NationStates Jolt Archive

I want the Iraqis to win!


Who's with me!

I want everybody to win.

I know I know, I'm totally idealistic. :?

Hehe, nice poll. I'd like to see the results in a week or so... :mrgreen:

Why not just aspire to something else like......for example
An end to the killing.
A peaceful solution.



Oh damn no that wouldn't be quite as important to you as hacking off Americans would it !

Step 1. pull all US/UK/Aussie/Jap/and whoever else's troops out of the country.

Step 2. nuke all of Iraq

Step 3. take their gas.

Why not just aspire to something else like......for example The realization of the PNAC's master-plan for war-mongering and world-domination?


An end to the killing.
if there are no Americans in the middle-east, then no Americans will die in the middle-east

A peaceful solution.
the military leaves... and waves goodbye




Oh damn no that wouldn't be quite as important to
you as hacking off Americans would it !
The point is that our Marines are literally "hacking off" Iraqis everyday in a war that makes less sense than Vietnam.

Step 1. pull all US/UK/Aussie/Jap/and whoever else's troops out of the country.


This is the only thing you've ever said that's made any sense...

An end to the killing. if there are no Americans in the middle-east, then no Americans will die in the middle-east

No, just middle-easterners. And of course, they don't matter at all. :roll:

A peaceful solution.the military leaves... and waves goodbye

And the Iraqis stop being united against us and resume killing each other, and possibly threatening their neighbors again.

Brilliant plan.

Step 1. pull all US/UK/Aussie/Jap/and whoever else's troops out of the country.


This is the only thing you've ever said that's made any sense...

Like 1000 monkeys on typewriters.... they will eventually make sense ;)

Step 1. pull all US/UK/Aussie/Jap/and whoever else's troops out of the country.


This is the only thing you've ever said that's made any sense...

Like 1000 monkeys on typewriters.... they will eventually make sense ;)

It only makes sense if your sole goal is to end American casualties. I'm of the opinion that since we instigated this mess, we have an obligation to at least HELP solve it.

Step 1. pull all US/UK/Aussie/Jap/and whoever else's troops out of the country.


This is the only thing you've ever said that's made any sense...
Ok Mr. I hate the waco-burning-ruby-ridge-shooting-9/11-planning-nazi-zionist-government.

Check out what bi-partisian 9/11 commision members said about the Bush/Cheney interview:

"It was an extraordinarily good meeting. The president was forthright," said former New Jersey Gov. Thomas Kean, the commission's Republican chairman.

"We said we hoped we could test some things out as to whether some of recommendations we were considering were indeed practical," he said. "The president said he was open to some ideas, and nothing was ruled out."

"It was a very good meeting," Democratic commissioner Bob Kerrey said. "I do think it'll help — in particular the president's description of what happened during 2001 and most particularly on 9/11."

doesnt sound like they had a lot to hide does it?

Step 1. pull all US/UK/Aussie/Jap/and whoever else's troops out of the country.

Step 2. nuke all of Iraq

Step 3. take their gas.

You missed a few steps:

Step 4. repeat as needed in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan

Step 5. face ire of UN, India, China, and Europe.

Step 6. attempt to pick up the pieces of insuing world war.

They've made this horrible mess and now you want them to leave before they've cleaned it up? Actually they've really just made a mess they already left there worse, so I guess we can't really expect anything.

Step 1. pull all US/UK/Aussie/Jap/and whoever else's troops out of the country.

Step 2. nuke all of Iraq

Step 3. take their gas.

I don't know why won't Americans proceed with this plan. After removing all human beings from Iraq (step 1), there wouldn't be any problems.
Other countries would be against, but other countries are (of course) worse kind of people than Americans. IF they are people, not arabs.

But seriously. Why is Bush so obsessed with his "mission" to "save the world".... "War to prevent the war" and "War to remove dictators who are declaring wars against other countries"... This is just absurd.

They've made this horrible mess and now you want them to leave before they've cleaned it up? Actually they've really just made a mess they already left there worse, so I guess we can't really expect anything.

If we leave before cleaning up our mess AGAIN, we might be back in other ten years, under... *shudder* a third Bush.

Step 1. pull all US/UK/Aussie/Jap/and whoever else's troops out of the country.

Step 2. nuke all of Iraq

Step 3. take their gas.

You missed a few steps:

Step 4. repeat as needed in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan

Step 5. face ire of UN, India, China, and Europe.

Step 6. attempt to pick up the pieces of insuing world war.

steps 1-3 are the short term plan. My, and the PNAC's, long term plan includes steps 4-6.

They've made this horrible mess and now you want them to leave before they've cleaned it up? Actually they've really just made a mess they already left there worse, so I guess we can't really expect anything.

They are not cleaning this mess.. They're making a bigger one instead.

It only makes sense if your sole goal is to end American casualties. I'm of the opinion that since we instigated this mess, we have an obligation to at least HELP solve it.

Should we "HELP" them if they don't want us there? Should we "HELP" them if they actually think we've made Iraq worse?

I think they've had all the "HELP" they can stand!

They've made this horrible mess and now you want them to leave before they've cleaned it up? Actually they've really just made a mess they already left there worse, so I guess we can't really expect anything.

If we leave before cleaning up our mess AGAIN, we might be back in other ten years, under... *shudder* a third Bush.

Exactly, although to be fair the Iraqis fighting back are being somewhat stupid right now. Prooving their country is stable will get rid of the Americans faster than trying to kill them off. Actually the US will most likely base some military there anyway, so no matter what they do they probably wont completely get rid of them.

Step 1. pull all US/UK/Aussie/Jap/and whoever else's troops out of the country.


This is the only thing you've ever said that's made any sense...

Like 1000 monkeys on typewriters.... they will eventually make sense ;)

It only makes sense if your sole goal is to end American casualties. I'm of the opinion that since we instigated this mess, we have an obligation to at least HELP solve it.

I agree, but the military must be removed as soon as is FEASIBLE. Meaning as soon as a decent Iraqi government has been set up. After that, let them deal with it.

If we leave before cleaning up our mess AGAIN, we might be back in other ten years, under... *shudder* a third Bush.

I'm just glad that the British decided not to clean up their mess in America before they left...

An end to the killing.
if there are no Americans in the middle-east, then no Americans will die in the middle-east
Americans don't need to be in the middle east to be killed. Can you remember 9/11 ? I'sn't that where this whole cycle kicked off? Thats why they are in Iraq plus the (OK now disputeable) WMD
Don't tell me Duh.. its for the oil.

A peaceful solution.
the military leaves... and waves goodbye

And goes back to square one. Wow what a solution




Oh damn no that wouldn't be quite as important to
you as hacking off Americans would it !
The point is that our Marines are literally "hacking off" Iraqis everyday in a war that makes less sense than Vietnam.[/quote]
You're American ? Wow ! How much is a flight to Iraq. Perhaps we could do a whipround for you.
We'd like you to go.

If we leave before cleaning up our mess AGAIN, we might be back in other ten years, under... *shudder* a third Bush.

But now there is no dictators and there is already an Iraqi police and Iraqi government. But Bush won't stop until he eliminates everyone who opposes them.
Also many American soldiers show as much respect to Iraqi, as they were not human beings.

Step 1. pull all US/UK/Aussie/Jap/and whoever else's troops out of the country.

Step 2. nuke all of Iraq

Step 3. take their gas.

You missed a few steps:

Step 4. repeat as needed in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan

Step 5. face ire of UN, India, China, and Europe.

Step 6. attempt to pick up the pieces of insuing world war.

steps 1-3 are the short term plan. My, and the PNAC's, long term plan includes steps 4-6.

I doubt even the PNAC would endorse that nuclear war scenario, despite the disasters their fuzzy headed, neo-conservative thinking has wrought. I think you are on your own there...

Step 1. pull all US/UK/Aussie/Jap/and whoever else's troops out of the country.


This is the only thing you've ever said that's made any sense...

Like 1000 monkeys on typewriters.... they will eventually make sense ;)

It only makes sense if your sole goal is to end American casualties. I'm of the opinion that since we instigated this mess, we have an obligation to at least HELP solve it.

I agree, but the military must be removed as soon as is FEASIBLE. Meaning as soon as a decent Iraqi government has been set up. After that, let them deal with it.

I'm all for that; the big issue is getting to that point.

I want the Iraqis to win!


Who's with me!

Open your eyes! The people of Iraq did win...their liberty.

So before you go on and respond and throw around words like "quagmire" and such, recall that it took six years from the time the Revolutionary War ended to the time we ratified our Constitution.

I want the Iraqis to win!


Who's with me!

Open your eyes! The people of Iraq did win...their liberty.

