NationStates Jolt Archive

Even if you supported the war, even if you think it's going swimmingly, even if you think George W. Bush is the reincarnation of Alexander the Great and will lead the US to the domination of the civilized world, this ought to give you some idea (http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-5431131,00.html) of just where we stand in the opinion of the Iraqi leadership.
CAIRO, Egypt (AP) - Leaders of Iraq's sharply divided Shiites, Kurds and Sunnis called Monday for a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S.-led forces in the country and said Iraq's opposition had a ``legitimate right'' of resistance.

The final communique, hammered out at the end of three days of negotiations at a preparatory reconciliation conference under the auspices of the Arab League, condemned terrorism, but was a clear acknowledgment of the Sunni position that insurgents should not be labeled as terrorists if their operations do not target innocent civilians or institutions designed to provide for the welfare of Iraqi citizens.
In other words, according to the Iraqi leadership, if the insurgents blow up US soldiers, they're not terrorists. Period. End Stop. They're exercising their "legitimate right of resistance."

What the Iraqis are really doing is telling the insurgents, "help us get rid of the American troops, but don't blow any of us up while you do it and we'll call you heroes later."

So tell me again why we ought to stick around?

It makes sense to me that if the only target US soldiers...and take pains to avoid civilian casualties, that they would accomplish their goals much quicker, and win the support of the people.

And shouldn't they be called guerrillas anyway?

For sure. By targetting the enemy and not making enemies of the people who's support you want, you'll go far.

Even if you supported the war, even if you think it's going swimmingly, even if you think George W. Bush is the reincarnation of Alexander the Great and will lead the US to the domination of the civilized world, this ought to give you some idea (http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-5431131,00.html) of just where we stand in the opinion of the Iraqi leadership.

In other words, according to the Iraqi leadership, if the insurgents blow up US soldiers, they're not terrorists. Period. End Stop. They're exercising their "legitimate right of resistance."

What the Iraqis are really doing is telling the insurgents, "help us get rid of the American troops, but don't blow any of us up while you do it and we'll call you heroes later."

So tell me again why we ought to stick around?


I tried raising this very point on two other threads. Nothing that anyone responding in opposition to this will make any sense. Get ready for a torrent of bitching about "stay the course", "clean up the mess", and other meaningless phrases.

I tried raising this very point on two other threads. Nothing that anyone responding in opposition to this will make any sense. Get ready for a torrent of bitching about "stay the course", "clean up the mess", and other meaningless phrases.
Those are the phrases that actually do hold some meaning, whether you agree or not.

It's 'traitor!' 'terrorist-lover!' '*random-flame*' that I tend to skim over.

Even if you supported the war, even if you think it's going swimmingly, even if you think George W. Bush is the reincarnation of Alexander the Great and will lead the US to the domination of the civilized world, this ought to give you some idea (http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-5431131,00.html) of just where we stand in the opinion of the Iraqi leadership.

In other words, according to the Iraqi leadership, if the insurgents blow up US soldiers, they're not terrorists. Period. End Stop. They're exercising their "legitimate right of resistance."

What the Iraqis are really doing is telling the insurgents, "help us get rid of the American troops, but don't blow any of us up while you do it and we'll call you heroes later."

So tell me again why we ought to stick around?


We really should just bomb the living shit out of all opposition. Kill them all.

Install a puppet loyal to the US and take all the oil.

Keep a large miltary base there.

And fuck anyone that doesnt like it. Trying to act like we're playing nice clearly doesnt work. We may as well do whats best for us.

I tried raising this very point on two other threads. Nothing that anyone responding in opposition to this will make any sense. Get ready for a torrent of bitching about "stay the course", "clean up the mess", and other meaningless phrases.

How is 'clean up the mess' a meaningless phrase? I would have thought it was a very important msg (i.e we're not going to quit until you're sure you can do ok without us. We promised you, and this time we'll keep it.)

Leave as soon as the Iraqis can look after themselves- they'll let you know ;)

Those are the phrases that actually do hold some meaning, whether you agree or not.

It's 'traitor!' 'terrorist-lover!' '*random-flame*' that I tend to skim over.

