Display posts from previous
Sort by

Did You Know You Were Voting For 40,000 More Troops In Iraq?

21 by dipshit jigaboo_Archive
alex maiolo wrote:I thought this war was stupid from day one, but if we don't emply some sort of Marshall Plan, which would probably involve sending more troops (and should have been done 2 years ago) then what do we do?
Really, I'm just asking.
I don't want to be there, but man, pulling out seems like a terrible thing to do. We're bored with this toy so we're going home.


If by some strange twist of fate the Soviet Union managed to successfully invade the US during the 80's and there was some Red Dawn type scenario going on, would most Americans want the red army to stick around and help rebuild shit, or would they want them to leave and stop killing people and bombing shit?

We shouldn't leave because we are bored, we should leave because this war was idiotic, immoral, and we are the bad guys who turned their nation into a chaotic hellhole while disbanding their entire army and firing most people from their jobs. We may have removed an evil tyrant, but we did it like a doctor performing surgery with a hatchet.

There isn't going to be another Marshall plan. The forces we are fighting aren't conventional and can't surrender even if they wanted to because there are so many different factions acting independently and for different reasons. If Iraq is going to break into a full blown civil war, they'll do it whether we are there or not.
Smoke weed, it's fun.

Did You Know You Were Voting For 40,000 More Troops In Iraq?

22 by Earwicker_Archive
There's a part of me that can see the rationale behind sending in tens of thousands more troops for reasons other people have already said on here. Other people have also said that it should have been done a couple of years ago. I agree with that too. Well, our troops shouldn't be there at all but as they are they should have been a lot more of them but then Rummy was charge so you have a retard in charge of your army you get your army doing retarded things.

For me, it seems pretty hopeless but I would take all the troops out except for those pit bulls who want to stay but I'd take away their guns. Then I would parachute in all the brave adventurers who thought it was a good idea to go and fuck another country in the arse...

... and leave them to it.


It goes to show how totally ineffective our systems are. Bush and Blair are just about the only demented individuals who still think the invasion was a good idea yet they are still both sat there, despite lying us into backing it (something we never actually did on this side of the pond - can't remember about you Yankies) and then residing over an absolutely reprehensible mass slaughter.

The situation is hopeless. We can only hope that messrs Bush and Blair have some psychologically devastating breakdown as soon as they leave office so we can schlep them into Arkham Asylum alongside Saddam and the Riddler.

Did You Know You Were Voting For 40,000 More Troops In Iraq?

23 by clocker bob_Archive
dipshit jigaboo wrote:If by some strange twist of fate the Soviet Union managed to successfully invade the US during the 80's and there was some Red Dawn type scenario going on, would most Americans want the red army to stick around and help rebuild shit?


You've exposed the mammoth hubris of Americans right there. Americans would never believe that we needed any foreign intervention to repair our government, but Americans are reliably expected to believe that the US military is the most under-appreciated humanitarian force on the planet, and that our occupation of Iraq has provoked an ungrateful response because our 'patients' are violent primitives from the Middle Ages.

The Iraqis, they simply don't get it. Even when we set them to sectarian war with each other, they still don't get it. If we successfully Balkanize that region into tribal warfare, they still won't get it.

Goddamn them for not understanding that Uncle Sam knows best.

Saddam 2008.

Did You Know You Were Voting For 40,000 More Troops In Iraq?

24 by rayj_Archive
dipshit jigaboo wrote:
alex maiolo wrote:I thought this war was stupid from day one, but if we don't emply some sort of Marshall Plan, which would probably involve sending more troops (and should have been done 2 years ago) then what do we do?
Really, I'm just asking.
I don't want to be there, but man, pulling out seems like a terrible thing to do. We're bored with this toy so we're going home.


If by some strange twist of fate the Soviet Union managed to successfully invade the US during the 80's and there was some Red Dawn type scenario going on, would most Americans want the red army to stick around and help rebuild shit, or would they want them to leave and stop killing people and bombing shit?



I have to roll with dipshit here, too. Get out. NOW. Feel free to send all the aid...and by 'aid', I mean food, medical supplies, and unarmed labor...and get anything holding a firearm out of the country. Period. Now that we have reduced the country's ability to function, and sparked horrible conflicts between formerly nearly-reasonable factions in the region (debatable, I know...), remaining there as a 'peacekeeping' force is counterproductive and insulting. They simply have to come to terms with building a new society themselves, on their own terms. As it should be.