So before you go on and respond and throw around words like "quagmire" and such, recall that it took six years from the time the Revolutionary War ended to the time we ratified our Constitution.

True, but there was the difference of us having liberated ourselves. The Iraqis mainly see us as another occupying power, similar to Saddam.

It's kind of like if America had been "liberated" from England by France. I'm sure before long, we'd be pissed at the French and telling them to leave.

Open your eyes! The people of Iraq did win...their liberty.

Oh, like the "liberty" to have a news paper shut down, the "liberty" to have an Isreali-look-alike Flag shoved down your throat, the "liberty" to get mowed down by assault weapons when you protest the Coalition, the "liberty" to be tortured in prison, the "liberty" to watch the Coalition place Ba'athist back in charge of the country, the "liberty" be a slave to Halliburton and Bechtel -- how much "liberty" did they win?

So before you go on and respond and throw around words like "quagmire" and such, recall that it took six years from the time the Revolutionary War ended to the time we ratified our Constitution.

Yes... it took us six years -- after we got rid of the occupying forces.
As long as the British(Americans) are occupying America(Iraq) then you can't really make a comparison.

There are certainly benefits to an Iraqi victory: Future presidents might be discouraged from invading small countries using $90 billion of our taxes for the next few decades or so.

There are certainly benefits to an Iraqi victory: Future presidents might be discouraged from invading small countries using $90 billion of our taxes for the next few decades or so.

8) Good point. Now, if only the people and politicians could remember that for more than 5 or 10 years at a time....

Open your eyes! The people of Iraq did win...their liberty.

the "liberty" to have an Isreali-look-alike Flag shoved down your throat

I still have yet to understand this complaint. The flag doesn't look very Israeli to me. They both have a blue stripe. I guess that's kind of similar... if you really stretch one's concept of "similar".

if there are no Americans in the middle-east, then no Americans will die in the middle-east
Americans don't need to be in the middle east to be killed. Can you remember 9/11 ? I'sn't that where this whole cycle kicked off? Thats why they are in Iraq plus the (OK now disputeable) WMD
Don't tell me Duh.. its for the oil.



9/11 started it all? So what was all the US meddling in the Middle East since the Seventies? That is what started it, not 9/11. 9/11 was the time the terrorists started fighting back.

Nobody wins in war..

Great Unequa..how I hate the hypocrisy here..if we leave now, then it's our fault if it gets worse...if we stay it's still our fault and we make it worse...you can't have it both ways people..either shut up and let us do our jobs in an attempt to stabilize the damn place (which include all the mistakes an Administration can make, along with every accomplishment) or let us pull out, and put your prescious UN in to do the job..oh..wait..I forgot..they were there..first rocket attack that managed to hit their compound, they fled like rabbits. And the rest of nations that have supported us with troops could barely muster 20,000. Do you honestly believe the UN could manage to come up with the necessary troops and logistics to adequately do the job without American input?

I don't care who wins, as long as somebody does and no WMD's are launched. It'll look bad if Bush loses the war though. People will keep using the phrase "Another Vietnam!"

I still have yet to understand this complaint. The flag doesn't look very Israeli to me. They both have a blue stripe. I guess that's kind of similar... if you really stretch one's concept of "similar".Actually a flag is a symbol of nationality and pride. It makes absolutely no sense at all that this flag would be drawned by an outside power. And the iraqis are rightly suspicious that the americans could use it as a tool of propaganda in order to get the country in line with their policy, as when they first removed the statue of Saddam and wraped it in an american flag, what a symbol! This is just inacceptable. The iraqis must be given their flag back.

Great Unequa..how I hate the hypocrisy here..if we leave now, then it's our fault if it gets worse...if we stay it's still our fault and we make it worse...you can't have it both ways people..either shut up and let us do our jobs in an attempt to stabilize the damn place (which include all the mistakes an Administration can make, along with every accomplishment) or let us pull out, and put your prescious UN in to do the job..oh..wait..I forgot..they were there..first rocket attack that managed to hit their compound, they fled like rabbits. And the rest of nations that have supported us with troops could barely muster 20,000. Do you honestly believe the UN could manage to come up with the necessary troops and logistics to adequately do the job without American input?It is the other way around. The UN must be given full administration (or better the arab league, or even better, the iraqis) and the US troups, if they stay there must act under the UN administration and orders, then the UN head-quarter will be defended. It made no sense to have the UN there be shot at and doing nothing.
the american input is harmful actually, like the Saddam input (which was american input as well) was.
Some humility is needed for once and the US must learn to take input.

Unfortunatly the USA will loose that war just like alomst every other war after WWII, and as usual they will loose it at home. And to say the truth I am not very happy with that. Anyways I rather stick to Nationstates politics.

Unfortunatly the USA will loose that war just like alomst every other war after WWII, and as usual they will loose it at home. And to say the truth I am not very happy with that. Anyways I rather stick to Nationstates politics.

I am also afraid that this is a double or trippel post again :?

Great Unequa..how I hate the hypocrisy here..if we leave now, then it's our fault if it gets worse...if we stay it's still our fault and we make it worse...you can't have it both ways people..either shut up and let us do our jobs in an attempt to stabilize the damn place (which include all the mistakes an Administration can make, along with every accomplishment) or let us pull out, and put your prescious UN in to do the job..oh..wait..I forgot..they were there..first rocket attack that managed to hit their compound, they fled like rabbits. And the rest of nations that have supported us with troops could barely muster 20,000. Do you honestly believe the UN could manage to come up with the necessary troops and logistics to adequately do the job without American input?It is the other way around. The UN must be given full administration (or better the arab league, or even better, the iraqis) and the US troups, if they stay there must act under the UN administration and orders, then the UN head-quarter will be defended. It made no sense to have the UN there be shot at and doing nothing.
the american input is harmful actually, like the Saddam input (which was american input as well) was.
Some humility is needed for once and the US must learn to take input.


Oh Hell no psylos..you want the UN..then fine...I say we pick up every stick, stone, piece of letterhead on Bremer's desk, and every soldier, sailor, airman, Marine and our equipment and go home..you want the UN to do it..fine..then do it without American muscle, see if you can get the UN to cough up the dough from it's member nations and see if they can come up with the necessary tens of thousands of troops and material to do it.

Well..considering how the corrupted UN Oil for Food program is becoming seriously huge..I mean..both French and Russian companies are implicated billions of dollars unaccounted for..sounds more like they were bribed to not support our effort in the Gulf..now there is a conspiracy I'd like to see Texas research

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3672901.stm
This is what war really is for those who think those things can not happen.
I'd better see the US loose at home than win abroad.

Oh Hell no psylos..you want the UN..then fine...I say we pick up every stick, stone, piece of letterhead on Bremer's desk, and every soldier, sailor, airman, Marine and our equipment and go home..you want the UN to do it..fine..then do it without American muscle, see if you can get the UN to cough up the dough from it's member nations and see if they can come up with the necessary tens of thousands of troops and material to do it.

Well..considering how the corrupted UN Oil for Food program is becoming seriously huge..I mean..both French and Russian companies are implicated billions of dollars unaccounted for..sounds more like they were bribed to not support our effort in the Gulf..now there is a conspiracy I'd like to see Texas researchThen go and don't set foot ever again on Iraq. The US is not needed there as an imperial power.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3672901.stm
This is what war really is for those who think those things can not happen.
I'd better see the US loose at home than win abroad.

Before you go off spouting bout us losing..perhaps you should recognize that 6 soldiers do not equate 145,000 ground troops...punish those responsible like any other bad apples..and hear what one of the Iraqi Governing Council said..

"Adnan Al-Pachachi, a member of the Iraqi Governing Council, said it would create a great deal of anger and discontent among Iraqis already concerned about security in the country.

But he rejected a comparison with the treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad during the days of Saddam Hussein.

"I don't think you can compare the two. Saddam Hussein's prisoners were not only tortured but executed. It was much worse than what is there now."

Before you go off spouting bout us losing..perhaps you should recognize that 6 soldiers do not equate 145,000 ground troops...punish those responsible like any other bad apples..and hear what one of the Iraqi Governing Council said..

"Adnan Al-Pachachi, a member of the Iraqi Governing Council, said it would create a great deal of anger and discontent among Iraqis already concerned about security in the country.

But he rejected a comparison with the treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad during the days of Saddam Hussein.

"I don't think you can compare the two. Saddam Hussein's prisoners were not only tortured but executed. It was much worse than what is there now."And Auchwitz was much worse than that as well, what's the point?

Before you go off spouting bout us losing..perhaps you should recognize that 6 soldiers do not equate 145,000 ground troops...punish those responsible like any other bad apples..and hear what one of the Iraqi Governing Council said..

