NationStates Jolt Archive

Everyone says Bush is handling the war all wrong. I certainly disagree with some parts of its handling. I'm curious what people would do different to win the war. (win it, not quit, not go back in time and never do it.)

Just because you call it a war and identify two opposing forces doesn't mean someone can win it.


EDIT: That, by the way, is why it's not a war any more. It's a "struggle." Renaming it is simply a stunt to try to let the American public down a little more gently than in past conflicts...

Not start it in the first place. That's how I would have done it. There's better ways than starting wars to get rid of non-existent stashes of WMDs...

Everyone says Bush is handling the war all wrong. I certainly disagree with some parts of its handling. I'm curious what people would do different to win the war. (win it, not quit, not go back in time and never do it.)
Define what you consider a win first--then we'll talk.

Everyone says Bush is handling the war all wrong. I certainly disagree with some parts of its handling. I'm curious what people would do different to win the war. (win it, not quit, not go back in time and never do it.)


Yeah, people seem to think that you have to have a "plan" that is unchanging. I'm sure the Bush admin had a plan for after we defeated the Iraq military. The thing is as soon as you enter into combat, all plans go out the window. I just love all of the armchair generals here on NS. If only the real world were that easy.

I wish we would be tougher on the insurgents and secure Iraq's borders.

Not start it in the first place. That's how I would have done it. There's better ways than starting wars to get rid of non-existent stashes of WMDs...
Good job troll! You managed to make yourself look like an idiot on the 3rd post! Go back to your bridge.

Define what you consider a win first--then we'll talk.
seconded

Sorry, should have been more detailed. By winning, I simply mean battling the insurgents long enough and well enough to allow the Iraqi forces to take over their own security, and bring our troops home.

I wish we would be tougher on the insurgents and secure Iraq's borders.
two questions: how? and how?
the whole point of guerrilla warfare is that you don't know who your enemy is until he's shot you, blown you up or what have you. i realize there are ways of identifying and neutralizing some facets of the insurgency, but nothing that would be wholly effective. as to securing Iraq's borders, do we really have the manpower to maintain ANY kind of security within the cities AND keep up an effective border patrol?

I wouldn't have. I would have kept the forces and money in place to pressure North Korea and Iran, rather than focus on Iraq and let them freely expand and develop their nuclear arsenals.

Actually, I don't mean to troll, but I wouldn't be wholey opposed to simply pulling out. It forces the Iraqi people to secure their own safety. Americans fought for their nation, why do we have to fight for Iraq's nation? If Iraq is to last, Iraq has to be won by the Iraqis.

I wouldn't have. I would have kept the forces and money in place to pressure North Korea and Iran, rather than focus on Iraq and let them freely expand and develop their nuclear arsenals.
Can you read?

Everyone says Bush is handling the war all wrong. I certainly disagree with some parts of its handling. I'm curious what people would do different to win the war. (win it, not quit, not go back in time and never do it.)

Not start it in the first place. That's how I would have done it. There's better ways than starting wars to get rid of non-existent stashes of WMDs...
Can you read?

Everyone says Bush is handling the war all wrong. I certainly disagree with some parts of its handling. I'm curious what people would do different to win the war. (win it, not quit, not go back in time and never do it.)

Sorry, should have been more detailed. By winning, I simply mean battling the insurgents long enough and well enough to allow the Iraqi forces to take over their own security, and bring our troops home.
So you're assuming that the US can accomplish that scenario, given enough time, manpower, etc.

My problem is that I don't think that the scenario you're looking for can be achieved through US military means. I think that as long as the US military is in Iraq, the insurgency will continue because US soldiers serve as a focal point for violence. They're a target everyone can see and take aim at, and they serve as a rallying point for the insurgency. I think that the Iraqi security forces are filled with insurgents and spies for the insurgents, and that what we're trying to build is a flawed force that can only fail on its own. I think that no matter how long the US is in Iraq, civil war will inevitably follow and that we'll likely wind up with either a two-state or three-state solution (depending on what Turkey does about the Iraqi Kurds).

its so much harder to get your car out of the axle deep mud than it is to not drive into the mud to begin with.

id make it a priority to make sure that our troops there have everything they need. even the national guard guys!

id work hard to train and protect iraqi security forces

id put an end to anything resembling torture.

i would try to bolster the image of the iraqi government as being independant of the US.

i would cancel all plans to have bases in iraq and make it clear that iraq's oil is for the benefit of the iraqi people and NOT the benefit of haliburton.

id put pressure on syria to bolster its border with iraq and to discourage the emigration of "insurgents".

and i would stay until i was confident that there would be no civil war when we leave iraq. no "peace with honor" for me.

Civil/revolutionary war is quite obviously a healthy and natural extension of democracy, and I'm not sure why the United States is so fearful of civil war in Iraq.

So you're assuming that the US can accomplish that scenario, given enough time, manpower, etc.

My problem is that I don't think that the scenario you're looking for can be achieved through US military means. I think that as long as the US military is in Iraq, the insurgency will continue because US soldiers serve as a focal point for violence. They're a target everyone can see and take aim at, and they serve as a rallying point for the insurgency. I think that the Iraqi security forces are filled with insurgents and spies for the insurgents, and that what we're trying to build is a flawed force that can only fail on its own. I think that no matter how long the US is in Iraq, civil war will inevitably follow and that we'll likely wind up with either a two-state or three-state solution (depending on what Turkey does about the Iraqi Kurds).
You've certainly made some good points! While I do agree that there are probably spies in the Iraqi forces, I don't think its at the level you beleive. I believe that MOST of the Iraqi's want us to win, theyre just scared to show it publicy because people like Kennedy who keep saying "get out get out" scare them into thinking we will abandon them like we did in Vietnam. I think the longer we stay, the harder it will be for the insurgents to scare the general populace.

I see you've drawn all the trolls, dweebs, slackers and nutcases out of their various caverns. Good luck wid dat. :)

Good job troll! You managed to make yourself look like an idiot on the 3rd post! Go back to your bridge.Why thank you for your warm reception, flamer.
It's my opinion that starting the damn thing in the first place was the biggest problem with the campaign. Then declaring it finished, when in fact, it had only just begun.
If it had to be started, Bush should have figured out a real reason to invade, not just some bogus claim about WMDs. With a real legal basis for invading, maybe less people would have been willing to join the insurgents.
Not only that, he should have dealt with the terrorists in Afghanistan before they set up bases in Pakistan, so that the insurgents would have one less place to train.
I bit of international acceptance of the invasion would have had a big effect.

Why thank you for your warm reception, flamer.
It's my opinion that starting the damn thing in the first place was the biggest problem with the campaign. Then declaring it finished, when in fact, it had only just begun.
If it had to be started, Bush should have figured out a real reason to invade, not just some bogus claim about WMDs. With a real legal basis for invading, maybe less people would have been willing to join the insurgents.
Not only that, he should have dealt with the terrorists in Afghanistan before they set up bases in Pakistan, so that the insurgents would have one less place to train.
I bit of international acceptance of the invasion would have had a big effect.
That's not the question though. The fact of the matter is, the war is started. Let's say, instead of Bush getting re-elected, you were voted in as the American president for the 2005-2008 tenure. What do you do?

Can you read?No, as a matter of fact I couldn't.
You hadn't added the criteria for "winning" when I first posted and I've been having trouble with my wireless connectivity since. Instead of asking people whether they can read, you could start being friendler and put some of your own arguements on the table.

I see you've drawn all the trolls, dweebs, slackers and nutcases out of their various caverns. Good luck wid dat. :)
a pox. a pox on both your houses, pappy. :D

No, as a matter of fact I couldn't.
You hadn't added the criteria for "winning" when I first posted and I've been having trouble with my wireless connectivity since. Instead of asking people whether they can read, you could start being friendler and put some of your own arguements on the table.
Actually, the "not quit, not go back in time" part was there from the very beginning...

No, as a matter of fact I couldn't.
You hadn't added the criteria for "winning" when I first posted and I've been having trouble with my wireless connectivity since. Instead of asking people whether they can read, you could start being friendler and put some of your own arguements on the table.
If you are having problems reading the post, don't post blind with whatever you want. I made the thread, I made the question clear, I amended to add what I meant by"win". Your a troll. Bottom line!

I see you've drawn all the trolls, dweebs, slackers and nutcases out of their various caverns. Good luck wid dat. :)
LOL I'm used to the trolls. It is still amazing though how they think we don't know they oppose the war. Makes me wanna yell "WE GET IT, O.K.? "

That's not the question though. The fact of the matter is, the war is started. Let's say, instead of Bush getting re-elected, you were voted in as the American president for the 2005-2008 tenure. What do you do?My post answers that question. The part stating the biggest mistake made was only to explain why I posted what I posted earlier, which was before he added the "not quitting" bit. I think preparation was an important part of the war and getting that right was something I would have done better.

My post answers that question. The part stating the biggest mistake made was only to explain why I posted what I posted earlier, which was before he added the "not quitting" bit. I think preparation was an important part of the war and getting that right was something I would have done better.
How is it that I posted before you yet I saw the "not quit, not go back in time" and yet you didn't?

That said, the question still remains. If you took the reigns right now (and could not go back in time, troll), what would you do differently RIGHT NOW?

Actually, I don't mean to troll, but I wouldn't be wholey opposed to simply pulling out. It forces the Iraqi people to secure their own safety. Americans fought for their nation, why do we have to fight for Iraq's nation? If Iraq is to last, Iraq has to be won by the Iraqis.
And this, my friends, is how you state an opinion WITHOUT being a troll! I agree with some of what you say, but the problem is, the ones who are blowing up the civilians are the ones with the guns, and guns win wars. We know how a civil war would go, and it would be the terrorists who would win.
America doesn't let people get beat up by bullies.