Did You Know You Were Voting For 40,000 More Troops In Iraq?

25 by clocker bob_Archive
Alex Cockburn takes shots at the quick transformation of the Democrats into less strident versions of the same old warmongers.

counterpunch wrote:Here's the evolution of the Democrats' war platform since November 7, 2006, the day the voters presented a clear mandate: "End the war! Get out of Iraq!" and took the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives away from the Republicans.

So somewhat to their surprise the Democrats recaptured both the Senate and the House. Then they went to work--to obliterate the mandate. The first thing they did was reject Jack Murtha, the man who said "Quit Now" in 2005. They voted down Murtha as House majority leader and picked the pro-war Steny Hoyer.

Then Nancy Pelosi chose Silvestre Reyes as House Intelligence Committee chairman. Reyes promptly told Newsweek,

"We're not going to have stability in Iraq until we eliminate those militias, those private armies. We have to consider the need for additional troops to be in Iraq, to take out the militias and stabilize IraqI would say 20,000 to 30,000-for the specific purpose of making sure those militias are dismantled, working in concert with the Iraqi military."

Reyes comes to his important post with an open mind, meaning an empty one. He knows nothing of the region. This became clear in his brief parley with a reporter from Congressional Quarterly who had the impudence to ply him with questions at the end of a tiring day when men of mature judgment head for the bar. CQ's man asked Reyes if Al Qaeda was Sunni or Shiite.

Reyes tossed a mental coin. "Predominantly-probably Shiite." Wrong, of course, since Al Qaeda is Sunni, of a notoriously intolerant strain. It's as if Reyes had called the Pope a Presbyterian.

Did You Know You Were Voting For 40,000 More Troops In Iraq?

26 by clocker bob_Archive
This squabble over the troop surge is starting to resemble a classic Hegelian synthesis: Bush and the Dems are owned by the same defense contractors, American voters try and vote for a troop withdrawal, Bush asks for a huge surge instead, Dems puff up and stop the surge.

Dems look like they are standing up to the maniac, when what they end up delivering is less than what the voters asked for.

Scam.

Did You Know You Were Voting For 40,000 More Troops In Iraq?

28 by clocker bob_Archive
Bush/Cheney display all the characteristics of sociopaths, especially their megalomaniacal belief that they are above the judgement of fellow humans.

reuters, 1/30/07 wrote:The U.S. Congress has the power to end the war in Iraq, several high-powered legal experts including a former Bush administration attorney told a Senate hearing on Tuesday.

With many lawmakers poised to confront President George W. Bush by voting disapproval of his war policy in the coming days, four of five experts called before a Senate Judiciary subcommittee said Congress could go further and restrict or stop U.S. involvement if it chose.

"I think the constitutional scheme does give Congress broad authority to terminate a war," said Bradford Berenson, a Washington lawyer who was a White House associate counsel under Bush from 2001 to 2003.

"It is ultimately Congress that decides the size, scope and duration of the use of military force," said Walter Dellinger, former acting solicitor general -- the government's chief advocate before the Supreme Court -- in 1996-97, and an assistant attorney general three years before that.

Did You Know You Were Voting For 40,000 More Troops In Iraq?

29 by clocker bob_Archive
This is out of control ( Virgil Goode is the Rep. who went crazy when Keith Ellison took his oath on a Quran ).
think progress wrote:Goode: Iraq Critics Are Helping ‘Jihadists Who Want The Crescent And Star To Wave Over The Capitol’

During Thursday’s House debate on Iraq, virulently anti-Muslim Rep. Virgil Goode (R-VA) said supporting the anti-escalation resolution would “aid and assist the Islamic jihadists who want the crescent and star to wave over the Capitol of the United States and over the White House of this country.” Moreover, he said, “I fear that radical Muslims who want to control the Middle East and ultimately the world would love to see ‘In God We Trust’ stricken from our money and replaced with ‘In Muhammad We Trust.’”


You really need to see it to appreciate the madness: watch it here
Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests