NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28931928/

first election without major incidence of violence.

Comments ?
Has Democracy taken hold and we can all go home now ?
Did the Surge help ? Did the time frame to leave by a certain time help ?

let em come in.

Has Democracy taken hold and we can all go home now ?

If it were up to me, I'd see the US soldiers and the morons in government that orchestrated this crime staying there until they can figure out a way to raise the Iraqis they killed back from the dead.

A little under Two Weeks in office...and Obama's already fixin Bush's shit...

What cant that Man Do? lol



...But, in all seriousness, I hope it is taken as message that we can leave, That whole thing's been a Fiasco from the start...

A little under Two Weeks in office...and Obama's already fixin Bush's shit...

What cant that Man Do? lol



...But, in all seriousness, I hope it is taken as message that we can leave, That whole thing's been a Fiasco from the start...

It was also a crime against humanity.

If it were up to me, I'd see the US soldiers and the morons in government that orchestrated this crime staying there until they can figure out a way to raise the Iraqis they killed back from the dead.

that's a bit much. our soldiers deserve more respect then that.

Yes...Democracy has taken hold, the surge worked and we can leave Iraq now, to face the real problem thats brewing in Afghanistan

that's a bit much. our soldiers deserve more respect then that.

No, it's not. Their mess, they clean it up. They killed, they raise them from the dead or stay there trying to.

It was also a crime against humanity.

Well, as long as you count every war as a Crime against Humanity, as well as Brazil's...Fine, Ill accept your view there.....

If not, have some respect...

Well, as long as you count every war as a Crime against Humanity, as well as Brazil's...Fine, Ill accept your view there.....

If not, have some respect...

I count wars OF CHOICE, such as this one, as crimes against humanity, yes.

Brazil's what? Participation in WWII? War on Paraguay? The first one was AFTER we got attacked, the second one WAS a crime.

Edit: If you mean the (US-supported) coup here, however, it WAS a crime, and I'd gladly see the perpetrators have their spinal cords ripped off slowly, so they SUFFER!

As for me "having some respect" for the criminals that touted this damn war and the morons that waged it, my respect is theirs to EARN.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28931928/

first election without major incidence of violence.

Comments ?
Has Democracy taken hold and we can all go home now ?
Did the Surge help ? Did the time frame to leave by a certain time help ?

let em come in.

There are almost no successful instances of democracy that have not been brought about by the people themselves. America has "brought democracy" to a number of countries, it has never and never will succeed.

As for me "having some respect" for the criminals that touted this damn war and the morons that waged it, my respect is theirs to EARN.

I guess Skallvia meant the soldiers, not the decision makers.

Yes...Democracy has taken hold, the surge worked and we can leave Iraq now, to face the real problem thats brewing in Afghanistan

be good to only worry about If Iraq is ripping us off on oil.

No, it's not. Their mess, they clean it up. They killed, they raise them from the dead or stay there trying to.

Rabble all you want at the politicians the soldiers did not decide to go there they jsut performed their duty.

War on Paraguay?.

Yeah, i was talking about that one...I can see your point there, But, Our soldiers have no choice in the matter, Im just saying I think they deserve a little more respect than that...

Im perfectly okay with Lynching the Bush Administration, but, honestly, Staying there longer would only prolong the Crimes you speak of...

my respect is theirs to EARN.Just like THEIR respect is YOURS to earn. Respect is not a one way street. If they've done nothing to earn yours, fine. If YOU have done nothing to earn theirs, that's fine, too.

I guess Skallvia meant the soldiers, not the decision makers.

The soldiers went there by their own volition. Unless you're insinuating they are automatons, incapable of anything but following orders, which would be less respectful than whatever I'm giving them, you must surely see that their acts were theirs, if not alone, then mostly.

Has Democracy taken hold and we can all go home now?

well the MOD is already more or less done and the US has announced its timetable so all is good I'd say

Did the Surge help?

more bods on the ground = more shit getting done and more bored privates kicking rocks to discover arms caches

Did the time frame to leave by a certain time help?

I disagree with it myself and I'm expecting shit to start hitting the fan as it gets closer to withdrawal dates but tbh nothing can really go too badly wrong

SNIP

yeah one day you can show those cyber bullies who tried to silence you in 2003 that you are better than them!

The soldiers went there by their own volition. Unless you're insinuating they are automatons, incapable of anything but following orders, which would be less respectful than whatever I'm giving them, you must surely see that their acts were theirs, if not alone, then mostly.

You dont know how the Military works do you?

Desertions not exactly an option...

Just like THEIR respect is YOURS to earn. Respect is not a one way street. If they've done nothing to earn yours, fine. If YOU have done nothing to earn theirs, that's fine, too.

They surely have done stuff to LOSE mine.

You dont know how the Military works do you?

Desertions not exactly an option...

Wow. So you're actually claiming soldiers sell their soul when they sign that goddamned piece of paper? THAT'S disrespectful.

You dont know how the Military works do you?

Desertions not exactly an option...

On the other hand, some of em screwed up pretty hard and there are ways of . . .interpreting . . .orders to make em fit what you want to hear.

yeah one day you can show those cyber bullies who tried to silence you in 2003 that you are better than them!

I made a whole thread - which you might have missed - about my forgivance of those people. However, the fact remains that they should be forced to raise the Iraqis that were murdered from the dead - or keep trying until they grow old and die.

No, it's not. Their mess, they clean it up. They killed, they raise them from the dead or stay there trying to.
You are being unfair to the soldiers. They signed up in good faith and were lied to and hung out to dry by their leaders. Once they were there, the fighting was real, and they had no choice but to either fight or die. You cannot blame a soldier for not dying in battle. The blame belongs to the commanders, not to the soldiers.

There are almost no successful instances of democracy that have not been brought about by the people themselves. America has "brought democracy" to a number of countries, it has never and never will succeed.

Korea, Japan, Germany...

The soldiers went there by their own volition.

well then fuck ever going to war again hell I wouldn't risk my life over places like Kent much less the multitude of other toilets out there

Wow. So you're actually claiming soldiers sell their soul when they sign that goddamned piece of paper? THAT'S disrespectful.

I guess you can take that up with the US Armed Forces...Thats prettymuch what they do, in a manner of speaking...

The soldiers went there by their own volition.Yes, because that's their job, and they sign a very specific contract that has several consequences if they don't do their job.

Not to mention that you're suggesting that the US should break the SOF agreement that we have with Iraq to stay there until we figure out how to do the currently impossible.

You are being unfair to the soldiers. They signed up in good faith and were lied to and hung out to dry by their leaders. Once they were there, the fighting was real, and they had no choice but to either fight or die. You cannot blame a soldier for not dying in battle. The blame belongs to the commanders, not to the soldiers.

Why is it that there was no mutiny then, once people realized Iraq was a war of choice? The Nuremberg defense doens't quite work, and the acts the soldiers performed are still theirs.

more bods on the ground = more shit getting done and more bored privates kicking rocks to discover arms caches

I disagree with it myself and I'm expecting shit to start hitting the fan as it gets closer to withdrawal dates but tbh nothing can really go too badly wrong



I put both options there so people could have a debate which was more influential in what may finally be long term stability in Iraq. I myself find the surge more responsible. It looks like it succeeded. Now hopefully we can get to looking for bin laden in Afghanistan. as for the Brazilian troll just ignore him.

Yes, because that's their job, and they sign a very specific contract that has several consequences if they don't do their job.

Not to mention that you're suggesting that the US should break the SOF agreement that we have with Iraq to stay there until we figure out how to do the currently impossible.

1- Then face the consequences, rather than kill innocent people.

2- Good point. They can relocate to somewhere so they can figure out how to raise the Iraqis from the dead, but whatever the new area, they can't leave it.