My post answers that question. The part stating the biggest mistake made was only to explain why I posted what I posted earlier, which was before he added the "not quitting" bit. I think preparation was an important part of the war and getting that right was something I would have done better.
would have done has no bearing on the argument at hand. what WILL YOU DO NOW is the question. you do not have the means to go back in time and prepare better. you are left with the resources currently at our nations disposal. what do you do with them? how do you fix it?

By the way, the "win it, not quit, not go back in time and never do it" part was in the original post!

And this, my friends, is how you state an opinion WITHOUT being a troll! I agree with some of what you say, but the problem is, the ones who are blowing up the civilians are the ones with the guns, and guns win wars. We know how a civil war would go, and it would be the terrorists who would win.
America doesn't let people get beat up by bullies.
i agreed with everything except the last sentence. i love my country, and there is no where i'd rather live, but we have done more than our fair share of atrocious acts of foreign policy. Ngo Van Diem was a horrible bully, and we put him into power. how many times has the CIA gone into the third world, and imposed it's will on a largely opposed people? but i must digress. it's a lovely sentiment, yours, but a tad naive for my taste. this is far off topic. i just felt the need to address that briefly. and now i am done. i hope this doesn't flare up and out of control into a wholly seperate thing.

And this, my friends, is how you state an opinion WITHOUT being a troll! I agree with some of what you say, but the problem is, the ones who are blowing up the civilians are the ones with the guns, and guns win wars. We know how a civil war would go, and it would be the terrorists who would win.
America doesn't let people get beat up by bullies.
So, having weapons makes them terrorists? I wonder how many people are fighting because they hated America before this war, and how many people are fighting because they don't want America in Iraq?

Sure, maybe they're killing innocents, but that's just an evolution of geurilla warfare. They know they can't possibly really defeat the United States military in a real fight (heh, the Iraqi army couldn't even do that), so they have to beat the politically.

I'm not suggesting that terrorism will end if we just pull out and let the Iraqis fight for Iraq, but I bet it would decline. It's also a little naive to believe that terrorism would end if America stuck it out and ensured an Iraq crafted in America's vision.

But ultimately, that's the biggest problem. So long as America has a presence there, Iraqis are going to feel like their nation is being crafted by American infidels. How do you think backwoods American rednecks would respond if a Muslim force completely destroyed our military, our government, and then proceeded to restructure our government as they saw fit?

How is it that I posted before you yet I saw the "not quit, not go back in time" and yet you didn't?

That said, the question still remains. If you took the reigns right now (and could not go back in time, troll), what would you do differently RIGHT NOW?Sack Rumsfeld for one and replace him with someone more competent.
Then I'd focus on where the insurgents are coming from, who's supplying them, and try to find a way to dry those out. I'd put more emphasis on getting the troops in place properly supplied and I'd start dealing with the contractor mercenaries (we shouldn't have people like that doing the military's job and them being better equipped is pretty bad for morale). Deal with Abu Ghraib properly and stop hushing things up.
Essentially, there isn't much that can be done now. Most of the damage is done. Ashmoria's analogy of a car stuck in mud was rather good. The criticism is that we're already in the mud and Bush is attempting to put planks underneath the wheels. Telling me that I'm a troll for saying it was a bad idea to get the car stuck in the mud in the first place is silly.

i agreed with everything except the last sentence. i love my country, and there is no where i'd rather live, but we have done more than our fair share of atrocious acts of foreign policy. Ngo Van Diem was a horrible bully, and we put him into power. how many times has the CIA gone into the third world, and imposed it's will on a largely opposed people? but i must digress. it's a lovely sentiment, yours, but a tad naive for my taste. this is far off topic. i just felt the need to address that briefly. and now i am done. i hope this doesn't flare up and out of control into a wholly seperate thing.
Great post! I love it when someone gives an intelligent argument, instaed of being an idiot. Even when it makes me look a little dumb! lol. I amend that last sentence to read " Americans don't want to see Iraqis get beat up by terrorists who think nothing of blowing up a group of children just to get a few soldiers" (better?)

Telling me that I'm a troll for saying it was a bad idea to get the car stuck in the mud in the first place is silly.
I didn't tell you that you were a troll because of an opinion you had. I told you that you were troll because you didn't read the first post.

Telling me that I'm a troll for saying it was a bad idea to get the car stuck in the mud in the first place is silly.
Didn't say you were a troll because of your opinion. I called you a troll because you can't respect anyone enough to speak your opinion where its asked for. Do I jump into your threads and go off topic?

I didn't tell you that you were a troll because of an opinion you had. I told you that you were troll because you didn't read the first post.It's not only directed at you.

Didn't say you were a troll because of your opinion. I called you a troll because you can't respect anyone enough to speak your opinion where its asked for. Do I jump into your threads and go off topic?I stated why I didn't think my posts were off topic. Going into an abortion thread and posting on how much you like cranberries is "off topic". I told you what I thought was wrong, and I admit that my misinterpretation of your first post was my fault. The "misinterpretations" of your subsequent posts where I feel you've been attacking me personally aren't my fault. If you used a bit friendlier language...

hey! everybody! shut up a sec! bygones remain as such and all that. if you really think the "you called me a troll" "you are a troll" "no im not" "yes you are" "your mother!" "go suck eggs!" argument is a worthwhile one to have, take it to the Private Messages. in the meantime, get back on topic.

I stated why I didn't think my posts were off topic. Going into an abortion thread and posting on how much you like cranberries is "off topic". I told you what I thought was wrong, and I admit that my misinterpretation of your first post was my fault. The "misinterpretations" of your subsequent posts where I feel you've been attacking me personally aren't my fault. If you used a bit friendlier language...
I only took offense to your post being directly contradictory to my instructions at the threads beginning. Lets just drop it and continue, shall we?

I speak as a member of the coalition of the willing (we all hate the government for this and have had 2 million strong demo's against it)

this war is unwinable

its like vietnam and malaysia

I'll use malasyia as a better example of how to handle it.

Britain had a colony of malaysia, some people in this country wanted to kick the british out and establish a marxist country (the rest just wanted to kick us out)

Britain sent in our armies of conscripts like the americans did in vietnam.

but using our knoledge of previous wars in the same conditions in burma and elsewhere allowed britain to contain the insergency

they did this by fighting them on the ground using infantry unlike the americans and french in vietnam who tried to use their mobility to beat the vietnamese in set pieces.

so the british used area denial by having patrols and limiting the movements of the rebels.

many attrocities were commited (for examples there are pictures of british officers with malaysian heads lined up like hunting trophys)

this war contiued about the same amount of time as the vietnamese war (or at least the american involvement so the japanese invasion, french colonial war and then the war against the south vietnamese government are ignored)

or at least british involvement did

we pulled out

now the war is still going on

there arn't many of the insergents (definitly under 50k and it has been numbered in the hundreds at times) but they are still there

basicly you can't beat an insergency it will continue until either all the insergents are dead and their ideas are eradicated, there is a negociated peace or they win.

this war is imposible to win and I speak from a good knoledge of military history (better then the majority of officers in any army)

the only way to win would be to nuke the whole area

and I'd hardly call that a victory

British military sources have said that they are preparing for a minimum of 10 years but that they could be there indefinitly.

they do know what they are talking about they have the information from the last people to try to do this (it was the british)

It didn't work that well

How would I win the War on Iraq. Well, actually Colin Powell who is not only the commander of the Army in Gulf War I, but hes also a West Point graduate. For you non-militatry personal out there. West Point is the BEST militatry school in the United States. Such men as General Lee, and I am assuming Mc. Authur and Eineshower. Anyways Colin Powell actually had a way to do this. We went into Iraq with about 100,000 troops. Not good enough, we should've gone in there with AT LEAST 200,000. Once we were in there we should've struck fast and struck hard. (think of the German blitzkrieg of WW II.) We should deal with the resistant as it came along. Not just skip over it and come back later like we did. What we needed to do was just grab Iraq by the throat and just hold on tight. We should've set curfews, roadblocks, we should've just taken complete charge of the entire country. Then slowly over a long period of time, release our grip on Iraq until it is able to be a free country. That is from the Colin Powell war book, and seeing how it came from a West Point graduate, I don't see how it couldn't work. Bush listened to the wrong man.

I think Bush is doing pretty well considering. Rumsfeld should be fired though. I have great remorse for any soldier of ours killed, but I also take offense to the thinking that 1800 dead is a HUGE death toll. I wish we could have them all alive again, but war is hell, and in the grand scheme of things, I can't think of too many wars where the generals on both sides wouldn't have given anything to have such a low casualty rate.

I speak from a good knoledge of military history (better then the majority of officers in any army)


Where did you get your military history knowledge? Not trying to be a dick, just curious.

Sack Rumsfeld for one and replace him with someone more competent.
Then I'd focus on where the insurgents are coming from, who's supplying them, and try to find a way to dry those out. I'd put more emphasis on getting the troops in place properly supplied and I'd start dealing with the contractor mercenaries (we shouldn't have people like that doing the military's job and them being better equipped is pretty bad for morale). Deal with Abu Ghraib properly and stop hushing things up.
Essentially, there isn't much that can be done now. Most of the damage is done. Ashmoria's analogy of a car stuck in mud was rather good. The criticism is that we're already in the mud and Bush is attempting to put planks underneath the wheels. Telling me that I'm a troll for saying it was a bad idea to get the car stuck in the mud in the first place is silly.

add "sack rumsfeld" to my list. put colin powel in as sec of defence. beg him to take the job.