"Adnan Al-Pachachi, a member of the Iraqi Governing Council, said it would create a great deal of anger and discontent among Iraqis already concerned about security in the country.

But he rejected a comparison with the treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad during the days of Saddam Hussein.

"I don't think you can compare the two. Saddam Hussein's prisoners were not only tortured but executed. It was much worse than what is there now."And Auchwitz was much worse than that as well, what's the point?

Wait..wait...you're comparing the Nazis Final Solution to 6 soldiers charged with prisoner misconduct?.....Charge these soldiers like any other bad apples, court-martial them and send them to the brig..Review the prison itself and make appropriate changes to ensure no further incidents occur.

Oh..and as far as not setting foot in Iraq...I'll go for that..if you no French or Russian company ever gets another contract with Iraq

Wait..wait...you're comparing the Nazis Final Solution to 6 soldiers charged with prisoner misconduct?.....Charge these soldiers like any other bad apples, court-martial them and send them to the brig..Review the prison itself and make appropriate changes to ensure no further incidents occur.I didn't, you did it.
BTW, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3672205.stm The Us is using Saddam's republican guards (the ones who did the torture you talked about)

Oh..and as far as not setting foot in Iraq...I'll go for that..if you no French or Russian company ever gets another contract with IraqI don't care what the french or russians get so long as the iraqis decide whether it happens or not. But for the american presence as an imperial power, it is clear they don't want it.

Wait..wait...you're comparing the Nazis Final Solution to 6 soldiers charged with prisoner misconduct?.....Charge these soldiers like any other bad apples, court-martial them and send them to the brig..Review the prison itself and make appropriate changes to ensure no further incidents occur.I didn't, you did it.
BTW, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3672205.stm The Us is using Saddam's republican guards (the ones who did the torture you talked about)

Oh..and as far as not setting foot in Iraq...I'll go for that..if you no French or Russian company ever gets another contract with IraqI don't care what the french or russians get so long as the iraqis decide whether it happens or not. But for the american presence as an imperial power, it is clear they don't want it.

Sometimes in order to make people see the light you have to shake hands with the Devil there psylos..it's called Realpolitik...and like it or not the vast majority of competent Iraqi military officers were Baath party members, the trick is to weed out who were members out of fear, those who wanted power, or for those that truly believed that Saddam and the Baath party were the way to go.

Sometimes in order to make people see the light you have to shake hands with the Devil there psylos..it's called Realpolitik...and like it or not the vast majority of competent Iraqi military officers were Baath party members, the trick is to weed out who were members out of fear, those who wanted power, or for those that truly believed that Saddam and the Baath party were the way to go.Yes that's what we told you when Saddam was in power. Now you can't say that after having killed that many people not to have evil people in charge (unless the goal is to have the americans control the oil).
I understand your point and agree with it actually, but I'm just pointing out the coallition is not coherent and therefore has hidden motives and therefore must hand over administration.

Sometimes in order to make people see the light you have to shake hands with the Devil there psylos..it's called Realpolitik...and like it or not the vast majority of competent Iraqi military officers were Baath party members, the trick is to weed out who were members out of fear, those who wanted power, or for those that truly believed that Saddam and the Baath party were the way to go.Yes that's what we told you when Saddam was in power. Now you can't say that after having killed that many people not to have evil people in charge (unless the goal is to have the americans control the oil).

Listen..you can't have it both ways..we can't go in..and we just can't leave so if you can please point out for the Iraqi Governing Council competent military officers to lead their new Army and who have no stigma attached to them as members of the Baath Party then by all means..give them a call..the bottom line is you won't find an officer below Captain that wasn't a member of the Baath Party..you want us gone but don't do what is necessary in order to leave..Gods man but you're making it virtually impossible to do ANYTHING.

MY COUSIN IS OVER THERE IN IRAQ SO NO! I DONT WANT THOSE BASTARDS TO WIN. WE WERE NOT TRYING TO EVEN FIGHTING A WAR AGAINST THEM uNTIL THOSE BASTARDS STARTED TO KILL US TROOPS. WERE ONLY OVER THER TRYING TO LIBERATE THEIER UNGREATFUL ASSES AND THEY KEPP KILLING THEIR "SAVIORS". FUCK THE IRAQIS! LETS SEND SADDAM BACK OVER THERE AND SEE HOW THEY LIKE IT. HE'LL KILL ALL THOSE WHO WERE CHEERING IN THE STREETS WHEN WE ARRIVED AND ILL SAY "GOOD FOR THEM!"

EMPEROR PSYCHOSIS

Well, I think I've made it pretty clear in other posts that I think the Iraq War was a war that didn't have to happen it's just pointless.

About overthrowing dictators, since when has the US cared about that? The US has supported numerous dictators over the last few decades such as Pinochet, the Banadista (those dudes before Castro, I think I got their names wrong) Diem, Saddam himself plus many more. The US, like any other country, dose what's in its interests, pretending all it dose is good and 'bring democracy' to everyone is just being ignorant of history. If the US is so bent on overthrowing dictatorships worldwide, why isn't Mugabae (sp?) worried? What do you consider Musharaf to be?

The US didn't need to go into Iraq, simple. Dictatorships get overthrown from within sooner or later, look at Romania and Chile, they managed to get rid of their dictators (in the case of Chile their CIA-backed dictator) without any outside help. If the Iraqis really wanted rid of Saddam they would have done it themselves. If the Iraqi's had done it themselves the result would have been a much more stable at the end, at least it wouldn't be seen as a foreign system thrust upon them. That is, ofcourse, if you really believe the US and the "Coalition of the Willing" went to Iraq to get rid of Saddam.

Don't use the 'appeasement didn't work with Hitler' defence; ever hear Saddam utter the Arabic word for lebensraum? I don't think so. It was a totally different kettle of fish. His war with Iran was supported by the US before you mention that. Iraq's invasion of Kuwait was comparable to Indonesia's invasion of East Timor, do some research on it and you'll see what I mean. You don't see Indonesia going after any more land, do you?

Saddam had nothing to do with terrorists, how many times do we have to go over this? From some of the opinions I have heard regarding this I think allot of people have had the wool pulled over their eyes by the media. Please, study some recent Middle Eastern political history and you'll see the absurdity of this claim.

WMD's, you've got to be kidding, right?

From the research I've done on the issue I think the war boils down to one thing; oil. I wasn't 'anti-war' when the war began; I wasn't 'pro-war' either. Simply, at the time I didn't feel like I had enough background knowledge to make a well-informed decision on the subject (I don't let the media make up my mind for me) and hence take a stance. After doing some impartial research I formed my opinon, which is above for you all to see.

The problem is now we're in Iraq engaged in war we didn't need to be in the first place pissing off Muslims even more, not to mention the wasting of lives on both sides. What's to be done now to solve these problems? Buggered if I know, dose anyone really? The best thing to do is not get into these situations in the first place


But yeah the Iraqi's should 'win' in the end, it's their country, they're the ones who are going to be there when we have all left.

Listen..you can't have it both ways..we can't go in..and we just can't leave so if you can please point out for the Iraqi Governing Council competent military officers to lead their new Army and who have no stigma attached to them as members of the Baath Party then by all means..give them a call..the bottom line is you won't find an officer below Captain that wasn't a member of the Baath Party..you want us gone but don't do what is necessary in order to leave..Gods man but you're making it virtually impossible to do ANYTHING.First off, I appologize for not being clear I have edited my post to add some lines while you were posting please read again.
second off, Mr Sadr's army seems very competent to me. But that's not the point, I'm not asking the US to hand over the dirty work, I'm asking the US to hand over ADMINISTRATION, FULL ADMINISTRATION. Who has to do the dirty job is for the administration to decide, the IRAQI ADMINISTRATION. If the US is putting a puppet regime instead there's no point in handing over.

Listen..you can't have it both ways..we can't go in..and we just can't leave so if you can please point out for the Iraqi Governing Council competent military officers to lead their new Army and who have no stigma attached to them as members of the Baath Party then by all means..give them a call..the bottom line is you won't find an officer below Captain that wasn't a member of the Baath Party..you want us gone but don't do what is necessary in order to leave..Gods man but you're making it virtually impossible to do ANYTHING.First off, I appologize for not being clear I have edited my post to add some lines while you were posting please read again.
second off, Mr Sadr's army seems very competent to me. But that's not the point, I'm not asking the US to hand over the dirty work, I'm asking the US to hand over ADMINISTRATION, FULL ADMINISTRATION. Who has to do the dirty job is for the administration to decide, the IRAQI ADMINISTRATION. If the US is putting a puppet regime instead there's no point in handing over.