The soldiers went there by their own volition. Unless you're insinuating they are automatons, incapable of anything but following orders, which would be less respectful than whatever I'm giving them, you must surely see that their acts were theirs, if not alone, then mostly.
You're wrong. Many of those soldiers signed up for limited tours of duty before the war started. As they were already on duty when the war started, they did not have the choice not to go. Then, when their tours were up, their leaders reneged on their agreement and refused to release them from duty, forcing them under pain of court martial and possibly even death sentences to continue fighting. It takes a lot to desert and become a fugitive for the rest of your life if you have a family to support back home. In addition, the thousands of National Guard who were shipped over to Iraq never signed up to fight there at all. They are supposed to be a defensive force protecting the US, not an expeditionary force. You cannot legitimately blame the troops for the crimes and lies of the command.

However, the fact remains that they should be forced to raise the Iraqis that were murdered from the dead - or keep trying until they grow old and die.

why?

Why is it that there was no mutiny then, once people realized Iraq was a war of choice? The Nuremberg defense doens't quite work, and the acts the soldiers performed are still theirs.

soldiers are held accountable for their individual acts. War itself is not a war crime, all that is required is a reasonable effort to prevent civilian causalities.

Why is it that there was no mutiny then, once people realized Iraq was a war of choice? The Nuremberg defense doens't quite work, and the acts the soldiers performed are still theirs.
That question is childish and unrealistic.

I guess you can take that up with the US Armed Forces...Thats prettymuch what they do, in a manner of speaking...

In which case, trust me, me calling them morons is downright WORSHIPPING compared to the fact that others DENY THEM FREE WILL.

They surely have done stuff to LOSE mine.
With this thread, you've done a bit to lose mine as well. Put proper blame where it belongs, H. Do not abuse those who have already been abused by their commanders.

soldiers are held accountable for their individual acts. War itself is not a war crime, all that is required is a reasonable effort to prevent civilian causalities.

Well, given that the war was unreasonable itself...

Why is it that there was no mutiny



Well, actually...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desertion


According to the Pentagon, more than 5,500 military personnel deserted in 2003–2004, following the Iraq invasion and occupation. The number had reached about 8,000 by the first quarter of 2006. Another report stated that since 2000, about 40,000 troops from all branches of the military have deserted, also according to the Pentagon. More than half of these served in the US Army Almost all of these soldiers deserted within the USA. There has only been one reported case of a desertion in Iraq. The Army, Navy and Air Force reported 7,978 desertions in 2001, compared with 3,456 in 2005. The Marine Corps showed 1,603 Marines in desertion status in 2001. That had declined by 148 in 2005.

why?

Well, they killed them, right? You break it, you fix it.

well then fuck ever going to war again <snip>
To be honest, I think that should be the motto of any civilized nation.

Well, actually...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desertion

THESE people I respect.

To be honest, I think that should be the motto of any civilized nation.

Until another one turns them into a Moonscape I suppose.......

Well, given that the war was unreasonable itself...

well here is the deal. I really don't want yet another thread over Iraq was bad blagh blagh. those threads have been over done. I am more looking for what the election means and the causes of the election being peaceful.

If you want to rant and rave about Iraq war is the ultimate evil and all soldiers are baby killers, please start your own thread or necro one of the ones from earlier.

the causes of the election being peaceful.

A competent American leadership for the first time in 8 years.

Until another one turns them into a Moonscape I suppose.......
Fuck it, once they're moonscaped, they really have little left to worry about.

To be serious, I reject all that "but what if someone comes along and beats us up" nonsense. It strikes me as a weasely plea for justification for militarism.

Well, they killed them, right? You break it, you fix it.What about the soldiers that haven't participated in combat actions?

Or do you just want to collectively condemn them all to death? (Because that's what you're doing, whether you realize it or not.)

A competent American leadership for the first time in 8 years.

Its actually the same leadership on the ground thats been there for the last two years at least...

Fuck it, once they're moonscaped, they really have little left to worry about.

To be serious, I reject all that "but what if someone comes along and beats us up" nonsense. It strikes me as a weasely plea for justification for militarism.

I may have lost some of your respect in this thread, but YOU just earned some MORE of mine with this answer. You may be annoyed with me right now, but still:

:fluffle:

I put both options there so people could have a debate which was more influential in what may finally be long term stability in Iraq. I myself find the surge more responsible. It looks like it succeeded.

then I'd agree that the surge worked wonders compared to the cluster fuck of the British withdrawal from Basra

tbh the whole war and peacekeeping has gone amazingly well in both operational areas (just consider how shit the Russians had it in Afghanistan) and the surge led to effective operations against insurgent strongholds around the country which would of been a slow crawl otherwise

Now hopefully we can get to looking for bin laden in Afghanistan.

I don't see why we should bother when if we just stabilize problem areas the Taliban will fast run out of areas to operate

as for the Brazilian troll just ignore him.

agreed

well here is the deal. I really don't want yet another thread over Iraq was bad blagh blagh. those threads have been over done. I am more looking for what the election means and the causes of the election being peaceful.

If you want to rant and rave about Iraq war is the ultimate evil and all soldiers are baby killers, please start your own thread or necro one of the ones from earlier.
I think it's a little early to say the election was successful. I'm glad they got through election day peacefully, but let's give it a couple of days and see how well the results go down. I am optimistic that the Iraqis will get their acts together, because I do believe that, with the better field commanders who came in late under Bush and with the new Obama admin now in place, things are looking better in Iraq, but it's early days yet.

What about the soldiers that haven't participated in combat actions?

Oh, THOSE can come back.

Fuck it, once they're moonscaped, they really have little left to worry about.

To be serious, I reject all that "but what if someone comes along and beats us up" nonsense. It strikes me as a weasely plea for justification for militarism.

Well, then, we shouldve let you deal with Hitler and Stalin then, I think they'd find your logic quite Amusing....

Well, then, we shouldve let you deal with Hitler and Stalin then, I think they'd find your logic quite Amusing....

Did it ever occur to you that if most people followed Mur's logic there MIGHT HAVE BEEN NO Hitler or Stalin?

No?

Well, now it did.

Well, then, we shouldve let you deal with Hitler and Stalin then, I think they'd find your logic quite Amusing....
A) I do not allow murderers, warmongers, and dictators to make the rules I play by.

B) I'm not afraid of my enemies. I find ways to deal with them that do not involve becoming like them.

C) The people you cite are dead, and therefore uninteresting.

D) The OP has asked us to stay on topic. This is not on topic, so this is the answer you're going to have to be satisfied with until the subject comes up again someday in an appropriate thread.

A) I do not allow murderers, warmongers, and dictators to make the rules I play by.


Well, good luck Keeping Murderers, Warmongers, and Dictators from dictating the rules to you with no Military...

Oh, THOSE can come back.

And that is the vast, vast, vast majority. During my last deployment my unit, a cavalry squadron, never fired a single shot and we were out on the roads every single day. In fact, our soldiers saved the lives of 3 Iraqis after coming across a serious traffic accident, treating them and getting them on helicopters.

Out of the approx 600 soldiers in the squadron I'm only aware of four people that have ever killed anyone, one as a prison guard, two in Iraq in 2003 and one in Grenada in 1983.

Now imagine a support unit where only a small handful of them have ever left the base or even seen a real, life Iraqi.

To be honest, I think that should be the motto of any civilized nation.

nah Switzerland may act like all that but I'm not so keen on the chocolate

Fuck it, once they're moonscaped, they really have little left to worry about.

bankrupting the Soviet union was fun though :p

To be serious, I reject all that "but what if someone comes along and beats us up" nonsense. It strikes me as a weasely plea for justification for militarism.

but what if someone does come and start beating you up?

And that is the vast, vast, vast majority. During my last deployment my unit, a cavalry squadron, never fired a single shot and we were out on the roads every single day. In fact, our soldiers saved the lives of 3 Iraqis after coming across a serious traffic accident, treating them and getting them on helicopters.