Sorry, I should have explained. The meaninglessness of phrases like that are pretty simple. "Stay the course", well where has the "course" actually gotten us?

"Clean up the mess," well it's blatantly obvious that the Iraqis want to do that themselves.

After that, one is left with jingoistic catch-phrases, that in the end have no real meaning or value.

I read this as: Iraqi Leaders paint bulls.
But it makes sense seeing as they are more of an actual military if they leave their own people alone and only attack the invaders.

It makes sense to me that if the only target US soldiers...and take pains to avoid civilian casualties, that they would accomplish their goals much quicker, and win the support of the people.

they actually do target foreign troops and active collaborators mostly, with the civilians being mostly hit by groups that aren't really part of the iraqi resistance per se and that are in the process of being dealt with by the resistance.

and they have the support of the people already.

"Clean up the mess," well it's blatantly obvious that the Iraqis want to do that themselves.


Ah, well I read "clean up the mess" as the Coalition created massive instability and shouldn't leave until such stability is restored. They caused the instability so its only right they should be the ones to help re-create stability.

When the Iraqi govt can survive on its feet then its time to be gone- pretty much when the crowds start chanting "Death to America" its a bit late:p a bit before then would be better :D

and they have the support of the people already.

some context:

polls show that 45% of iraqis think the resistance is justified in killing off the occupiers and 82% strongly oppose the presence of coalition troops. that's way more support than those terrorists in america had when they started dumping tea and throwing rocks at innocent british soldiers. hell, it's probably more than they had until well into the revolution when most of the british loyalists had ran off to canada or the caribbean to avoid the revolutionary violence aimed at them.

Ah, well I read "clean up the mess" as the Coalition created massive instability and shouldn't leave until such stability is restored. They caused the instability so its only right they should be the ones to help re-create stability.

of course, their presence is the cause of the instability. so if they want to act out of a sense of duty to restore stability, they need to get the fuck out. now.

Ah, well I read "clean up the mess" as the Coalition created massive instability and shouldn't leave until such stability is restored. They caused the instability so its only right they should be the ones to help re-create stability.

When the Iraqi govt can survive on its feet then its time to be gone- pretty much when the crowds start chanting "Death to America" its a bit late:p a bit before then would be better :D

The point here is that, by saying what they said (quoted in the OP), they are telling us that they no longer want/need our help, and they want us to leave. Obliging them would seem the best thing to do. Why are people resistant to that idea?

A mate of mine said something recently that struck me as simultaneously heartless and inspired.

I don't know what the Iraqi's are complaining about. The rest of the world has had to deal with American tourists for the better part of half-a-century. Let's face it; being a free country and have people in completely inappropriate clothing and a US accent walking down your streets and taking random shots of things come hand in hand. The sooner they get to grips with that, the better off we'd all be.

<snip>...of the Sunni position that insurgents should not be labeled as terrorists if their operations do not target innocent civilians or institutions designed to provide for the welfare of Iraqi citizens.
Well. That sounds good. People who decide to harmlessly detonate their bombs in the desert - way away from people and infrastructure - should not be called terrorists. Hard not to agree.

EDIT: I do realise bombing coalition and Iraqi troops is quite OK. Nice.

At least they seem to be operating under a definition of "terrorist" that I can agree with. In short, if they blow up civilians then they are terrorists, but if they attack military personell then they are not - they should be placed in a different category.

At least they seem to be operating under a definition of "terrorist" that I can agree with. In short, if they blow up civilians then they are terrorists, but if they attack military personell then they are not - they should be placed in a different category.
Agreed. Fighting off an invading army isn't terrorism. But I suppose the invaders could e called terrorists.

At least they seem to be operating under a definition of "terrorist" that I can agree with. In short, if they blow up civilians then they are terrorists, but if they attack military personell then they are not - they should be placed in a different category.

Except that the admin would make some kind of rubbish excuse and still call anyone who opposed them a terrorist.

Well. That sounds good. People who decide to harmlessly detonate their bombs in the desert - way away from people and infrastructure - should not be called terrorists. Hard not to agree.

