Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

IraqFollow

#1 Apr 30 2007 at 4:51 PM Rating: Default
So here I am watching cnn, and a story comes on about what would happen if The United States withdrew from Iraq. What it basically came down to, was if America withdrew from Iraq, Iran would move in and consolidate its power, and the west would basically become an alqueda training ground. So I'm sitting here thinking to myself that this is a bad thing how? I mean we withdraw, Iraq moves in, and sets up a great big alqueda training camp, then we send in stealth bombers under cover of moonlight, and drop those bombs the United States paraded around in front of the press a few days before the war began, on those training camps. The next day the United States Department of State can issue an official press release stating that we did indeed drop the bombs, and would continue to drop them on any terrorist gathering ground. We could also inform the world that Iraq was indeed fighting a civil war, and any outside influence on their war, would be met with a swift and lethal response.
If Iran or cyria or any other country in that region wants to interfere with Iraq on her journey of discovering herself after so many years, they can be dealt with militarily. We have planes that are virtually indectable, we have missles that can reach great distances, and we have military commanders with the will to use them. There is no further need for the United States military to be fighting a ground war. Tehran wants to interfere? carpet bomb it. Damascus? same story. Generals in the United States military have said we are indeed fighting a war we cant win or will not be able to win in a very long time. So the question becomes why try? The answer becomes quite plain when you realize 2 things. #1 Iraq has the largest oil field in the world, and many factions in the region, and in the United States want control of that oil field. #2 see #1 the President of the United states is a Texas oilman, and is setting up those oil fields in the certain knowledge that he will be able to expand his own oil empire into the middle east region. Lets face it, we arent fighting a war against terror in Iraq, we were fighting to gain control of those oil fields for our president and his friends. A better name for the start of the war in Iraq would have been Operation Iraqi Liberation (oil), then the stated Operation Iraqi Freedom.
#2 Apr 30 2007 at 4:56 PM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,636 posts

I need an antacid.

#3 Apr 30 2007 at 4:57 PM Rating: Good
evtropiis wrote:
...wants to interfere with Iraq on her journey of discovering herself after so many years...


This is kind of hawt. I couldn't read the rest of your post because you compose paragraphs like a blind three year-old with down syndrome, but this...is kind of hawt.

I think maybe I want to fUck Iraq.
#4 Apr 30 2007 at 4:57 PM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,659 posts
I'm all about saving several thousand (more) American soldiers, but not at the expense of the thousands upon thousands of civilian casualties that such a ridiculous plan would result in.

Go back to the Sandbox and play, twunt.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#5 Apr 30 2007 at 7:26 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Ah... The simplicity of the "bomb anyone who doesn't agree with us" position of geo-politics. Gotta love the classics... ;)


Didn't we do that during Clinton's terms? Just asking, cause that didn't work so well.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#6 Apr 30 2007 at 8:33 PM Rating: Default
Ok so maybe i wasnt clear on what i wanted to say, I had just watched the report on CNN and was quite frankly pissed off.
We pull out, or at least pull away, we use our eye in the sky (our satellites can patrol the borders far better than our soldiers can), we watch for any incoming movement. We let the people fight their civil war. If Iran sets up an alqueda training camp in Iraq, we blow the hell out of it, then we take credit for it, and tell the world that if anyone interferes in Iraqs civil war they will be held responsible.
We can use our satellites to track any incoming traffic from other nations, and we can take that traffic out before it becomes a threat. We drop relief packages on the cities like we do for any other war torn country, and we let the Iraqi people set up their own form of government.
The French had their revolution. The United States had its civil war, etc. The United States would of course use the CIA to back up the party it wished to see in power, but we would be using the Iraqi people to set this in place, we would give them a stake in their own future. Any government that is overtly set in place by the United States would topple when the United States pulled out, as it would be viewed as the puppet government that it truly would be.
The United States wants to police the region? That is fine, but we do not have to be on the ground in the hot spots to do it. We have technology that can practically tell us how many times a day a gnat takes a crap and what color it is. I say we use it, we save the lives of all our young men on the ground, and we dont worry about civil unrest- hell i dont think weve managed to save 1 life since we have been in Iraq, and i Know for certain we have managed to kill far more people then Saddam ever managed to do. So what is the point of us being on the ground when we can be far more effective in the sky.
#7 Apr 30 2007 at 8:35 PM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,636 posts
Quote:
So what is the point of us being on the ground when we can be far more effective in the sky.

The sky belongs to the unicorns now.


#8 Apr 30 2007 at 9:21 PM Rating: Good
Quote:
We have technology that can practically tell us how many times a day a gnat takes a crap and what color it is. I say we use it


Try as I might, I cannot think of a practical use for said technology.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#9 May 01 2007 at 12:19 AM Rating: Default
****
4,158 posts
evtropiis said

Quote:
We, we, we, we, we are............... a fu'ckin' simpleton!


The US is doomed I tell ya. DOOMED!

Be a bloody relief for the rest of us.......Yup.
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#10 May 01 2007 at 2:21 AM Rating: Decent
Reading this forum, I sometimes find myself agreeing with Smash that humanity is mostly composed of screaming brainless monkeys.