Out of the approx 600 soldiers in the squadron I'm only aware of four people that have ever killed anyone, one as a prison guard, two in Iraq in 2003 and one in Grenada in 1983.

Now imagine a support unit where only a small handful of them have ever left the base or even seen a real, life Iraqi.

Splendid! MOST of the troops get to come back, those that did the killing try and find a high-level Cleric.

with the better field commanders who came in late under Busht.Is General Odierno still in command there? (All I can find are older 2008 articles about him taking over for Petraeus.)

but what if someone does come and start beating you up?

Didnt you hear, He's going to lecture them on what the Rules are, :p

but what if someone does come and start beating you up?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guerilla

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gandhi

There's at least TWO quick ways to deal with it.

No, it's not. Their mess, they clean it up. They killed, they raise them from the dead or stay there trying to.

For someone who supposedly hates the Bush Administration, you're all too willing to subscribe to its "Let the Rank and File take the fall" approach of "accountability".

For someone who supposedly hates the Bush Administration, you're all too willing to subscribe to its "Let the Rank and File take the fall" approach of "accountability".

Oh, I'm terribly sorry if I gave you the wrong impression: Bush and the leadership would ALSO have to find a way to resurrect people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guerilla

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gandhi

There's at least TWO quick ways to deal with it.

Guerilla Tactics require Military Personnel and killing things...


Britain's not exactly a Warmongering Dictatorship either....

Didnt you hear, He's going to lecture them on what the Rules are, :p

So, Mur, had that operation? :p

Britain's not exactly a Warmongering Dictatorship either....

You might want to say that in Madras...

Didnt you hear, He's going to lecture them on what the Rules are, :p

well he could always do the MAD thingy (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=mSjeTFx5JI4)

Oh, I'm terribly sorry if I gave you the wrong impression: Bush and the leadership would ALSO have to find a way to resurrect people.Zombie Lincoln is coming to get you.

Oh, I'm terribly sorry if I gave you the wrong impression: Bush and the leadership would ALSO have to find a way to resurrect people.

But you're still eager to have the Rank and File following duties fry, just in the same mentality that has Israel bombing the shit out of the entire Palestinian civilian population in response to Hamas's actions.

You might want to say that in Madras...

If you could get me over there....

I mean If I have to choose between the Raj and the USSR or Nazi Germany....


Definitely going with the Raj on this one...

Well, good luck Keeping Murderers, Warmongers, and Dictators from dictating the rules to you with no Military...
False dichotomy. Not militaristic =/= having no military. Militarism is a specific type of political worldview and policy. It is entirely possible to maintain a proper military capability without being militaristic.

skallvia, i think heikoku 2 was referring to the american president, who is commander in chief of the military. i am not sure if he is the cause or if the warlords are using the peaceful (mostly) election to get the "evil" americans out, so they can play*. we need to leave them be, as we are not the world's nanny, even if bad stuff happens when we leave. we can't control that.
*america is the cat and the warlords are the mice. they want our troops gone so they can have a bloodbath

False dichotomy. Not militaristic =/= having no military. Militarism is a specific type of political worldview and policy. It is entirely possible to maintain a proper military capability without being militaristic.

Take Brazil, for instance. We have a decent number of grunts, yet our constiitution forbids using them except for self-defense.

nah Switzerland may act like all that but I'm not so keen on the chocolate
I have issues with Switzerland. Their notion of "neutral" isn't always the same as mine.

bankrupting the Soviet union was fun though :p
Well, I don't know about "fun," but I did predict it would happen in an essay I wrote for a high school regents exam 8 years before it happened. That was ego-gratifying, I must admit.

but what if someone does come and start beating you up?
Like I said to Skallvia, non-militaristic =/= no military.

False dichotomy. Not militaristic =/= having no military. Militarism is a specific type of political worldview and policy. It is entirely possible to maintain a proper military capability without being militaristic.

Then we are in agreement then, I just wanted to get that out of you, lol...

Yeah, i think the US of A was much better off Pre-WWI when we tended to stay in our own Borders....

Im sick of having our guys wasting their time and lives and money on other people's problems...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guerilla

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gandhi

There's at least TWO quick ways to deal with it.

And don't forget that being antimilitarist doesn't equate not having a military. Modern Japan is a fine example. Their military is extremely competent and well equipped but it's designed and structured to be a defensive force and is largely incapable of conducting foreign adventures.

The main thing here is that if you're going to have a military it should be proportionate to the threat. The US doesn't need a standing force of a million troops to keep the barbarian hordes at bay. In my little dream world I'd like to see the active ground forces, Marines and Army, reduced to maybe 20,000-50,000 troops and have the rest (however many is really necessary, maybe 100,000) be National Guard. It'd be small enough to allow us to conduct small operations, preferably with allies, but not large enough for us to go on any really daring adventures. Also, militias, like the National Guard, have long been seen as a way of defense without encouraging excessive militarism. Having been in the Army and the Guard I can tell you to a certainty that the Guard has a much more "human" aspect to it than the Army does.

Is General Odierno still in command there? (All I can find are older 2008 articles about him taking over for Petraeus.)
I can never keep track of their names. I'm a bad person. :(

So, Mur, had that operation? :p
Not yet. The memo must have gone out prematurely.

well he could always do the MAD thingy (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=mSjeTFx5JI4)

That's a great movie.

Threads like this make me laugh. People like Heikoku and such have always existed and always will. I've had this arguement with people for years and it always comes to the same conclusion. Opinions are like butt holes, every one has them, and they all stink. Heikoku your an idealist, which is fine, until you spout of shit that you know nothing about. Its real easy to read books in the comfort of your home, and decide what you think is right or wrong. It's real easy to sit in a neutral country like Brazil (way to go on the ethenol though, I wish we could grow cane here in the States, clean up the environment a bit.), and make up your mind and about how things should be done. However, the truth is simple. You know nothing about war. You know nothing about the government, or the conflicts the government faces. You think your "unbiased" news reporters get it right? Quite the contrary, no news team, either biased, unbiased, independent, or government controlled will ever get the whole story strait. But little sheep like you, sit there and soak up everything they say. And thats fine, you have a right to do so, and as a Marine of in the United States Marine Corps, I will gladly fight to the death to protect your rights, whether you live in my country or not.

Regardless, of the politics, and the deceits, all age old traditions behind wars, we went. Even when we knew spineless idealists like yourself would sit under your kitchen sink and rub us in the dirt from affar. But we know, that you dont understand, you cant possibly understand, and thats okay. I took an oath and as a Man of Honor, I adhear that commitment. I don't expect pessimists to understand. You spout your ignorant propoganda, and think your somehow changing the world. But there is a way you can redeam yourself, or atleast make yourself an honest man. I challenge you, go visit Iraq, the country has open borders you can enter, with proper ID. Go visit, watch Marines walk children to school. Watch Soldiers in the Army Core of Engineers, wade through 3 feet deep rivers of Shit to instal functioning sewer systems. And watch them do it with a smile on their face, knowing full well, that their lives could end at any seccond, from and IED or even an ambush. Now am i saying mistakes werent made, of course not. I dont condone Genocide or torture, like the prison photos i think it was Abu Graid or something like that, of the naked Iraqi's and such. We took the purpetrators, and tried them, and convicted them. They were punished for their disqusting acts.

But after you have visted the country and seen first hand, the actual situation. You have seen both the fear and hope that exists, then go up to the closest soldier, and if you have the balls to do so, get up in his or her face, and spout your ignorant bullshit. I dont say this expecting you will, I infact know you wont, because your a spineless coward, who will shout from behind the annonimity(sp?) of the internet any thing that makes you feel like you are better than the world. But basically you dont know the first thing about what it takes to serve in an Armed Forces, and all those who diserted, did so out of fear, not some holier than though ideals. They didnt desert because they thought war was wrong, they fled because they didnt have the courage to stand and do what is neccessary. and neither do you.