Everyone says Bush is handling the war all wrong. I certainly disagree with some parts of its handling. I'm curious what people would do different to win the war. (win it, not quit, not go back in time and never do it.)


This is next to impossible to answer. Because the only right answer was to never start a war with Iraq in the first place. I think sometimes the Neo-Cons think they have the market cornered on nationalism, they don't, most countries when push comes to shove are very nationalistic. As is the case in Iraq. Sure they try to sell us a bill of goods saying it's all foreign fighters who make up the insurgents, I say bullshit. I would be surprised if the insurgents were not at least 75% Iraqi's. They will never win, not in any meaningful way.

They will have to leave before it can get better. And when they do leave it will most likely get worse before it gets better. Civil war once the Americans leave I believe to be a given. The violence as long as the Americans are there will keep going. This talk of "breaking the back" of the insurgents is either naive or wishful thinking. The middle east has a long history of fighting as long as it takes when occupied, just ask the British. There will never be peace in Iraq until the Americans leave. That's just the way it is. Many, upon many scholars knew that and tried to tell Bush & co that, but they wouldn't listen. Nope, they thought they'd be greeted with flowers... they obviously didn't know enough about the region or were complete fools when they started this.

In a perfect world the Americans would of stayed the hell out of Iraq as Saddam posed no threat to anyone (save maybe some of his own people, hardly a reason for war, given there are about 100 other countries just as bad) No, in a perfect world they would of stayed the course and gone after the people who attacked America on 9/11 and maybe, just maybe they'd of caught Osama bin Laden by now. But no, that made too much sense and we all know that logic and neo-con don't go well together.

I would have kept my playing cards close to my chest. We gave so much advance notice.... sigh. We lost any element of surprise. What we did allowed them time to prepare a military offensive and to set up the components neccessary to sustain a protracted guerilla war.

We knew he wasn't abiding by the terms of surrender from the 1st Irag war so we should have just acted on it.. If we had kept it on the down low it would have increased the likelihood of successful coordinated surprise attacks. These attacks would have happened simultaneously throughout Iraq, and would have been executed in a few hour/day time frame (a lightening attack),

I would have kept a periphery line to prevent escape of people who would eventually make it a guerilla warfare scenario, and possibly bring in the opposition to stablize the government. This hopefully would have decreased the amount of troops needed and deployment time involved.More importantly I believe it would have kept military and civilian deaths at a minimum. Panama was a closer example of a surprise attack and it came off pretty well.

The warning we gave was to be OK with the UN. I understand why we did it. I just think it lead to increased amounts of death on both sides along (civilian and military), and increased the scale of long term infrastructure damage.

This is based on the suppositon that the Iraq war was inevitable. I myself will make no comment either way on the topic. I am just addressing the intent of the thread.

This is next to impossible to answer. Because the only right answer was to never start a war with Iraq in the first place. I think sometimes the Neo-Cons think they have the market cornered on nationalism, they don't, most countries when push comes to shove are very nationalistic. As is the case in Iraq. Sure they try to sell us a bill of goods saying it's all foreign fighters who make up the insurgents, I say bullshit. I would be surprised if the insurgents were not at least 75% Iraqi's. They will never win, not in any meaningful way.

They will have to leave before it can get better. And when they do leave it will most likely get worse before it gets better. Civil war once the Americans leave I believe to be a given. The violence as long as the Americans are there will keep going. This talk of "breaking the back" of the insurgents is either naive or wishful thinking. The middle east has a long history of fighting as long as it takes when occupied, just ask the British. There will never be peace in Iraq until the Americans leave. That's just the way it is. Many, upon many scholars knew that and tried to tell Bush & co that, but they wouldn't listen. Nope, they thought they'd be greeted with flowers... they obviously didn't know enough about the region or were complete fools when they started this.

In a perfect world the Americans would of stayed the hell out of Iraq as Saddam posed no threat to anyone (save maybe some of his own people, hardly a reason for war, given there are about 100 other countries just as bad) No, in a perfect world they would of stayed the course and gone after the people who attacked America on 9/11 and maybe, just maybe they'd of caught Osama bin Laden by now. But no, that made too much sense and we all know that logic and neo-con don't go well together.
Hey, way to stick to the topic and not rant! (sarcasm)

Simple: nukes. However, if I gave a flying fuck about what the world thought about me, I'd use MOABs.

Shortened: flatten the entire country. What is this "collateral damage" you speak of?

I never really got the reason for going to war, if someone has WMDs and the willingness to use them then surely thats a reason against going to war with them.

I would have kept my playing cards close to my chest. We gave so much advance notice.... sigh. We lost any element of surprise. What we did allowed them time to prepare a military offensive and to set up the components neccessary to sustain a protracted guerilla war.

We knew he wasn't abiding by the terms of surrender from the 1st Irag war so we should have just acted on it.. If we had kept it on the down low it would have increased the likelihood of successful coordinated surprise attacks. These attacks would have happened simultaneously throughout Iraq, and would have been executed in a few hour/day time frame (a lightening attack),

I would have kept a periphery line to prevent escape of people who would eventually make it a guerilla warfare scenario, and possibly bring in the opposition to stablize the government. This hopefully would have decreased the amount of troops needed and deployment time involved.More importantly I believe it would have kept military and civilian deaths at a minimum. Panama was a closer example of a surprise attack and it came off pretty well.

The warning we gave was to be OK with the UN. I understand why we did it. I just think it lead to increased amounts of death on both sides along (civilian and military), and increased the scale of long term infrastructure damage.

This is based on the suppositon that the Iraq war was inevitable. I myself will make no comment either way on the topic. I am just addressing the intent of the thread.
we didnt need surprise, hussein never believed we were going to invade. it was as much a suprise to him as if we had never mentioned it before going in.

we didnt need surprise, hussein never believed we were going to invade. it was as much a suprise to him as if we had never mentioned it before going in.
Even though it was on CNN.

Even though it was on CNN.
Gotta love the dumbass media!

its so much harder to get your car out of the axle deep mud than it is to not drive into the mud to begin with.

True.

id make it a priority to make sure that our troops there have everything they need. even the national guard guys!

It's hard to say that you'd run a campaign where troops never want for anything. However, I'd have *hoped* they'd have gotten everybody bodyarmor before deployment.

id work hard to train and protect iraqi security forces

Being done, but it's not as simple as it'd be in (for example) New Mexico. :(

id put an end to anything resembling torture.

That's a moving target: what you may consider torture I dont, and vice versa. For example, my version is that if it does not leave any permanent scars, it's not torture. (PLEASE do not debate me on my defintion; we'll just hijack this thread.)

i would try to bolster the image of the iraqi government as being independant of the US.

:confused: They've had an election and are working on a constitution... but exactly how would you (yourself) go around and point at somebody else and tell everyone "he's independent of me!!"? It's a pretty hard thing to do and seem sincere... ;)

i would cancel all plans to have bases in iraq and make it clear that iraq's oil is for the benefit of the iraqi people and NOT the benefit of haliburton.

Exactly w/ the oil, and the administration has done that.

As for the bases, that's kind of tough, too... the US has investing over $85 billion into Iraq, and had/has a moral obligation to clean up the mess it made backing Iraq in the 80s against Iran.
Bases in Iraq show that the US is committed to the region, and will not just up an leave as was done with Afghanistan after the fall of the Berlin Wall or in Viet Nam in 1973.
Note that places where the US stayed (Japan, Germany, Italy after WW2; Cuba & the Phillipeans after the Spanish American War; or South Korea after 1953) ended up with stable governments. (Yes, that too means Cuba until the Revolution of Che & Fidel...)

id put pressure on syria to bolster its border with iraq and to discourage the emigration of "insurgents".

Three little problems:
1) Who's going to pay for that,
2) Syria does not like the US, and
3) Most of the borders are wide open: there are small garrisons in the towns near the boundry, and checkpoints on the roads (or railroads). Other than that, most areas lack even the pathetic chain link fence most of the US border with Mexico has...

Also, what kind of pressure? Anything the US does is looked at as Imperialism. We'd need Egypt, Saudi, and other Arab nations to do something... and they're not likely to, as they only just recently got Syria out of Lebanon. The Syrians quite simply wouldn't accept a double-whamy of face losing.

and i would stay until i was confident that there would be no civil war when we leave iraq. no "peace with honor" for me.

Good idea, provided that the US & Allied forces play an increasingly minimal/training role and the Iraqis take up more and more of the fighting. This was a major problem with ARVN in South Viet Nam: their role never really expanded during the 60s, and so from 1973-1975, they lost and Saigon became Ho Chi Minh City...

Hey, way to stick to the topic and not rant! (sarcasm)

You post a topic, ask a question, you don't get to decide on how people will answer it. You act as though you think there is a cut and dry answer, there isn't. If there was, it would be being done right now as we speak. There is no way to answer your question without background and current situation acknowledgements of the situation in Iraq. Sorry if I didn't give you the answer you wanted, I gave the answer I feel to be true. Perhaps your question is a little naive too.

You post a topic, ask a question, you don't get to decide on how people will answer it. You act as though you think there is a cut and dry answer, there isn't. If there was, it would be being done right now as we speak. There is no way to answer your question without background and current situation acknowledgements of the situation in Iraq. Sorry if I didn't give you the answer you wanted, I gave the answer I feel to be true. Perhaps your question is a little naive too.
My question is simple. It has many answers. If you don't have one, thats not my fault. If you wanna rant about the "neo-cons", theres plenty of threads for that! By the way, you didn't give me an answer, just a troll induced headache.!

we didnt need surprise, hussein never believed we were going to invade. it was as much a suprise to him as if we had never mentioned it before going in.