EDIT: I do realise bombing coalition and Iraqi troops is quite OK. Nice.
Actually, according to their definition, bombing Iraqi troops is not okay. It's only bombing coalition troops that's allowable, which is why I say we no longer have any reason to be there, regardless of how you felt about the war before. If the Iraqi leadership is saying it's okay to kill our guys, but only our guys, then we need to get the fuck out, and do it yesterday.

The Iraqi Government is first and foremost there for Iraqis, not for Americans. At least that's what they try to tell us, and surely you won't argue differently.

1) Many Iraqis will agree that there is a legitimate right to resistance against a foreign occupation, whether they join or not. A democratic government needs to respect that.

2) Eventually the US Forces will leave, and an Iraqi Government will have to take over. That government needs to seperate itself from the occupation, it must make clear that it is not a puppet, and it must ensure that it will have the support of Armed Groups after the US leaves.

3) It was a measure that was agreed upon as part of an amnesty. Such things have happened hundreds of times, and they are necessary to get people to the same table.

It is a reasonable measure taken by a democratic government, and it will not have any likely effect on the number of US soldiers killed.
I can't see why you'd disagree, other than out of blatant national pride.

So tell me again why we ought to stick around?
Because public relations statements for the consumption of other Arab nations are not necessarily representative of the true position that the Iraqi government holds. I think the failure to set a timetable and the acknowledgment that Iraqi security forces need to be built up are indications of that disparity.

Because public relations statements for the consumption of other Arab nations are not necessarily representative of the true position that the Iraqi government holds. I think the failure to set a timetable and the acknowledgment that Iraqi security forces need to be built up are indications of that disparity.
Oh come on. It's been noted elsewhere that 80% of Iraqis want us out, and that nearly half think it's perfectly okay to attack our troops. The call from the US to get our troops out of there is over 60% now. It's a failed war, and considering the lack of planning that went into it, there was little chance it would be anything but that. Time to get out.

Oh come on. It's been noted elsewhere that 80% of Iraqis want us out, and that nearly half think it's perfectly okay to attack our troops. The call from the US to get our troops out of there is over 60% now. It's a failed war, and considering the lack of planning that went into it, there was little chance it would be anything but that. Time to get out.
If it's failed, it's only because there have been so few successes reported from the area. Very little emphasis has been made on the successful installation of a representative government, the successful adoption of a constitution, or the successful reconstruction of the infrastructure. On every front -- political, military, legal, education, social -- there have been great achievements that have gone unheralded. If all that is visible is failure, then the perception is failure. But that's not the reality.

nearly half think it's perfectly okay to attack our troops.

and that's for the nation as a whole. in the areas where the attacks actually happen, it's even higher.

there has been consistent support for the resistance and widespread calls for withdrawal as soon as possible (not 'as soon as its convenient', not 'eventually, i guess'). but those poor savages don't have any business telling us how to run their country. can't they see we're at war here, bringing them freedom and democracy? they should shut up and do what we tell them.

it's a heavy burden that we have to carry, civilizing these backwards races.

If it's failed, it's only because there have been so few successes reported from the area. Very little emphasis has been made on the successful installation of a representative government, the successful adoption of a constitution, or the successful reconstruction of the infrastructure. On every front -- political, military, legal, education, social -- there have been great achievements that have gone unheralded. If all that is visible is failure, then the perception is failure. But that's not the reality.
Wow. You're actually arguing that it's a PR problem, and not a matter of violence and instability. It doesn't matter how wonderful it sounds over here--the press could shine sunlight up our asses about how golly-gosh-fucking-beautiful everything is going over there and it wouldn't change the fact that Iraq is essentially a civil war zone right now, and US troops are caught in the middle of it.

But go ahead--keep it up with the sunny outlook. Whatever helps you sleep at night.

If it's failed, it's only because there have been so few successes reported from the area. And because the people here in Nationstates have undermined the moral of the troops.

Wow. You're actually arguing that it's a PR problem, and not a matter of violence and instability. It doesn't matter how wonderful it sounds over here--the press could shine sunlight up our asses about how golly-gosh-fucking-beautiful everything is going over there and it wouldn't change the fact that Iraq is essentially a civil war zone right now, and US troops are caught in the middle of it.