Then we are in agreement then, I just wanted to get that out of you, lol...

Yeah, i think the US of A was much better off Pre-WWI when we tended to stay in our own Borders....

Im sick of having our guys wasting their time and lives and money on other people's problems...
You didn't have to get anything out of me. You just had to understand what "militarism" means. :p

I think it's a little early to say the election was successful. I'm glad they got through election day peacefully, but let's give it a couple of days and see how well the results go down. I am optimistic that the Iraqis will get their acts together, because I do believe that, with the better field commanders who came in late under Bush and with the new Obama admin now in place, things are looking better in Iraq, but it's early days yet.

I agree i want to see how things turn out.

hopefully things will be decent by the time we leave.

No, it's not. Their mess, they clean it up. They killed, they raise them from the dead or stay there trying to.

Soldiers are just weapons. For the most part they don't really get into the ethical problem of killing the enemy. The American public voted in the government, the government said kill these people...ergo the Iraqi's get deaded. A soldier doesn't get to pick when to fight unless the orders are blatantly illegal. Kids just coming out of high school tend not to have the sort of grasp on international law or ethics to truly question authority. Add to that incoming fire and the problem is intensified. For the record I am using "soldiers" as a blanket term for all armed service personnel, my apologies to the Marines.

You didn't have to get anything out of me. You just had to understand what "militarism" means. :p

lol, Well, more like your version of Militarism...Alot of people tend to think having a Military at all is a bad thing...

*Snip a whole lot of bull and a bit of flaming too* they fled because they didnt have the courage to stand and do what is neccessary. and neither do you.

Oh, so you found those WMDs, then? Good for you.

By the way: I'm a Brazilian and my English is better than yours.

I agree i want to see how things turn out.

hopefully things will be decent by the time we leave.
I just want to see the Iraqis be in charge of their own fates -- and I mean for real, not that fake puppet-state bullshit we usually try to set up. Though, to be honest, I do think that, after having fucked them over so badly, we are going to owe them for the forseeable future. Just so long as that owing doesn't involve sitting there and taking attacks, I guess we'll live with it.

For the record I am using "soldiers" as a blanket term for all armed service personnel, my apologies to the Marines.

You know your shit.. i accept your appology.

Threads like this make me laugh. People like Heikoku and such have always existed and always will. <snip> And thats fine, you have a right to do so, and as a Marine of in the United States Marine Corps, I will gladly fight to the death to protect your rights, whether you live in my country or not.

Regardless, of the politics, and the deceits, all age old traditions behind wars, we went. Even when we knew spineless idealists like yourself would sit under your kitchen sink and rub us in the dirt from affar. <snip> I dont condone Genocide or torture, like the prison photos i think it was Abu Graid or something like that, of the naked Iraqi's and such. We took the purpetrators, and tried them, and convicted them. They were punished for their disqusting acts.

But after you have visted the country and seen first hand, the actual situation. You have seen both the fear and hope that exists, <snip>.

Yep you are a Marine, and I can tell you took the Spelling MCI as well. Some good points in your rants, but people react badly to big sticks and condescending attitude. But I forgive you, after all God loves Marines.

Oh, so you found those WMDs, then? Good for you.

By the way: I'm a Brazilian and my English is better than yours.

You're turning into Hugo Chavez. Zip it.

You're turning into Hugo Chavez. Zip it.

No, I'm not. I'm pointing out that the damn war was a crime, which it was. I'm not talking about Bolivarianism or even economical models. And given the kind of idiocy that guy threw at me, my response was very moderate.

And no, I won't shut up. Ever.

lol, Well, more like your version of Militarism...Alot of people tend to think having a Military at all is a bad thing...
It's not just my version. New Wallonchia outlines it nicely:

And don't forget that being antimilitarist doesn't equate not having a military. Modern Japan is a fine example. Their military is extremely competent and well equipped but it's designed and structured to be a defensive force and is largely incapable of conducting foreign adventures.

The main thing here is that if you're going to have a military it should be proportionate to the threat. The US doesn't need a standing force of a million troops to keep the barbarian hordes at bay. In my little dream world I'd like to see the active ground forces, Marines and Army, reduced to maybe 20,000-50,000 troops and have the rest (however many is really necessary, maybe 100,000) be National Guard. It'd be small enough to allow us to conduct small operations, preferably with allies, but not large enough for us to go on any really daring adventures. Also, militias, like the National Guard, have long been seen as a way of defense without encouraging excessive militarism. Having been in the Army and the Guard I can tell you to a certainty that the Guard has a much more "human" aspect to it than the Army does.

And don't forget that being antimilitarist doesn't equate not having a military. Modern Japan is a fine example. Their military is extremely competent and well equipped but it's designed and structured to be a defensive force and is largely incapable of conducting foreign adventures.

The main thing here is that if you're going to have a military it should be proportionate to the threat. The US doesn't need a standing force of a million troops to keep the barbarian hordes at bay. In my little dream world I'd like to see the active ground forces, Marines and Army, reduced to maybe 20,000-50,000 troops and have the rest (however many is really necessary, maybe 100,000) be National Guard. It'd be small enough to allow us to conduct small operations, preferably with allies, but not large enough for us to go on any really daring adventures. Also, militias, like the National Guard, have long been seen as a way of defense without encouraging excessive militarism. Having been in the Army and the Guard I can tell you to a certainty that the Guard has a much more "human" aspect to it than the Army does.

I agree with this idea. It works for the Elves in Warhammer Fantasy;)

No, I'm not. I'm pointing out that the damn war was a crime, which it was. I'm not talking about Bolivarianism or even economical models. And given the kind of idiocy that guy threw at me, my response was very moderate.

No, you're very much like Hugo Chavez in that you won't stop blustering about a subject and you're fixated on demonizing everyone who disagrees with you no matter how long the subject is over with.

And no, I won't shut up. Ever.

And you wonder why you got banned the first time around.

Yep you are a Marine, and I can tell you took the Spelling MCI as well. Some good points in your rants, but people react badly to big sticks and condescending attitude. But I forgive you, after all God loves Marines.

True True. I get a little agitated when I see ignorant bull, but again he didnt even read my post, he just sniped it, and flamed, and in doing so even proved that he had no real knowledge of the Iraq war. WMD were never found, but at the time, leading up to the Invasion I was hard pressed to find someone who didnt believe they had WMDs. Its real easy to lay blame in retrospect.

No, you're very much like Hugo Chavez in that you won't stop blustering about a subject and you're fixated on demonizing everyone who disagrees with you no matter how long the subject is over with.

It's not over until the US finally leaves Iraq and Bush is tried for war crimes.

It's not just my version. New Wallonchia outlines it nicely:

Well that was what I was saying...Ive been in discussions with people that say even what he outlined as being too "Militaristic"...

It's not over until the US finally leaves Iraq and

Wait, I thought you didnt want us to leave?

True True. I get a little agitated when I see ignorant bull, but again he didnt even read my post, he just sniped it, and flamed, and in doing so even proved that he had no real knowledge of the Iraq war. WMD were never found, but at the time, leading up to the Invasion I was hard pressed to find someone who didnt believe they had WMDs. Its real easy to lay blame in retrospect.

Because YOUR post was such a dear, wasn't it?

THE WORLD KNEW there were no WMD. The war was not "neccessary", whatever the hell that means. And it wasn't "hindsight". WE KNEW.

Well that was what I was saying...Ive been in discussions with people that say even what he outlined as being too "Militaristic"...
Oh, yeah, I see what you mean.

True True. I get a little agitated when I see ignorant bull, but again he didnt even read my post, he just sniped it, and flamed, and in doing so even proved that he had no real knowledge of the Iraq war. WMD were never found, but at the time, leading up to the Invasion I was hard pressed to find someone who didnt believe they had WMDs. Its real easy to lay blame in retrospect.