Sadr's army is loyal to Sadr only...we want an Iraqi Armed Forces not, some militia of a Shiite Cleric loyal to him and him alone..nor would we want only forces loyal to the former regime..And we will hand over Administration..on June 30th...if the Iraqis decide we should stay you'll only call them puppets right?...the only way you'd accept them as legitimate is if they told us to leave.

Most.

Redundant.

Thread.

Ever.

Now, if it was only about Gay Iraqis trying to express their belief in Jesus and anarchy...

The Problem is The US's Interventionist foreign policy, Its a a total lack of respect for the sovereignty of other nations.
:shock:
WHO MADE US THE COPS OF THE WORLD...:x :x

This country would be much better off if we let other people handle their own internal affairs... :idea:

Sadr's army is loyal to Sadr only...we want an Iraqi Armed Forces not, some militia of a Shiite Cleric loyal to him and him alone..nor would we want only forces loyal to the former regime..And we will hand over Administration..on June 30th...if the Iraqis decide we should stay you'll only call them puppets right?...the only way you'd accept them as legitimate is if they told us to leave.Look back in this thread. You said that if the US did not administer Iraq they should pack up and leave. I hope the US government doesn't think like this and will stay to help the iraqis under THEIR administration, but I'm not really optimistic about it. On 30th june I expect a puppet regime yes. Why wouldn't I? The US has refused to give administration to the UN, the arab league and to anybody until now, they even have refused to accept any help or to open the contracts.

Most.

Redundant.

Thread.

Ever.

Now, if it was only about Gay Iraqis trying to express their belief in Jesus and anarchy...

You forget..it if was only about whether or not Gay Christian Iraqis who believed in anarchy AND whether or not they would be considered hot...lol

Most.

Redundant.

Thread.

Ever.

Now, if it was only about Gay Iraqis trying to express their belief in Jesus and anarchy...

You forget..it if was only about whether or not Gay Christian Iraqis who believed in anarchy AND whether or not they would be considered hot...lol

Ah, good point. I always get those two confused. :D

I hope the U.S. wins.

There is no one capable of taking over right now to administer the region. Sadr and his militia is a rag tag bunch of fighters and their only interest is gaining power. Much to the ruling clerics consternation. The U.N. is by all accounts incompetent. Few if any of their nation building efforts have ended well or managed to survive after their departure. If the U.N. were to take over I'd like to see Poland (where I was born) pull its troops outa long with all coalition troops.

How about another solution? Give everyone their own region. The Sunnis get their own parcel of land, as do the Kurds, and the Shi'ites. The fact that it may annoy Turkey should be ignored since they failed to aid the Northern front days before the invasion. They deserve a bit of trouble. As for the rest, they can work out the details. There is NO particular reason 3 groups opposed on almost every issue should be forced into a federal state. Seperating them would also create some regional problems that the local regimes would have to deal with instead of exporting their problems.

In any case, withdrawal of coalition troops and funds should be done in the case of an early exit. If anyone else wants to pick up the pieces they can, otherwise its up to the Iraqis to figure things out.

The only hope for a civilized solution to the entire mess that is now Iraq is if the UN becomes involved. This could lead to a peaceful transition to a government chosen by Iraqis. Hopefully, further bloodshed could be avoided.

The only hope for a civilized solution to the entire mess that is now Iraq is if the UN becomes involved. This could lead to a peaceful transition to a government chosen by Iraqis. Hopefully, further bloodshed could be avoided.

Absolutely Tex - you know what, when I watched footage of 182 Shia Muslisms being killed and thousands more injured as they gathered to celebrate one of their festivals I thought - what a fantastic victory for the Iraqi people. When a bus of Iraqi schoolchildren was blown up I thought - hurray for the Iraqis, what a blow for US imperialism.

I love the way that you purport to be thinking "outside the box" or that by preaching whatever nonsensical anarchism you feel appropriate you are somehow at the cutting edge of intelligible thought. In truth when you make posts like this that reek of partisan rubbish and simplify the conflict into Iraq vs America you seem to be distorting events so that they can be comprehended by a little mind.

I would like to see Iraq become a stable, prosperous and independent democracy - I would see that as a "victory" for all sides if I must use the word, although it seems unlikely that such a state of affairs will arise, particularly in the short term. That said I do not see the killing of innocent Iraqi civilians or US soldiers as a victory for anyone. I'm saddened that you treat death with such a positive outlook.

I want to see the Iraqis win. Not the Ba'athist insurgents, not the Coalition, not Sadr, I want to see the average Iraqi, who's currently struggling to survive, to win.

They're the ones that deserve to win.

Iraq could become a British Crown colony! (only joking) :D I don't know how the Americans can call the Iraqi freedom fighters rebels, they are only defending their country :!: . It is embarrasing that Britain had to get involved in this. The Amricans treat their POW very badly, but no-one dares oppose them. Wheres Amnesty International? :?: :?: :?:

I also want the people of Iraq to win. So do most Americans, that is one of the reasons Sadaam had to be removed. The only people that want to see the continued violence in Iraq are those that stand to lose power and local influence for their own gain. Toss in a number of non-Iraqi 'I hate the west' dupes and you have the current situation. Placing the blame on the U.S and its government for the problems in Iraq and most of the middle east for that matter denies history. The root of most of these problems can be traced to European colonial policies that originally set the boundries of these nations. (interestingly enough same can be said of Yugoslavia, etc.)

Seems the biggest sin of the U.S. has been trying to correct the situations created by European colonialism throughout the world. Maybe we are too naive to believe that some good will come from these efforts, but that is just how it is.

They've made this horrible mess and now you want them to leave before they've cleaned it up? Actually they've really just made a mess they already left there worse, so I guess we can't really expect anything.

They are not cleaning this mess.. They're making a bigger one instead.
You might be on to something there?

http://www.presidentsaleh.info/en/?option=news&task=viewarticle&sid=6


Based on its commitment to the principles of the Non-aligned Movement, the United Nations Charter, its believe in peace and the necessity of resorting to peaceful solutions, dialogue and understanding, the Republic of Yemen rejects the use of force against Iraq and the intervention in its internal affairs.

Our conference should adopt a resolution that rejects the war and asks for giving enough time for the international inspectors to accomplish their mission in a complete and neutral way. Because, the war will lead to a catastrophe and will badly damage security, stability and peace in the region and the world.

Yup. You are.

I love the way that you purport to be thinking "outside the box" or that by preaching whatever nonsensical anarchism you feel appropriate you are somehow at the cutting edge of intelligible thought.

I think you've go it wrong: I'm a realist

Isn't Donald Rumsfeld the guy that thinks "outside the box" ?


In truth when you make posts like this that reek of partisan rubbish and simplify the conflict into Iraq vs America you seem to be distorting events so that they can be comprehended by a little mind.

Partasan... that's an interesting interpretation.
care to explain?


I would like to see Iraq become a stable, prosperous and independent democracy -

Then you should hornor their request:

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/GoodMorningAmerica/Iraq_anniversary_poll_040314.html

Presence of coalition forces:

Support: 39%
Oppose: 51%


I would see that as a "victory" for all sides if I must use the word, although it seems unlikely that such a state of affairs will arise, particularly in the short term.

so then we should leave...

That said I do not see the killing of innocent Iraqi civilians or US soldiers as a victory for anyone. I'm saddened that you treat death with such a positive outlook.

... where did I say that?

Oh, I get it ~ You're thinking outisde the box

I want the Iraqis to win!


Who's with me!

I WANT THE UNITED STATES TO RENOUNCE DEMOCRACY, AND BECOME A CONSERVATIVE AUTHORITARIAN STATE, SO THAT PEOPLE LIKE THIS CAN BE LINED UP AND SHOT!

WHO'S WITH ME?

:wink:

Seriously, though, which Iraqis do you want to win? The Sunnis? Shia? Kurds? Marsh Arabs? Baathists? Iranians pretending to be Iraqis?

I say we de-federate the entire nation, split it into three seperate parts, train them all in military arts, and let them loose on eachother.

I'm new here, but felt compelled to post. I was against the war from the start but the reality is if "the Iraqi's win" the Iraqis are not really winning. Theologic Muslim clerics will have the power and the people of Iran have suffered greatly under Muslim rule. I doubt the Iraqi's would fare any better. I think the US should stay there until the job has done and I hope my country wins because I do not want too many more good soldiers coming home in boxes. I am probabably voting for Kerry because the UN needs to be involved more in Iraq. Bush may have screwed up, but we have an important job to do.

I WANT THE UNITED STATES TO RENOUNCE DEMOCRACY, AND BECOME A CONSERVATIVE AUTHORITARIAN STATE, SO THAT PEOPLE LIKE THIS CAN BE LINED UP AND SHOT!

WHO'S WITH ME?

Well, you've got the Bush Administration on your side...



Seriously, though, which Iraqis do you want to win? The Sunnis? Shia? Kurds? Marsh Arabs? Baathists? Iranians pretending to be Iraqis?

What is your point ~ Do you think that the longer the US stays the less those groups will hate each other?

I think the US should stay there until the job has done

what "job" ?

and I hope my country wins because I do not want too many more good soldiers coming home in boxes.


"Winning" would be leaving -- and soldiers won't continue to die in Iraq if they're already home

I am probabably voting for Kerry because the UN needs to be involved more in Iraq. Bush may have screwed up, but we have an important job to do.

What makes the UN so qualified? They sure as hell aren't doing anything great in the Balkans!

Here's a novel idea: why don't we just "liberate" them and leave?

I want the Iraqis to win!


Who's with me!Canada, American Liberals, Al-Queda, France, San Fransicko, and most the members of this site.

I think the US should stay there until the job has done

what "job" ?

and I hope my country wins because I do not want too many more good soldiers coming home in boxes.


"Winning" would be leaving -- and soldiers won't continue to die in Iraq if they're already home

I am probabably voting for Kerry because the UN needs to be involved more in Iraq. Bush may have screwed up, but we have an important job to do.

What makes the UN so qualified? They sure as hell aren't doing anything great in the Balkans!

Here's a novel idea: why don't we just "liberate" them and leave?

Because we've screwed up so much that if we left now it would be a complete disaster. The country would break down into civil war, and eventually one of the factions would attack a regional power, such as Iran or Syria, which would prompt an invasion, which would lead to further and further war. No, we've already dug ourselves into a hole; we can't just climb out now.

Here's a novel idea: why don't we just "liberate" them and leave?

Because we've screwed up so much that if we left now it would be a complete disaster

If "we're" the one's that have "screwed up" then why do you think "we" are the one's that can keep it from becoming a "complete disaster" ??

The country would break down into civil war, and eventually one of the factions would attack a regional power, such as Iran or Syria, which would prompt an invasion, which would lead to further and further war.


How will this change in one year -- or seven?

just out of curiosity ~ if you ever found yourself dug into a hole -- you would try to climb out, right?

No, we've already dug ourselves into a hole; we can't just climb out now.

oh -- I guess we should keep digging then.

what "job" ? The job of cleaning up the mess Incurious George has made.

Winning" would be leaving -- and soldiers won't continue to die in Iraq if they're already home No, that would be running, and Americans don't run.



What makes the UN so qualified? They sure as hell aren't doing anything great in the Balkans!

The UN is the current system that's set up. Until somebody has a better idea and implements it, that should be the appropiate course of action.


Here's a novel idea: why don't we just "liberate" them and leave? Because they wouldn't be liberated. Somebody like Sadr would rise to power and the Iraqi people would be worse off then under Saddam.

Bush is a screw-up. You'll get no argument from me on that. But right now hoping the Iraqis win is hoping the Americans win. Muslims suck.

Why is it that you support the failed philosophy of "White Man's Burden" and Imperialism?

Muslims suck.

Oh ~ it's that whole ignorance thing...

All those who think the Iraqis should win are crazy, all the British are trying to do is liberate them from the torture and discrimination that they once went through, and look how they repay us, with sucicide bombers.

I also think that the 'clerics' of Islam have a right nerve calling themselves holy people because the perception i get of holy people are peace keepers NOT war mongerers.

And as for the Human Rights activists, they are even worse than the sucicide bombers, if they are supposed to be the people who 'uphold' Human Rights then why are they so AGAINST the coalition liberating Iraq

A big part off the fact that Nations besides the USA, Great-Brittain, Spain(ok, not under Zapatero...) were reluctant to commit forces, even now, is because this little intervention was not in line with prior agreements between the nations of the UN.
Afghanistan could be 'justified' through the article that states that one may defend itseld from an armed attack. And then the fact that they used that article at all for a terrorist attack opens the way for a similar interpretation by Turkey agains the Kurds, and of course Israel against the palestines, which could be not as 'supportable'.
But for a violation of a nations sovereignity there was ONLY ONE option: an approval by the UN Security counsel for a belligerent accupation. Without going into the difficulties posed by the composition of the 5 permanent members, that WAS the agreement. It was there and supported by international law.
By going into Iraq by themselves they actually ignored this fact. When all the Nations start to put their own national law above international law, we could be having some big problems. Who is to say this(ie. an armed attack against an entire nation, or on a nations soil without approval) will not happen again; this is one of the main concerns if we all want a stable world.

Of course I understand the USA took a lot of innocent casualties, and my sympaties to them, but that was Afganistan. This was something that should have been solved by the UN, not by a fraction of it.
We will never know now, but if forces had gone in under the UN-flag, the opposition of the people in general might have been less, which would have given an entirely different situation.(I'm not talking about the remnants of the Rebublican guard or al'sadrs troops)
And the UN would never have made the mistake to put an American sitizen in charge of the Iraq Board, that would have(and is) sent(sending) the wrong message, like it or not, but the people of Iraq has a bit of history with the USA which is not particulary good for the latter.
Anyway, I agree that Saddam, and his regime had to be removed, but THIS was NOT the way to do it.
[Some might think these international laws are all nice words on paper, but they are there to control ourselves, and respect the right of other nation sovereignty and right to self-determination.]

Right, so far for my 2 cents, for those interested since nationalities have been posted here before, I'm a Belgian, don't have any extraordinary feelings pro or contra the USA, and study law, in which this has obviously been well discussed.
Sorry for any wrong translations...

Well myself being British (and damn proud of it) do think that this war was justified, although we did not go in with a UN flag, we saved millions from a tyrant who tortured innocent people just because of what they believe (religion and moral).

Step 1. pull all US/UK/Aussie/Jap/and whoever else's troops out of the country.

Step 2. nuke all of Iraq

Step 3. take their gas.

You missed a few steps:

Step 4. repeat as needed in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan

Step 5. face ire of UN, India, China, and Europe.

Step 6. attempt to pick up the pieces of insuing world war.

steps 1-3 are the short term plan. My, and the PNAC's, long term plan includes steps 4-6.

PNAC the new buzz word of the uninformed neo-con?

PNAC's plan...

Reposition permanently based forces to Southern Europe, Southeast Asia and the Middle East;

* Modernize U.S. forces, including enhancing our fighter aircraft, submarine and surface fleet capabilities;

* Develop and deploy a global missile defense system, and develop a strategic dominance of space;

* Control the "International Commons" of cyberspace;

* Increase defense spending to a minimum of 3.8 percent of gross domestic product, up from the 3 percent currently spent.

Is it just me? Or does this not sound like the same PNAC that New Auburnland has come to know and totally not understand?

Yes, I totally agree that there were enough reasons to dispose of that regime...it's only the cure that I question...

And this totally besides the point, but you being Brittish: O'sullivan is going to town I'd say.

I must say, despite me being a supporter of the war, what im not a supporter of is the fact that the Americans are completely 'trigger happy' and have killed more British than the Iraqis

Heh, I've seen a documentary on that: first off all, we'll agree that it's rather hard distinguishing forces on the ground, so sometimes you get friendly fire(what was it again, USA planes strafing a Brittish tank squad/brigade(don't know) )
But second off all, the USA armed forced have invested heavily in friend or foe identicators, every vehicle, every squad, everything in their army transmits FRIEND to each other, so they are very unlikely to hit each other...problem is the rest of the world doesn't have those...

But what would happen if the enemy could pick up those signals...

The enemy would be able to tell British and American vehicles etc from there own easily anyway.

What actually happened was, British tanks let off RED smoke when entering allied territory to tell the Americans and fellow Britons that they are British. But one day an Amercian plane started firing at a British Tank, the tank let off loads of red smoke (to say they were British) but the Americans carried on firing and killed 4 British Soldiers (and tanks only have 6 in them).
What makes it even worse is aswell as having the red smoke, British Vehicles have a Union Flag (hand on Heart) flying from it or stuck on the back.
When i heard that i went mad.
What do you think of that?????

Ah yes, mine was an example from Desert Storm.
What can you say about something like that, does anyone know what happened to the pilot? I mean, are there any sanctions, what was the result of the enquiry...

The American Commander said it was an accident, but they never appoligised for it.

All those who think the Iraqis should win are crazy, all the British are trying to do is liberate them from the torture and discrimination that they once went through, and look how they repay us, with sucicide bombers.
Did the Iraqis' ask for help from the British or the US? NO

I also think that the 'clerics' of Islam have a right nerve calling themselves holy people because the perception i get of holy people are peace keepers NOT war mongerers.
Perhaps part of the problem is that the western world does not understand Islamic values. Obviously, the Islamic people are willing to die for Allah rather than allow "infidels" to rule THEIR world. Did you somehow expect that the Islamic people of Iraq were any different than the Islamic Palestinians?
Isn't George Bush a Christian? Do Christians support war?