I myself find that highly unlikely since that same excuse was used in the 1st Iraq war. For this Iraq war we were deploying massive amounts of troops/ and equipment and amassing them in Kuwait and other regions. This went on forever... you are saying that during this protracted troop deployment from a nation that already once had a war with Iraq that Hussein never thought... might be time to prepare for the worse.

First i would have left Saddam alone i liked his Doings.

Secondly i would have made sureanother 5 Divisions were available from the start to crack down on the Terrs/Freedom Fighters/Vandals/BArbaraians/Traitors/Whatever you wanted to call them from the get go.

How would I win the War on Iraq. Well, actually Colin Powell who is not only the commander of the Army in Gulf War I, but hes also a West Point graduate. For you non-militatry personal out there. West Point is the BEST militatry school in the United States. Such men as General Lee, and I am assuming Mc. Authur and Eineshower. Anyways Colin Powell actually had a way to do this. We went into Iraq with about 100,000 troops. Not good enough, we should've gone in there with AT LEAST 200,000. Once we were in there we should've struck fast and struck hard. (think of the German blitzkrieg of WW II.) We should deal with the resistant as it came along. Not just skip over it and come back later like we did. What we needed to do was just grab Iraq by the throat and just hold on tight. We should've set curfews, roadblocks, we should've just taken complete charge of the entire country. Then slowly over a long period of time, release our grip on Iraq until it is able to be a free country. That is from the Colin Powell war book, and seeing how it came from a West Point graduate, I don't see how it couldn't work. Bush listened to the wrong man.

yes but american military thinking has been flawed for decades

Lee was okay but would have been trounced by some one like napolan (I can't spell)

Mc arther was a complete incompitent just very good with publisity he failed in every war he fought in, wwII he left his men to die after failing them and then proceded to nibble at the japanese (the battles that won the war against japan were the commerse raiding by submarines, the war in china agains the communists especially after the russians entered the war and crushed the japanese armies in the north of china, also the war in burma and vietnam which was a war of slow attrition though this was a minor thing)


Eineshower as you've called him pissed off the french, british and all the other allies he would have made a resonable planner but he was a rubbish general, he failed during the battle of the bulge and during operation nordwind which could have destroyed the majority of the armies of the western allies in europe, caused the french to be occupied again and probably give up, the british would be a spent force and the americans would have to wait years to build up their strength again.

American stratergy during the early years of the 2nd world war was based on the offensive of 1918 which did not workvery well and was tactically obsolete before it was put into opperation

during the cold war nato's (and so america's) plan was to use the same methods the germans had tried and failed with during the closing years of WWII

so saying its the best of the best military minds of america is not saying much to me (from the people who brought you the bay of pigs, korea, vietnam, etc, etc)

I get my knoledge from being taught military history, reading as many books by as many different view points as possible (did you know that all war by penetration (i.e. what the majority of all military thinking is based on since) is based on a plan invented by a british officer in 1918 (its called plan 1919 and was what to do if the war continued)) also I have talked to my great grandfather who was there last time we were in iraq, afganistan and so on, I have talked to many eminent historians and economists about these issues, I have looked at past wars (from now back to the beginning of recorded history) technology involved in wars, many eye witnesses from both sides (I have freinds all over who've helped with this).

This is more then any military college I have heard of.

This is kind of off-topic...

But I say we keep Saddam in an American jail for a little while.

Then go round up Kim Jong Il. And then go get Fidel Castro.

Anyone I'm missing?


Anyway, once we've got them all...let's have a reality TV show...

This is kind of off-topic...

But I say we keep Saddam in an American jail for a little while.

Then go round up Kim Jong Il. And then go get Fidel Castro.

Anyone I'm missing?


Anyway, once we've got them all...let's have a reality TV show...
Throw in Chavez, and the Mullahs, and I think we have a great cast for The Surreal Life!

Throw in Chavez, and the Mullahs, and I think we have a great cast for The Surreal Life!
No, we've got to be unique. "The Fa'Real World"

("Fa" being a ghettofied version of "for")

yeah but you won't as kim jong il actually does have nuclear weapons.....

as do the mullahs.....

and wasn't chavez elected? (or am I getting them confused (there have been a lot of changes in south america and I haven't kept up) which country is he, I thought he was venezrala (I can't spell) and vagly centre left so pretty inofensive unless i'm mistaken)

I would be concentrating on the people that actually attacked the WTC on 9/11...and focus on Afghanistan - rather than trying to steal oil from Iraq...

Just my two pennies worth

This is kind of off-topic...

But I say we keep Saddam in an American jail for a little while.

Then go round up Kim Jong Il. And then go get Fidel Castro.

Anyone I'm missing?


Anyway, once we've got them all...let's have a reality TV show...

Fidel has a bye from the Bays of Pigs. ;)

it wasn't even them (afganis)

until america started to attack him no one had anything to do with ossama bin laden (he was like the annoying sticky kid of terrioist organations)

the majority of the attackers were saudis

as is osama bin laden who's a saudi millionare

they attacked afganistan as it might have oil and they definitly wanted to lay an oil or gas (I can't remember which) pipline through it.

Umm I'll skip the fact that going in in the first place was the act of an insuferable idiot as I think that's been covered here and elsewhere. How about just leaving? Most of the dificulties in the middle east, africa and the other former European colonies occured because Europe thought they could draw lines in the sand and dictate which contry was where. It did'nt work and arrogant Yank that I am I doubt we can do a better job of it.
If the Bathists remerge or the Irtanians invade I'm tolerably certain that we can go back and elliminate that threat with less casualties than the occupation has incured. The lack of US troops in Iraq does lower the number of targets for suicide bombers and the lack of US attacks will hurt the recruitment of the same. Why not just declare victory and go home. Let Iraq worry about Iraq'a problems.

This is kind of off-topic...

But I say we keep Saddam in an American jail for a little while.

Then go round up Kim Jong Il. And then go get Fidel Castro.

Anyone I'm missing?


Anyway, once we've got them all...let's have a reality TV show...ah.. but what would happen... can vote them off...

Unless we make it XTREME SURVIVOR!

Regarding Iraq I would have made it a British lead operation, and I am not just saying that because I am British. British forces occupy a larger sector of Iraq than the Americans with less troops and suffer far less attacks. This is because the British forces in these cases generally have experince. The American army is (I believe) still working on millitary service system. In other words, while its not compulsery it still recruits people from a certian age group to join the army for a few years am I correct. Also, the American soldiers behave in a far more intimidating fashion, wearing full body armour all the time etc.

ah.. but what would happen... can vote them off...

Unless we make it XTREME SURVIVOR!
I was thinking kind of something like what's described in the radio commercial on GTA3. Liberty City Survivor.

yeah except it is kinda your country's fault (if your american)

america installed saddam into power because it had had a revolution that overthrew the king who was pro western and it looked like they were going to be horror of horrors left wing.

britain has had less attacks due to the fact that british troops are in an area that is traditonally anti saddam

they are doing most of the same things as the americans just in soft hats

their experience in northen island has stood them in good stead as now they are better at not getting caught abusing human rights

do I need remind you of the military policemen who fired at a peacefull demonstration (admitadly the demonstrators then went home and got guns and shot back but we started it)

and I'm british to

yeah except it is kinda your country's fault (if your american)

america installed saddam into power because it had had a revolution that overthrew the king who was pro western and it looked like they were going to be horror of horrors left wing.
Okay. But what does that have to do with winning the war?

I would be concentrating on the people that actually attacked the WTC on 9/11...and focus on Afghanistan - rather than trying to steal oil from Iraq...

Just my two pennies worth
O.K. 1)Way off topic 2)Wheres all this oil we're stealing? 3)You need a hobby

Sick Dreams - You really need to stop telling people that they are off topic because you don't like how they answer your question. If you only wanted people to agree with you, you should be on a different forum. On this forum people have different opinions, we don't all agree.

Regarding Iraq I would have made it a British lead operation, and I am not just saying that because I am British. British forces occupy a larger sector of Iraq than the Americans with less troops and suffer far less attacks. This is because the British forces in these cases generally have experince. The American army is (I believe) still working on millitary service system. In other words, while its not compulsery it still recruits people from a certian age group to join the army for a few years am I correct. Also, the American soldiers behave in a far more intimidating fashion, wearing full body armour all the time etc.
You forgot to mention that most of the British troops have the less hostile regions to occupy. Do you honestly believe that the terrorists would say "Gee, those Brits aren't wearing armor, maybe we should be nice!"

Sick Dreams - You really need to stop telling people that they are off topic because you don't like how they answer your question. If you only wanted people to agree with you, you should be on a different forum. The forum people have different opinions, we don't all agree.
He doesn't want people to agree with him. He wants people to answer the question. The question isn't what would you have done after 9-11. The question is you are in this situation. You're not the president of the United States and now in the position to control the war in Iraq. What do you do to fix the current situation?

Sick Dreams - You really need to stop telling people that they are off topic because you don't like how they answer your question. If you only wanted people to agree with you, you should be on a different forum. The forum people have different opinions, we don't all agree.
I'll say it again. Answer the question, and I don't care what your opinion is. What CAN we do now? Not what DID we do wrong. Use it as an excuse to say "The neo-cons are dumb, Bush is an idiot, we shouldn't have invaded, its all Americas fault" and I will continue to say that you are off topic! There are plenty of anti-war threads. This is a What can we do now thread.

it was brought up by someone else who said that iraq's problems were caused by iraq when it was caused by the allies after wwI fucking up the borders, britain running it as a colony (by a pollicy of punishment by bombings (including gas)) and america aiding saddam to gain power and attack iran

most of it is going to europe and japan and china who are paying money to prop up the tottering american economy.........

but not much is comming out due to antique equipment and sabbotage

but it is about oil iraq has some of the richest oil deposits and since saudi arabia is becoming more hostile to the west it give america the opption of doing something to them without fucking themselves up in the process

Man, some people just don't get the whole "topic" thing very well.