I was pretty sure they didn't have WMD's but I was in Pendleton, which is pretty far from the ear of George II. A lot of us in the intel field were taken aback by the claim. At the time I figured as president he must have had better intel than I was getting. I still think Iraq was the wrong move, I am not a fan of wasted effort. But I wish the nation the best in its future.

Because YOUR post was such a dear, wasn't it?

THE WORLD KNEW there were no WMD. The war was not "neccessary", whatever the hell that means. And it wasn't "hindsight". WE KNEW.
Seriously, H, we were asked by our thread host to stay on topic. Can you please refrain just this once from fighting the war all over again on the internet? Do you have anything to say about the Iraqi election?

Because YOUR post was such a dear, wasn't it?

THE WORLD KNEW there were no WMD. The war was not "neccessary", whatever the hell that means. And it wasn't "hindsight". WE KNEW.

No the world didn't. They didn't know that there were WMD's but there was enough of a possibility to sanction the US attacking. I believe we went in under a UN mandate. Therefore it would appear that you are incorrect.

>I stand corrected. We did not go in under UN mandate nor it appears as part of NATO.

On Topic:
I don't think that democracy in Iraq has taken root. But I do think that we should leave. We can't give another nation something it may not want.

I believe we went in under a UN mandate.

Reality does not care what you believe.

Because YOUR post was such a dear, wasn't it?

THE WORLD KNEW there were no WMD. The war was not "neccessary", whatever the hell that means. And it wasn't "hindsight". WE KNEW.

I'm sorry are you still talking to me?

Because YOUR post was such a dear, wasn't it?

THE WORLD KNEW there were no WMD. The war was not "neccessary", whatever the hell that means. And it wasn't "hindsight". WE KNEW.

Well, since Cheney stated it was premeditated and he wouldve went regardless, Does it even matter? lol

Seriously, H, we were asked by our thread host to stay on topic. Can you please refrain just this once from fighting the war all over again on the internet? Do you have anything to say about the Iraqi election?

Yes: Hopefully they'll elect someone who hastens the exit of the US troops.

True True. I get a little agitated when I see ignorant bull, but again he didnt even read my post, he just sniped it, and flamed, and in doing so even proved that he had no real knowledge of the Iraq war. WMD were never found, but at the time, leading up to the Invasion I was hard pressed to find someone who didnt believe they had WMDs. Its real easy to lay blame in retrospect.
Actually, there were plenty of us saying there were no WMDs, but the neocons in the civilian leadership, the Congress and the media were busy shouting us down, denouncing us as traitors, and signing massive no-bid contracts for Blackwater and Halliburton et al. while waving prop anthrax vials at the UN and muttering about mushroom clouds. In all their noise, a lot of our arguments were missed.

But now it is starting to look like we might actually be able to extricate ourselves out of this hellish mess rather sooner than I had realistically hoped. I've been wanting troop withdrawals to start immediately for a good while now, but I didn't really think we'd see the end of military involvement for many years yet. Now, I'm not so sure.

I have issues with Switzerland. Their notion of "neutral" isn't always the same as mine.

everyone has a price

Well, I don't know about "fun," but I did predict it would happen in an essay I wrote for a high school regents exam 8 years before it happened. That was ego-gratifying, I must admit.

well you can't say your not the first person to ever use star wars to solve problems :p

The main thing here is that if you're going to have a military it should be proportionate to the threat. The US doesn't need a standing force of a million troops to keep the barbarian hordes at bay.

yeah but you have to defend Europe while our troops are waiting for the correct equipment to arrive off ebay >_>

Having been in the Army and the Guard I can tell you to a certainty that the Guard has a much more "human" aspect to it than the Army does.

I'd say that has more to do with the kind of people who make reserves though which will go a bit tits up if the regulars start getting selective

as a Marine of in the United States Marine Corps, I will gladly fight to the death to protect your rights, whether you live in my country or not.

1) why are so many USMC on the internet? bloody nerds the lot of you!
2) pfft who needs rights when you have this fine lady to represent:

http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r286/Margaret_Windsor/Margaret%20and%20Family/Queen%20Elizabeth/QEII.jpg

I'm sorry are you still talking to me?

Well, since you somehow seem to need that bit of clarification, yes.

But I'll rectify that, as we're clearly at different levels here. Interpret my words as you see fit.

Well, since Cheney stated it was premeditated and he wouldve went regardless, Does it even matter? lol

And yet like the Israeli military, H is eager to engage in Guilt By Association- in his case when it comes to demonizing the United States military. Yeah, Anger Management issues much?

And yet like the Israeli military, H is eager to engage in Guilt By Association- in his case when it comes to demonizing the United States military. Yeah, Anger Management issues much?

*Sigh*

Why do people think I only despise the US military? I don't. I pointed out that those that did the killing should do the raising. And I don't care much for any Military, the Brazilian one included.

I was pretty sure they didn't have WMD's but I was in Pendleton, which is pretty far from the ear of George II. A lot of us in the intel field were taken aback by the claim. At the time I figured as president he must have had better intel than I was getting. I still think Iraq was the wrong move, I am not a fan of wasted effort. But I wish the nation the best in its future.

That may be true, but I was alot younger then, and I lived in a major city at the time. After 9/11 to me all Bush had to say was bomb and I was ready to go. While we never found WMD's they were also in violations in other aspects of the Gulf War resolutions about no fly zones and other threatening actions. George W. Bush wen in with a coalition of countries not just on his own. He filed an executive order to send troops in which is his right to do so according to the US Constitution. It also requires him to remove the troops after 100 some odd days if congress doesnt vote to declare war. However Congress did declare war. You can't just hang Bush, you have to hang the whole Congress, and then you have to hang the people who put congress in office, which would be..basically the whole country.

But I'll rectify that, as we're clearly at different levels here. Interpret my words as you see fit.


At the risk of creating a flame war I'll make my final comment to you, see my earlier post, about you spouting ignorant bull to put yourself above the rest of the world. And also your disapproval of any military shows how little you know about how the world works.

At the risk of creating a flame war I'll make my final comment to you, see my earlier post, about you spouting ignorant bull to put yourself above the rest of the world. And also your disapproval of any military shows how little you know about how the world works.

:rolleyes:

So you found those WMDs. Good.

Yay! Now Iraq can have meaningless elections designed to placate the populace, too!

Yay! Now Iraq can have meaningless elections designed to placate the populace, too!

Shhhh!!! If you tell them they might figure it out....Gawd, Be a team player man! lol

Yay! Now Iraq can have meaningless elections designed to placate the populace, too!

/Win.

Yay! Now Iraq can have meaningless elections designed to placate the populace, too!

we should rig the election and have Bush win just to see what happens

we should rig the election and have Bush win just to see what happens

A national Shoe Sale Increase?

A national Shoe Sale Increase?

This guy could make money on classes:

http://www.destinationhollywood.com/movies/austinpowers/images/austin_08.jpg

We at The Conservative Coalition believe that in the past year great things have been accomplished overseas. Just lately we handed 'The Green Zone' back to Iraq, which was a truly symbolic of us beginning to act upon what we should have done 4 or 5 years ago. We must remain in Iraq until we can properly train their soldiers to protect the nation. Not only this, but the soldiers and patrol who protect the borders of Iraq must be properly trained. The surge has been a great success in helping us more opportunity and safety to be set on the right track that we should of been 5 years ago. I believe we should not take all the troops form Iraq, but should leave a strong military base there as it is prime positioning for the war on terror. Syria, Iran, Turkey, Jordan and Saudi Arabia are the bordering countries. I don't think we really had any intentions of listening to the Iraqi Prime Minister's wish for a time for withdrawal because we understand the importance of Iraq and its position in the Middle East. I believe new management in Iraq through the surge accounted for the gains we have made.