But go ahead--keep it up with the sunny outlook. Whatever helps you sleep at night.
No, that isn't what I said and you damned well know it. The dead and wounded certainly count and it is important to know about them. On the other hand, the successes that we have should be celebrated as much as the dead are mourned. Otherwise, their deaths appear to have served no purpose at all. And that's not the case. Fifty million Iraqis are free from a despotic tyrant at the cost of around 2000 servicemen. That isn't a bad trade.

This is what should get more emphasis than it does. This week, the 29th military base was turned over to Iraqi control. Only mention of it in the papers was the fact that the ceremony was the target of a terrorist attack. You had to burrow quite a ways into the the story to find out that the attack was a failure. That's 3 provinces and 29 bases that are in Iraqi hands.

Then, there's this story that I don't think ever made it to the wire services.
From the Stars and Stripes (http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?article=33186&section=104):

U.S. and Iraqi soldiers have wrapped up a short operation aimed at disrupting insurgents in the western city of Ramadi, officials said Tuesday.

Dubbed Operation Bruins — or hibbah, in Arabic — the action lasted a little more than 24 hours and was focused on the northern part of the city, which is the capital of restive Anbar province.

The combined force found “several” weapons caches during the sweep, according to a Marine Corps release, but no arrests were reported.

The caches included plastic explosives, artillery and mortar shells, fuses and detonators — both remote-control and pressure-sensitive — used in roadside bombs. The amount of explosives and detonators were enough to build “hundreds” of makeshift devices, officials said.

In addition, the caches contained 21 rocket launchers, 43 rocket-propelled grenades, 23 medium machine guns, three sniper rifles and thousands of rounds of ammunition.
[and the story continues to describe an unsuccessful attack on the operation that concluded with a RPG round hitting a mosque.]

And because the people here in Nationstates have undermined the moral of the troops.
The troops are way to savvy to pay much attention to what you bed-wetters have to say.

The troops are way to savvy to pay much attention to what you bed-wetters have to say.
Get out of the country if you believe that!

No, that isn't what I said and you damned well know it. The dead and wounded certainly count and it is important to know about them. On the other hand, the successes that we have should be celebrated as much as the dead are mourned. Otherwise, their deaths appear to have served no purpose at all. And that's not the case. Fifty million Iraqis are free from a despotic tyrant at the cost of around 2000 servicemen. That isn't a bad trade.

How free those 50 million people are has yet to be determined. The political situation there is shaky at best, and if the place doesn't fall into civil war within weeks of US withdrawal I'll be the first to express my surprise. By that estimation then, we've traded 2,000+ servicemen and women for, umm, the square root of jack fuck all by my estimation.

50 million Iraqis are free?? How do you count that? Do you add the 24 million Saddam killed to those 26 million real Iraqis?

How free those 50 million people are has yet to be determined. The political situation there is shaky at best, and if the place doesn't fall into civil war within weeks of US withdrawal I'll be the first to express my surprise. By that estimation then, we've traded 2,000+ servicemen and women for, umm, the square root of jack fuck all by my estimation.
I think I going to agree in a way. Iraq will have just as many conflicts as Yugoslavia. And I think it will end up the same way, if we are not very thorough in training the Iraqi forces. We'll have Kurds where they are now and the Shites and Sunnis will divide up what's left. It might have been smart to look at decentralizing the country from the beginning. But whatever way it goes, as long as it's not another Iranesque weird-beard theocracy, the people are better off than they were with Saddam running the show.

50 million Iraqis are free?? How do you count that? Do you add the 24 million Saddam killed to those 26 million real Iraqis?
I'm tired and I don't count well when I am tired. I was obviously thinking about the populations of Ashcanistan and Iraq.

So sue me.

I'm tired and I don't count well when I am tired. I was obviously thinking about the populations of Ashcanistan and Iraq.

So sue me.
I should have known you are tired. Of course I'm not going to sue you. Relax. It would make 56 million put together, but never you mind.