Sick Dreams - You really need to stop telling people that they are off topic because you don't like how they answer your question. If you only wanted people to agree with you, you should be on a different forum. On this forum people have different opinions, we don't all agree.

Heh - thanks Stephistan :)

And Sick Dreams - this is not going off topic...'off topic' would be if I was to start talking about the many uses of the Pocket Oxford Dictionary...

What I said was still related, although not directly, to the question - and was my own opinion of the situation of what we can/should do.

Define what you consider a win first--then we'll talk.
The cessation of armed hostilities.

I wish we would be tougher on the insurgents and secure Iraq's borders.
I agree. The inflow of insurgets from other countries must stop.

By winning, I simply mean battling the insurgents long enough and well enough to allow the Iraqi forces to take over their own security, and bring our troops home.
I disagree. The "handing the war to the natives" approach didn't work in Vietnam. I would like to see the troops remain in Iraq until the insurgency is thoroughly defeated.

it was brought up by someone else who said that iraq's problems were caused by iraq when it was caused by the allies after wwI fucking up the borders, britain running it as a colony (by a pollicy of punishment by bombings (including gas)) and america aiding saddam to gain power and attack iran

most of it is going to europe and japan and china who are paying money to prop up the tottering american economy.........

but not much is comming out due to antique equipment and sabbotage

but it is about oil iraq has some of the richest oil deposits and since saudi arabia is becoming more hostile to the west it give america the opption of doing something to them without fucking themselves up in the process
ahem... so, what is your situation for getting a US out of Iraq without quitting or saying "I wouldn't have started the war in the first place"?

Man, some people just don't get the whole "topic" thing very well.

If you don't want a discussion to meander away from the topic at hand - and focus on a larger picture - then don't start one of the forums ;)

Have a conversation in your head instead - you'll get very satisfactory answers. That's what I do when I want to have a rational chat - heh

I'll say it again. Answer the question, and I don't care what your opinion is.

Well the answer is there is no way to win the war, unless the United States nukes the middle east. Is that better?

since the american government decided to go to war maybe the should have looked at northern irland, anothe war by a powerful country that they never won another would be vietnam or korea or seria leon or even the crusades??!! :mp5:

I do its just that other people ask me questions or bring things up that are off topic and then I answer them as I did above

really this war is hopeless the best you can hope for is to contain resistance from the iraqi population (and it is the population the parties that did best in the fallicy of the 'election' were for coalition troops leaving)

your going to be there indefinitly

you've driven the most stable and western of the muslim states to civil war and religious fundimentalism

you've lost huge amounts of weapons (conventional here) that have just gone missing from iraqi arsnals.

the security forces and army you are training keep deserting or changing sides when things go wrong

sorry but this is a untenable position

just have a free and fair election and get out with some dignity

Well the answer is there is no way to win the war, unless the United States nukes the middle east. Is that better?
Yes. I happen to disagree with it, but at least you adress the question.

And I hope you realize that at this point, to continue to mull around on the fact that the US shouldn't be in Iraq anyway isn't at all constructive.

Hah - now that would be interesting...what would the French say?

well wasnt the point ofo the war OIL AND ITS POWER after all the west created the monster and now cant kill it....oops

probally ha ha ha ha ha

since the american government decided to go to war maybe the should have looked at northern irland, anothe war by a powerful country that they never won another would be vietnam or korea or seria leon or even the crusades??!! :mp5:

I don't think the British would be very happy about American troops in Northern Ireland...never mind the Irish themselves...

If you don't want a discussion to meander away from the topic at hand - and focus on a larger picture - then don't start one of the forums ;)

Have a conversation in your head instead - you'll get very satisfactory answers. That's what I do when I want to have a rational chat - heh
If I wanted to focus on the larger picture, I'd start a "What do you think of the war in Iraq" thread. I fail to understand why people feel the need to post whatever they want in whatever thread they want. If someone doesn't want to answer the question, why are they this thread?

Heh - thanks Stephistan

And Sick Dreams - this is not going off topic...'off topic' would be if I was to start talking about the many uses of the Pocket Oxford Dictionary...

What I said was still related, although not directly, to the question - and was my own opinion of the situation of what we can/should do.
I would be concentrating on the people that actually attacked the WTC on 9/11...and focus on Afghanistan - rather than trying to steal oil from Iraq...

Just my two pennies worth
ok, Aligned Planets, you won the 2004 election. so you will ignore all the problems your predicessor left in Iraq, leave the men there, ignore it and concentrate on Afghanistan? is that what you are saying?

since the first post did explicitly state, you cannot quit, nor "go back in time and say "I wouldn't have invades Iraq in the first place", your post on concentrating only on Afghanistan means you will ignore Iraq and let your men die there.

the french would say BECAREFUL DONT SPILL MY WINE :fluffle:

"But I am le tired."

"Well then take a nap. THEN FIRE ZE MISSILES!"

If I wanted to focus on the larger picture, I'd start a "What do you think of the war in Iraq" thread.

You new around here?

You make the topic, you don't get to decide which direction it takes. Those are the rules my dear. Sorry.

TO PAY FOR THE WAR AMERICA AND BRITAN HAVE TO TAKE THE FREE OIL how else can theyu pay for thwe war in the firswt place :headbang:

At first, the initial estimations put us in favor. But wait, were they, really?

who has the Tao?(The Tao causes the people to be fully in accord with the ruler. [Thus] they will die with him; they will live with him and not fear danger.
Bush=Lost popular vote 1st time around. War protests not seen since the 60-70's.
Insurgent Commander/Corrupted view of Allah=Believe they are fighting to preserve their way of life and for their God-There is no greater army than that with a holy call.
Who has the advantages of Heaven?(Heaven encopmasses yin and yang, cold and heat, and the contraints of the seasons)
Bush=Training of soldiers takes place in many locations, from Arizona for desert training, to the east for wooded environments.
Insurgent Commander/Corrupted view of Allah=Born and bred in the merciless Persian desert, Iraqi insurgents don't need specialized training in dealing with the environment.
Who has the advantages of Earth?(Earth encompasses far or near, difficult or easy, expansive or confined, fatal or tenable terrain)
Bush=Supplies/personnel must be flown in from across oceans and seas.
ent Commander/Corrupted view of Allah=All their supply routes and support facilities are close at hand.
Who has the better generals?(Generals encompass wisdom, credibility, benevolence, courage, and strictness)
Bush=Generals are mainly West Point, Annapolis, or AF Academy graduates.
Insurgent Commander/Corrupted view of Allah=Veterans of other insurgencies as well as past Iraqi wars.
Who has the better laws for military organization and discipline?(Encompassing organization and regulations, the Tao of command, and the management of logistics)
Bush=US Armed Forces are regulated under the UCMJ[Uniform Code of Military Justice] and the US Constitution.
Insurgent Commander/Corrupted view of Allah=Unknown

Take these estimations for what they're worth.

-taken from Art of War by Sun-tzu

TO PAY FOR THE WAR AMERICA AND BRITAN HAVE TO TAKE THE FREE OIL how else can theyu pay for thwe war in the firswt place :headbang:
Are you like 3 pages behind, or is this just entirely random (not to mention, harsh on my eyes)?

You've certainly made some good points! While I do agree that there are probably spies in the Iraqi forces, I don't think its at the level you beleive. I believe that MOST of the Iraqi's want us to win, theyre just scared to show it publicy because people like Kennedy who keep saying "get out get out" scare them into thinking we will abandon them like we did in Vietnam. I think the longer we stay, the harder it will be for the insurgents to scare the general populace.
It's the manner and the level of intel that seems to be behind many of the insurgent attacks that make me think that the Iraqi forces are infiltrated. They're all not infiltrated--fact that some of the forces try to fight as disguised as they can in order to avoid retribution is circumstantial evidence of that, and yet the insurgents seem to be able to strike at will with little consequence.

There's no way of knowing what most Iraqis want right now--our relationship with them is so crappy that we couldn't get an honest answer from a man in the street if we wanted one. My guess is that they want order to return and violence to stop, and they'll go with whatever horse they think is most likely to make that happen. And the Kennedy crack is just bogus--the average Iraqi is probably too busy trying to stay alive to worry about what any American Senator is saying, assuming he or she even knows what an American Senator is, much less who he or she is.

The ultimate point I was trying to make is that the US forces can't accomplish what you hope they will, not because they don't want to, but because they are now a touchstone for violent behavior. They're blamed for everything from the death of relatives to the lack of water and power--even if they're not actually to blame for any of it. Actual responsibility doesn't matter by this point, not to people living in the middle of it. The US is now the other, it is the enemy on which irrational hatred can be fixated, and our very presence only makes the situation worse, no matter how hard we try to make it better.

Actually, I don't mean to troll, but I wouldn't be wholey opposed to simply pulling out. It forces the Iraqi people to secure their own safety.
That sounds a lot like one of those arcane arguments against social welfare that is so divorced from reality that it cannot be allowed into policy.

Civil/revolutionary war is quite obviously a healthy and natural extension of democracy, and I'm not sure why the United States is so fearful of civil war in Iraq.
I'm aware of the tree of liberty, etc, etc, but the problem there is that the risk of an Islamist dictatorship taking over is too high.

