Wrong War Wrong time Wrong PlaceFollow

By offering them a peice of the oil and the reconstruction contracts.

A moron could have figured that one out. Apparently, not a sub-moron though..

If Kerry does that wouldnt that qualify them as members of the "bribed and coerced" coalition???

It *was* the wrong war at the wrong time. But now that we're there, thanks to George Warmongerer Bush, we need to settle the place down and get the job done.

The "Coalition" forces are holed up alone in the center of Baghdad, under almost constant attack. They make forays out into the surrounding countryside to attack rebel and insurgent camps, while sh[b][/b]it gets blown up in and around their headquarters. I'm sorry but that's not exactly promising. There need to be more forces there, but not another 100,000 Americans. That would just reinforce the notion of occupation. A truly international coalition of peacekeepers would be better. I would imagine that if, say, French and German troops were patrolling the streets they wouldn't be under constant attack. They didn't want to invade Iraq in the first place, so they would be more agreeable to the general populace. We would still go after the insurgents, but a more neutral, moderate force would make the Iraqis more friendy.
It's like a game of punch-for-punch, the way the Israelis and Palestinians have been slapping at each other for years. The more they fight back, the longer we need to stay there gunning them down. If they would realize that and settle down, then we could pull the troops out, finish rebuilding and leave them to their own free will. Not entirely, of course; an overseeing body would still need to remain, but that's better than keeping half of central Baghdad a US military encampment.

Which as[b][/b]shead are you referring to PP?

Varus, the problem is that, even though it *is* the wrong war, Bush got us stuck in there anyways. So since we're there we have to do something productive and positive. We can't just up and leave now; the resulting power vaccuum would be devastating to the rest of the area, if not the world - a problem that would not have existed if we hadn't invaded in the first place. Saddam may have been a tyrannical despot, but the country was not a haven of insurgents and terrorism until after we took him down in such a fashion. It's a matter of an enemy we knew and could contain to some degree (Saddam) as opposed to numerous faceless enemies that we still can't stop the flood of.


And the terrorists are doing what they believe is God's will of them. The last thing we need is to turn this into a holy war on both sides.

Considering that Iraqi police and army recruitment centers have been prime targets for bombing, I don't believe they'll have a suitable force to protect themselves any time soon...

Debo,

In case you havn't realized this is a holy war to the islamists.



So creating a vacuum that draws all the terrorists into one spot is a bad military strategy? lol

Varus

Need you ask?

It's starts with V and ends with an ***.

lol, yes

yeah, faluja where the whole town is run by "terrorists" and countless GIs die every month there, but your news-blacked-out dumbass electorate wouldn't have any idea about that apart from what your'e nationalist ten gallon hat wearing government tells you

Hell we shouldn't have even fought the Civil War. Fu[b][/b]ck them redneck bastards; most of them don't acknowledge the outcome anyways.

Hmm. Remind me about all the allied troops who died during the post-'45 occupations of Germany and Japan will you?

Do you wonder why the allies faced little or no resistance after the surrenders?

Because Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin and the other allied states had swallowed a little pride and done deals with each other before the end of the war. They left the dominated countries without any allies in the world.

A bit like Bush Sr did in '91. Remember?

Goodness gracious me, sir, I am almost inclined to become a tad angry and use impolite language towards you!