Edit... cos I might be grossly wrong; I used CIA's info.

I think I going to agree in a way. Iraq will have just as many conflicts as Yugoslavia. And I think it will end up the same way, if we are not very thorough in training the Iraqi forces. We'll have Kurds where they are now and the Shites and Sunnis will divide up what's left. It might have been smart to look at decentralizing the country from the beginning. But whatever way it goes, as long as it's not another Iranesque weird-beard theocracy, the people are better off than they were with Saddam running the show.But isn't that the likely outcome? I mean, the secularists haven't polled well thus far--it's been the fundamentalist Shi'ites who have won the most seats in their Parliament, as I recall, and if we end up with a fractured state, or 3 states, then the extremists in both the Shi'a and the Sunni areas will likely take control.

But isn't that the likely outcome? I mean, the secularists haven't polled well thus far--it's been the fundamentalist Shi'ites who have won the most seats in their Parliament, as I recall, and if we end up with a fractured state, or 3 states, then the extremists in both the Shi'a and the Sunni areas will likely take control.
Just like the Balkans, there is an equilibrium. Chances are it isn't what we would like to see, but it's there. I don't remember the geo-political-religious makeup that well. I need to refresh my memory. And after three Scotches, my memory is pretty poor. All I remember for certain is that the Kurds are pretty heavily entrenched in the areas near Turkey.

The difference between Iraq and the Balkans is that we are doing more than just bombing artillery positions. Drawback is that we have soldiers and Marines killed. Advantage is that we can make some preparations for the day when we depart. Hopefully, we'll make some pretty good preparations.

I do need to learn more about which way the Shites and the Sunnis are going to lean. I guess there are even a few Baathists that have to be accounted for. Dadgum composite countries, anyway. Why can't they all be as homogeneous as Japan?

The US administration is in a lose-lose situation. On the surface, the most politically sound thing for the US to do would seem to be to push for a referendum to be held over whether US troops should stay or go. Since Iraqis will, in all likelihood, vote for them to go, the US could leave with its conscience clean, and with the excuse that the Iraqis said they didn't want them there anymore.

On the other hand, we all know what will happen the second coalition forces back out: civil war. And then this will look like another Vietnam, and the US will lose yet more of its international credibility. So, really, the most politically reasonable thing to do *is* to "stay the course," even if that won't save the most *American* lives. So the Iraqis have to put up with the coalition, and the coalition has to put up with the Iraqis, even if neither party is very fond of the other at the moment. Every answer to this dilemma is shitty, but we all know that the option that is the least politically shitty is the one that will win, even if it's the one that will cost the most American lives.

Just like the Balkans, there is an equilibrium. Chances are it isn't what we would like to see, but it's there. I don't remember the geo-political-religious makeup that well. I need to refresh my memory.
Yeah?! It is exactly (well, par a day) 10 years since Richard Holbrook managed to negotiate a peace in Jugoslavia (The Dayton accords, and Bosnia really). Am I to believe there was nothing in American papers about that this week?

Yeah?! It is exactly (well, par a day) 10 years since Richard Holbrook managed to negotiate a peace in Jugoslavia (The Dayton accords, and Bosnia really). Am I to believe there was nothing in American papers about that this week?
Dude--back off. Myrmidonisia and I are having a reasonable discussion about this. There's no need for this kind of crap.

Dude--back off. Myrmidonisia and I are having a reasonable discussion about this. There's no need for this kind of crap.
Now you lost me... crap of what sort?

Now you lost me... crap of what sort?
The overly belligerent tone, combined with the arrogant attitude that you know better than all others. Myrmidonisia noted that he wasn't up on that particular period, and you know something--neither am I. A lot of shit happens in this world, and sometimes you lose track. Be informative instead of being a dick.

You might be reading in, Sir. I believe I was following your grand conversation, then offering a bit. sorry if that offended you.

The overly belligerent tone,
Yes, sometimes. Guilty as charged. combined with the arrogant attitude that you know better than all others.
What, if I may ask, does this concern..? I'm at a loss.