I think the longer we stay, the harder it will be for the insurgents to scare the general populace.
I agree. The majority of Iraqis oppose the insurgents, and some are even fighting against them on their own.

You new around here?

You make the topic, you don't get to decide which direction it takes. Those are the rules my dear. Sorry.
Never said your breaking the rules. I'm saying your being rude, and I'm saying that you have no respect for other people. I simply wanted a thread about what to do to better the situation in Iraq. Then the rude, arrogant, know-it-all trolls had to come in and start ranting about the evils of the neo-cons. Instaed of starting your own "evil neo-con" thread, you come into this one and say whatever you like. Just because something is legal, and it follows the rules, doesn't mean it isn't ignorant, my dear. Sorry.

Well the answer is there is no way to win the war, unless the United States nukes the middle east. Is that better?
How do you figure that? Since when were nuclear weapons required to win a war? I can't even think of any sensible targets regarding the Iraq war.

no just been distracted by some thin more intresting.... the death of a goldfish....tragic.......rip nemo

It's the manner and the level of intel that seems to be behind many of the insurgent attacks that make me think that the Iraqi forces are infiltrated. They're all not infiltrated--fact that some of the forces try to fight as disguised as they can in order to avoid retribution is circumstantial evidence of that, and yet the insurgents seem to be able to strike at will with little consequence.

There's no way of knowing what most Iraqis want right now--our relationship with them is so crappy that we couldn't get an honest answer from a man in the street if we wanted one. My guess is that they want order to return and violence to stop, and they'll go with whatever horse they think is most likely to make that happen. And the Kennedy crack is just bogus--the average Iraqi is probably too busy trying to stay alive to worry about what any American Senator is saying, assuming he or she even knows what an American Senator is, much less who he or she is.

The ultimate point I was trying to make is that the US forces can't accomplish what you hope they will, not because they don't want to, but because they are now a touchstone for violent behavior. They're blamed for everything from the death of relatives to the lack of water and power--even if they're not actually to blame for any of it. Actual responsibility doesn't matter by this point, not to people living in the middle of it. The US is now the other, it is the enemy on which irrational hatred can be fixated, and our very presence only makes the situation worse, no matter how hard we try to make it better.
First, the Kennedy comment was meant to be a generalization of anyone who says we should leave.(which seems to be alot)
Other than that, I disagree with a few of the points,(the fact that it CAN'T get better) but other than that, a brilliant and well laid out assessment!

no just been distracted by some thin more intresting.... the death of a goldfish....tragic.......rip nemo
A moment of silence for Nemo................................................................................................ .................................................................................................... .....

a sensible target ........what about no 10 downing street london..sw1 or even the white house... more trigger happy than all of us put together...start again elect sencible leaders who listen..."were gonna get those folks", come on wasnt that ronald regan

most appreciated...thank you....nemo would have loved it

a sensible target ........what about no 10 downing street london..sw1 or even the white house... more trigger happy than all of us put together...start again elect sencible leaders who listen..."were gonna get those folks", come on wasnt that ronald regan
Sensible target as in there's not really anything in Iraq that you could hit with a nuke that would change a whole lot in the war...

a sensible target ........what about no 10 downing street london..sw1 or even the white house... more trigger happy than all of us put together...start again elect sencible leaders who listen..."were gonna get those folks", come on wasnt that ronald regan
Get a life. (and your own "evil neo-con" thread)

the iraqi forces are either not very convinced about the whole thing and as such are very shaky (they either disapear or on the odd ocasion go over to the other side)

many of the ones 'loyal' to the americans are former cronies of saddam so they fight for whoever they think will win

okay but I have links with reliable sources from inside iraq who are not embeded into the coalition forces also i'm going on the election results here as well so it's quantative the parties that wanted the americans to stay crashed and burned

I'm not trying to stray away from the topic but the topic itself is irrational

America cannot win

at best it can hope to stop things getting worse (one of these would be to pull out as they are making it worse)

You forgot to mention that most of the British troops have the less hostile regions to occupy. Do you honestly believe that the terrorists would say "Gee, those Brits aren't wearing armor, maybe we should be nice!"

No, I believe that the Americans behaviour in said regions has made them more hostile. They weren't more hostile to begin with. The body armour thing was just one example, and the point its making is that wearing the body armour and almost always patroling in tanks as opposed to on foot or in smaller veichles is behaviour that would intimidate and anger those Iraqies that wouldnt otherwise support the insurgents.

dont you think they have suffered eneough, our leaders went to war on OUR behalf, because they know better, we were told it was because an attack could be launched in 45 min massive wepons of destruction.....didnt find any did they oh.... jack straw rip

Sensible target as in there's not really anything in Iraq that you could hit with a nuke that would change a whole lot in the war...
Your right. My gut response when I'm angry is to say "nuke em all", but that would make us the monsters that some people already think we are. I think a few icbm's pointed at Iran might make them consider their policy towards their border, and the weapons crossing over into Iraq though! Probably not the best idea though.

maybe a radical idea...why not negociate with the insurgents..worth a try?

Things that pissed off the iraqi's

1: they got invaded by a forign power (never a good thing)
2: the western world has since the last gulf war been systimatically starving iraq (estimated death toll is in the millions)
3: iraq has been bombed since the last gulf war (one of the longest continual periods of bombing in world history)
4: saddam was put in by the americans
5: random searches by heavy handed coalition troops (not just americans) for weapons (some have been arrested for possesing weapons that are legal for them to have)
6: the destruction of falluja
7: the fact we won't leave
8: the fact that we wrote their constitution so that they can never do any thing that america doesn't want them to (even to the level that they have to privitise everything)
9: the fact they are employing the same people and methods saddam did
10: they quite rightly believe that corrupt officials (from america as well as iraq) and the coalition countries are taking all the profits from the oil and also misapropriating money for the reconstruction
11: that no one is doing anything to help them
12: that their media is censored by the coalition

I could go on but I've made my point

patrolling on foot in floppy hats would just mean that more body bags would come back

also from what I've heard the americans are getting to the point where they don't patrol even in tanks unless they don't have any other choice....

maybe a radical idea...why not negociate with the insurgents..worth a try?
Not really too radical, but I think the problem is that we know what they want, and its not acceptable. They(the terrorists) want (I assume) us to leave so that they can install their own dictator, control the population according to their ideals, keep the majority oppressed so there is no opposition, and beat their wives if they try acting like anything but property.

isnt point 10 theft,9 corruption, 8isnt that........its all illegal

well no

their not terroists

your only a terroist if you are acting either in another country or against your own government (and not all ways then)

they could be called gurrila's or resistance fighters or at a streach insergents or rebels

most of them just want us to go away so they can choose what to do

remember that iraq was one of the most western states in the middle east for many years

all the fighting is doing is causing religious tentsion and also driving them to more religious groups as those are the ones that the americans deal with

the americans ignore all the left wing groups (of which there are several) who resisted the king, saddam and now the coalition

What would I do?

Well, since we cant just op out of the war, I'll say what I would do If I had been in charge.

A. Destroy the Iraqi military. This was done quite well anyways, no real qualms.

B. Take control of important areas, create green zones and such. Done well again, for the most part.

C. Keep satelites and recon planes around the borders of iraq, as well as airforce, to blow up anything bigger than a civilian car trying to leave. Quickly set up troops on the borders, too.

D. Search for WMD's. Since none were found IRL, lets assume none are found this time either.

E. Place Iraq under american military protection. Keep Baghdad under heavy control, have a few military bases around baghdad, and control the ports and oil wells as well.

F. Once said places are well under control, bring the majority of troops back. Leave token forces to keep baghdad, the port cities, and the oil fields safe. Leave a few divisions left, as well as heavy air support in the region.

G. Place Iraq under american protection. Any nation which brings any troops or anything into iraq, has war declared upon it by America.

H. Slowly pull troops out of baghdad. Keep military bases around the oil fields and port cities, and create a green zone between the two, where the remaining troops remain, to protect the oil.

I. The rest of Iraq is a red zone, where US forces dont go. The Iraqi's are left to create their own government, or whatever they wish. The only part under american authority is the green zone, which has international contractors come to rebuild, and US troops protecting. Oil is not taken, but kept safe, and put under US control, until an acceptable government is established.

J. Mission accomplished. No WMD's were found, Oil is secured, very few americans will have died by this point, its a win.

isnt point 10 theft,9 corruption, 8isnt that........its all illegal

yeah what the coalition is doing is highly illeagal by anyones definition

How do you figure that? Since when were nuclear weapons required to win a war? I can't even think of any sensible targets regarding the Iraq war.

I was being sarcastic..;)

Because he was getting answers he didn't like..

Not really too radical, but I think the problem is that we know what they want, and its not acceptable. They(the terrorists) want (I assume) us to leave so that they can install their own dictator, control the population according to their ideals, keep the majority oppressed so there is no opposition, and beat their wives if they try acting like anything but property.


soundsa like any wester city at the weekend to me, we have cencorship oun our media, an almost dictator/god to himself, they keep woorking class where they think they belong..at the bottom

2: the western world has since the last gulf war been systimatically starving
iraq (estimated death toll is in the millions)
I believe thats the fault of the oil for food program being run by the U.N. Thanks Kofi!





5: random searches by heavy handed coalition troops (not just americans)
for weapons (some have been arrested for possesing weapons that are legal for them to have)


True, but a neccessary evil.


6: the destruction of falluja

True , but also a neccessary evil.

7: the fact we won't leave


This contradicts point 11

8: the fact that we wrote their constitution so that they can never do any thing that america doesn't want them to (even to the level that they have to privitise everything)

I'm pretty sure they are writing their own constitution.

9: the fact they are employing the same people and methods saddam did

Thats the biggest load of bull ever! I don't think we've fed anyone into plastic shredders, or opened mass rape rooms.

10: they quite rightly believe that corrupt officials (from america as well as iraq) and the coalition countries are taking all the profits from the oil and also misapropriating money for the reconstruction

True

11: that no one is doing anything to help them

See point 7



also from what I've heard the americans are getting to the point where they don't patrol even in tanks unless they don't have any other choice....
Heard from where? If we stayed in tanks all the time, why are we losing so many troops?

That's a moving target: what you may consider torture I dont, and vice versa. For example, my version is that if it does not leave any permanent scars, it's not torture. (PLEASE do not debate me on my defintion; we'll just hijack this thread.)
i woudlnt consider hijacking such a great thread. our being seen as torturers hurts us in the whole "war on terror" fight. we need to be seen as tough but fair.



:confused: They've had an election and are working on a constitution... but exactly how would you (yourself) go around and point at somebody else and tell everyone "he's independent of me!!"? It's a pretty hard thing to do and seem sincere... ;)
beats me but since *I* consider the current government to be a US puppet, im sure the rest of the world does too. not that its a huge issue right now since the current iraqi government isnt strong enough to run the country. but as soon as they approve a real constitution (with whatever provisions seem best to the iraqi people) and elect a more permanent government based on that constitution, they need to be independant of US influence.



As for the bases, that's kind of tough, too... the US has investing over $85 billion into Iraq, and had/has a moral obligation to clean up the mess it made backing Iraq in the 80s against Iran.
Bases in Iraq show that the US is committed to the region, and will not just up an leave as was done with Afghanistan after the fall of the Berlin Wall or in Viet Nam in 1973.
Note that places where the US stayed (Japan, Germany, Italy after WW2; Cuba & the Phillipeans after the Spanish American War; or South Korea after 1953) ended up with stable governments. (Yes, that too means Cuba until the Revolution of Che & Fidel...)
as long as we have bases in iraq, it will remain a magnet for terrorists. who will we staff them with? the soldiers we hate? those who didnt do a great job in basic training so it doesnt matter if they get killed?



Three little problems:
1) Who's going to pay for that,
2) Syria does not like the US, and
3) Most of the borders are wide open: there are small garrisons in the towns near the boundry, and checkpoints on the roads (or railroads). Other than that, most areas lack even the pathetic chain link fence most of the US border with Mexico has...

Also, what kind of pressure? Anything the US does is looked at as Imperialism. We'd need Egypt, Saudi, and other Arab nations to do something... and they're not likely to, as they only just recently got Syria out of Lebanon. The Syrians quite simply wouldn't accept a double-whamy of face losing.

well im against going to war with syria but there must be SOME leverage we have with them.

not to mention our good friends the saudis who spread anti-american propaganda throughout the world, even to the mosques of the US. we should get them to cut that shit out.


Good idea, provided that the US & Allied forces play an increasingly minimal/training role and the Iraqis take up more and more of the fighting. This was a major problem with ARVN in South Viet Nam: their role never really expanded during the 60s, and so from 1973-1975, they lost and Saigon became Ho Chi Minh City...

we never expected the south vietnamese to be able to hold off the north. it was a pathetic sham that allowed us to get out without being driven out ourselves. to have that happen in iraq would be a disaster for us, our allies and the iraqi people.

i am of course worried that there is no way to get our car out of the mud. if we are still in this much of a mess in '08, we'll elect a president and congress that will get us out at any cost.

any way most of the countries in the coallition like dictators

need I talk about the aid to the shah of iran, pakistan, the notorious bagdad-london treaty, the aid given to franco (a facisiest), hitler to build his navy, japan to build their navy, chiang kasheck (chinese now taiwonese), large amounts of south america, africa, asia.

basicly all the coalition of the willing are dubious (with the possible exception of iceland and naru)

well no

their not terroists

your only a terroist if you are acting either in another country or against your own government (and not all ways then)

they could be called gurrila's or resistance fighters or at a streach insergents or rebels

most of them just want us to go away so they can choose what to do

remember that iraq was one of the most western states in the middle east for many years

all the fighting is doing is causing religious tentsion and also driving them to more religious groups as those are the ones that the americans deal with

the americans ignore all the left wing groups (of which there are several) who resisted the king, saddam and now the coalition
ter·ror·ist (trr-st) KEY

NOUN:

One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism.


ter·ror·ism (tr-rzm) KEY

NOUN:

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

a sensible target ........what about no 10 downing street london..sw1 or even the white house... more trigger happy than all of us put together...start again elect sencible leaders who listen..."were gonna get those folks", come on wasnt that ronald regan

That's enough. I suggest you quit with the trollish remarks before you get yourself in trouble any further.

~The Modified Freedom Forces of Euroslavia
Nationstates Forum Moderator~

I was being sarcastic..;)

Because he was getting answers he didn't like..sarcastic or not, it is a solution...

the ... what would it be... 10th wonder of the natural world... the largest Glass lake in the world. :D

and I am joking. I do not advocate the use of nuclear weapons.

the only terrorists that are there are those not invited to assist in the reformation of the country, if your not there by invite you shoulnt be there simpl logis... you then are the terrorist :mp5:

I believe thats the fault of the oil for food program being run by the U.N. Thanks Kofi!



True, but a neccessary evil.


True , but also a neccessary evil.


This contradicts point 11

I'm pretty sure they are writing their own constitution.

Thats the biggest load of bull ever! I don't think we've fed anyone into plastic shredders, or opened mass rape rooms.

True

See point 7



Heard from where? If we stayed in tanks all the time, why are we losing so many troops?

yes it was innefficient and corrupt but the fact that we stopped any shipments of food or medical supplies

necessary yes but not by these methods the troops are breaking some of their biggest taboos

they are not allowed to do so it has to be acceptable to the americans so no

people have been raped, people have been beaten, shot, stabbed, arrested or dissapeared

large numbers of former iraqi officials including saddam's 'interogation' people have been employed

and I'm getting my information from british and american soldiers, from iraqi's of all kinds and from independent jounelists is that good enough

then by your definition those that fought in the french resistance against the nazis were terroists

polish fredom fighters were terroists

greek freedom fighters were terroists

do you see how dumb what your doing is

and I'm getting my information from british and american soldiers, from iraqi's of all kinds and from independent jounelists is that good enough
No. Name sources.

That's enough. I suggest you quit with the trollish remarks before you get yourself in trouble any further.

~The Modified Freedom Forces of Euroslavia
Nationstates Forum Moderator~
Trollish is either a language of its own, or a New Troll point of view that has not yet been fully absorbed into site glossary. English is a vast language and try to remember that Shakespeare himself only used about one fifth of modern English, and invented about one-third of the 30,000 words he did use. Language is fluid and idiosyncratic definitions are perfectly valid - don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

There is always a degree of trollish discourse in any wiki. In general it is best to try to be troll-friendly and work to create some kind of troll poetry that is at least fun to read.

This is also a good way to deal with deliberately satirical articles in serious places in the name-space, with vague ad hominem statements, etc. Basically make it a game.

then by your definition those that fought in the french resistance against the nazis were terroists

polish fredom fighters were terroists

greek freedom fighters were terroists

do you see how dumb what your doing is
By my definition, anyone who indescriminately bombs civilians for no other purpose than to make a point is a terrorist. If all the above did that, then yes they are. If not, then they aren't.
Your scewing my words.
"do you see how dumb what your doing is"

Trollish is either a language of its own, or a New Troll point of view that has not yet been fully absorbed into site glossary. English is a vast language and try to remember that Shakespeare himself only used about one fifth of modern English, and invented about one-third of the 30,000 words he did use. Language is fluid and idiosyncratic definitions are perfectly valid - don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

There is always a degree of trollish discourse in any wiki. In general it is best to try to be troll-friendly and work to create some kind of troll poetry that is at least fun to read.

This is also a good way to deal with deliberately satirical articles in serious places in the name-space, with vague ad hominem statements, etc. Basically make it a game.

Therefore your words trollish does not make any sence in the paraphrase you use

I can't name all my sources i'm in touch with thousands all around the world and also not all of them would want to be named.

so the people who set up israel are terroists (well I agree with that)

I can't name all my sources i'm in touch with thousands all around the world and also not all of them would want to be named.

so the people who set up israel are terroists (well I agree with that)
wasnt it the british after the 2nd ww to give the jewish somewhere to live after the holocost

I can't name all my sources i'm in touch with thousands all around the world and also not all of them would want to be named.

so the people who set up israel are terroists (well I agree with that) careful then, you're using "Unverifyable sources" which (in the heiarchy of evidence) falls below Blogs and Livejournals.

At first, the initial estimations put us in favor. But wait, were they, really?

Bush=Lost popular vote 1st time around. War protests not seen since the 60-70's.

Erm... you don't recall the anti-war protestors during Gulf War 1 (1991)? The idiots that went to Iraq to become human shields? That bad remake of "All we are saying is give peace a chance?"

BTW: I also recall anti-war protests when the British went to the Falklands and when the US invaded Panama, though they were much smaller than today's. Then again, they didn't have an Internet to organize on or widespread e-mail. ;)

careful then, you're using "Unverifyable sources" which (in the heiarchy of evidence) falls below Blogs and Livejournals.
My thoughts excactly!

i woudlnt consider hijacking such a great thread. our being seen as torturers hurts us in the whole "war on terror" fight. we need to be seen as tough but fair.

I agree. But my point is that if there HAS been any physical damage done, we need to apologise/make restitution. If not and it's all been psychological/humilitation, then the world needs to get a grip, IMHO.

beats me but since *I* consider the current government to be a US puppet, im sure the rest of the world does too. not that its a huge issue right now since the current iraqi government isnt strong enough to run the country. but as soon as they approve a real constitution (with whatever provisions seem best to the iraqi people) and elect a more permanent government based on that constitution, they need to be independant of US influence.

So... how would one make it look (or, better, be considered) "more legitimate"? I can't see much that's not already being done...

Absolutely. But given how long it took the US to get a Constitution (3+ years), and the EU's current lack of success, I'm amazed it's going as well as it is for the Iraqis. The Allies most certainly must continue to decrease their role over the next year to two. And continue to after that...

as long as we have bases in iraq, it will remain a magnet for terrorists. who will we staff them with? the soldiers we hate? those who didnt do a great job in basic training so it doesnt matter if they get killed?

I'll disagree with you on that one. The sum of soldiers lost in Iraq (and I'm not saying this to be callous) is absurdly low for what they accomplished. Tense situation? Yes. Dangerous? Yes. But that's what they *do* in the military.

Further, by that logic the US should have been targeted MUCH more than just in the 1983 attack in Lebanon. Should we remove our bases and Embassies from all of the Earth, since (as Spain, Russia, Britain, Indonesia, Tanzania, et al have shown) the terrorists can strike almost anywhere?

I don't wish to appear beligerent, but that's a defeatist point of view.

well im against going to war with syria but there must be SOME leverage we have with them.

I agree: the last thing the US needs is another was in the Middle East.
However, I can't think of any way in which the US has much leverage with Syria. They were much closer to the Soviets until the fall of the Wall, and since then have mostly avoided us, aside from a contingent sent to Gulf War 1.
Consider that the US failed for over twenty years to get Syria out of Lebanon, to stop backing terrorist groups, or to do much of anything.

not to mention our good friends the saudis who spread anti-american propaganda throughout the world, even to the mosques of the US. we should get them to cut that shit out.

Yeah, that's a sore subject with me too.

we never expected the south vietnamese to be able to hold off the north. it was a pathetic sham that allowed us to get out without being driven out ourselves. to have that happen in iraq would be a disaster for us, our allies and the iraqi people.

Hindsight is 20/20. Did you know Nixon had a "just in case" speech if Aldrin & Armstrong died on the moon? My point here is that no one knew for sure how it would turn out. I was born in 1973, and heard many stories growing up about it.

i am of course worried that there is no way to get our car out of the mud. if we are still in this much of a mess in '08, we'll elect a president and congress that will get us out at any cost.

I doubt it. 5 Presidents sat in the White House during Viet Nam. That Bush won in 2004 tells me that the nation at large doesn't want any radical change so long as another 9/11 doesn't happen.
If it does, there will be a very sharp line drawn between the isolationists and the hawks which will make the "late unpleasantness" during the 2004 elections look like a Sunday picnic in the park... :(

yes but american military thinking has been flawed for decades

Lee was okay but would have been trounced by some one like napolan (I can't spell)

Mc arther was a complete incompitent just very good with publisity he failed in every war he fought in, wwII he left his men to die after failing them and then proceded to nibble at the japanese (the battles that won the war against japan were the commerse raiding by submarines, the war in china agains the communists especially after the russians entered the war and crushed the japanese armies in the north of china, also the war in burma and vietnam which was a war of slow attrition though this was a minor thing)


Eineshower as you've called him pissed off the french, british and all the other allies he would have made a resonable planner but he was a rubbish general, he failed during the battle of the bulge and during operation nordwind which could have destroyed the majority of the armies of the western allies in europe, caused the french to be occupied again and probably give up, the british would be a spent force and the americans would have to wait years to build up their strength again.

American stratergy during the early years of the 2nd world war was based on the offensive of 1918 which did not workvery well and was tactically obsolete before it was put into opperation

during the cold war nato's (and so america's) plan was to use the same methods the germans had tried and failed with during the closing years of WWII

so saying its the best of the best military minds of america is not saying much to me (from the people who brought you the bay of pigs, korea, vietnam, etc, etc)

I get my knoledge from being taught military history, reading as many books by as many different view points as possible (did you know that all war by penetration (i.e. what the majority of all military thinking is based on since) is based on a plan invented by a british officer in 1918 (its called plan 1919 and was what to do if the war continued)) also I have talked to my great grandfather who was there last time we were in iraq, afganistan and so on, I have talked to many eminent historians and economists about these issues, I have looked at past wars (from now back to the beginning of recorded history) technology involved in wars, many eye witnesses from both sides (I have freinds all over who've helped with this).

This is more then any military college I have heard of.

But I don't see you asking any militatry personal. Sure you can ask all of the professor, the historian, etc etc. But thats like talking to the fans during a football game. If you really want to get the scope on the whole deal, talk to the coach AKA Militatry personal.

Not only has that been parroted for years on here and in the media, it's also somewhat misleading:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/orevcoun.html#Iraq
A portion of Iraq's oil revenues are also obligated to pay for claims stemming from the 1990/91 Gulf War. In 2003, the percent of Iraqi oil revenues going towards such claims was reduced from 25% to 5%. Iraq's interim leaders have stated that Iraq should not be liable for claims stemming from a war started by former President Saddam Hussein, nor should they be forced to pay the $100 billion or so in debts incurred by Hussein. Already, the Paris Club of creditor nations has agreed to forgive 80% of the $32 billion Iraq owes to Club members (the United States, Japan, Russia, European nations). In late December 2004, the United States went even further, agreeing to write off 100% of Iraq's debt to the U.S. -- over $4 billion.

...why would the US write off $4 billion, when it could just use it as a "hedge" against higher prices in the future?

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/special/iraq/1826218
The United States tends to be the biggest importer of Iraqi crude, buying 366,000 barrels a day during December 2002. Iraq was the seventh-biggest supplier of U.S. crude imports that month, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Iraq's other customers include France, Italy, Spain and the Netherlands.

...so: BEFORE the war, the US was Iraq's biggest customer, though Iraq was only the US's #7 provider. Why invade a stable client relationship and disrupt the fuel of the economic engine?!? For some theoretical "ownership" that the world would never acklowledge, much less the Iraqis themselves?
The US lost Iran as an oil provider in 1979, and that was a main component in the HUGE recession of the day, when gold hit over $800/oz. Why on Earth would the US want a repeat?
It would make more sense to invervene in Venezuela or even Saudi Arabia (home of almost ALL the 9/11 hijackers) than Iraq, and BOTH sell the US more oil!

So please... enough with the oil already. We're all aware Iraq has it. :)

Not only has that been parroted for years on here and in the media, it's also somewhat misleading:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/orevcoun.html#Iraq
A portion of Iraq's oil revenues are also obligated to pay for claims stemming from the 1990/91 Gulf War. In 2003, the percent of Iraqi oil revenues going towards such claims was reduced from 25% to 5%. Iraq's interim leaders have stated that Iraq should not be liable for claims stemming from a war started by former President Saddam Hussein, nor should they be forced to pay the $100 billion or so in debts incurred by Hussein. Already, the Paris Club of creditor nations has agreed to forgive 80% of the $32 billion Iraq owes to Club members (the United States, Japan, Russia, European nations). In late December 2004, the United States went even further, agreeing to write off 100% of Iraq's debt to the U.S. -- over $4 billion.

...why would the US write off $4 billion, when it could just use it as a "hedge" against higher prices in the future?

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/special/iraq/1826218
The United States tends to be the biggest importer of Iraqi crude, buying 366,000 barrels a day during December 2002. Iraq was the seventh-biggest supplier of U.S. crude imports that month, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Iraq's other customers include France, Italy, Spain and the Netherlands.

...so: BEFORE the war, the US was Iraq's biggest customer, though Iraq was only the US's #7 provider. Why invade a stable client relationship and disrupt the fuel of the economic engine?!? For some theoretical "ownership" that the world would never acklowledge, much less the Iraqis themselves?
The US lost Iran as an oil provider in 1979, and that was a main component in the HUGE recession of the day, when gold hit over $800/oz. Why on Earth would the US want a repeat?
It would make more sense to invervene in Venezuela or even Saudi Arabia (home of almost ALL the 9/11 hijackers) than Iraq, and BOTH sell the US more oil!

So please... enough with the oil already. We're all aware Iraq has it. :)
I second that!

Finish Afghanistan first

Finish Afghanistan first

Do you mean nationbuilding, or finding bin Laden?

If the former, that could take 5-15 years.
If the latter, we still haven't gotten Pancho Villa yet! :D

Do you mean nationbuilding, or finding bin Laden?

If the former, that could take 5-15 years.
If the latter, we still haven't gotten Pancho Villa yet! :D


Good point. :)

Trollish is either a language of its own, or a New Troll point of view that has not yet been fully absorbed into site glossary. English is a vast language and try to remember that Shakespeare himself only used about one fifth of modern English, and invented about one-third of the 30,000 words he did use. Language is fluid and idiosyncratic definitions are perfectly valid - don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

There is always a degree of trollish discourse in any wiki. In general it is best to try to be troll-friendly and work to create some kind of troll poetry that is at least fun to read.

This is also a good way to deal with deliberately satirical articles in serious places in the name-space, with vague ad hominem statements, etc. Basically make it a game.

This has absolutely nothing to do with anything. Trying to dissect a simple comment about how trolling is actually a game offense doesn't work here. Trolling is trolling, hence my use of the phrase 'trollish' remarks.


~The Modified Freedom Forces of Euroslavia
Nationstates Forum Moderator~

Dang... nothing much changed since I dropped out...