lol...us concedes in iraq...haha we lose...
-
Freakaloin
- Posts: 10620
- Joined: Tue May 07, 2002 7:00 am
lol...us concedes in iraq...haha we lose...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050820/ts_ ... NlYwM3MTY-
lol...could it get any worse? neomorons will still claim victory...rofl...
lol...could it get any worse? neomorons will still claim victory...rofl...
-
Freakaloin
- Posts: 10620
- Joined: Tue May 07, 2002 7:00 am
- GONNAFISTYA
- Posts: 13369
- Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:20 pm
lol, spot the contradiction here:
how the fuck does anyone support this any more?
yes, iraqis are free to govern themselves but every line of their constitution must be approved by the US and is subject to US vetoWashington, with 140,000 troops still in Iraq, has insisted Iraqis are free to govern themselves but made clear it will not approve the kind of clerical rule seen in Shi'ite Iran, a state President Bush describes as "evil."
how the fuck does anyone support this any more?
-
Mr.Magnetichead
- Posts: 2001
- Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2001 8:00 am
-
Mr.Magnetichead
- Posts: 2001
- Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2001 8:00 am
-
Freakaloin
- Posts: 10620
- Joined: Tue May 07, 2002 7:00 am
-
KingManULTRA
- Posts: 572
- Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2005 9:04 pm
-
Freakaloin
- Posts: 10620
- Joined: Tue May 07, 2002 7:00 am
-
Nightshade
- Posts: 17020
- Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2000 8:00 am
What the hell do you think is going to happen when we do finally leave?KingManULTRA wrote:Yeah, let's just pull out and let the totalitarian state in Iraq reign supreme.seremtan wrote: how the fuck does anyone support this any more?
...
waitaminute, that don't sound so hot :icon27:
Saigon '75 all over again.
The Ironic part is that, in waging war against Islamic terror, we have taken the only secular Arab nation in the middle east and not only turned it into a terrorist training ground, but also turned it into an Islamic state like Iran.
Democracy? Ha. The Kurds aren't Islamic Arabs, so this constitution doesn't even include their rights at all.
Democracy? Ha. The Kurds aren't Islamic Arabs, so this constitution doesn't even include their rights at all.
not sure how many were killed in gulf war 1 but the sanctions have claimed about 750k, 500k of which were kids, and thus far the war has claimed somewhere between 20k (iraqbodycount site estimate) and 100k (lancet estimate).Mr.Magnetichead wrote:And let's be honest, 10,000 less iraqis.Testoclesius wrote:the best thing about iraq is all the americans that died
yeah, let's just pretend for one moment that iraq is a sovereign nation whose people are capable of making their own choices and would do so if it wasn't for america continuing to interfereKingManULTRA wrote:Yeah, let's just pull out and let the totalitarian state in Iraq reign supreme.seremtan wrote: how the fuck does anyone support this any more?
...
waitaminute, that don't sound so hot
wait a minute, that doesn't sound so profitable
-
Pooinyourmouth
- Posts: 609
- Joined: Mon Nov 22, 1999 8:00 am
-
KingManULTRA
- Posts: 572
- Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2005 9:04 pm
The hell are you talking about? You remove U.S. troops from Iraq and it's going to go down the shitter in a hand basket, with religious conflicts between different islamic groups wrecking complete havoc in the country and there being nothing to stop a totalitarian government from rising in light of the instability. Pulling out now would be disastrous.seremtan wrote: yeah, let's just pretend for one moment that iraq is a sovereign nation whose people are capable of making their own choices and would do so if it wasn't for america continuing to interfere
Also, Bush has nothing to gain from staying in Iraq as opposed to pulling out. The enormous cost of the war, the steadily rising death toll, the strained national guard reserves and other things all negatively affect Bush's popularity. It would be in his interest, for the sake of the later years of his presidential legacy, to pull out of Iraq ASAP no matter what.