We're all doomed.

____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#11 May 01 2007 at 3:02 AM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
gbaji wrote:
Ah... The simplicity of the "bomb anyone who doesn't agree with us" position of geo-politics. Gotta love the classics... ;)

Didn't we do that during Clinton's terms? Just asking, cause that didn't work so well.

I seem to recall the president before Clinton and the one after both shelling Baghdad, yet look at where we still are.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#12 May 01 2007 at 4:27 AM Rating: Good
Ah, the old "Your president was more evil than my president" routine! Face it, they're pretty much all **** these days. Clinton was just as shifty, and shady, and moronic as Bush. That's politics for ya.
#13 May 01 2007 at 4:34 AM Rating: Decent
Omegavegeta wrote:
Quote:
We have technology that can practically tell us how many times a day a gnat takes a crap and what color it is. I say we use it


Try as I might, I cannot think of a practical use for said technology.


To tell brown people from white people, silly.

____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#14 May 01 2007 at 5:25 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Ah... The simplicity of the "bomb anyone who doesn't agree with us" position of geo-politics. Gotta love the classics... ;)

Didn't we do that during Clinton's terms?
Remember that next time you ***** and moan about Clinton's N. Korea policy Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#15 May 01 2007 at 7:58 AM Rating: Decent
***
2,501 posts
allenjj wrote:
Ah, the old "Your president was more evil than my president" routine! Face it, they're pretty much all sh*t these days. Clinton was just as shifty, and shady, and moronic as Bush. That's politics for ya.


Has there ever been a truer statement posted in =4?
#16 May 01 2007 at 8:00 AM Rating: Good
Metastophicleas wrote:
allenjj wrote:
Ah, the old "Your president was more evil than my president" routine! Face it, they're pretty much all sh*t these days. Clinton was just as shifty, and shady, and moronic as Bush. That's politics for ya.


Has there ever been a truer statement posted in =4?


You're an cUnt.

Behold the truthiness!
#17 May 01 2007 at 8:13 AM Rating: Decent
***
2,501 posts
Truth wrote:
And you're an old fart, who occasionally finds a way to rip his **** out of his sheep.
#18 May 01 2007 at 8:58 AM Rating: Good
Old fart? I'm not the lady-frail guy who gets so sore after playing soccer with children that he thinks he tore ligaments. I understand that my comparitively superior use of the English language makes you feel inferior and how you could therefore assume that I am your elder, but I'm twenty-seven, dude.

As for the sheep thing, I won't deny that, just as you didn't deny being an cUnt.

And I've demonstrated before that you're one of my least favorite posters here, I even enjoy gbaji or Varus more than you, hell Monxdot ranks higher than you on my list, because at least they're all good for a laugh from time to time, whereas every time I read something you've written I just kind of sigh and think, "How can anyone be this boring?" That said, I would be happy to insult you today, for pretty much the entire day, so please indulge me.

Edited, May 1st 2007 10:19am by Barkingturtle
#19 May 01 2007 at 9:37 AM Rating: Decent
***
2,501 posts
Aww...you don't like me...boo f'n hoo. I'm so injured by this, however can I make it up to you? Shall I buy you some lube for your sheep?


Oh, and I'm an aSshole, not a cnut.

Edited, May 1st 2007 1:38pm by Metastophicleas
#20 May 01 2007 at 11:57 AM Rating: Decent
what the op says has merit.

either we are at war or we are not at war. 600,000 to 1,000,000 german civilians died because of our bombing during WW2. that is what war is all about.

when you try to limit the scope of war, define it in such a way where the military has to fight by certain rules.....ANYONE can exploit those rules and we end up with what we had in vietnam, and now iraq.

dont you think the leader of some pissant third world dirt hole woule be less inclined to promote/support terrorism if the end result would be over a million of his country men butchered and his country completly destroyed? how much support do you think he would get from his people if they KNEW that would be the end result?

LET them gather all in one place. LET them define themselves. and when they do step over the line, lets GO TO WAR. we can win a war in the middle east. all we can do with this police action BS is feed americans to a continious meat grinder as the enemy constantly exploite the rules we set for a limited enguagement. this we can NEVER win. why? becuase WE are the ONLY ones bound by the rules.

LETS GO TO WAR, or lets get the hell out. no inbetween. inbetween is for suckers and loosers. the inbetween is for diplomacy. not for soldiers.

civilian casualties? the same civilians we see dancing in the street while they drag an american through the street who was trying to play by the rules?

hell yes. bomb the sheit out of any suspected training camp. and keep doing it untill the people dont want them anywhere near their families...or they all die. no more people, no more terrorist. either way. WE win.

we can win a war. if we dont think going to WAR is justified, then GET THE HELL OUT....untill it is. and when it is, make them understand what WAR is all about so they dont easily forget it for the next generation or so.

either go to WAR or get out. and if Bush cant make up his mind which he wants to do, IMPEACH his stupid **** and get someone in there who CAN make a decision.
#21 May 01 2007 at 11:59 AM Rating: Decent
Quote:
either go to WAR or get out. and if Bush cant make up his mind which he wants to do, IMPEACH his stupid **** and get someone in there who CAN make a decision.