But this:

Myrmidonisia noted that he wasn't up on that particular period, and you know something--neither am I. A lot of shit happens in this world, and sometimes you lose track. Be informative instead of being a dick.

Did it really come accross as being a dick? It was but a question. Was that man, R. Holbrooke duly mentioned in the papers..?


Sorry if you are so touchy. I try to mend me ways and not to hurt you.

The US administration is in a lose-lose situation. On the surface, the most politically sound thing for the US to do would seem to be to push for a referendum to be held over whether US troops should stay or go. Since Iraqis will, in all likelihood, vote for them to go, the US could leave with its conscience clean, and with the excuse that the Iraqis said they didn't want them there anymore.

one problem. you assume that the u.s. ruling class is looking for a way out. they aren't. the people who are running this war don't want to leave. ever. as they told us back when they published the general plan for this whole imperial adventure, they think a permanent military presence there is vital for future american interests in maintaining american world domination.

How free those 50 million people are has yet to be determined. The political situation there is shaky at best, and if the place doesn't fall into civil war within weeks of US withdrawal I'll be the first to express my surprise. By that estimation then, we've traded 2,000+ servicemen and women for, umm, the square root of jack fuck all by my estimation.
OIL isnt jack fuck.

Edit... cos I might be grossly wrong; I used CIA's info.
*Hands you a big f*cking cookie and a beer*

OIL isnt jack fuck.

So are we back in the era where if we want something, we can trounce our neighbors in full righteousness for it? How...facsist.

Ladies and Gentlemen, welcome to Democracy. The world where people say what they feel, and what they feel is quite often ridiculous.

America, ye must reap what ye sow. You wanted Democracy in Iraq, you will now have to deal with Democracy in Iraq.

Maybe this comparison to Bosnia and Serbia isn't so far off the mark. A full ten years, thanks Void, after 'peace' was negotiated in the Balkans, there are still 18,000 NATO peacekeepers on duty. The main duty is to control the daily ethnic violence between factions that still hate each other's guts. In fact, one part of the UN is criticizing another part of the UN for failing to make progress in the area of human rights. This is in a 2004 story on cnn.com

Zip forward forward a year. Ratko Mladic, the former commander of the Bosnian Serb army, is finally charged with the July 1995 massacre at Srebrenica of 8,000 Muslim men and boys. In absentia, I might add. He still hasn't been arrested by any current government.

What's the point of this? Maybe it's just that the world is screwed up and it's going to continue to be screwed up, no matter what we try to do. Or maybe that it takes a long time, or a strong arm to get people who have hated the very existence of one another for the last thousand years, or so, to live harmoniously.

There was a great scene in the Pat Conroy story, "The Great Santini". The main character was sitting in the kitchen reading the paper. His wife was outside trying to talk politely to one of their friends. Finally, he shouted out "God, why did you have to put so many assholes on the earth at the same time". Most of the time, I wonder the same thing.

Back to Iraq. If we use what has happened over the last 15 years or so in the Bosnia--Serbia area as a lesson, we're going to be there for a long, long time. Even if we left and allowed the almost inevitable civil war to proceed, we'll be back. Maybe as part of a UN force to control the slaughter, or maybe on our own to do the same, but we aren't done with that region. And we won't be for a long, long time. The way to mitigate that problem is to leave the best trained, best equipped self-defense forces and police forces that we can. And I don't know how much good that will do -- A thousand years or more of hatred isn't going to respect a uniform or a badge.

How depressing! What an awful way to spend a morning on what started out as a nice day. But if we were to celebrate more of the victories that happen in Iraq, I think there would be a lot more domestic support for the efforts. Let's end with one piece of good news (http://www.portaliraq.com/news/%242+million+Sweetwater+Canal+upgrade+to+benefit+two+million+Iraqis__1111463.html?PHPSESSID=af97361e e4e99194f8af50717fa3f31b) from Iraq.


According to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), two million Iraqi citizens in Basra and the surrounding area will have a constant and reliable source of water when the Basra Sweetwater Canal (SWC) system upgrade is complete.
[and the article sums up construction increases very nicely]
At the time of transfer of sovereignty in June 2004, there were just over 200 reconstruction projects started in Iraq. As of mid-August, 2,766 projects have started—valued at about $6.5 billion. Currently 1,087 projects are ongoing at a program value of about $4.6 billion, and 1,679 projects are completed—valued at about $2 billion.