-
Freakaloin
- Posts: 10620
- Joined: Tue May 07, 2002 7:00 am
-
KingManULTRA
- Posts: 572
- Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2005 9:04 pm
so now that you've listed the many reasons why the US should pull out of iraq, i'm intrigued as to why you think bush went there in the first place.KingManULTRA wrote:The hell are you talking about? You remove U.S. troops from Iraq and it's going to go down the shitter in a hand basket, with religious conflicts between different islamic groups wrecking complete havoc in the country and there being nothing to stop a totalitarian government from rising in light of the instability. Pulling out now would be disastrous.seremtan wrote: yeah, let's just pretend for one moment that iraq is a sovereign nation whose people are capable of making their own choices and would do so if it wasn't for america continuing to interfere
Also, Bush has nothing to gain from staying in Iraq as opposed to pulling out. The enormous cost of the war, the steadily rising death toll, the strained national guard reserves and other things all negatively affect Bush's popularity. It would be in his interest, for the sake of the later years of his presidential legacy, to pull out of Iraq ASAP no matter what.
i must admit i ask myself what there is in iraq that could possibly be worth all this mess, and the answer i come up with is that iraq is situated bang on top of a dwindling energy resource on which america's potential rivals such as europe or the far east/china depend rather more than the US, and that controlling these energy reserves gives the US an effective veto over any rival challenging it for global supremacy. that's what rumsfeld, cheney and wolfowitz were saying in their 'project for the new american century' pieces back in the 1990s. they also said it would take a 'pearl harbor style attack' on the US to provide a pretext for this energy grab that could be sold to the american people, and lo and behold, such an attack took place, and here they are doing exactly what they planned.
furthermore the lack of timetable for withdrawal has nothing to do with the insurgency or anything going in iraq. it has to do with the well-known fact that there was never any exit strategy - for the simple reason that there was never intended to be any exit. the US bases there are intended to be permanent, as a tool of control of the region and its energy reserves
i mean, this is all so transparently obvious it still amazes me that there are people like yourself who, if they're not actually believing the propaganda, are at the very least giving the benefit of the doubt where no benefit is deserved
-
KingManULTRA
- Posts: 572
- Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2005 9:04 pm
What is this? The "American Conspiracy Weekly" newsletter?
Also, I see the Iraq war in a negative light but that doesn't change the fact that mistakes made in the past need to be resolved in the present, and that means seeing the Iraq situation through to the best possible solution.
The U.S. will not have a significant military presence in Iraq 5 years from now, and most certainly not one large enough in size to "take control of the region." Such an endeavor would be highly unpopular and very costly. Bush's party as a whole dislikes long, drawn out conflicts with permanent and large scale military installations in the region for various reasons, mostly because of the insane costs associated with doing that and how it contradicts conservative fiscal policy. The U.S. will pull out almost completely sooner or later (as soon as is feasible), period.seremtan wrote: i must admit i ask myself what there is in iraq that could possibly be worth all this mess, and the answer i come up with is that iraq is situated bang on top of a dwindling energy resource on which america's potential rivals such as europe or the far east/china depend rather more than the US, and that controlling these energy reserves gives the US an effective veto over any rival challenging it for global supremacy. that's what rumsfeld, cheney and wolfowitz were saying in their 'project for the new american century' pieces back in the 1990s. they also said it would take a 'pearl harbor style attack' on the US to provide a pretext for this energy grab that could be sold to the american people, and lo and behold, such an attack took place, and here they are doing exactly what they planned.
furthermore the lack of timetable for withdrawal has nothing to do with the insurgency or anything going in iraq. it has to do with the well-known fact that there was never any exit strategy - for the simple reason that there was never intended to be any exit. the US bases there are intended to be permanent, as a tool of control of the region and its energy reserves
This is funny coming from someone (probably) living in Europe where the entire media is like Fox News with a leftist slant on all issues regarding U.S. foreign policy.seremtan wrote: i mean, this is all so transparently obvious it still amazes me that there are people like yourself who, if they're not actually believing the propaganda, are at the very least giving the benefit of the doubt where no benefit is deserved
Also, I see the Iraq war in a negative light but that doesn't change the fact that mistakes made in the past need to be resolved in the present, and that means seeing the Iraq situation through to the best possible solution.
It already costs an insane amount but they don't care that much. And about it being unpopular, it was that before he started the war but he went through with it.KingManULTRA wrote:What is this? The "American Conspiracy Weekly" newsletter?
The U.S. will not have a significant military presence in Iraq 5 years from now, and most certainly not one large enough in size to "take control of the region." Such an endeavor would be highly unpopular and very costly. Bush's party as a whole dislikes long, drawn out conflicts with permanent and large scale military installations in the region for various reasons, mostly because of the insane costs associated with doing that and how it contradicts conservative fiscal policy. The U.S. will pull out almost completely sooner or later (as soon as is feasible), period.