Could we be losing in Iraq because...Follow

People who think like you make God hate America.


edit: Not you, Sam, people like you make God sigh with contentment.

Edited, Feb 20th 2007 11:13am by Barkingturtle

No, I was speaking directly about civilian casualties.

Iraq is a much smaller scope than WWII. The technology is much different. The enemy is much different. The goals are much different. The situation is much different. The two are not comparable by any stretch of the imagination except that they both have guys with guns.

The connection is there, but not quite the way you're thinking I'm going with it. I don't think that what we're attempting to accomplish in Iraq is anywhere near as noble as WWII.

Honestly, there was nothing particularly noble about what we were attempting to accomplish in WWII.


Sorry if it came off that way to you, but it didn't. I think that the conflict that we're in, is against the very things this nation was founded on.[/b]

I imagine it's fairly hard to make that determination when you have absolutely no idea why this nation as founded. Unless you mean the terrorists are in favor of a high Tea tax or something.


I do think however, that once you start something, you finish it. If you end up losing face over it, so be it. I'm not the type to back down, and neither is our country, when faced with problems.


Are you the type to blithely accept jingoistic oversimplified crap and mistake it for some sort of virtue or personal philosophy?



During WWI and II, our country killed hundreds of thousands of civilians ( millions maybe?)


Millions.


vs. the couple hundred in Iraq. The thousands of civilians that have been killed have been killed by the terrorists/insurgents.

This is patently false. The number of civilians killed by US forces ludicrously dwarfs the numbers killed by insurgents. By an exponential amount. What sort of mushbrained fool doesn't even do the barest of research before he espouses some pointless argument.


People are complaining about civilian deaths now (hell, they're complaining about our troop deaths too), imagine that we were in the middle of WWII today, we'd lose, because the current guts of America are too weak, and can't stand some real blood or violence. Nor can they stand what it takes to win.


No, we'd 'win' easily, if you consider the actual result of World War 2 as a US 'Victory'. I'd think it would be fairly plain by now that the USSR 'won' World War 2 quite convincingly, while Truman drank Geritol and dropped nuclear weapons on people because he could.


Do I think that we should have gone into Iraq like we did? No. Do I think that we should take the kid gloves off and win this thing? Yes.


What the **** does that even mean? Kill everyone in Iraq and leave? Honestly, I realize making vague statements is easier but put some ******* effort into, will you?

Metastophicleas said



you utter tit!

Iran is Shia. The insurgency is Sunni.

Iran has nothing to gain from backing the Sunnis. Iran has everything to gain by sitting on its hands and watching the US prop up the predominantly Shia Govt. of Iraq.

You are as stupid as your president who has tried and failed to convince the world (apart from idjits like yourself that the iranians are supplying the Sunni insurgents.

the civilian deaths in Iraq have happened 'cos of your fave presidents dimwitted and illegal aggressive invasion of Iraq.

****.

Even if this had anything to do with anything at all, it still would make no sense.

Yeah those *****, led by Hitler, weren't all that bad <sarcasm> Of course we know how much you liberals love jews so that's probably why you feel the way you do.


On the grand scale of badness throughout history, no, not particularly. If they had merely decided to annex the Sudetenland and just slaughter German Jews and


That's just too funny to answer. Why don't you post some "Facts" from BBC to enligthen us.


I'm well aware you're incapable of answering most perfectly sound dead on balls accurate posts I make. It just amuses me to watch people try.



Yes we know you hate the USA and resent us for using nuclear weapons to end the war with those ****; which incidentally saved thousands of american troops lifes. YOU'RE SCUM.


It didn't save anyone's life. Japan would have surrendered regardless in short order. We just wanted to test nuclear weapons on actual people and infrastructure and for the world to see how big our shiny wet military **** was.



It means you fight a no holds bar war where our enemies understand the consequences for challenging the USA. But we know you hate the USA so any chance of success by the military is scorned by idiots like yourself.

There are no consequences. Every nation that has challenged the US in the last two centuries is doing great.


We don't want them to be like us you imbecile; we simply want them to stop supporting the type of people that conduct 911's.

By 'Them' you mean US Republicans, right? That would be nice if they'd stop training and funding Islamic terrorists.


Edited, Feb 20th 2007 6:04pm by Smasharoo

Joph said.



True. But i dont think I'm wrong in believing that the vast majority of insurgent attacks on civilians and US soldiers are perpetrated by the Sunni groups.
As they see it, they are fighting for their very existence. As the minority, they know that past grievances are going to be acted upon. They are the ones who are blowing markets and mosques up on a daily basis, and they are the ones who are planting the roadside bombs that are causing havoc amongst the troops. (US and Iraqi)


The mahdi army on the other hand are busy sitting back, collecting weapons, and getting some of the best military training the world has to offer (courtesy of Unca Sam TYVM!). I would imagine that quite a large section of the mahdi army has been trained and equipped by the Americans . After all there are plenty of opportunities to join the Iraqi security forces. And as I'm sure you know, they (the Security forces) are almost exclusively Shiite.

Of course Maliki gets a bit huffy when the US goes after them. They are gonna be the guys who he will need when the US pulls out.

So, it would seem to me that the US, under the leadership of GW. has ousted an impotent Sunni leader, and installed a Shia government, and armed and trained a huge Shia militia, with obvious connections to the Shia Iranians.

Good job.

If the 'mission was to foment sectarian hatreds in the ME. then Bravo! mission is indeed 'accomplished'. take a minute or two to check out the news from other ME countries. There is a lot of rhetoric, paranoid and otherwise, to show that the ME is currently awash with factional bickering. its not confined to Iraq. Egypt, Lebanon are also experiencing similar issues atm.

If GW's intended mission was to bring democracy to the ME. As stated then its failed dismally. If his intention was to stir up sectarian violence, thereby resulting in a regional war that would lead to his dearly held belief that the 'end times' are what his 'God' wants, then he's doing a damn fine job.

Varus. You should be proud.

If the Shiia insurgents are getting thier weapons from Iran,
where are the Sunni insugents getting theirs?

(and I mean full insurgency, not the guys in the National Police)

Wait a second, there's a difference?

Yeah, I think I remember reading something about that. My point, though, was that there isn't much difference between the Sunni Insurgency and the Sunnis in the National Police. (or for that matter, the Mahdi Army or other millitias and the Shi'ites in the NP)

I realize that I wasn't very clear however...

Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the UAE are Sunni too

I'll take your word on it. Point being that Syria & Iran have been the major "villains" in this drama with each representing one of the two major sects. But if you were to tell me that someone found weapons coming in from Saudi Arabia, it's not as if I'd be shocked. Oman, Qatar and the UAE seem like a pretty long drive

Jordan is predominately Sunni as well but they have that hottie queen so I'll give them a pass.