We really should just bomb the living shit out of all opposition. Kill them all.

Install a puppet loyal to the US and take all the oil.

Keep a large miltary base there.

And fuck anyone that doesnt like it. Trying to act like we're playing nice clearly doesnt work. We may as well do whats best for us.

You already realize that no matter what we do, they won't like it.

I think that since most of the world doesn't like the US doing intervention, we shouldn't intervene anywhere at all, even if the UN begs us. People killing each other in Sudan? Tough. Iran builds nukes and uses them on anyone within range (their missiles won't reach past Europe)? Tough. Not Our Problem (NOFP). And if the EU decides to grow testicles and get involved in "peacekeeping", we'll be sure to document every fuck-up from here to doomsday, and object to every action they take and word they speak at the UN.

And if we get attacked by terrorists in the future, we'll just identify where they came from and nuke that country out of existence 20 minutes later.

And if we get attacked by terrorists in the future, we'll just identify where they came from and nuke that country out of existence 20 minutes later.

I'm sure the New Yorkers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_city_bomber) won't like your idea.

In other words, according to the Iraqi leadership, if the insurgents blow up US soldiers, they're not terrorists. Period. End Stop. They're exercising their "legitimate right of resistance."
Exactly. And they are 100% right.

What the Iraqis are really doing is telling the insurgents, "help us get rid of the American troops, but don't blow any of us up while you do it and we'll call you heroes later."

So tell me again why we ought to stick around?
So why did you raid the country in the first place?

I'm sure the New Yorkers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_city_bomber) won't like your idea.

Perhaps I should specify "foreign terrorists".

I think that it would be much better to nuke a place and be done with it than invade countries and get a continuous rash of crap about it.

I also believe that we should hire private contractors to assassinate known terrorists and their associates, so that you cannot definitively trace their hiring to the US.

You already realize that no matter what we do, they won't like it..

You wanted to bomb Afghanistan, and not only did we liked it, we supported it. Perhaps you should understand that perhaps people disagree with something you do because they are plain stupid.

You wanted to bomb Afghanistan, and not only did we liked it, we supported it. Perhaps you should understand that perhaps people disagree with something you do because they are plain stupid.

I had a question for you the other day and now I just remembered it. If we have such a problem getting information on the Iraqi street about the insurgency, how is it that Zarqawi can't send anyone to do his dirty work except his closest aides and friends, and how did we find a house with eight of his remaining friends in it? How is it that this is the third time that Zarqawi escaped capture at the last minute?

We must be finding out where he is. And I don't think you get that information on where and when he'll be unless someone is telling you.

I had a question for you the other day and now I just remembered it. If we have such a problem getting information on the Iraqi street about the insurgency, how is it that Zarqawi can't send anyone to do his dirty work except his closest aides and friends, and how did we find a house with eight of his remaining friends in it? How is it that this is the third time that Zarqawi escaped capture at the last minute?

We must be finding out where he is. And I don't think you get that information on where and when he'll be unless someone is telling you.

With 25 million dollars on his head, and all your resources hunting down someone who is essentially a symbol, you shouldnt even mention that this is his third escape in the last minute. Eventually you will get him (yes, someone will tell you were he is, either for money, or because he killed is son, etc.), and eventually you will get Bin laden (hopefully before he dies of old age). But that's not the point, the point is that Alqaeda is de-centralized, and you don't have nowhere near the quantity of information that would be necessary to curtail its activities (and granted, due to is nature, no matter how hard you try, you might not get such information at all). They are like weeds, sure you can kill lot's of them, but if you don't burn their roots, you are just buying time, not fixing the problem.

So why did you raid the country in the first place?Don't ask me--I was against the thing from the second I figured out it was going to happen.

