NationStates Jolt Archive

SUPPORT OUR BOYS AND GIRLS IN UNIFORM
BRING THEM HOME ALIVE!!!!
LET THEM SEE THEIR FAMILIES BEFORE THEY GET BLOWN UP
END THE WAR NOW!!!

Just an example of how to support the troops but not Bush. If you are looking for a bumper sticker, go for the shorter version:

SUPPORT THE TROOPS
BRING THEM HOME ALIVE

Now please bash and/or compliment me and vote in my damn poll. Thank you.

I neither support the war or the troops

[/controversial]

Gee, Thanks A Bundle.

SUPPORT OUR BOYS AND GIRLS IN UNIFORM
BRING THEM HOME ALIVE!!!!
LET THEM SEE THEIR FAMILIES BEFORE THEY GET BLOWN UP
END THE WAR NOW!!!

Just an example of how to support the troops but not Bush. If you are looking for a bumper sticker, go for the shorter version:

SUPPORT THE TROOPS
BRING THEM HOME ALIVE

Now please bash and/or compliment me and vote in my damn poll. Thank you.
Unfortunately, I must inform you that I have it on Good Authority that you can't be against the war and support the troops, and if you're against the war, then you are evil.

Your poll is win.

I think pulling out would be the wrong thing to do, like it or not Iraq is a struggling democracy now that we have a responsibility to protect.

also I fail to see the American obsession with the support our troops nonsense

Fuck yeah bragging rights.

we need an answer for id feel like a prick if we left them in civil war after destroying their goverment.

we need an answer for id feel like a prick if we left them in civil war after destroying their goverment.

First or second option. :)

Bragging rights FTW.

we need an answer for id feel like a prick if we left them in civil war after destroying their goverment.
The murderous one we supported for a while? That one?

But yes, I agree that none of the options are attractive.

Unfortunately, I must inform you that I have it on Good Authority that you can't be against the war and support the troops, and if you're against the war, then you are evil.

You sir, are an imbecile.

You sir, are an imbecile.

I think he was being sarcastic.

You sir, are an imbecile.

He was being very sarcastic.

I think he was being sarcastic.

Well I wouldn't know, I've known a lot of people who truly believe that. So I'm hardened against sarcasm in that regard because many still believe that we went to Iraq for good reasons, and some, very, very, very small minority of people believe George Bush is a good President. Hell I dated a girl who believed it! (aaand she dumped me after learning that I was a communist...heh heh heh)

Well I wouldn't know, I've known a lot of people who truly believe that. So I'm hardened against sarcasm in that regard because many still believe that we went to Iraq for good reasons, and some, very, very, very small minority of people believe George Bush is a good President. Hell I dated a girl who believed it! (aaand she dumped me after learning that I was a communist...heh heh heh)

One of the people who truly believe that made a thread recently informing us all of that. Hence the joke. :)

Well I wouldn't know, I've known a lot of people who truly believe that. So I'm hardened against sarcasm in that regard because many still believe that we went to Iraq for good reasons, and some, very, very, very small minority of people believe George Bush is a good President. Hell I dated a girl who believed it! (aaand she dumped me after learning that I was a communist...heh heh heh)
I can has credit for a funny? (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13668007&postcount=1)

And good to have you, comrade.

Well I wouldn't know, I've known a lot of people who truly believe that. So I'm hardened against sarcasm in that regard because many still believe that we went to Iraq for good reasons, and some, very, very, very small minority of people believe George Bush is a good President. Hell I dated a girl who believed it! (aaand she dumped me after learning that I was a communist...heh heh heh)

This whole poll is meant to mock the idiot who recently made a thread telling us all we are bad people if we dont wave our flags and beat on anti-war protesters every chance we get.


That was the "good authority" he was refering to in his post.;)

Even if the war is unpopular you should support the troops, its not them who choose to go to war. There just there to serve there country and probably learn something along the way.

And who takes a capitalized "Good Authority" seriously, anyway?

Even if the war is unpopular you should support the troops, its not them who choose to go to war. There just there to serve there country and probably learn something along the way.

Was there any conscription in the U.S? If not, then I see no reason to support them for their own mistake (i.e: Choosing to go die), other than patriotism, and that's more or less nothing but our feelings talking.

If there was conscription, I truly believe it should be stopped, and that we support everyone who's still in a war they did not choose to fight.

I don't have bragging rights, but I voted the last option because I was never for the Iraq War. I didin't know enough about it right at the beginning, so I didn't know what I thought, but I certainly was never in favour of it. I am against the Iraq war.

Even if the war is unpopular you should support the troops, its not them who choose to go to war. There just there to serve there country and probably learn something along the way.

True to a point. If there is a war like this going on, and you enlist mid-war, then while Im not going to spit on you, Im not going to "support" you.

Was there any conscription in the U.S? If not, then I see no reason to support them for their own mistake (i.e: Choosing to go die), other than patriotism, and that's more or less nothing but our feelings talking.

If there was conscription, I truly believe it should be stopped, and that we support everyone who's still in a war they did not choose to fight.

well I'd probably join the armed forces when I'm old enough to gain experience, skills, a gun permit and some money for it. I don't care for "Blair's oil wars" just what I can gain from them.

well I'd probably join the armed forces when I'm old enough to gain experience, skills, a gun permit and some money for it. I don't care for "Blair's oil wars" just what I can gain from them.

It would still be your own choice to go to war...I see no reason to "support" you or any other soldier that chose to enrol. Then again I don't suppose you would expect such a support.

Was there any conscription in the U.S? If not, then I see no reason to support them for their own mistake (i.e: Choosing to go die), other than patriotism, and that's more or less nothing but our feelings talking.

If there was conscription, I truly believe it should be stopped, and that we support everyone who's still in a war they did not choose to fight.

A large portion of the military serve because of monetary concerns. They saw the ads, wanted to "be all they could be" or "be an army of one" or get money for college and signed up. Now, they're locked into multiple tours of duty partly because of stop-loss programs and partly because they feel so strongly for their fellow soldiers that they can't bear to leave them.

Of course, the rest of them joined because of patriotism or to shoot stuff. You have to admit that a military is necessary. Therefore, somebody has to serve in it. Since it isn't you getting shot at, i think they deserve a little respect.

I think pulling out would be the wrong thing to do, like it or not Iraq is a struggling democracy now that we have a responsibility to protect.


Pulling out is the last resort. You should always remember to have condoms. ;)


"Ach! Pulling out of Frankreich? Nein, Vichy is a struggling diktatorship now zat ve have a responsibility to protekt!"
:D:D:D

Maybe there are other ways of protecting a struggling republic (I wouldn't call it a democracy yet)... other than keeping invasion troops in it, I mean.

It would still be your own choice to go to war...I see no reason to "support" you or any other soldier that chose to enrol. Then again I don't suppose you would expect such a support.

Well I wouldn't expect any support unless I was fighting FOR you. Like If I was fighting for our nations safety.

A large portion of the military serve because of monetary concerns. They saw the ads, wanted to "be all they could be" or "be an army of one" or get money for college and signed up. Now, they're locked into multiple tours of duty partly because of stop-loss programs and partly because they feel so strongly for their fellow soldiers that they can't bear to leave them.

Of course, the rest of them joined because of patriotism or to shoot stuff. You have to admit that a military is necessary. Therefore, somebody has to serve in it. Since it isn't you getting shot at, i think they deserve a little respect.

Respect? Those who enlist to "shoot stuff" deserve respect? I don't think so.

And the ones you described higher, those who enlist for money, they deserve respect? They deserve respect for being paid to kill people?

The only reason why they deserve respect in my opinion is because they are still people with feelings and intelligence. That is why I try not to insult them, not to say they are idiots or assholes or mercenaries, because I know in the end they are only humans, like me. I don't think it is a good idea, though, to support in their choice to just shoot stuff or to kill people for money.

And I'm sorry to tell you that, but everyone can always drop their gun and try to leave. Before you ask, yes, that is what I would do, until and unless we were being invaded.

It would still be your own choice to go to war...I see no reason to "support" you or any other soldier that chose to enrol. Then again I don't suppose you would expect such a support.

