be firing at YOU.......ponder what that means
Originally posted by wibso if in WWII the US had held to Geneva convention rules, and the other side hadn't, it probably would have taken a lot longer than 3.5 years.
No. The Geneva Convention was a result of the war though. I don't remember the year. Maybe 1950 when it was approved by the "world".
(referring to the 3rd and final geneva convention, i think)
how about rounding up all of-age males into Civilian Conservation Corps-style camps, and letting them muster out gradually, letting them work on education and infrastructure in the meantime?
Originally posted by wibPrimarily because that war was fought on actual battlefields. Things are quite different today. When wars were fought solely on battlefields, or at sea, you could force the enemy to surrender...and that's what we did...(it helps if both sides actually want to live).
...And D-Day didn't take 3 and a half years. The entire second World War, for America anyway, barely took 3 and a half years...
today, we're fighting against an enemy who won't surrender. The only way to defeat them is to totally destroy them, because (A) They can not be negotiated with (perhaps Cindy Sheehan should give it a shot, see how that works out) and (B) the enemy 'commanders' have no qualms about sending their 'soldiers' on suicide missions, in order to take as many people as they can into eternity with them.
But I thnk that Slim's point referred to the actual number of deaths, not how long they took...
In WWII , it was a common event to lose several thousand American lives in one battle alone (10s of thousands at the Battle of the Bulge)... and yet, at a time when thousands of lives could be lost in a day (as opposed to less than 2,000 over 3+ years), the country was still behind the President..and FDR, in fact, used the war in a 1944 radio address, saying that the country needed to re-elect him or else we would lose (speaking of using a war for political purposes). But even back then, Republicans obviously understood that the U.S. was better at war when united. And I have a distinct feeling that the press didn't always report casualty numbers in a timely manner...even the press wanted the U.S. to win that one, unlike today...
People should do a little research when it comes to casualities of war... plus, it would be nice if at least a few of our military victories were reported by the mainstream press. Probably won't happen though...they're too busy breathlessly awaiting the 2,000th death of a U.S. Soldier. That want that 2,000th death so bad they can taste it...
they're getting tired of saying "over 1,000 deaths", they want to move on to the next round number...
Originally posted by chancremechanicI'm tired of the "11th century cretins" viewpoint. Even in the 11th century, there was a diversity of viewpoints among Muslims ranging from radical extremism to what you might call non-violent brotherly love (look up Rumi as an example). Yes, the extremists are cretins, but it has more to do with their mentality--comparable, to take a random example, to the cretinous early Christian iconoclasts, with their charming penchant for breaking everything that looked furrin'--than their religion. Look up the 6th pillar of Islam and Wa'habism for more information on why these freaks are abberations even to their own religion.
Phuk not waging war on these creeps during Ramadan and your benevolent views on these 11th century cretins....smash them to hell or heaven so they can be with their 70 virgins, Ramadan or not...wage war on the cretins 24-7 until they are all dead...guess what, we do this "for the fallen also"....5,000 so far...after they're done firing at us, if successful, they'll be firing at YOU.......ponder what that means
Originally posted by wibsurely it's too late to just pull out and screw the consequences?
text shortened
fair enough you were against the war in the first place.
fair enough they've made a massive hash of it with no end in sight.
but the US and UK are responsible now for the mess in iraq and have an obligation to sort it out.
no they're not doing very well at that, either.
they'll have to do better.
it will end up costing lots of lives and lots of money.
tough.
"People should do a little research when it comes to casualities of war... plus, it would be nice if at least a few of our military victories were reported by the mainstream press."
Breaking news on CNN! The great brave American soldiers, with M1's, F-18's, Humvees, etc defeated 50 men in mud huts! Let's rejoice the great American *cough* slaughter/massacre *cough*, oops, I mean, great brave military victory against all odds!
Originally posted by Umalakastoo bad it was only 50 .. i'm old-school myself. I say kill 'em all. let Allah sort them out.
"People should do a little research when it comes to casualities of war... plus, it would be nice if at least a few of our military victories were reported by the mainstream press."
Breaking news on CNN! The great brave American soldiers, with M1's, F-18's, Humvees, etc defeated 50 men in mud huts! Let's rejoice the great American *cough* slaughter/massacre *cough*, oops, I mean, great brave military victory against all odds!
Semper Fi
Originally posted by UmalakasWhat are the soldiers supposed to do? Throw spitballs at them. I like the General Patton approach. Make the other dumb bastard die for his country. Rub pigs blood on the bullets to ensure that they don't go to heaven and get their 70 or whatever number it is this week virgins. You convenietly forget how your brave Moslem fighters use women and children as shields but lambaste the troops for using any means to kill the enemy. Screw off twerp.
"People should do a little research when it comes to casualities of war... plus, it would be nice if at least a few of our military victories were reported by the mainstream press."
Breaking news on CNN! The great brave American soldiers, with M1's, F-18's, Humvees, etc defeated 50 men in mud huts! Let's rejoice the great American *cough* slaughter/massacre *cough*, oops, I mean, great brave military victory against all odds!
Originally posted by slimjimYeah, and killing mudhutters with a tank is such bravery and such skill.
What are the soldiers supposed to do? Throw spitballs at them. I like the General Patton approach. Make the other dumb bastard die for his country. Rub pigs blood on the bullets to ensure that they don't go to heaven and get their 70 or whatever number it is this week virgins. You convenietly forget how your brave Moslem fighters use women and children as shields but lambaste the troops for using any means to kill the enemy. Screw off twerp.