With 25 million dollars on his head, and all your resources hunting down someone who is essentially a symbol, you shouldnt even mention that this is his third escape in the last minute. Eventually you will get him (yes, someone will tell you were he is, either for money, or because he killed is son, etc.), and eventually you will get Bin laden (hopefully before he dies of old age). But that's not the point, the point is that Alqaeda is de-centralized, and you don't have nowhere near the quantity of information that would be necessary to curtail its activities (and granted, due to is nature, no matter how hard you try, you might not get such information at all). They are like weeds, sure you can kill lot's of them, but if you don't burn their roots, you are just buying time, not fixing the problem.

I still think my fingernail cutting analogy is correct.

You already realize that no matter what we do, they won't like it.

I think that since most of the world doesn't like the US doing intervention, we shouldn't intervene anywhere at all, even if the UN begs us. People killing each other in Sudan? Tough. Iran builds nukes and uses them on anyone within range (their missiles won't reach past Europe)? Tough. Not Our Problem (NOFP). And if the EU decides to grow testicles and get involved in "peacekeeping", we'll be sure to document every fuck-up from here to doomsday, and object to every action they take and word they speak at the UN.

And if we get attacked by terrorists in the future, we'll just identify where they came from and nuke that country out of existence 20 minutes later.

So essentially what you're saying is that if the US does something many people don't agree with, and they voice their opinions about it, the US gets its feelings hurt, and it should take its ball and go home and sulk?

Here I was hoping the world's only current superpower and the shining beacon of freedom and democracy would be less childish and petty than that.

So essentially what you're saying is that if the US does something many people don't agree with, and they voice their opinions about it, the US gets its feelings hurt, and it should take its ball and go home and sulk?

Here I was hoping the world's only current superpower and the shining beacon of freedom and democracy would be less childish and petty than that.

If you don't like the way we're doing something, do it yourself. If you weren't willing to be a participant, you don't get a say in how things are done.

If you don't like the way we're doing something, do it yourself. If you weren't willing to be a participant, you don't get a say in how things are done.

My country was and is a willing participant. Does that mean any criticism I make of the US's (and Australia's, for that matter) handling of one particular situation are any more or less valid than if I was from, say, Germany?

I guess my hopes are unfounded, yes?

My country was and is a willing participant. Does that mean any criticism I make of the US's (and Australia's, for that matter) handling of one particular situation are any more or less valid than if I was from, say, Germany?

I guess my hopes are unfounded, yes?

You're entitled to criticize. People who announced their unwillingness to participate, blocked the action in the first place, and continue to be unwilling to be part of a solution have no grounds to open their mouths.

You're entitled to criticize. People who announced their unwillingness to participate, blocked the action in the first place, and continue to be unwilling to be part of a solution have no grounds to open their mouths.

Doesn't that assume, though, that the "Coalition of the Willing" is a world unto itself? It's not. The Coalition nations aren't the only ones affected by the Coalition's actions. I can certainly see where you're coming from, and the US does cop a lot of flak, both (in my opinion) justified and unjustified, but we really have to realise that when our countries start a war, it's not only our countries and our direct adversaries in the conflict who are going to be affected, even if they are the only ones "involved."

The Iraqi Government is first and foremost there for Iraqis, not for Americans. At least that's what they try to tell us, and surely you won't argue differently.

1) Many Iraqis will agree that there is a legitimate right to resistance against a foreign occupation, whether they join or not. A democratic government needs to respect that.

2) Eventually the US Forces will leave, and an Iraqi Government will have to take over. That government needs to seperate itself from the occupation, it must make clear that it is not a puppet, and it must ensure that it will have the support of Armed Groups after the US leaves.

3) It was a measure that was agreed upon as part of an amnesty. Such things have happened hundreds of times, and they are necessary to get people to the same table.

It is a reasonable measure taken by a democratic government, and it will not have any likely effect on the number of US soldiers killed.
I can't see why you'd disagree, other than out of blatant national pride.
Ah shit, apparently I've entered the frigging twilight zone. I'm in agreement with Leonstein.

So are we back in the era where if we want something, we can trounce our neighbors in full righteousness for it? How...facsist.
Nope i thought the whole thing Blew Goats but still it is an apparent neccessity