Conservative-Values
"The Conservative Coalition"

We at The Conservative Coalition believe that in the past year great things have been accomplished overseas. Just lately we handed 'The Green Zone' back to Iraq, which was a truly symbolic of us beginning to act upon what we should have done 4 or 5 years ago. We must remain in Iraq until we can properly train their soldiers to protect the nation. Not only this, but the soldiers and patrol who protect the borders of Iraq must be properly trained. The surge has been a great success in helping us more opportunity and safety to be set on the right track that we should of been 5 years ago. I believe we should not take all the troops form Iraq, but should leave a strong military base there as it is prime positioning for the war on terror. Syria, Iran, Turkey, Jordan and Saudi Arabia are the bordering countries. I don't think we really had any intentions of listening to the Iraqi Prime Minister's wish for a time for withdrawal because we understand the importance of Iraq and its position in the Middle East. I believe new management in Iraq through the surge accounted for the gains we have made.

Conservative-Values
"The Conservative Coalition"

This isn't the RP forum.

Here is some food for thought.
Lets say this election and the next election goes well.
that Iraq gradually becomes more peaceful.
Does that mean the surge worked ?
does that at least minimal redeem bush?

Here is some food for thought.
Lets say this election and the next election goes well.
that Iraq gradually becomes more peaceful.
Does that mean the surge worked ?
I doubt we could seperate the cause and correlation.

Though many on this forum, and elsewhere, would try.

Here is some food for thought.
Lets say this election and the next election goes well.
that Iraq gradually becomes more peaceful.
Does that mean the surge worked ?
does that at least minimal redeem bush?
No, it does not redeem Bush, in my opinion. It does not render the war either legal or necessary in the first place.

The ones who could be redeemed are the Iraqis, who until now seemed utterly incapable of forming a government. If the next few elections go well, and governing actually happens between elections, then they will have succeeded in taking back their country from the invaders who broke it.

I don't think there can be much doubt that the surge had at least a moderately positive effect, but I do not give Bush credit for that. Rather, I give that credit to the generals who were put in charge of it, and to Bob Gates who replaced Rumsfeld. And I do not give Bush credit for putting those individuals in charge because, as I see it, he was politically forced into giving them the jobs.

Snip.

^That.

The main thing here is that if you're going to have a military it should be proportionate to the threat. The US doesn't need a standing force of a million troops to keep the barbarian hordes at bay. In my little dream world I'd like to see the active ground forces, Marines and Army, reduced to maybe 20,000-50,000 troops and have the rest (however many is really necessary, maybe 100,000) be National Guard. It'd be small enough to allow us to conduct small operations, preferably with allies, but not large enough for us to go on any really daring adventures. Also, militias, like the National Guard, have long been seen as a way of defense without encouraging excessive militarism. Having been in the Army and the Guard I can tell you to a certainty that the Guard has a much more "human" aspect to it than the Army does.

I'm sorry, but I have to (respectfully) disagree with you here. Not on the "we shouldn't invade people for kicks" part, but the reason we stopped having such a small military is because of the cost in lives. Every time we had such a small military, we were forced to institute huge drafts to make up the manpower needs whenever we went to war, and each time we sent troops overseas who were not as well trained, motivated, or equipped as they should have been, causing too many unnecessary deaths.
So while I absolutely sympathize with the sentiment, I just don't think it's a good idea in the world right now.
Besides, if nothing else that's a hell of a lot of jobs you're losing.

Yes: Hopefully they'll elect someone who hastens the exit of the US troops.Weren't you on about keeping the US soldiers there until they figured out how to resurrect people earlier in this thread?Besides, if nothing else that's a hell of a lot of jobs you're losing.That is a very good point.I can never keep track of their names. I'm a bad person. :(Me, too, because I can't, either. :(

There are almost no successful instances of democracy that have not been brought about by the people themselves. America has "brought democracy" to a number of countries, it has never and never will succeed.


If American troops leave I foresee a number of things. 1. There will be a surge in Islamic fundamentalism 2. Whatever government was elected by the people who voted will be deposed in a coup and the fundamentalists will take over. 3. Women, who have the right to vote as long as Americans remain, will lose that right and any other rights they have. 4. There will be a separation between various versions of Islam and discrimination, frequently violent, as a result. 4. There will be increased violence against Jews, Christians and other non-Muslims.

Moderate Muslims are just too passive to leave at the mercy of the militants. Basically, when we leave, we'll leave a vacuum because we're propping up the current "government." And we all know what happens to vacuums - something, usually unpleasant, comes to fill it.

This is not to say we shouldn't leave. This is just my prediction of the results of our having been there and then leaving. This will happen because the whole damned thing has been mishandled from the git-go. Obama has a huge, disgusting, undigestable mess to clean up. I think it's far more complicated than anyone knows right now. Thanks, Dubyah.

We at The Conservative Coalition believe that in the past year great things have been accomplished overseas. Just lately we handed 'The Green Zone' back to Iraq, which was a truly symbolic of us beginning to act upon what we should have done 4 or 5 years ago. We must remain in Iraq until we can properly train their soldiers to protect the nation. Not only this, but the soldiers and patrol who protect the borders of Iraq must be properly trained. The surge has been a great success in helping us more opportunity and safety to be set on the right track that we should of been 5 years ago. I believe we should not take all the troops form Iraq, but should leave a strong military base there as it is prime positioning for the war on terror. Syria, Iran, Turkey, Jordan and Saudi Arabia are the bordering countries. I don't think we really had any intentions of listening to the Iraqi Prime Minister's wish for a time for withdrawal because we understand the importance of Iraq and its position in the Middle East. I believe new management in Iraq through the surge accounted for the gains we have made.

Conservative-Values
"The Conservative Coalition"

I'm sorry, but "leaving military bases" everywhere is what's gotten us loathed around the globe. Most specifically, a base in Saudi Arabia left by Bush 41 after the First Gulf War was what became the last straw for a Saudi black-sheep millionaire named Osama bin Laden.

I urge you to read a book by Chalmers Johnson called Blowback.

From Johnson's research:

According to the Defense Department's annual "Base Structure Report" for fiscal year 2003, which itemizes foreign and domestic U.S. military real estate, the Pentagon currently owns or rents 702 overseas bases in about 130 countries and HAS another 6,000 bases in the United States and its territories.

And yet nobody wants to believe that the US has an empire via military bases. That kind of conquest is what angers some into acting as bin Laden did. I don't deny the relative success in Iraq, but I call it relative because what there is to compare it to is so bad.

Think of how muchmoney the US taxpayers would be able to spend on Health, Education, Transport etc if the money spent by the US government on policing the world was spent on domestic needs!

Think of how muchmoney the US taxpayers would be able to spend on Health, Education, Transport etc if the money spent by the US government on policing the world was spent on domestic needs!...Where did that come from? o_0;

I'm sorry, but "leaving military bases" everywhere is what's gotten us loathed around the globe. Most specifically, a base in Saudi Arabia left by Bush 41 after the First Gulf War was what became the last straw for a Saudi black-sheep millionaire named Osama bin Laden.

I urge you to read a book by Chalmers Johnson called Blowback.

From Johnson's research:

your leaving out that the base was there at the invitation/funding of the Saudi government.


And yet nobody wants to believe that the US has an empire via military bases. That kind of conquest is what angers some into acting as bin Laden did. I don't deny the relative success in Iraq, but I call it relative because what there is to compare it to is so bad.

the vast majority of these bases are at the request or agreement of the local government. the 3 exceptions that come to mind right now are Afghanistan, Iraq and Cuba. an evil empire would normally mean we established these bases by force.

the vast majority of these bases are at the request or agreement of the local government. the 3 exceptions that come to mind right now are Afghanistan, Iraq and Cuba. an evil empire would normally mean we established these bases by force.

Germany, Japan. Korea's a big if.

Germany, Japan. Korea's a big if.

college students occasionally protesting does not equal a lack of support by the government.

Korea I was stationed there. Every time a president even mentions possible troop reductions there both parties in Korea start talking about the need for US troops to maintain stability. In Korea the opposition party likes to get votes of college students by talking about reducing troops in Korea, but once in office no one ever mentions it again.

Japan is similar with the exception of Okinawa. but that's more local politics because Tokyo screwed Okinawa over by making 1/3 their island a US base(Id be pissed to if I lived on an Island and 1/3 of it was turned into a base).
again Every time the US talks about reducing troops the Japanese suddenly remember that China is nearby and doesn't like them.

As for Germany your likely onto something there. The issue is more along the lines of how to go about it reducing the number of bases there. we want the German government to buy the buildings or let us demolish them and sell the scrap, the German Government wants the buildings intact but with out paying for them.
the exception being the base with the hospital the Germans don't mind having a hospital base with a medical team that can be called to assist in the event of a natural disaster etc... And the Americans like to have a base midway between the mid east and the US.

Weren't you on about keeping the US soldiers there until they figured out how to resurrect people earlier in this thread?

True, but I recanted that: Just get them arrested somewhere else. I hear there's a base on Cuba that will have some space available.

Japan is similar with the exception of Okinawa. but that's more local politics because Tokyo screwed Okinawa over by making 1/3 their island a US base(Id be pissed to if I lived on an Island and 1/3 of it was turned into a base).

I'd think the rampant rape is also a slight annoyance.

True, but I recanted that: Just get them arrested somewhere else. I hear there's a base on Cuba that will have some space available.

You really think its practical, or ethical, to jail every single US soldier?:rolleyes:

Hell, we didn't even jail every single Nazi infantryman.

On the topic of Iraq, I'm glad the place seems to be turning around, but I hope that any success their won't permit Bush to whitewash his legacy. Let us not forget that it probably took so long and cost so much in the first place because of his Administration's incompetance.

Hopefully, though, the place won't fall apart now when Obama gets out and starts refocussing America's remaining strength on other critical areas.

I'm sorry, but I have to (respectfully) disagree with you here. Not on the "we shouldn't invade people for kicks" part, but the reason we stopped having such a small military is because of the cost in lives. Every time we had such a small military, we were forced to institute huge drafts to make up the manpower needs whenever we went to war, and each time we sent troops overseas who were not as well trained, motivated, or equipped as they should have been, causing too many unnecessary deaths.
So while I absolutely sympathize with the sentiment, I just don't think it's a good idea in the world right now.
Besides, if nothing else that's a hell of a lot of jobs you're losing.

You're absolutely correct that it's impractical right now. As I said, that's my little dream world.

You really think its practical, or ethical, to jail every single US soldier?:rolleyes:

Hell, we didn't even jail every single Nazi infantryman.

On the topic of Iraq, I'm glad the place seems to be turning around, but I hope that any success their won't permit Bush to whitewash his legacy. Let us not forget that it probably took so long and cost so much in the first place because of his Administration's incompetance.

Hopefully, though, the place won't fall apart now when Obama gets out and starts refocussing America's remaining strength on other critical areas.

1- Nope, the ones that went into combat operations and killed people. That's ethical. You kill a person, you get jailed. You folks even say "don't do the crime if you can't do the time"...

2- You should have. ;)

3- Let's also not forget it shouldn't have happened.

4- If it falls apart, it's still Bush's fault.

college students occasionally protesting does not equal a lack of support by the government.


The bases were well established, with the exception of Korea, before the current government came into being. The governments of Japan and Germany never had any choice in allowing the bases to be built, seeing how they were built while both countries were under occupation.

Those particular bases may not necessarily be a sign of "evil empire", but it puts paid to your statement that they are there by government request.

You're absolutely correct that it's impractical right now. As I said, that's my little dream world.

Maybe, maybe not. A lot of money is being pumped into drone combat units. Mostly airpower for now, and the increasing capabilities of that means that unless you want to occupy a land, a lot of destruction related objectives can be achieved without a heavy army presence.

1- Nope, the ones that went into combat operations and killed people. That's ethical. You kill a person, you get jailed. You folks even say "don't do the crime if you can't do the time"...

Except, of course, if that person is trying to kill you. If you're cruising around town and a group of guys pops off an IED at a truck and shoots up the troops running to assist I hardly see a problem with shooting the people shooting at you. Hell, most of those people are from Saudi Arabia and Syria anyway so they have just as much right to be there as we do.

Also, I can think of a couple of times in my first deployment (2003-2004) that guys in my regiment killed people who had set up checkpoints on the freeway and were robbing and sometimes killing civilians. Is it wrong to kill people who are doing that?

Except, of course, if that person is trying to kill you. If you're cruising around town and a group of guys pops off an IED at a truck and shoots up the troops running to assist I hardly see a problem with shooting the people shooting at you. Hell, most of those people are from Saudi Arabia and Syria anyway so they have just as much right to be there as we do.

Also, I can think of a couple of times in my first deployment (2003-2004) that guys in my regiment killed people who had set up checkpoints on the freeway and were robbing and sometimes killing civilians. Is it wrong to kill people who are doing that?

It might well be if you created the chaos that got those morons in in the first place. And if someone is invading your country, surely you have the right to try and kill them?

It might well be if you created the chaos that got those morons in in the first place. And if someone is invading your country, surely you have the right to try and kill them?

Heikoku, I think a lot of people who have committed terrible crimes in that country will likely never see justice. I also think that a lot of the people who are there haven't committed any crimes but you're painting them with the same brush.

How are you any different than the likes of Deep Kimchi who believes that all Muslims are murderous terrorists on the basis of their religion and cheered on the killings?

You become the very thing you despise.

Heikoku, I think a lot of people who have committed terrible crimes in that country will likely never see justice. I also think that a lot of the people who are there haven't committed any crimes but you're painting them with the same brush.

How are you any different than the likes of Deep Kimchi who believes that all Muslims are murderous terrorists on the basis of their religion and cheered on the killings?

You become the very thing you despise.

For starters, I don't have a special lack of respect for the US military - the invasion itself was a crime. I'm not painting all Americans or all American soldiers with the same brush, but when you get into a country and kill people in it, you are a criminal in my book. Entering a country and killing someone in it is a crime. If you're one of the soldiers that DIDN'T, then I have no beef with you.

For starters, I don't have a special lack of respect for the US military - the invasion itself was a crime. I'm not painting all Americans or all American soldiers with the same brush, but when you get into a country and kill people in it, you are a criminal in my book. Entering a country and killing someone in it is a crime. If you're one of the soldiers that DIDN'T, then I have no beef with you.

And what if the killing was done in self defense? What if they were foreign elements looking to enrich themselves in the lack of order? What if they were simply criminal elements looking for rich loot? What if it's revenge for something somebody else did? Where does it stop Heikoku? Where does it stop?

You can't bring back the dead. No one can. And no one will be able to bring real justice to everyone either, short of an omnipotent, omniscient god. If you want to fight for the dead, then you'll be stuck in an endless cycle of violence and even more injustice, trapped like the Israelis and Palestinians.

If you really wanted a betterment of things and an end to the pointlessness, fight for the living, try to ensure that there is a future. Not pointless miring in the past.

(1)And what if the killing was done in self defense? (2) What if they were foreign elements looking to enrich themselves in the lack of order? What if they were simply criminal elements looking for rich loot? (3) What if it's revenge for something somebody else did? Where does it stop Heikoku? Where does it stop?

(1) There'd be no need for self-defense if not for the invasion, would there?

(2) A lack of order created by the invasion.

(3) Again, conditions created by the invasion.

As for where it stops, ideally, someone would find a way to sell Bush's soul for the lives of those he killed, sentencing Bush's soul to an eternity of pain. But that's wishful thinking.

Heikoku, it's time to stop.

NAS and NW are right. You are wrong. You are wrong in your logic and your reasoning. You are wrong on the facts in your understanding of the situation in the combat zone. You are not even just self-righteously proclaiming your own correctness on the Iraq issue anymore. You are being childish and offensive. I am asking you to stop it now.

You have indeed become what you despise. Your ridiculous hyperbole about raising the dead is, first of all offensive to all those who have lost people in this war because it makes light of that loss for cheap dramatic effect, and beyond that destroys any hope for reasonable debate or conversation because you set a ludicrous standard for "justice." You are refusing to apply reasonable criteria for what would be blameworthy, and then you spread your amorphous moral blame indiscriminately, plastering accusations all over people who did their best to avoid wrongdoing in a lose-lose situation that they were trapped in by other people's lies. You only add insult to injury with this nonsense.

And indeed, and either NW or NAS said, there is at this point no difference between you and a DK as you blindly slap the most pejorative labels on a whole group of people without any regard for their real situation or their real views. I know you proudly claim the right to behave like your enemies, but if you are really going to keep doing it, you can expect to be treated the way your enemies get treated, too, because you will deserve it as much as they.

I am not interested in hearing/reading more of your repetitive barking on this theme. I am asking you to stop and think, as I know you can do, and amend your speech to be more reasonable. If you don't want to, fine, but I will be sorry to have to wash my hands of you.

I know you proudly claim the right to behave like your enemies, but if you are really going to keep doing it, you can expect to be treated the way your enemies get treated, too, because you will deserve it as much as they.

...

Damnit, you're right.

(But if a way was found to obliterate Bush's soul for the return of the Iraqi dead, I STILL favor applying it. For now, keep my apologies and the brief allusion to fantasy scenarios. Sorry, everyone.)

The bases were well established, with the exception of Korea, before the current government came into being. The governments of Japan and Germany never had any choice in allowing the bases to be built, seeing how they were built while both countries were under occupation.

Those particular bases may not necessarily be a sign of "evil empire", but it puts paid to your statement that they are there by government request.

most of the bases in Japan date to the mid 50's after the occupation ended in 1952. a few exceptions like Kaedena exist but that's a rarity. And all bases received the blessing of the Japanese government in 1959. not so much an expert on Germany bases but i guess bases shift from being in the central regions during the occupation to being along the east west German borders mid 1950's.


my point still stand that the current governments give their blessings to the current bases. (with possibly Germany and US trying to work out how to sell the bases buildings back)

Anyways so Next Debate point.

If democracy(or at least stability) does in fact take hold, and everything goes along Mr. bush's time line for withdrawal.
Does President Obama or President Bush get the credit ?

Anyways so Next Debate point.

If democracy(or at least stability) does in fact take hold, and everything goes along Mr. bush's time line for withdrawal.
Does President Obama or President Bush get the credit ?

Bush will never get credit..........for at least the forseeable future. It will be a debate topic in advanced placement US history classes of the future, but for the shorterm future, Obama will naturally recieve credit, as it would happen during his Presidency....*most* people cannot/will not look back at it in greater analysis.

Does President Obama or President Bush get the credit ?

Bush broke it, Obama's fixing it. Either Obama WILL get the credit or he SHOULD.

Anyways so Next Debate point.

If democracy(or at least stability) does in fact take hold, and everything goes along Mr. bush's time line for withdrawal.
Does President Obama or President Bush get the credit ?
Neither. The field commanders get the credit (or blame, depending), and the Iraqis get credit as well. Bush screwed this pooch from day one, and Obama has not been in charge of it long enough (so far) to give him credit for anything.

Bush will never get credit..........for at least the forseeable future. It will be a debate topic in advanced placement US history classes of the future, but for the shorterm future, Obama will naturally recieve credit, as it would happen during his Presidency....*most* people cannot/will not look back at it in greater analysis.

I am thinking of it in terms of history class room setting. the media is a terrible source of history.

I am thinking of it in terms of history class room setting. the media is a terrible source of history.

American books I don't know, but I think and hope the rest of the world will put Bush at the same level as Mussolini.

If democracy(or at least stability) does in fact take hold, and everything goes along Mr. bush's time line for withdrawal.
Uh... Bush's timeline was that we stay there permanently.

Uh... Bush's timeline was that we stay there permanently.

you know bush signed an agreement to leave by December 31st 2011

you know bush signed an agreement to leave by December 31st 2011

...dragged kicking and screaming.

1- Nope, the ones that went into combat operations and killed people. That's ethical. You kill a person, you get jailed. You folks even say "don't do the crime if you can't do the time"...

Firing back in a firefight is not a crime. Its self-defense. Nor is killing the enemy in wartime. Now, you could try to argue that it was an illegal war, but in that case you're back to punishing everyone who participated in it. And you think prison overcrowding now is bad?

2- You should have. ;)

What possible purpose would that have served? Jailing every Nazi soldier would be impossible to do without shutting down the country I would imagine. It would inhibit reconstruction, and might make it seem that we were the enemies of the Germany people, not just the Nazis.

Also, many Nazis were no doubt coerced and/or brainwashed, and many were horrified when they found out just how far their government had gone.

Finally, how would you prove that each individual soldier had personally committed a crime?

3- Let's also not forget it shouldn't have happened.

Ethically, I respect the action of getting rid of Saddam. But it should not have happened in the way that it did, or for the false reasons given.

4- If it falls apart, it's still Bush's fault.

Their are hypothetical situations where Iraq falling apart would be at least partly Obama's fault. He's still accountable for his choices, though I'll grant these may be limited somewhat by the screw-up Bush left him. Indeed, one of my concerns is that people will expect more from Obama than he can possibly provide in the environment Bush has passed on to him.

Their are hypothetical situations where Iraq falling apart would be at least partly Obama's fault. He's still accountable for his choices, though I'll grant these may be limited somewhat by the screw-up Bush left him. Indeed, one of my concerns is that people will expect more from Obama than he can possibly provide in the environment Bush has passed on to him.
Agreed Though he seems to be doing well so far.

you know bush signed an agreement to leave by December 31st 2011
Only after the Iraqis indicated they preferred Obama's timeline to Bush's. Bush's preference was: we never leave.

Only after the Iraqis indicated they preferred Obama's timeline to Bush's. Bush's preference was: we never leave.

i read it more of no time line until things are stable.

i read it more of no time line until things are stable.
I read it more as no timeline until Halliburton et al. are done making money off it.

I read it more as no timeline until Halliburton et al. are done making money off it.

so we agree basically forever then?

Only after the Iraqis indicated they preferred Obama's timeline to Bush's.

Even THEN those morons went on to blame the declarations by the Iraqi PM on Spiegel Magazine on the translators.

so we agree basically forever then?
Yeah, pretty much.

Yeah, pretty much.

or at least until the oil run it. then we will care about Iraq as much as we cared about africa.

or at least until the oil run it. then we will care about Iraq as much as we cared about africa.

We cared about Africa?

or at least until the oil run it. then we will care about Iraq as much as we cared about africa.
Well, they could have kept cranking out dollars if they could use Iraq to generate more instability and more war in the region, but yeah, once they hit the bottom of those oil deposits, Iraq's days on US maps would be numbered. Stilll, the Bush plan was a gravy train on a nice long track. Too bad for them, huh?

We cared about Africa?

about as much as we care about a mideast country that doesn't have oil.

about as much as we care about a mideast country that doesn't have oil.

They HAVE THOSE!!? :eek:

They HAVE THOSE!!? :eek:

well they did. then the jews took errrmm bought them.

dawoad did you drink obama's kool aid? join the cult of obama that is. he could stop doing all right. remember, he's less than a month into his presidency. dude, i have reservations yet. if he's still doing all right by 2010, then i wil feel better. i am, in term of obama views, very sensible for 19, because i'm no kool-aid swigger. iraqi warlords might have allowed peaceful elections to keep obama's withdrawl timeline in place, not sure though.