And as for the Human Rights activists, they are even worse than the sucicide bombers, if they are supposed to be the people who 'uphold' Human Rights then why are they so AGAINST the coalition liberating Iraq
And bombing the crap out of Iraqis, killing innocent men, women, and children, is not a violation of THEIR human rights?

Who will "liberate" the Iraqis from the US?

Who will prevent the rape of the Iraqi economy by US businessmen, vis-a-vis Bremer's Orders?

Did the Iraqis' ask for help from the British or the US? NO
Neither could they, under Saddam. The closest we have, Ex-Pats, did.

I love the way that you purport to be thinking "outside the box" or that by preaching whatever nonsensical anarchism you feel appropriate you are somehow at the cutting edge of intelligible thought.

I think you've go it wrong: I'm a realist

Isn't Donald Rumsfeld the guy that thinks "outside the box" ?


In truth when you make posts like this that reek of partisan rubbish and simplify the conflict into Iraq vs America you seem to be distorting events so that they can be comprehended by a little mind.

Partasan... that's an interesting interpretation.
care to explain?


I would like to see Iraq become a stable, prosperous and independent democracy -

Then you should hornor their request:

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/GoodMorningAmerica/Iraq_anniversary_poll_040314.html

Presence of coalition forces:

Support: 39%
Oppose: 51%


I would see that as a "victory" for all sides if I must use the word, although it seems unlikely that such a state of affairs will arise, particularly in the short term.

so then we should leave...

That said I do not see the killing of innocent Iraqi civilians or US soldiers as a victory for anyone. I'm saddened that you treat death with such a positive outlook.

... where did I say that?

Oh, I get it ~ You're thinking outisde the box

Partisan - you're either on one side or the other, either with the "Iraqis" or with the US. I bet not being either a Republican or a Democrat you were immune to the whole partisan thing?

As for honoring their request - what democratic principle would that be in accordance with. Democracy is not simply bowing to the majority on a given issue, although there is a significant level of representation (both in terms on public interest and public wishes) in a legitimate democracy. That said Iraq is currently not a democracy so there would be no precedent for a withdrawal on the grounds that it would be "democratic". Do you honestly believe that if the US were to withdraw from the region that Iraq would actually be capable of establishing a democracy? I think you're sadly mistaken.

You said "you want the Iraqis to win", nor have you refuted any of the allegations made over the last few pages that you consider terrorist attacks and the deaths of US forces to be a victory for Iraqis - that is the basis for my statement.

I don't even maintain that there is a box, let alone that I'm thinking outside of it.

Step 1. pull all US/UK/Aussie/Jap/and whoever else's troops out of the country.

Step 2. nuke all of Iraq

Step 3. take their gas.

Yes. That is the BEST solution lol
No sarcasm here, I'm serious :wink:

Did the Iraqis' ask for help from the British or the US? NO
Neither could they, under Saddam. The closest we have, Ex-Pats, did.
Did the UN ask for help from the British or the US? NO

[quote=Greater Dalaran]All those who think the Iraqis should win are crazy, all the British are trying to do is liberate them from the torture and discrimination that they once went through, and look how they repay us, with sucicide bombers.
Did the Iraqis' ask for help from the British or the US? NO

I've heard this argument a lot and it's starting to really annoy me.

If I was walking down the street and I saw a woman getting dragged into the bushes by a man with a mask on, would I carry on walking past until she specifically called for help. Or would I make the assumption (unprecedented as it is) that people generally prefer not to be raped, tortured and murdered. This is not an argument for intervening so don't reply about being bombed or give me casualty figures or whatever, just that the mere fact that the Iraqis didn't directly ask for help does not constitute as an argument against the war.

Oh and another thing - they actually did ask for help, I'm not strong on the history of the country but I do believe after the 1st gulf war there was a Shiite revolution in southern Iraq who asked for US support. Of course when the US agreed to give their support and then changed their minds once the revolt was under way. The consequences of the revolution persuaded many Iraqis that perhaps it would just be better to keep quiet, especially when death is the consequence of speaking out and when the US cannot be trusted to keep its word. (Not my opinion - theirs).

I think both the coaltion and iraqis should win against the terrorist we arent at war with the iraqi people...just the ones shooting at us

Did the Iraqis' ask for help from the British or the US? NO
Neither could they, under Saddam. The closest we have, Ex-Pats, did.
Did the UN ask for help from the British or the US? NO

No, but the UN is one of the worlds most worthless, inefficient organizations and dosen't even come close to representing the Iraqis.

Perhaps part of the problem is that the western world does not understand Islamic values.

Islamic Values:
Blow shit up.
Fight non-Islamics.
In the event there are no non-Islamics, fight each other.
To save face, say Islam is a peaceful religion.
Hate Jews.
Hate Christians.
Hate Hindus.
Hate Russians.
Hate Chinese.
Maintain propaganda TV like Al-Jazeera.
Torture and humiliate prisoners, but cry like girls when it's done to them.
Lie.
Lie some more.
Keep lieing 'cuz Allah loves your sorry ass.
Don't eat pork or drink beer.
Subnote: When people are watching.
Always be right.
Subnote: Even when wrong.
God is great.
Subnote: Our god only.
Have multiple wives and make them wear hot robes in the desert.
Blow up buses.
Blow up planes.
Hijack planes and buses to blow up buildings.
Kidnap people.
Torture them.
Humiliate them.
Execute them.
Show the tape on Al-Jazeera.
Subnote: Unless the tape is of a brave Italian soldier saying screw Allah.
Did we mention lie?
Be a thug.
Subnote: Unless cameras are around, then cry and say you lost a son.
Subnote2: Even if you don't have one.
Then kidnap the cameraman.


Frankly, I think it's time we stop wasting time,money and lives on grabasstic places with ungrateful people. Western influence is so bad? I suppose it would get better if we took back all our money, killed trade and stopped supporting, for lack of better words, savages and losers.

As far as Iraq, someone said it best. Remove our troops, bomb the place, take the gas. No sarcasm whatsoever. Luckily, I'm not in charge because even I know that's extreme, but I'd do it.

God bless the Coalition and it's soldiers. Thank you.

Like I'm going to take this person seriously. He believes in every 9-11 conspiracy theory.

Coalition value:
Ignorance

Wow...

Could someone explain to me exactly what they mean by "the Iraqis" winning?

You guys are simplifying the situation way too much... Not every Iraqi is fighting the USA...
It's like asking "Would you like the American to win in the US presidential elections".
Of course, the way things are going right now, the yanks will soon have every Iraqi against them.

I like the whining about them shooting at yanks because they are "ungrateful" :lol:

They've made this horrible mess and now you want them to leave before they've cleaned it up? Actually they've really just made a mess they already left there worse, so I guess we can't really expect anything."Just made a mess." So I take it Iraq wasn't a mess before Bush went in :roll:
Have you never heard of what life was like there during Saddam's reign?

Perhaps part of the problem is that the western world does not understand Islamic values.

Islamic Values:
Blow shit up.
Fight non-Islamics.
In the event there are no non-Islamics, fight each other.
To save face, say Islam is a peaceful religion.
Hate Jews.
Hate Christians.
Hate Hindus.
Hate Russians.
Hate Chinese.
Maintain propaganda TV like Al-Jazeera.
Torture and humiliate prisoners, but cry like girls when it's done to them.
Lie.
Lie some more.
Keep lieing 'cuz Allah loves your sorry ass.
Don't eat pork or drink beer.
Subnote: When people are watching.
Always be right.
Subnote: Even when wrong.
God is great.
Subnote: Our god only.
Have multiple wives and make them wear hot robes in the desert.
Blow up buses.
Blow up planes.
Hijack planes and buses to blow up buildings.
Kidnap people.
Torture them.
Humiliate them.
Execute them.
Show the tape on Al-Jazeera.
Subnote: Unless the tape is of a brave Italian soldier saying screw Allah.
Did we mention lie?
Be a thug.
Subnote: Unless cameras are around, then cry and say you lost a son.
Subnote2: Even if you don't have one.
Then kidnap the cameraman.


Frankly, I think it's time we stop wasting time,money and lives on grabasstic places with ungrateful people. Western influence is so bad? I suppose it would get better if we took back all our money, killed trade and stopped supporting, for lack of better words, savages and losers.

As far as Iraq, someone said it best. Remove our troops, bomb the place, take the gas. No sarcasm whatsoever. Luckily, I'm not in charge because even I know that's extreme, but I'd do it.

God bless the Coalition and it's soldiers. Thank you.
WOW I can see that you clearly have a grasp of Islamic values. So in the end, you are actually worse than the Iraqis, because you would destroy them all? Perhaps you have a good grasp of Christian values?

They've made this horrible mess and now you want them to leave before they've cleaned it up? Actually they've really just made a mess they already left there worse, so I guess we can't really expect anything."Just made a mess." So I take it Iraq wasn't a mess before Bush went in :roll:
Have you never heard of what life was like there during Saddam's reign?

So....Saddam is the excuse for whatever horrible things the yanks do there?

Did the Iraqis' ask for help from the British or the US? NO
Neither could they, under Saddam. The closest we have, Ex-Pats, did.
Did the UN ask for help from the British or the US? NO

No, but the UN is one of the worlds most worthless, inefficient organizations and dosen't even come close to representing the Iraqis.
And the US has made it more worthless by ignoring the pleas of the other Security Council members NOT to attack Iraq, until the UN inspectors had the opportunity to finish their job.

I still have yet to understand this complaint. The flag doesn't look very Israeli to me. They both have a blue stripe. I guess that's kind of similar... if you really stretch one's concept of "similar".Actually a flag is a symbol of nationality and pride. It makes absolutely no sense at all that this flag would be drawned by an outside power. And the iraqis are rightly suspicious that the americans could use it as a tool of propaganda in order to get the country in line with their policy, as when they first removed the statue of Saddam and wraped it in an american flag, what a symbol! This is just inacceptable. The iraqis must be given their flag back.

These are all legitimate points, but they really don't address what I was talking about. I'm just wondering about why the flag is being called "an Israeli-look-alike". That was my question.

Bush is the problem, just because his father had issues with saddam doesn't mean the whole country wants him there, Bush sucks vote Kerry! :shock:

Seems the biggest sin of the U.S. has been trying to correct the situations created by European colonialism throughout the world. Maybe we are too naive to believe that some good will come from these efforts, but that is just how it is.[/quote]

Learn some recent global political history, you might want to rethink that.

These are all legitimate points, but they really don't address what I was talking about. I'm just wondering about why the flag is being called "an Israeli-look-alike". That was my question.

--- okay, take an Irsraeli flag, replace the Six-pointed star with a crescent Moon -- move the top stripe to the bottom and add a yellow stripe -- that's the flag.

I want the Iraqis to win!


Who's with me!

Open your eyes! The people of Iraq did win...their liberty.

So before you go on and respond and throw around words like "quagmire" and such, recall that it took six years from the time the Revolutionary War ended to the time we ratified our Constitution.

True, but there was the difference of us having liberated ourselves. The Iraqis mainly see us as another occupying power, similar to Saddam.

Huh? Leave off the Saddam comment and the thought stands fine on it's own.

It's kind of like if America had been "liberated" from England by France. I'm sure before long, we'd be pissed at the French and telling them to leave.

That is logical enough but I wonder if it will in fact translate into reality in Iraq. Given the events surrounding the Gaza withdrawal proposition's defeat - in part due to the killing of a pregnant woman and her young children by Palestinians - one wonders at the thought processes involved.

:shock:

I still have yet to understand this complaint. The flag doesn't look very Israeli to me. They both have a blue stripe. I guess that's kind of similar... if you really stretch one's concept of "similar".Actually a flag is a symbol of nationality and pride. It makes absolutely no sense at all that this flag would be drawned by an outside power. And the iraqis are rightly suspicious that the americans could use it as a tool of propaganda in order to get the country in line with their policy, as when they first removed the statue of Saddam and wraped it in an american flag, what a symbol! This is just inacceptable. The iraqis must be given their flag back.

First, the draping of the American flag was undertaken by a non-com and was quickly ordered taken down.

Second, in the grand scheme of things, the national flag is hardly a critical "top of the list" issue. This will be settled by the new government in due course.

:shock:

Second, in the grand scheme of things, the national flag is hardly a critical "top of the list" issue. This will be settled by the new government in due course.

:shock:

No, the Iraqi-Israeli Flag is an issue because it was forced over the capital of Iraq by the Coalition: this is psychological warfare ~ it tells the Iraqis that there may be truth to the opinion that the Coaliton is a Zionist front!

I want the Iraqis to win!


Who's with me!
The Iraqis are winning

The fall of Saddam
Their rise to a democratic nation


I only see the terrorists losing

Muslims suck.

You're an idiot.

Islamic Values:
Blow shit up.
Fight non-Islamics.
In the event there are no non-Islamics, fight each other.
To save face, say Islam is a peaceful religion.
Hate Jews.
Hate Christians.
Hate Hindus.
Hate Russians.
Hate Chinese.
Maintain propaganda TV like Al-Jazeera.
Torture and humiliate prisoners, but cry like girls when it's done to them.
Lie.
Lie some more.
Keep lieing 'cuz Allah loves your sorry ass.
Don't eat pork or drink beer.
Subnote: When people are watching.
Always be right.
Subnote: Even when wrong.
God is great.
Subnote: Our god only.
Have multiple wives and make them wear hot robes in the desert.
Blow up buses.
Blow up planes.
Hijack planes and buses to blow up buildings.
Kidnap people.
Torture them.
Humiliate them.
Execute them.
Show the tape on Al-Jazeera.
Subnote: Unless the tape is of a brave Italian soldier saying screw Allah.
Did we mention lie?
Be a thug.
Subnote: Unless cameras are around, then cry and say you lost a son.
Subnote2: Even if you don't have one.
Then kidnap the cameraman.


Frankly, I think it's time we stop wasting time,money and lives on grabasstic places with ungrateful people. Western influence is so bad? I suppose it would get better if we took back all our money, killed trade and stopped supporting, for lack of better words, savages and losers.

As far as Iraq, someone said it best. Remove our troops, bomb the place, take the gas. No sarcasm whatsoever. Luckily, I'm not in charge because even I know that's extreme, but I'd do it.

God bless the Coalition and it's soldiers. Thank you.

You're an idiot too, you capitali$t pig.

I want the Iraqis to win!


Who's with me!
The Iraqis are winning

The fall of Saddam
Their rise to a democratic nation


I only see the terrorists losing

If by terrorists, you mean Bush and his disposable minions.

Perhaps part of the problem is that the western world does not understand Islamic values.

Islamic Values:
Blow shit up.
Fight non-Islamics.
In the event there are no non-Islamics, fight each other.
To save face, say Islam is a peaceful religion.
Hate Jews.
Hate Christians.
Hate Hindus.
Hate Russians.
Hate Chinese.
Maintain propaganda TV like Al-Jazeera.
Torture and humiliate prisoners, but cry like girls when it's done to them.
Lie.
Lie some more.
Keep lieing 'cuz Allah loves your sorry ass.
Don't eat pork or drink beer.
Subnote: When people are watching.
Always be right.
Subnote: Even when wrong.
God is great.
Subnote: Our god only.
Have multiple wives and make them wear hot robes in the desert.
Blow up buses.
Blow up planes.
Hijack planes and buses to blow up buildings.
Kidnap people.
Torture them.
Humiliate them.
Execute them.
Show the tape on Al-Jazeera.
Subnote: Unless the tape is of a brave Italian soldier saying screw Allah.
Did we mention lie?
Be a thug.
Subnote: Unless cameras are around, then cry and say you lost a son.
Subnote2: Even if you don't have one.
Then kidnap the cameraman.


Frankly, I think it's time we stop wasting time,money and lives on grabasstic places with ungrateful people. Western influence is so bad? I suppose it would get better if we took back all our money, killed trade and stopped supporting, for lack of better words, savages and losers.

As far as Iraq, someone said it best. Remove our troops, bomb the place, take the gas. No sarcasm whatsoever. Luckily, I'm not in charge because even I know that's extreme, but I'd do it.

God bless the Coalition and it's soldiers. Thank you.

No, that's Islamic Terrorist values


I am an Islamic-American. I fully support America (although I do not 100% support Bush's invasion of Iraq)


Islamic Terrorist values =/= Islamic values


Ask any member of Islam

I want the Iraqis to win!


Who's with me!
The Iraqis are winning

The fall of Saddam
Their rise to a democratic nation


I only see the terrorists losing

If by terrorists, you mean Bush and his disposable minions.

no, I mean Al-Qaeda and that they're making their own way into Iraq

EXCUSE ME SIR! But those "disposable minions" are American soldiers! And I'll be a future one myself

The war in Iraq was pointless.. it made the "terror" situation worse, not better. While the US has been dabbling in Iraq, Al Qaeda has grown stronger and has diversified. Why the Americans ever went after Iraq and dropped the ball on Al Qaeda I will never understand.