Are you sure you want almost 2 years of President Richard?
#22 May 01 2007 at 12:34 PM Rating: Decent
***
2,501 posts
Natdatilgnome wrote:
Quote:
either go to WAR or get out. and if Bush cant make up his mind which he wants to do, IMPEACH his stupid **** and get someone in there who CAN make a decision.


Are you sure you want almost 2 years of President Richard?


Actually, shadowrelm makes a good point. If the next two years were better than the last 6...damn skippy I'd be happy with President DicK.
#23 May 01 2007 at 1:30 PM Rating: Decent
Some dumbfuck wrote:
If Iran or cyria or any other country in that region wants to interfere with Iraq on her journey of discovering herself after so many years, they can be dealt with militarily. We have planes that are virtually indectable, we have missles that can reach great distances, and we have military commanders with the will to use them.


You are presuming the US is the only country with said capabilities, and the countries you (I am assuming) listed are a little more then cavemen, then yes I would agree with you.

The United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, China, India, Pakistan, and the other states suspected to have nuclear munitions are: North Korea and Israel. Bombing everyone is far from an answer, well unless you are willing to risk an full nuclear retaliation attack on the US.

Yes, we are considered the worlds sole "superpower" thus gave birth to "hyperpower" however, that does NOT mean we are clearly immune; 9/11, USS Cole, the fairly successful insurgents killing thousands of American Troops are a testament to that.
#24 May 01 2007 at 1:41 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

Ah... The simplicity of the "bomb anyone who doesn't agree with us" position of geo-politics. Gotta love the classics... ;)


Didn't we do that during Clinton's terms? Just asking, cause that didn't work so well.


I know you can't help it, being a stumbling buffoon and all, but the "remember Clinton" thing doesn't really play very well in terms of military success for Bush. Or really anything else, but less so military success. IF you really want to compare someone with a worse military record you'd probably have to go back to Johnson, and see that would actually make sense because he'd have dropped more bombs than Bush instead of less by an order of 1000.

Sorry, I know I implied that one of your arguments might someday make sense. Forgive my naivety.



____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#25 May 01 2007 at 2:03 PM Rating: Good
The United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, China, India, Pakistan, and the other states suspected to have nuclear munitions are: North Korea and Israel. Bombing everyone is far from an answer, well unless you are willing to risk an full nuclear retaliation attack on the US.

Yes, we are considered the worlds sole "superpower" thus gave birth to "hyperpower" however, that does NOT mean we are clearly immune; 9/11, USS Cole, the fairly successful insurgents killing thousands of American Troops are a testament to that.
-------------------------------------------------------

no one said anything about a nuclear war. we can win a conventional WAR. it is this stupid BS limited enguagement crap that we can NEVER win. and the reason why is because WE are the only ones playing by the rules. our enemy is using our compasion against us.

sooo, lets get busy. there is not a pissant town or city anywhere in the middle east we couldnt roll through and flatten. and of they are not on their knees with their hands on their heads praising america, naked, shoot them and keep rolling. THAT is what war is about. THAT is what our military is trained to do better than any other army in the world.

and we could easily do it without a nuke. and if one of them wants to open that can of whip **** by nuking an american city instead of facing our military? fine, open it up. turn their entire country into a glass parking lot.

you do that ONCE and i guarentee you the rest of them will pad lock theri nukes and start talking peace.

we should have turned afganistan into the 8th wonder of the world. the first country sized man made crater. but no. we wanted a "measured" response. and what has "measured" gotten us? an endless meat grinder for americas best. its like tieing the hands of the best prize fighter and sending him into a ring where his are the ONLT hands tied. "measured" has gotten us an increase in terrorism world wide. and endless meatgrinder with no path to victory, and the best country in the world made the laughing stock of every pissany third world dictator.

THIS addministraition did this to our country. they should be hanged. what they did to us was far worse than anything hussin did to us. impeachment would be letting them off easy.

we have the power. we have the training. we have the will. what we dont have is a political leader who can commit to resolving this problem definitively.

they want terrorism? lets give it to them. lets make them afraid at night. lets make them **** on themselves when they hear an american tank rolling down the street, or a fighter jet screeching across the sky, or the thump thump thump of a helicopter looking for a target.

lets make the people of iraq run away screaming from their extremist bothers because they know we will be comming in right behind them. lets make them undestand that supplicating the extremist is not conducive to rasing a familey, or even waking up the next day.

we CAN win in Iraq, reguardless of weather we SHOULD be there or not. so either GO TO WAR, or get the hell out. no inbetween. our soldiers deserve that much.

let the politicans pay for our failure. they handed it to us.
#26 May 01 2007 at 2:13 PM Rating: Excellent
Ministry of Silly Cnuts
*****
19,524 posts
shadowrelm wrote:
no one said anything about a nuclear war. we can win a conventional WAR.
Against whom?

'War' is one army or coalition against another in a defined theatre of war. Define, pray, the parameters of the enemy in this game of "let's throw our brave yet vulnerable troops against a bunch of lethal shadows"?

There's a sig in there somewhere.

____________________________
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 282 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (282)