The troops are our countrymen and women, and they deserve our support. If a New Orleans post-Katrina homeless dude came to your house begging for food, would you not give him any? Or a Veitnam war vet? Most of the troops that are in Iraq, were either lied to http://backspace.com/notes/images/oneweekend.jpg or went because there wasn't much else they can, they have my full sympathy and support. As for those dolts that still think we should be in Iraq, well, let's use a time machine and travel to 2003:

Person A: "Invading Iraq is bad idea! It will collapse our economy, harm our efforts to catch bin Laden, lose the war in Afghanistan for us..."
Person B: "But we don't know that, and Saddam might have weapons of mass destruction, he's violating human rights, he may have ties to Al Queda"

Now it's 2008:

Person A (same guy): "We should pull out now, before out economy collapses, also it will enable us to renew our efforts of catching bin Laden, and doubling our chances of winning the Afghani War..."
Person B (same guy): "But we don't know that, plus Iraq might collapse if we pull out, and human rights violations would be on the rise"

Come on people! What's next, we going into Iran? Human rights violations in Iraq are atrocious already; an American female worker was raped by Halli...ton employees, and guess what? She filed a case, clear case of rape, she lost. What message does that send to Iraqi women, if an American woman loses? Civil Rights my ass. The only sane solution is to use a month to pull out; a month is needed to reduce American casualties, hopefully even eliminate them, as the US soldiers pull out, and if you can guarantee that you can pull out the troops faster, without losing more American lives, I'm game for that too.

Also, you may want to read this expert on the Iraqi War, who's actually not paid by corporate media; (warning note about the exile: they publish everything, from Limonov to Kalashnikov, so be wary of which authors you choose to read; I find Ames and the War Nerd quite interesting - those are my two faves; the exile is one of the few independent newspapers left...)

http://www.exile.ru/articles/detail.php?ARTICLE_ID=18297&IBLOCK_ID=35

The troops are our countrymen and women, and they deserve our support. If a New Orleans post-Katrina homeless dude came to your house begging for food, would you not give him any? Or a Veitnam war vet? Most of the troops that are in Iraq, were either lied to http://backspace.com/notes/images/oneweekend.jpg or went because there wasn't much else they can, they have my full sympathy and support. As for those dolts that still think we should be in Iraq, well, let's use a time machine and travel to 2003:

Person A: "Invading Iraq is bad idea! It will collapse our economy, harm our efforts to catch bin Laden, lose the war in Afghanistan for us..."
Person B: "But we don't know that, and Saddam might have weapons of mass destruction, he's violating human rights, he may have ties to Al Queda"

*snip*


If they were lied to, they deserve support only to retreat from there (and leave the army if they want to).

Otherwise, there is always another option than to go killing people in another country.

The troops are our fellow humans, and they deserve our support.

Fixed. :)

Was there any conscription in the U.S? If not, then I see no reason to support them for their own mistake (i.e: Choosing to go die), other than patriotism, and that's more or less nothing but our feelings talking.

If there was conscription, I truly believe it should be stopped, and that we support everyone who's still in a war they did not choose to fight.

I bet the millatary whould love a conscription, but no there wasn't one. we still support our troops becuase we still care about them. You know telling them what they are fighting for (sorta).

Yay for meaningless slogans that only apply in easysolutionland.

I bet the millatary whould love a conscription, but no there wasn't one. we still support our troops becuase we still care about them. You know telling them what they are fighting for (sorta).

The military would hate a conscription. Lowers moral. Talk to any soldier or officer. They all are 100% against it.

If they were lied to, they deserve support only to retreat from there (and leave the army if they want to).

Otherwise, there is always another option than to go killing people in another country.

Trust us there are lots of protest against the war, but not a damn thing the government is doing about it.

I bet the millatary whould love a conscription, but no there wasn't one. we still support our troops becuase we still care about them. You know telling them what they are fighting for (sorta).

And just what are they fighting for? Human rights? Please, please don't say yes, because then I would have to reply KILLING PEOPLE robs them of their human rights. But then again, I suppose you would say "An eye for an eye"?

Trust us there are lots of protest against the war, but not a damn thing the government is doing about it.

I know that, and I'm disgusted that anyone in the government would choose money over life, let alone everyone.

The military would hate a conscription. Lowers moral. Talk to any soldier or officer. They all are 100% against it.

Im pretty sure the lower ranked officers and enlisted soliders whould be against, but they are desperate for troops at the moment, and they whould lie to get more.

I know that, and I'm disgusted that anyone in the government would choose money over life, let alone everyone.

Its one of the fallbacks of our government. And they wanna stay in iraq for the oil as well. Next Bush is setting his eyes on Iran. We really need a good president with us to pull us out of this ditch bush dug us in to.

If they were lied to, they deserve support only to retreat from there (and leave the army if they want to).

Otherwise, there is always another option than to go killing people in another country.

You can't leave the armed forces branch in the US. Once you sign a contract, you're stuck. Sorry chump. They'd love to retreat, like those men in the picture I posted, but they can't. If they do they go to jail. As felons. Welcome to Democracy.

It would still be your own choice to go to war...

Boy are you an idiot. They get orders, they go. They do not have a choice.

Im pretty sure the lower ranked officers and enlisted soliders whould be against, but they are desperate for troops at the moment, and they whould lie to get more.

Generals are just as against it. Generals are the ones constantly advising against a draft as well.

Boy are you an idiot. They get orders, they go. They do not have a choice.

I dont think they get the orders to join though...

You can't leave the armed forces branch in the US. Once you sign a contract, you're stuck. Sorry chump. They'd love to retreat, like those men in the picture I posted, but they can't. If they do they go to jail. As felons. Welcome to Democracy.

That is why they need support to leave the army if (and only if) they were lied to. You know, for changing the law and stuff.

Generals are just as against it. Generals are the ones constantly advising against a draft as well.

Hmm i didnt know that, but they are also out for better ways to trick people to join non the less,

Generals are just as against it. Generals are the ones constantly advising against a draft as well.

Indeed!

Indeed!

Which is why there will never be conscription in the US.

Boy are you an idiot. They get orders, they go. They do not have a choice.

They knew they could have to go to a war when they enlisted. Going to a war is the consequence of their actions. But hey, they could never have refused to enlist, now could they?

I dont think they get the orders to join though...

You are right! It is an all volunteer military but once joined and you get your deployment orders, you go. No one chooses to go off to war.

To bad not to many people understand this concept.

Which is why there will never be conscription in the US.

Agreed. The only way that is going to happen is if the US is ever invaded, then you may see it then. Hence the word may.

Agreed. The only way that is going to happen is if the US is ever invaded, then you may see it then. Hence the word may.

If there was ever an invasion of the US there would be enough volunteers for conscription to be pointless.

They knew they could have to go to a war when they enlisted.

And most people think that they'll never get shipped off to war when they sign up.

Going to a war is the consequence of their actions. But hey, they could never have refused to enlist, now could they?

Of course they can refuse to enlist! They did but not to go to freakin' war. Is that easy for you to understand or do you want me to pound it home more?

If there was ever an invasion of the US there would be enough volunteers for conscription to be pointless.

So very true!

That is why they need support to leave the army if (and only if) they were lied to. You know, for changing the law and stuff.

Umm, Mike Moore exposed some of the "recruitment practices". Also, do you really think the soldiers who enlisted in 2002 for ten year term were told: "hey, you gonna be at war for 100 years, maybe 1,000, maybe 10,000"? Yeah, most were lied to. Welcome to the real world. I've interviewed the troops, they would love to get out of Iraq, but they can't! And if they do leave the army, they go to jail, no pay, foreclosure, all that fancy stuff... I've interviewed soldiers in college and I work in finance, most of the soldiers are financially enslaved to stay in the army. They're not there for killing people, or any of that business.

Agreed. The only way that is going to happen is if the US is ever invaded, then you may see it then. Hence the word may.

Dude is we got invaded they whould have to use conscription cause like half the population whould join.

And most people think that they'll never get shipped off to war when they sign up.



Of course they can refuse to enlist! They did but not to go to freakin' war. Is that easy for you to understand or do you want me to pound it home more?

What's hard to understand? They enlist, they choose to give other people the right to send them to wars. They don't want to go to wars? Then they shouldn't enlist!

Do you think they thought they'd be making cookies all day long?

So very true!

I agree! But who'd be dumb enough to invade the US? I was actually thinking of volunteering for the War in Afghanistan. But in 2003, something happened that made me change my mind, can't quite remember what that was, oh yeah, the Iraq War!

What's hard to understand? They enlist, they choose to give other people the right to send them to wars. They don't want to go to wars? Then they shouldn't enlist!

Do you think they thought they'd be making cookies all day long?

Do you know anything of the military life or are you just being obtuse? Do you know why people join? Its not for warfare! I could tell you stories of people who enlisted who never expected to be shipped off to war.

Hell my dad never wanted to go off to war himself but did anyway and he was an officer in the Air Force.

Do you know anything of the military life or are you just being obtuse? Do you know why people join? Its not for warfare! I could tell you stories of people who enlisted who never expected to be shipped off to war.

Hell my dad never wanted to go off to war himself but did anyway and he was an officer in the Air Force.

So you're telling me when they enlist, there is nothing in their contract saying they could be forced to go a war?

I agree! But who'd be dumb enough to invade the US? I was actually thinking of volunteering for the War in Afghanistan. But in 2003, something happened that made me change my mind, can't quite remember what that was, oh yeah, the Iraq War!

Did you know that most people who were drafted during the Vietnam War did not even see action in Vietnam?

Do you know anything of the military life or are you just being obtuse? Do you know why people join? Its not for warfare! I could tell you stories of people who enlisted who never expected to be shipped off to war.

Hell my dad never wanted to go off to war himself but did anyway and he was an officer in the Air Force.


I agree

So you're telling me when they enlist, there is nothing in their contract saying they could be forced to go a war?

Jesus fucking Christ! Don't you even read what other people are trying to tell you?

Did you know that most people who were drafted during the Vietnam War did not even see action in Vietnam?

Yeah, I knew that. But for Iraq it will be different, because in Iraq 'action' is everywhere. So what do you think of my poll?

Also, I'm not going to do a new poll, but here's what I think:

Do you support the troops?
1. Yes, I support the troops, bring them home!
2. Yes, I support them so much, I want to extend the war so they can reach Heaven earlier!
3. No, I don't support the troops, they are secretely brainwashing Bush, and are wholly responsible for this superbly senseless war. Also, I'm not very bright, and lack knowledge in recruitment and retention military practice.

Those would be my three options.

Yeah, I knew that. But for Iraq it will be different, because in Iraq 'action' is everywhere. So what do you think of my poll?

That most of your options shows biasness.

Also, I'm not going to do a new poll, but here's what I think:

Do you support the troops?
1. Yes, I support the troops, bring them home!
2. Yes, I support them so much, I want to extend the war so they can reach Heaven earlier!
3. No, I don't support the troops, they are secretely brainwashing Bush, and are wholly responsible for this superbly senseless war. Also, I'm not very bright, and lack knowledge in recruitment and retention military practice.

Those would be my three options.

These new ones are not any better. Maybe you should understand what neutrality is when trying to come up with poll data. This is why I do not vote in most polls on here. Some of these are worse than actual posters who try to push you towards an answer that they want.

Maybe you should understand what neutrality is

Ah irony.

My polls are realistic. They may not show neutrality, but at least every option I can make a case for. If you want the troops to remain longer in Iraq, you are also partially responsible for the possible deaths that may occur. However you justify that, you are still responsible. Anyways, please read this article on the Iraqi War, it's rather educational, I posted it earlier, but it was ignored:

http://www.exile.ru/articles/detail.php?ARTICLE_ID=18297&IBLOCK_ID=35

My polls are realistic. They may not show neutrality, but at least every option I can make a case for. If you want the troops to remain longer in Iraq, you are also partially responsible for the possible deaths that may occur. However you justify that, you are still responsible. Anyways, please read this article on the Iraqi War, it's rather educational, I posted it earlier, but it was ignored:

http://www.exile.ru/articles/detail.php?ARTICLE_ID=18297&IBLOCK_ID=35

In other words, you do not care what the reasons are behind staying. Thanx for stating openly that you do not care at all for the wellbeing of the Iraqis who would get seriously hurt and killed if the US and her allies up and leave.

In other words, you do not care what the reasons are behind staying.

You know, some days I wonder if you bother to actually read what people say to you, or whether you prefer to just make it up as you go along.

My polls are realistic. They may not show neutrality, but at least every option I can make a case for. If you want the troops to remain longer in Iraq, you are also partially responsible for the possible deaths that may occur. However you justify that, you are still responsible. Anyways, please read this article on the Iraqi War, it's rather educational, I posted it earlier, but it was ignored:

http://www.exile.ru/articles/detail.php?ARTICLE_ID=18297&IBLOCK_ID=35

In the same way, if you want the troops to immediately leave, you may also be responsible for the huge amounts of death that may also occur from an unstable Iraq crippling into chaos.

In the same way, if you want the troops to immediately leave, you may also be responsible for the huge amounts of death that may also occur from an unstable Iraq crippling into chaos.

You forget, he does not care at all about that. If he did, he would actually listen to what others have told him about this aspect.

In the same way, if you want the troops to immediately leave, you may also be responsible for the huge amounts of death that may also occur from an unstable Iraq crippling into chaos.

well certaintly that is true. Supporting ongoing war by definition supports all consequences of that war, including dead soldiers. That's what it means to be a rational, intelligent adult. We hold folks to certain standards in society, we expect that when you decide on a course of action or a viewpoint, that you have done so with the careful analysis of what your decision will accomplish, and what the results will be.

The war will kill more soldiers. If you support the war for whatever goal, it is assumed that you value those goals above the lives of those soldiers who will die, along with everyone else who will die. Now we make those decisions every day, but at least be honest about it. Supporting the war so that the war will accomplish a certain end is to say that the end you hope to accomplish is worth more than those who will die along the way.

The inverse, of course, is also true.

If he did, he would actually listen to what others have told him about this aspect.

You consider yourself to be someone who has shown enough forward thinking, common sense, and capacity to rationally approach a subject in sufficiency to justify holding yourself out as someone who should be listened to?

You consider yourself to be someone who has shown enough forward thinking, common sense, and capacity to rationally approach a subject in sufficiency to justify holding yourself out as someone who should be listened to?

You have a reading problem? Please tell me where I stated that I alone should be listened to?

My exact quote was:

he would actually listen to what others have told him about this aspect.

In there, you noticed I said others which is a pronoun. Which means additional people on here.

The military would hate a conscription. Lowers moral. Talk to any soldier or officer. They all are 100% against it.
You're right. We tend to prefer high school dropouts and felons. ;)

You have a reading problem?

Isn't it amusing how everybody else you seem to encounter has such difficulty understanding you.

I merely enquired as to whether or not you include yourself in the list of people who "should be listened to".

I would say "bragging rights" but I was eight when we invaded and still thinking "cool, tanks and planes and explosions".

Isn't it amusing how everybody else you seem to encounter has such difficulty understanding you.

I merely enquired as to whether or not you include yourself in the list of people who "should be listened to".

Only when I know that I'm right. In this case, I am. We leave, there will be a shit load more problems in Iraq than there is currently.

In the same way, if you want the troops to immediately leave, you may also be responsible for the huge amounts of death that may also occur from an unstable Iraq crippling into chaos.

Iraq is already unstable. Imagine Iraq as a person who's getting yelled at. The American Troops are doing the yelling. Eventually that person, Iraq, is going to explode into violence. The longer it is yelled at, the more violent it will become. Also, the majority of Iraqis want the US out, why not give the people what they want?

In addition, the US economy will no longer be able to support US Forces in Iraq, starting really, really soon. And when Iraq explodes, because at this point it's just a question of when, I really don't want US forces to be there.

Only when I know that I'm right. In this case, I am. We leave, there will be a shit load more problems in Iraq than there is currently.

IRAQ IS IN A CIVIL WAR!!! You don't get more problems then a Civil War. Gah! From this very thread, page #2, my post:

As for those dolts that still think we should be in Iraq, well, let's use a time machine and travel to 2003:

Person A: "Invading Iraq is bad idea! It will collapse our economy, harm our efforts to catch bin Laden, lose the war in Afghanistan for us..."
Person B: "But we don't know that, and Saddam might have weapons of mass destruction, he's violating human rights, he may have ties to Al Queda"

Now it's 2008:

Person A (same guy): "We should pull out now, before out economy collapses, also it will enable us to renew our efforts of catching bin Laden, and doubling our chances of winning the Afghani War..."
Person B (same guy): "But we don't know that, plus Iraq might collapse if we pull out, and human rights violations would be on the rise"

Come on people! What's next, we going into Iran? Human rights violations in Iraq are atrocious already; an American female worker was raped by Halli...ton employees, and guess what? She filed a case, clear case of rape, she lost. What message does that send to Iraqi women, if an American woman loses? Civil Rights my ass. The only sane solution is to use a month to pull out; a month is needed to reduce American casualties, hopefully even eliminate them, as the US soldiers pull out, and if you can guarantee that you can pull out the troops faster, without losing more American lives, I'm game for that too.

I neither support the war or the troops

[/controversial]

pffft...hippie...:D

Iraq is already unstable. Imagine Iraq as a person who's getting yelled at. The American Troops are doing the yelling. Eventually that person, Iraq, is going to explode into violence.

That's nice, but it's a pointless analogy, way too simplified, full of too many assumptions.


The longer it is yelled at, the more violent it will become. Also, the majority of Iraqis want the US out, why not give the people what they want?


We don't actually know for sure that the majority of Iraqis want us out, since it's pretty much impossible to carry out a proper statistical census at this point in time. Regardless, we are trying to leave Iraq, but NATO feel that it's a very bad idea to leave now before they can properly stabilize Iraq again and get it's government back on its own two feet to look after itself.


In addition, the US economy will no longer be able to support US Forces in Iraq, starting really, really soon.

I'm not sure if this is entirely accurate, you'll need a source on this.

*snip*

Ok now that I"m done insulting my intelligence in reading this, I will restate since it is apparent that you are thick headed:

If the US pulls out, more violence will erupt from us leaving than has been the case with us there currently. If you want us to leave then you are partially responsible for those who die in the massive fighting that will follow.

We don't actually know for sure that the majority of Iraqis want us out, since it's pretty much impossible to carry out a proper statistical census at this point in time. Regardless, we are trying to leave Iraq, but NATO feel that it's a very bad idea to leave now before they can properly stabilize Iraq again and get it's government back on its own two feet to look after itself.



If NATO feel it's a bad idea, they can send more then 17,000 troops! NATO doesn't care about Iraq, because they're not even willing to send more troops into Afghanistan so that the US can shift some of the Marines from Afghanistan to Iraq. EU NATO countries, for the most part, know that Iraq is a lost cause, ergo they don't go. The only serious NATO ally for the US in Iraq, is the UK and they have 8,500 troops in the area, not much. NATO can feel all it wants, but right now it's being useless in Iraq. Ahh, it feels, how nice.

Also, who's in charge of Iraq now? Not officially, but unofficially, who's running the show? The US Gov't. don't know! They don't even know who to talk to! The US Troops can tell Sadr to call off an attack, but can't prevent him from launching new ones. The Maliki Government is a joke, he's got no power outside of the Baghdad Region and a few Iraqi spots that are loyal to him.

Leave Iraq now. See what happens, the US can always re-invade, it's not hard, Iraqis can't do much against an Abrams Tank column. Because the more the US troops stay in Iraq, the more likely it is that they will be caught in the Civil War Crossfire, without even knowing which side to support; and neither political party in Iraq is Democratic, they may say it, but you don't get a Democracy, because then the Shia would just start winning all elections, they have 55% - 60% of the vote.

Ok now that I"m done insulting my intelligence in reading this, I will restate since it is apparent that you are thick headed:

If the US pulls out, more violence will erupt from us leaving than has been the case with us there currently. If you want us to leave then you are partially responsible for those who die in the massive fighting that will follow.

The violence will happen REGARDLESS of whether the US troops stay or leave. Iraq was a mess from DAY 1 of the invasion. It's like trying to invade Russia, unless you're Genghis Khan and know how to bribe really well, you fail! Bush is no Gengis Khan, and no one really knows what's going on in Iraq, outside the Green Zone, no one knows who to even bribe! Iraqis will die due to American Elitist arrogance anyways, at least this way American Soldiers are safe. And it's kinda hard for you to insult your intelligence, considering you have none; Iraq is in a Civil War and you think they'll settle it peacefully. I can picture it now: General Sherman riding in to meet Jefferson Davis, and offer a "peaceful solution" with a British Occupation Force. Yeah, that would've worked....

If NATO feel it's a bad idea, they can send more then 17,000 troops!

Look, I'm not sure what you are saying, but NATO are trying to get more troops, but it's not that easy. For instance, they have been pleeing with Germany and other NATO nations to send more, but they simply refuse.


NATO doesn't care about Iraq, because they're not even willing to send more troops into Afghanistan so that the US can shift some of the Marines from Afghanistan to Iraq.

The NATO chiefs of staff are more than willing, it's the members governments that aren't.


EU NATO countries, for the most part, know that Iraq is a lost cause, ergo they don't go.

Not at all, they just feel that it isn't their problem.


The only serious NATO ally for the US in Iraq, is the UK and they have 8,500 troops in the area, not much. NATO can feel all it wants, but right now it's being useless in Iraq. Ahh, it feels, how nice.

So you say, some disagree, it's really quite hard to tell at this point in time.


Also, who's in charge of Iraq now? Not officially, but unofficially, who's running the show? The US Gov't. don't know! They don't even know who to talk to! The US Troops can tell Sadr to call off an attack, but can't prevent him from launching new ones. The Maliki Government is a joke, he's got no power outside of the Baghdad Region and a few Iraqi spots that are loyal to him.


Well obviously, but the point is they are working on making the government stronger and more independent and eventually fully independent and stable, rather then just leaving them to do it all by themselves (and be fucked).


Leave Iraq now. See what happens, the US can always re-invade, it's not hard, Iraqis can't do much against an Abrams Tank column.

That's an even more expensive option.


Because the more the US troops stay in Iraq, the more likely it is that they will be caught in the Civil War Crossfire, without even knowing which side to support; and neither political party in Iraq is Democratic, they may say it, but you don't get a Democracy, because then the Shia would just start winning all elections, they have 55% - 60% of the vote.

Civil wars never go on for an eternity.

Look, I'm not sure what you are saying, but NATO are trying to get more troops, but it's not that easy. For instance, they have been pleeing with Germany and other NATO nations to send more, but they simply refuse. The NATO chiefs of staff are more than willing, it's the members governments that aren't.

Well obviously, but the point is they are working on making the government stronger and more independent and eventually fully independent and stable, rather then just leaving them to do it all by themselves (and be fucked).

That's an even more expensive option.



NATO's playing you and other dummies like you. "Geez, we'd love to go in, but our countries are against it, we want to fight, but our politicians won't let us!" Riiight. If NATO's military wanted to get something done, they would do it. They have the reserves, much more extensive then US reserves. They're just making it look like a buearocratic process, and silly Americans fall for it. NATO cares about ALL wars, and views ALL wars as their problem, they just know that some are a lost cause.

Also, a government cannot become Democratic, unless it is stable, and then, perhaps it has a chance. You speak in general terms, I give you specific examples. Seems to me like you're just trying to push your point across, knowing that it's wrong.

BTW, just looked up at the stats of "Coalition" Forces in Iraq, the current ones, you ready:

US: 158,000
UK: 4,000
Georgia: 2,000
The Rest: 4,215
Contractors (Blackwater et al): 120,000

Hmm, so out of a force of 168,215 - 158,000 are American. That's 93.9%! Coalition woohoo! Not to mention that Georgian Troops, and the majority of "the Rest" are troops sent there with poor training. But don't worry, there's also contractors! With the amount of money that the US pays contractors, re-invading would actually be cheaper! Nor more expensive, cheaper!

well certaintly that is true. Supporting ongoing war by definition supports all consequences of that war, including dead soldiers. That's what it means to be a rational, intelligent adult. We hold folks to certain standards in society, we expect that when you decide on a course of action or a viewpoint, that you have done so with the careful analysis of what your decision will accomplish, and what the results will be.

The war will kill more soldiers. If you support the war for whatever goal, it is assumed that you value those goals above the lives of those soldiers who will die, along with everyone else who will die. Now we make those decisions every day, but at least be honest about it. Supporting the war so that the war will accomplish a certain end is to say that the end you hope to accomplish is worth more than those who will die along the way.

The inverse, of course, is also true.

And to think that most of the professed protesters may actually and truly support that which they say they do not. If they (protesters of the Iraq situation) want our presence there to end, why do they (I'm fairly certain a few of the protesters are bona fide in their views, though most are hypocritical) financially support it? Oh, that's right, paying taxes and engaging in global consumerism is far more important than the blood of the innocent which is shed, which most of the protesters' lips are spewing complaints of. Surely, some have issue with the monetary factor..but then, their values are at least spoken plainly.

I've tolerated your annoying cocky tone for a while now, but I really must point out that you are being a huge idiot.

NATO's playing you and other dummies like you. "Geez, we'd love to go in, but our countries are against it, we want to fight, but our politicians won't let us!" Riiight. If NATO's military wanted to get something done, they would do it. They have the reserves, much more extensive then US reserves. They're just making it look like a buearocratic process, and silly Americans fall for it. NATO cares about ALL wars, and views ALL wars as their problem, they just know that some are a lost cause.


Jesus Christ, I don't even think you know what NATO is. You do realise that NATO INCLUDES the US forces right? Please tell me you do? You also understand that NATO are not one big unified military machine, but an alliance, and a shaky one at that. Just because the heads want to do something doesn't mean they can get participating members to follow suit.


Also, a government cannot become Democratic, unless it is stable, and then, perhaps it has a chance. You speak in general terms, I give you specific examples. Seems to me like you're just trying to push your point across, knowing that it's wrong.


What the fuck are you talking about? No seriously, this post could not have been more irrelevant if it tried, when did I ever, ever say anything to the contrary?


BTW, just looked up at the stats of "Coalition" Forces in Iraq, the current ones, you ready:

US: 158,000
UK: 4,000
Georgia: 2,000
The Rest: 4,215
Contractors (Blackwater et al): 120,000

Hmm, so out of a force of 168,215 - 158,000 are American. That's 93.9%! Coalition woohoo! Not to mention that Georgian Troops, and the majority of "the Rest" are troops sent there with poor training. But don't worry, there's also contractors!

Hmmm, I'm still trying to figure out what the fuck this has to do with anything, seriously, it seems like a load of irrelevant babble that has nothing to do with what we are discussing.


With the amount of money that the US pays contractors, re-invading would actually be cheaper! Nor more expensive, cheaper!

Right, finally some sort of argument that actually has something to do with what I said. So you're claiming that it's cheaper to remove all our forces and then re-invade, because we are paying contractors a lot of money. That is strange reasoning.

The best solution would probably be to split the country into a shia country, a sunni county, and a kurdistan. The idea that they should all be in the same country when they hate each other makes no sense. Then we have to slowly pull out, over a year or so. we're making things worse by staying there, but we'd be sending the wrong message with an instant withdrawal (it makes us look afraid).

The violence will happen REGARDLESS of whether the US troops stay or leave.

Its the level of violence that's the key here.

Iraq was a mess from DAY 1 of the invasion. It's like trying to invade Russia, unless you're Genghis Khan and know how to bribe really well, you fail!

The Germans nearly succeeded in 1941 but if it was not for the Russian Winter and the Germans starting the Invasion late, they would have.

And it's kinda hard for you to insult your intelligence, considering you have none;

I seem to have more on this than you do. Unlike you, I keep up with every little thing and I ignore the anti-war and those supporting the war talking points. The one thing most experts do agree on though is that if we leave, it'll be a blood bath.

Iraq is in a Civil War

Not actually true.

and you think they'll settle it peacefully.

For the most part, it is starting to work. The only fools trying to do harm now is mostly Al Qaeda types and Sadr's Militia which is beginning to lose its allies.

I can picture it now: General Sherman riding in to meet Jefferson Davis, and offer a "peaceful solution" with a British Occupation Force. Yeah, that would've worked....

Analogy is made of phail.

I've tolerated your annoying cocky tone for a while now, but I really must point out that you are being a huge idiot.

Jesus Christ, I don't even think you know what NATO is. You do realise that NATO INCLUDES the US forces right? Please tell me you do? You also understand that NATO are not one big unified military machine, but an alliance, and a shaky one at that. Just because the heads want to do something doesn't mean they can get participating members to follow suit.

Hmmm, I'm still trying to figure out what the fuck this has to do with anything, seriously, it seems like a load of irrelevant babble that has nothing to do with what we are discussing.

Right, finally some sort of argument that actually has something to do with what I said. So you're claiming that it's cheaper to remove all our forces and then re-invade, because we are paying contractors a lot of money. That is strange reasoning.

Umm, I thought that the US is part of NATO's kinda a given. That's why I emphasized EU NATO countries. I thought the EU was kinda a giveaway, apparently not to some people, eh?

The numbers that I posted was to show that 93% of the people doing the fighting are American Forces; that means no coalition, nada. If it's less then 10%, it's not much help!!! Considering the quality differential between the US and Brits vs. Georgians, it's HUGE! So once again, I'll re-iterate for the slow ones: EU NATO forces, minus UK, are playing the US politicians, and you are biting it, line and sinker. Do you really think the Germans and French are so inept that they cannot get their forces into Iraq? Also, the generals always want to fight, they want medals, honor, glory, funding. Generals aren't trained to be "Peacetime Generals". Ergo, a certain part of EU NATO minus UK, may want to go in, but the MAJORITY is against the war. Heck, the Franco-US relationship began to devolve when the French didn't support the US effort in Iraq.

Also, the Contractors are getting paid ten times as much as the military; so yeah, it would be cheaper to re-invade; just look at the data, at how much was spent on the invasion, and how much is being spent on contractors. Because, if the US withdraws and stops paying the contractors, the US economy will rebound like magic.

Its the level of violence that's the key here.

The Germans nearly succeeded in 1941 but if it was not for the Russian Winter and the Germans starting the Invasion late, they would have.

I seem to have more on this than you do. Unlike you, I keep up with every little thing and I ignore the anti-war and those supporting the war talking points. The one thing most experts do agree on though is that if we leave, it'll be a blood bath.

For the most part, it is starting to work. The only fools trying to do harm now is mostly Al Qaeda types and Sadr's Militia which is beginning to lose its allies.



Level of violence? If you go outside the Green Zone, you'll find varying levels of violence. Also, the Nazis against the Red Army? It wasn't only winter that stopped them, and Stalin gave the Nazis a huge handicap, via purges and getting caught unprepared. Also, the Nazis took over France in a month; had they moved at the same pace in Russia, winter would not have saved Russia, perhaps it was something about Russian fighting, you know the umm, Partisans harrassing enemy flanks, Russians outmanuevering Nazis, etc. The unpurged Siberian Armies saving the day; come to think of it the unpurged Red Army Fronts fought a lot better then the ones Stalin purged. Winter actaully gave the Nazis more time, by slowing the unpurged Red Army Fronts from Siberia on their path to Moscow. Too bad Russians were better skiers. :p

Also, Sadr's militia isn't even targeting the US. They are targeting Malaki's Government, but NOT American forces. And if you can show me proof, clear proof that Sadr's militia is shrinking in numbers, or even begining to do so, I'll gladly say that you know more; but saying Sadr's militia is losing allies, in Iraq alliances are Bismarckian at best. It's popular support that matters, not Allies. And don't even try to equate Sadr to Al-Queda, that's like equating Saddam to bin Laden. Won't fly again.

*completely bullshit post about whatever
Aye, the EU doesn't care about Iraq, this is a given. On the other hand, they're very much around in Afghanistan, and are upping their forces there at the moment - only a couple of months ago the Germans sent in a mechanised infantry company to help as part of the Rapid Reaction Force in the north.

Aye, the EU doesn't care about Iraq, this is a given. On the other hand, they're very much around in Afghanistan, and are upping their forces there at the moment - only a couple of months ago the Germans sent in a mechanised infantry company to help as part of the Rapid Reaction Force in the north.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/feb/07/politics.world

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/feb/07/politics.world
...

Aye, and after the NATO summit in April, ISAF is getting about 3,000 more soldiers from around Europe ;)

Level of violence? If you go outside the Green Zone, you'll find varying levels of violence.

First correct thing you have said in this entire debate. Now if you remove our forces and those of our allies, it will be far worse than it is now. Why are you not understanding this?

Also, the Nazis against the Red Army? It wasn't only winter that stopped them, and Stalin gave the Nazis a huge handicap, via purges and getting caught unprepared. Also, the Nazis took over France in a month; had they moved at the same pace in Russia, winter would not have saved Russia, perhaps it was something about Russian fighting, you know the umm, Partisans harrassing enemy flanks, Russians outmanuevering Nazis, etc. The unpurged Siberian Armies saving the day; come to think of it the unpurged Red Army Fronts fought a lot better then the ones Stalin purged. Winter actaully gave the Nazis more time, by slowing the unpurged Red Army Fronts from Siberia on their path to Moscow. Too bad Russians were better skiers. :p

You really do not know that much about why the Germans invaded when they did. Did you know that if they invaded when they originally planned, the Russians would not have been able to stop them from taking Moscow. The reason for the delay in Barbarossa was because they had to bail the fucking Italians out. That delayed their invasion and is what ultimately cost them their chance at victory in Russia. As General Zukhov is quoted as saying: "If Moscow had fallen, the war would have been over" or something to that effect.

Also, Sadr's militia isn't even targeting the US. They are targeting Malaki's Government, but NOT American forces.

You mean the Iraqi Government in general. In other words, they are attacking the government of a soveriegn nation in much the same way that the Colonial Army fought the British.

And if you can show me proof, clear proof that Sadr's militia is shrinking in numbers, or even begining to do so, I'll gladly say that you know more;

Who said anything about numbers. I said allies. Maybe you should look up the term ally.

but saying Sadr's militia is losing allies, in Iraq alliances are Bismarckian at best.

And you realize that Germany united under Bismark right?

It's popular support that matters, not Allies.

Popular support gains you allies.

And don't even try to equate Sadr to Al-Queda, that's like equating Saddam to bin Laden. Won't fly again.

I was not trying to equate anything. THat's only in your mind.

Your poll sucks.

If the US is going to try to affect world politics in the way that we have and are today, it would not be possible for us to just pull out of Iraq. That being said, the focus should not be on how to beat the insurgency, it should be on legitimizing the Iraqi government and making them ready to fight their own battles. That will solve all of the problems we have there, and should defeat the insurgency once the native Iraqis see that they have a workable government and begin to turn against the people who are causing trouble in their country (be they Iraqis or foreign nationals).

Oh, and your poll is teh suckz

Umm, I thought that the US is part of NATO's kinda a given.

Yes, but you are acting like they are seperate entities.


The numbers that I posted was to show that 93% of the people doing the fighting are American Forces; that means no coalition, nada. If it's less then 10%, it's not much help!!!

I never denied that, I even said myself that it wasn't a unified force but a shaky alliance.


Considering the quality differential between the US and Brits vs. Georgians, it's HUGE! So once again, I'll re-iterate for the slow ones: EU NATO forces, minus UK, are playing the US politicians, and you are biting it, line and sinker.

What exactly am I biting? I never said that the EU nations would send troops and that 'its only a matter of time'. All I have said is that they are NOT sending troops, but this is because of the nations members GOVERNMENTS and not NATO chiefs of staff.


Do you really think the Germans and French are so inept that they cannot get their forces into Iraq?

No, I never said they couldn't, just that they wont, which you know, so I don't get what you are arguing here.


Also, the generals always want to fight, they want medals, honor, glory, funding. Generals aren't trained to be "Peacetime Generals".

That's a very old fashioned and simplistic view of Generals.


Ergo, a certain part of EU NATO minus UK, may want to go in, but the MAJORITY is against the war. Heck, the Franco-US relationship began to devolve when the French didn't support the US effort in Iraq.


Actually no, the majority of EU nations are not against staying the course (the majority were not even against the war, although many large EU nations were), the majority of nations just don't feel compelled to send lots and lots of troops since they either can't because it's bad for the economy etc... or they feel that it's not their problem, and for a few big countries like France they are completely against it, hence why many of these countries are sending less than a 100 troops. However, this is completely irrelevant, all I said was that NATO forces and chiefs of staff feel that staying the course is much better for Iraq, I didn't talk about what different EU governments think.


Also, the Contractors are getting paid ten times as much as the military; so yeah, it would be cheaper to re-invade; just look at the data, at how much was spent on the invasion, and how much is being spent on contractors. Because, if the US withdraws and stops paying the contractors, the US economy will rebound like magic.

Are you saying that we won't bother with contractors when we re-invade? Of course we will.

It will be far worse than it is now. Why are you not understanding this?

You really do not know that much about why the Germans invaded when they did. Did you know that if they invaded when they originally planned, the Russians would not have been able to stop them from taking Moscow. The reason for the delay in Barbarossa was because they had to bail the fucking Italians out. That delayed their invasion and is what ultimately cost them their chance at victory in Russia. As General Zukhov is quoted as saying: "If Moscow had fallen, the war would have been over" or something to that effect.

You mean the Iraqi Government in general. In other words, they are attacking the government of a soveriegn nation in much the same way that the Colonial Army fought the British.

Who said anything about numbers. I said allies. Maybe you should look up the term ally.

And you realize that Germany united under Bismark right?

Popular support gains you allies.

I was not trying to equate anything. THat's only in your mind.

Yes Germany was united under Bismarck, how many allies did he have? I could easily have said that Bismarck's popularity is going down because he's losing allies, the very same argument you made; neither the lack of allies, nor his low popularity prevented Bismarck from dominating politics, why are you not getting this? Allies don't matter, if your army is strong and you control politics, you don't need any! And popular support in the Middle East also gets you assasinated, see Bhutto.

When you say that Al-Queda and Sadr are after Americans in Iraq, you are in fact equating them. Has nothing to do with my mind.

Now you are partially getting it, Sadr's army is like the US Colonial Army to Iraqis, he's the Shia Washington, and remember who won the Revolutionary War? It wasn't the Imperialists.

Now for your "Germans would've taken Moscow, it was winter that defeated them" post. Umm, if you study WWII, you'd notice that with each year, the Red Army is doing better and better against the Nazis. That is because they were PURGED by Stalin, but GRADUALLY RECOVERED FROM THE PURGES!!! So even if they would've taken Moscow over, the war would not have been over. Napoleon took Moscow, how'd he do?

Also, I need a source for this, because, frankly, I don't buy it:

"As General Zukhov is quoted as saying: "If Moscow had fallen, the war would have been over""

Are you sure it wasn't Stalin who said it? Had the Nazis taken Moscow, the Siberian UNPURGED divisions would have STILL ARRIVED and would've re-taken Moscow. The Nazi supply lines would still be harassed, during winter. Either way, Red Army would've been fighting the Nazis in Moscow, during winter; you really don't get insurgency warfare, do you?

Yes, but you are acting like they are seperate entities.

What exactly am I biting? I never said that the EU nations would send troops and that 'its only a matter of time'. All I have said is that they are NOT sending troops, but this is because of the nations members GOVERNMENTS and not NATO chiefs of staff.

That's a very old fashioned and simplistic view of Generals.

Actually no, the majority of EU nations are not against staying the course (the majority were not even against the war, although many large EU nations were), the majority of nations just don't feel compelled to send lots and lots of troops since they either can't because it's bad for the economy etc... or they feel that it's not their problem, and for a few big countries like France they are completely against it, hence why many of these countries are sending less than a 100 troops. However, this is completely irrelevant, all I said was that NATO forces and chiefs of staff feel that staying the course is much better for Iraq, I didn't talk about what different EU governments think.

Are you saying that we won't bother with contractors when we re-invade? Of course we will.

Umm, NATO nations are separate entities called countries. Being part of NATO, means that NATO countries would have to DEFEND each other should they be attacked, and that's about it. So yeah, I treat countries like separate entities, and I will continue to do so, no matter how badly it wierds you out.

That's the hook: the NATO joint chiefs from France and Germany know what their governments will say, ergo, they can be all "stay the course" they want, and just blame the governments when they don't have the troops. The governments OVERRULE NATO membership, unless it comes to self-defense, and Iraq didn't attack any NATO countries.

Just because something is simplistic and old, doesn't make it wrong. 2+2 = 2*2 is very simplistic and old.

And we don't need contractors to re-invade. Contractors are paid to OCCUPY, not invade. The regular army can do that. So if there's a need to re-invade, no contractors are needed. Now eventually, should the occupation be long-term, then the contractors will be needed again; but between the withdrawal and the end of the re-invasion, should one occur, the US won't be paying the contractors.

Also, if NATO joint chiefs won't lend a hand, why are you even listening to them?! Every nation should first and foremost take care of itself, it's called national politics. Do you know how ridiculous you sound when you say "we should stay in a country that we've invaded, occupied, partially raped to make lives better for the Iraqis?" They don't trust Americans; most of Iraqis think the invasion was unjust and want the US forces OUT!

With the US falling economy, shitty edukashun, (yes I mis-spelled education on purpose,) dying social security, collapsing bridges, bigger debt, not enough money devoted to national growth, illegal immigration, do you really think the US can afford this war? And most EU nations are doing fairly well economically, maybe because they invest the money in their own infrastructures instead of paying off debts for senseless wars.

Umm, NATO nations are separate entities called countries. Being part of NATO, means that NATO countries would have to DEFEND each other should they be attacked, and that's about it. So yeah, I treat countries like separate entities, and I will continue to do so, no matter how badly it wierds you out.


Stop stating the obvious and making it seem like I don't know that. The problem isn't with you treating countries as separate entities, but with treating NATO forces and US forces as completely separate entities, and claiming that NATO are not helping in Iraq, when in fact NATO and contractors are pretty much the bulk of the forces in Iraq when you realise that NATO include US forces.


That's the hook: the NATO joint chiefs from France and Germany know what their governments will say, ergo, they can be all "stay the course" they want, and just blame the governments when they don't have the troops. The governments OVERRULE NATO membership, unless it comes to self-defense, and Iraq didn't attack any NATO countries.

Look, nobody wants to keep soldiers in Iraq for longer than they have to, there is no reason for any of them to say that Iraq is not ready to be independent if they are. This includes interests in oil, since a stable Iraq is vital for good circulation of oil.


Just because something is simplistic and old, doesn't make it wrong. 2+2 = 2*2 is very simplistic and old.


Yet what you say is not only simplistic and old but a massive unsupported and pointless generalisation.


And we don't need contractors to re-invade. Contractors are paid to OCCUPY, not invade. The regular army can do that.

I doubt you will be able to get enough troops to mount a large enough force, in fact you wont, that's why contractors are needed in the first place. You also need to consider other costs, its extremely expensive in itself just to mobilize all your forces and ship them over to other countries, entrenching themselves in strategic places all over the area.


So if there's a need to re-invade, no contractors are needed. Now eventually, should the occupation be long-term, then the contractors will be needed again; but between the withdrawal and the end of the re-invasion, should one occur, the US won't be paying the contractors.


You say all this based on some very shaky and unsupported postulating? The burden of proof is overwhelmingly on you for this one.


Also, if NATO joint chiefs won't lend a hand, why are you even listening to them?!

How many times do I have to say this? It's not the chiefs of staff who wont lend a hand, it's that their governments wont let them, it's out of their control.


Every nation should first and foremost take care of itself, it's called national politics. Do you know how ridiculous you sound when you say "we should stay in a country that we've invaded, occupied, partially raped to make lives better for the Iraqis?" They don't trust Americans; most of Iraqis think the invasion was unjust and want the US forces OUT!

Better than saying "we've just raped the shit out of you, now we are going to leave you there to die rather than help you get back on your feet", not only is it incredibly unhelpful for them, but its also damaging strategically for foreign affairs in the future.


With the US falling economy, shitty edukashun, (yes I mis-spelled education on purpose,) dying social security, collapsing bridges, bigger debt, not enough money devoted to national growth, illegal immigration, do you really think the US can afford this war? And most EU nations are doing fairly well economically, maybe because they invest the money in their own infrastructures instead of paying off debts for senseless wars.

Look, the US economy isn't about to implode, stop buying into alarmist crap.

The USA shouldnt have got in there in the frist place.... but now if they leave things are going to end up even worse that they are now.

I do think it would be good to have an exit plan... but Im worried that Democrats and Republicans are going to combine to apply what is called a Seagull policy...

Fly in, make a lot of noise, crap everything, fly out.

I support the troops, and I want to bring them home, alive...when the job is done, and done right. I have said all I need to say.

Yes Germany was united under Bismarck, how many allies did he have?

All of the states that seem to have made up Northern Germany. After the Franco-Prussian War was when the Southern States began to integrate into a Greater Germany.

I could easily have said that Bismarck's popularity is going down because he's losing allies, the very same argument you made; neither the lack of allies, nor his low popularity prevented Bismarck from dominating politics, why are you not getting this?

Because if he was losing allies, The Franco-Prussian War would have been a defeat for Germany and Germany would not have united when it did. So no. You cannot actually make that argument.

Allies don't matter, if your army is strong and you control politics, you don't need any! And popular support in the Middle East also gets you assasinated, see Bhutto.

You really want to tread on that ground?

When you say that Al-Queda and Sadr are after Americans in Iraq, you are in fact equating them. Has nothing to do with my mind.

Goes to show you ignorant you are.

Now you are partially getting it, Sadr's army is like the US Colonial Army to Iraqis, he's the Shia Washington, and remember who won the Revolutionary War? It wasn't the Imperialists.

You also realized that we had help? Not just from the French either. The Spaniards were involved (not a US ally at the time) and do not forget about the Armed Neutrality Agreement of Europed that was Created by Russia which isolated Great Britain. I do not see anything of that sort happening in Iraq.

Now for your "Germans would've taken Moscow, it was winter that defeated them" post. Umm, if you study WWII, you'd notice that with each year, the Red Army is doing better and better against the Nazis.

You really are not a student of History if you forget the fact that Germany was 15 miles from Moscow when winter hit.

That is because they were PURGED by Stalin, but GRADUALLY RECOVERED FROM THE PURGES!!! So even if they would've taken Moscow over, the war would not have been over. Napoleon took Moscow, how'd he do?

Um ok...You forget that St. Petersburg was the capital of Russia during the Napolianic Wars and even he was defeated by the Russian Winter. On top of that, there was little left in Moscow when the French took it. It was empty and the French could not even supply said army either. At least the Germans were able to supply their army during the attack.

Also, I need a source for this, because, frankly, I don't buy it:

"As General Zukhov is quoted as saying: "If Moscow had fallen, the war would have been over""

Are you sure it wasn't Stalin who said it?

I do believe it was Zhukov who said it.

Had the Nazis taken Moscow, the Siberian UNPURGED divisions would have STILL ARRIVED and would've re-taken Moscow.

And how would word reached them?

The Nazi supply lines would still be harassed, during winter. Either way, Red Army would've been fighting the Nazis in Moscow, during winter; you really don't get insurgency warfare, do you?

Oh I get insurgency warfare, I also understand counterinsurgency warfare. You cannot sit there and tell me that the Germans did not plan for an insurgency in Moscow.

Withdraw now. In the fires of a civil war, a more durable and worthwhile political settlement should emerge organically than the twee western democracy established by the coalition.

Withdraw now. In the fires of a civil war, a more durable and worthwhile political settlement should emerge organically than the twee western democracy established by the coalition.
Problem is, lots of innocent people would die, and what kind of government would emerge? If the extremist militia's take over, the situation is worse then when Saddam was there. That's why it's so friggin hard to just pull back, we have a very shitty role. First of all, we're part of the problem. Lots of people want to get us out of there, so they keep bombing, hurting lots of innocents in the process, and we keep counter-attacking with faulty tactics also hurting lots of the innocents in the process. But the problem is, when we pull out, those extremist militias can do what they want and plunge the country in another (and possible worse) era of terror and hell, either by seizing power of triggering an endless and bloody civil war.

Problem is, lots of innocent people would die, and what kind of government would emerge? If the extremist militia's take over, the situation is worse then when Saddam was there. That's why it's so friggin hard to just pull back, we have a very shitty role. First of all, we're part of the problem. Lots of people want to get us out of there, so they keep bombing, hurting lots of innocents in the process, and we keep counter-attacking with faulty tactics also hurting lots of the innocents in the process. But the problem is, when we pull out, those extremist militias can do what they want and plunge the country in another (and possible worse) era of terror and hell, either by seizing power of triggering an endless and bloody civil war.

Firstly, don't assume that condascending, patronising tone when responding to me, interventionist boob that you are.
Secondly, most of the "innocents" want you out of Iraq as well, and have done for a long time. Simply put, the presence of the US allows respective factions to cast the other as capitalist, infidel puppets, and deprives the incumbent government of any independant legitmacy.
Moreover, one can hardly criticise a policy on the grounds that it will lead to the deaths of innocents, given that thousands of "innocent" deaths have occurred since 2003. Indeed, more than would have died under Saddam, and in any case, the incidence of an organically developed Iraqi government, and the stability it would bring, would be of far greater benefit than the democratic joke established at present.

a more durable and worthwhile political settlement should emerge organically than the twee western democracy established by the coalition.

I heavily doubt this.

I heavily doubt this.

I don't. Political systems developed organically and without external intervention tend to operate better, and with greater consensus, than those imposed by others. More so if those "others" include the greatest infidel and Islamic enemy yet found.

I don't. Political systems developed organically and without external intervention tend to operate better, and with greater consensus, than those imposed by others. More so if those "others" include the greatest infidel and Islamic enemy yet found.

Yes but the system that will be developed will almost assuredly be Taliban or something of similar sort.

Yes but the system that will be developed will almost assuredly be Taliban or something of similar sort.

A civil war is inevitable, from the moment the coalition withdraws. However, that is not the point; a Taliban regime, or equivalent, would be unlikely in Iraq, simply because the Coalition occupation, though unpopular, has been neither as reviled, nor consciously anti-Islamic, as that of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.

I disagree with my country's (the UK) involvement. A large amount of money, time, equipment, and lives, have been wasted

HOWEVER

No matter what the reason, my country's soldiers are on the firing line, and even if I'm against the reasoning of their being there, you need to support your soldiers.

Point is, they are out there, so give them the stuff they need, and the time to do it, and they will do the job and come home.

A civil war is inevitable, from the moment the coalition withdraws. However, that is not the point; a Taliban regime, or equivalent, would be unlikely in Iraq, simply because the Coalition occupation, though unpopular, has been neither as reviled, nor consciously anti-Islamic, as that of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.

Yes but what the people truly want matter not so much to the the opposition, or at least the most powerful, the ones with the most guns will be in power, not the ones who best represent the public's wishes. The ones with the guns currently are Muslim extremists, I don't see how anyone but them could take power. That being said, I wish you were right, it would make things so much easier, but I am unable to believe what you say.

I support bringing British troops home. Their job is to defend Britain. Being in Iraq does not achieve this aim.

Where's the "I was aganst going in, but we need to stay a little longer to at least make sure that the country dosen't flop under the rule of Al Kaieda(However you spell it) which we wouldn't have had to worry about if we HADN'T INVADED IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!" Option?

SUPPORT OUR BOYS AND GIRLS IN UNIFORM
BRING THEM HOME ALIVE!!!!
LET THEM SEE THEIR FAMILIES BEFORE THEY GET BLOWN UP
END THE WAR NOW!!!

Just an example of how to support the troops but not Bush. If you are looking for a bumper sticker, go for the shorter version:

SUPPORT THE TROOPS
BRING THEM HOME ALIVE

Now please bash and/or compliment me and vote in my damn poll. Thank you.

The one I saw was "Support the troops. Bring them home safe."

Stop stating the obvious and making it seem like I don't know that. The problem isn't with you treating countries as separate entities, but with treating NATO forces and US forces as completely separate entities, and claiming that NATO are not helping in Iraq, when in fact NATO and contractors are pretty much the bulk of the forces in Iraq when you realise that NATO include US forces.

Ok, if you take the US out of NATO, you will realize that NATO (minus US and UK) has less then 5,000 troops in Iraq! US is responsible for 93% of non-contractor fighting. Why do you insist that it's a NATO mission when the US is doing virtually all of the non-contractor fighting?! If I work in a group and I do over 90% of the work, I'm not going to call it a group project. Stop being ridiculous. Also Military Contractors owe loyalty to no nation. They aren't for any nation, they are mercenaries who fight for the highest pay, and no one can top the US military budget. Well China can, but they choose the silly thing of investing in their nation infrastructure and becoming a super power over a superbly noble thing, like fighting senseless wars.


Look, nobody wants to keep soldiers in Iraq for longer than they have to, there is no reason for any of them to say that Iraq is not ready to be independent if they are. This includes interests in oil, since a stable Iraq is vital for good circulation of oil.

The sooner the US troops leave Iraq, the sooner Iraqis have their little Civil War, the sooner the country becomes stable, the sooner oil supply will rise. US troops staying there is a stalemate, but even the US Armies cannot prevent the inevitable revolution. And Apparently for some reason you want to keep our boys there, fantacizing that it might somehow, stop the inevitable. It won't.

Yet what you say is not only simplistic and old but a massive unsupported and pointless generalisation.

And yet no one in France or Germany, aside from your NATO cheifs of staff, supports the Iraqi war. If they were patriots of their countries, they'd pipe down. They didn't make a mess in Iraq, why should they have to clean it. Oh wait, they're not cleaning it.

I doubt you will be able to get enough troops to mount a large enough force, in fact you wont, that's why contractors are needed in the first place. You also need to consider other costs, its extremely expensive in itself just to mobilize all your forces and ship them over to other countries, entrenching themselves in strategic places all over the area.

Contractors weren't involved in the general invasion en masse. And you can keep the US troops in Kuwait for the time being, you don't actually need to bring them all the way back to the US, then re-mobilize them and ship to Iraq. The US Marine Corps has sufficient force for such an invasion if properly backed by the US Air Corps, Army and Navy. That's the difference between me and you. When I say withdraw, I mean just pull them into Kuwait for the time being, they owe us, and if necessary re-invade, if not ship them home. You on the other hand think that when I say withdraw from Iraq, I mean demobilize, the two aren't the same. Withdraw does NOT mean demobilize.

You say all this based on some very shaky and unsupported postulating? The burden of proof is overwhelmingly on you for this one.

The Persian Gulf War, as well as the initial invasion of Iraq didn't use too many contractors. Just do the research, it's all there. Yes, some were used, but nowhere near 100,000. And the point I was making as that it would be CHEAPER to pull out and re-invade IF NECESSARY, then stayin the course with contractors.

How many times do I have to say this? It's not the chiefs of staff who wont lend a hand, it's that their governments wont let them, it's out of their control.

And how many times do I have to tell you: if the chiefs of staff cannot back up their words with actions, these words are worthless. You don't listen to armchair generals; remember LBJ and the Vietnam War armchair generals? Where NATO chiefs of staff were also supporting it, without troops. Geez, think they're going "we are so duping the American retards" again? Why not, their countries aren't fans of Bush or the US.

Better than saying "we've just raped the shit out of you, now we are going to leave you there to die rather than help you get back on your feet", not only is it incredibly unhelpful for them, but its also damaging strategically for foreign affairs in the future.

Umm HAHAHAHA. US is worried about its image? Maybe it should stop acting like the World's Policeman. And I don't recall US having stellar affairs with Iraq, even when the US gave Iraqis weapons, the relationship wasn't stellar. And Europe did the same to Africa, now both continents are recovering.

Look, the US economy isn't about to implode, stop buying into alarmist crap.

The US economy is doing Stellarly Superb:

Our education system if the World's best:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaN6Rx8X6_I

Illegal immigration is contributing to the economy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7WJeqxuOfQ

Bear Sterns didn't crash. American bridges are the World's best. The Iraqi War isn't swallowing up money that would otherwise prevent the US infrastructure from decaying. Corporate greed in no way dominates politics. The US doesn't have a mounting debt to China. O.J. didn't really kill his wife. All of Bush's speeches make sense. Fox News is Fair and Balanced. The World loves the US. "Reverend" Wright is perfectly sane. My kids will have social security.

When you want to enter the real world, let me know.

Ok, if you take the US out of NATO, you will realize that NATO (minus US and UK) has less then 5,000 troops in Iraq! US is responsible for 93% of non-contractor fighting. Why do you insist that it's a NATO mission when the US is doing virtually all of the non-contractor fighting?!

Moot point, the U.S. is part of NATO, thusly U.S. forces in Iraq are also NATO forces.

Ok, if you take the US out of NATO, you will realize that NATO (minus US and UK) has less then 5,000 troops in Iraq! US is responsible for 93% of non-contractor fighting. Why do you insist that it's a NATO mission when the US is doing virtually all of the non-contractor fighting?! If I work in a group and I do over 90% of the work, I'm not going to call it a group project. Stop being ridiculous. Also Military Contractors owe loyalty to no nation. They aren't for any nation, they are mercenaries who fight for the highest pay, and no one can top the US military budget. Well China can, but they choose the silly thing of investing in their nation infrastructure and becoming a super power over a superbly noble thing, like fighting senseless wars.
Nobody cares about Iraq. There's your issue.

Afghanistan is increasingly becoming Europe's war.
The sooner the US troops leave Iraq, the sooner Iraqis have their little Civil War, the sooner the country becomes stable, the sooner oil supply will rise. US troops staying there is a stalemate, but even the US Armies cannot prevent the inevitable revolution. And Apparently for some reason you want to keep our boys there, fantacizing that it might somehow, stop the inevitable. It won't.
A lid was kept on violence in Northern Ireland between the Irish by putting British troops in the way. The same is true of sectarian violence in Iraq, see the success of the surge in reducing violence in the affected regions.
And yet no one in France or Germany, aside from your NATO cheifs of staff, supports the Iraqi war. If they were patriots of their countries, they'd pipe down. They didn't make a mess in Iraq, why should they have to clean it. Oh wait, they're not cleaning it.
I met one person on a French trip who was in favour of the Iraq war. I have also spoken to several Germans (they were Ossis, mind) who were vaguely in favour.

So ner-ner ner ner-ner.
The US economy is doing Stellarly Superb
It's not going to implode. Don't be ridiculous.

I'm a soldier in the United States Army...we are doing good things over there...the media is blowing it out of proportion weve been over here for 7 months and not had a single death

I'm a soldier in the United States Army...we are doing good things over there...the media is blowing it out of proportion weve been over here for 7 months and not had a single death

As opposed to how many in 5 years?

As opposed to how many in 5 years?

Considerably less than it could have been.

Support the Troops?

Don't our taxes do that?

Considerably less than it could have been.

Also, conversely, considerably more than it could have been.

Considerably less than it could have been.

Well quite. You could have dropped a nuke on Baghdad, shot every Iraqi you saw, or, god forbid, left them alone to arrange their own affairs and not shoved your nose into the business of the rest of the world.