Thankfully as more and more time goes by the Iraq war has less and less support even within America's own borders.. thankfully Americans are starting to get the truth through their heads. Basically what the rest of the world has been saying all along. I don't per se blame the American people, they were just being fed a whole bunch of bullsh*t by their leadership. Hopefully by November it will be so obvious to all Americans what a total debacle Iraq was that they will kick that sorry ass of a lying leader G.W.Bush out of office and we can get back to having a sane administration running the world's only remaining super power. It will all work out. I believe that. I've said it from the start of this the truth would come out. Slowly, thankfully it is.

True Steph

On March of 2003, I believed Saddam was a threat that needed to be taken care of thanks to the propaganda

On March of 2004, I believed Bush was a threat that needed to be taken care of



Of course, this leaves me a broad range of conclusions to come onto

True Steph

On March of 2003, I believed Saddam was a threat that needed to be taken care of thanks to the propaganda

On March of 2004, I believed Bush was a threat that needed to be taken care of



Of course, this leaves me a broad range of conclusions to come onto

Could someone with decent photoshop skills show us what Dubya would look like after being dragged out of a hole nine months after going on the run?

True Steph

On March of 2003, I believed Saddam was a threat that needed to be taken care of thanks to the propaganda

On March of 2004, I believed Bush was a threat that needed to be taken care of



Of course, this leaves me a broad range of conclusions to come onto

Are we agreeing? :shock:

True Steph

On March of 2003, I believed Saddam was a threat that needed to be taken care of thanks to the propaganda

On March of 2004, I believed Bush was a threat that needed to be taken care of



Of course, this leaves me a broad range of conclusions to come onto

Are we agreeing? :shock:


OMG! This never happened! :shock:

I bought Bush's propaganda - hook - line and sinker

I was convinced that Saddam, who had (gasp) gassed his own people , was aiming for the US.

He was buying Uranium from Africa ~ it didn't matter if North Korea had nuclear missiles (that was a different issue)

The UN prohibited Saddam from making weapons... we knew he had them -- we sold them to him (but that was a different time)

The UN didn't want to go after Saddam because they are a worthless debate society ~ we had to enforce their resolutions for their own good.

It didn't matter how we did it... we might have to use the nuclear weapons ~ whatever it takes!

Bush lied and I believed him ~ I'll never trust the office of the president again

Dude, it was just this President

Although it would be a scarring moment for many

http://homepage.mac.com/leperous/.Pictures/never.jpg

Dude, it was just this President

Although it would be a scarring moment for many

No, it's all of them... from LBJ's Gulf of Tonkin, to Nixon's Watergate, to Carter's North Korea-Nuke sale, to Reagon's and Bush's Iran Hostage manipulation, attack on Russa, Iran-Contra, Gulf War lies...ect to Clinton's naked aggression in Yugoslavia and selling China our missile technology ~ it's not a new phenomina, it's just the one we get to watch unfold on live teevee.

Bush is the problem, just because his father had issues with saddam doesn't mean the whole country wants him there, Bush sucks vote Kerry! :shock:

All this Bush vs. Kerry talk. The real choice is Ralph Nader (http://www.votenader.org/). Not only is he for safe automobiles, he also; Favors Lowering the Voting Age to 16."What kind of twisted message do we send when we tell youth they are judged mature, responsible adults when they commit murder, but silly, brainless kids when they want to vote?
The Bush-Clinton Administrations Had Enough Information Before 9/11 to Prevent Aircraft from Becoming Missiles.Independent Presidential Candidate Ralph Nader today urged the 9/11 Commission to highlight the failure of the Bush and Clinton Administrations to take action to re-enforce the doors of aircraft cockpits noting: "This single safety step could have thwarted the events of September 11."
Is Pro-Conservative Republican."Many conservative Republicans are feeling these days that the Washington, D.C. Republicans are taking them for granted."
Is Pro-Liberal Democrat. Apart from their ways, the Democrats need to be shown additional ways -- strong, rational, emotive ways to defeat Bush and the Republicans. Why? Because their leaders and consultants are either too cautious, too unimaginative or too indentured to vested interests to even conceive, not to mention field test, these vulnerabilities of the Bush regime.

OK, OK - Although every quote was taken from his site, that was a joke. He's just another vote whore.

:shock:

Bush is the problem, just because his father had issues with saddam doesn't mean the whole country wants him there, Bush sucks vote Kerry! :shock:

All this Bush vs. Kerry talk. The real choice is Ralph Nader (http://www.votenader.org/)

I don't per se disagree with you.. but the reality is if you vote for Nader you are helping Bush get back in the white house.. This election coming is soooo important. You must rid yourself of Bush, the only way to do that is to vote for Kerry. Sure, I agree, he's not perfect, but he's better then Bush. Then, maybe Nader can build enough support for coming elections.. but it's not happening in 2004. Don't throw your vote away by voting for Nader this time around and letting Bush re-take the white house.

I bought Bush's propaganda - hook - line and sinker

I was convinced that Saddam, who had (gasp) gassed his own people , was aiming for the US.

He was buying Uranium from Africa ~ it didn't matter if North Korea had nuclear missiles (that was a different issue)

The UN prohibited Saddam from making weapons... we knew he had them -- we sold them to him (but that was a different time)

The UN didn't want to go after Saddam because they are a worthless debate society ~ we had to enforce their resolutions for their own good.

It didn't matter how we did it... we might have to use the nuclear weapons ~ whatever it takes!

Bush lied and I believed him ~ I'll never trust the office of the president again

Tex, you must be younger than I imagined.

Rule 1 - All, and I do mean ALL, politicians are liars and practice deceit.

:shock:

Bush is the problem, just because his father had issues with saddam doesn't mean the whole country wants him there, Bush sucks vote Kerry! :shock:

All this Bush vs. Kerry talk. The real choice is Ralph Nader (http://www.votenader.org/)

I don't per se disagree with you.. but the reality is if you vote for Nader you are helping Bush get back in the white house.. This election coming is soooo important. You must rid yourself of Bush, the only way to do that is to vote for Kerry. Sure, I agree, he's not perfect, but he's better then Bush. Then, maybe Nader can build enough support for coming elections.. but it's not happening in 2004. Don't throw your vote away by voting for Nader this time around and letting Bush re-take the white house.

Steph, my piece was very tongue-in-cheek. Whatever I vote it will not matter. I live in a knee jerk liberal district which means that Kerry will carry my district. I'm not sure you are aware, but that is why some areas get the grease and some get greased. The only reason my area has gotten anything from the feds in recent years is because the worlds eyes are on it.

:shock:

Dude, it was just this President

Although it would be a scarring moment for many

No, it's all of them... from LBJ's Gulf of Tonkin, to Nixon's Watergate, to Carter's North Korea-Nuke sale, to Reagon's and Bush's Iran Hostage manipulation, attack on Russa, Iran-Contra, Gulf War lies...ect to Clinton's naked aggression in Yugoslavia and selling China our missile technology ~ it's not a new phenomina, it's just the one we get to watch unfold on live teevee.

OK, Tex. I take back the above comment on your youth.

:shock:

Dude, it was just this President

Although it would be a scarring moment for many

No, it's all of them... from LBJ's Gulf of Tonkin, to Nixon's Watergate, to Carter's North Korea-Nuke sale, to Reagon's and Bush's Iran Hostage manipulation, attack on Russa, Iran-Contra, Gulf War lies...ect to Clinton's naked aggression in Yugoslavia and selling China our missile technology ~ it's not a new phenomina, it's just the one we get to watch unfold on live teevee.

OK, Tex. I take back the above comment on your youth.

:shock:

You never know. Tex might just be a kid in a US History class. In any event, the fact that s/he voted for Bush and is now outraged that the Prez lied shows a large degree of naivitee, regardless of age.

Personally, I think I could manipulate a small faction under socialism/Islam. Empower people with a few "Hail Allahs" and then get on to equality. And fighting imperialism.

I bought Bush's propaganda - hook - line and sinker

I was convinced that Saddam, who had (gasp) gassed his own people , was aiming for the US.

He was buying Uranium from Africa ~ it didn't matter if North Korea had nuclear missiles (that was a different issue)

The UN prohibited Saddam from making weapons... we knew he had them -- we sold them to him (but that was a different time)

The UN didn't want to go after Saddam because they are a worthless debate society ~ we had to enforce their resolutions for their own good.

It didn't matter how we did it... we might have to use the nuclear weapons ~ whatever it takes!

Bush lied and I believed him ~ I'll never trust the office of the president again

Tex, you must be younger than I imagined.

Rule 1 - All, and I do mean ALL, politicians are liars and practice deceit.

:shock:

Correction, all PEOPLE are liars and practice deceit. (Well some of the time anyway). Politicians are essentially no different, merely faced with a different set of circumstances.

BUMP