Maybe we should just leave Iraq?

[YogsVR4]

Originally Posted by taranaki

What is wrong with this picture?Simple.People are still dying.Iraq is scattered with unexploded cluster bombs and depleted uranium.I don't recall any Iraqis hating their leadership enough to risk their lives throwing petrol bombs and stones at their own army.The mission,as you refer to it was a failure,and no amount of stubborn refusal to accept failure will change that.

As for the crap about baseball........do grow up,gladhater.This is not a fucking game.This is war,and America will only continue its presence in Iraq by sacrificing more of her own troops.A vote for Bush in the upcoming election is a vote for more dead Americans.

........and on the subject of armchair supporters..........when exactly do you plan to enlist,buddy?

Didn't throw bombs or attack their own military? Perhaps you forgot about the Kurds and the Shites. The mission has been successful.

A vote for Bush in the upcoming election will save more Americans.

[taranaki]

An intractable difference of opinion,Yogs.I won't hold it against you personally,Yogs,but I couldn't in all conscience re-elect a mass murderer.

[Raz_Kaz]

Originally Posted by taranaki

what a complete crock!!!!!!

The country was stolen at gunpoint,the defending forces were bombed and shelled into oblivion,and now people are talking about 'transfer of sovereignty' like it's some wonderous gift that they have decided to bestow upon them?

George Bush stole Iraq from another,less powerful dictator.Now the people of Iraq quite rightly want what is theirs returned.If America's most famous deserter really was the saviour of Iraq,they'd be holding a tickertape parade for him.He'd be riding through Baghdad,waving from the window of his motorcade......

The only way he'd survive a trip through Baghdad right now would be in a column of tanks.

Dude I was saying that the Americans helped Osama and Saddam take power in the countries. Not just those leaders, other in other countries where they turned all psycho and then the States had to come in and take them out. And yogs, I'd have to disagere with you that the mission was successful, maybe in the part where they had to remove Saddam, but as far is restoring peace and democrocy in the country...big failure. They did succeed in reuniting Shiit and Sunnit forces for the second time in 21 years though to fight a "common" enemy. My question was how the election for the new "president" for Iraq will happen?

[RedLightning]

Originally Posted by thegladhatter

Gee you sound strangely like someone who thinks the Iraqis would be better off with the mad man still in power....still gassing his own people...still committing atrocities on hin OWN PEOPLE!! What is wrong with this picture???

Yeah...lets just pull out of Iraq. Never mind that people have already died to complete a mission. Forget the mission....pull out. It doesn't matter that these people have died in vain!

In a baseball game you don't need to pull your pitcher in the third inning when you are ahead by about 5 runs to none. They game aint over....but you're ahead. There is no failure just yet. The game is still young. The "armchair" managers love to speculate but are seldom correct. ....same here.

this question was more of a question just to think about and see what you guys say, I would not pull out b/c of that would mean that those ppl died in vain, I dont want the same thing to happen here that happend in Somalia. I cant vote, but I would vote for Bush, he is not a mass killer, but he is wrong sometimes, i now think that we should not have gone into Iraq, yet. We should have been more comited to Afganistan. Also another question, if war would break out between North and South Korea or between Tiawan and China, can we stop them? Are we strong enough? (this is for Americans or others who would help) We have commitments in Iraq that drains troops.

[thegladhatter]

Originally Posted by Toksin

I was just about to ask, gladhatter, have you ever served?

ABSOLUTEY! I am a Vietnam era vet. I would go to Iraq tomorrow if I could. I am just too old and out of shape for today's military.

I work with US Marines on a daily basis and wk for the Dept of Def.

[RedLightning]

yes, someone who knows something!(thegladhatter) oh nice sig.

[Raz_Kaz]

Originally Posted by Um...Nameless Dork

this question was more of a question just to think about and see what you guys say, I would not pull out b/c of that would mean that those ppl died in vain, I dont want the same thing to happen here that happend in Somalia. I cant vote, but I would vote for Bush, he is not a mass killer, but he is wrong sometimes, i now think that we should not have gone into Iraq, yet. We should have been more comited to Afganistan. Also another question, if war would break out between North and South Korea or between Tiawan and China, can we stop them? Are we strong enough? (this is for Americans or others who would help) We have commitments in Iraq that drains troops.

I don't believe even with the size of the amry the Americans have will be sufficent to hold peace in several countries...just trying to maintain peace and control in one requires a lot of dedication, money and soldiers. Does anyone know how much it cost extra to maintain forces in Iraq alone?

[justacruiser]

Originally Posted by taranaki

I'm sure that the majority of tropps on the ground are getting tired of the situation by now.They've been sent to fight an unwinnable war, based on lies and commercial interests,and have failed to provide a better life for the people whose country they occupy.Every ragbag gang of crooks and fundamentalists wants a slice of Iraq now,and what was once a prosperous country has been doomed to years of instabilty and infighting because of the ignorant meddling of an oil-hungry superpower.

Pull out? I don't think so. Fix the damage and then pull out? better,but the overwhelmingly obvious fact is that three successive administrations have completely stuffed up their Middle East policies by insisting that their vision of democracy should be inflicted on what are still feudal territories.

Actually from what I understand, (from Ollie Norths opinion anyways), it's only the National guard and reserve troops that are bitching, the regulars aren't complaining much at all.

[justacruiser]

Originally Posted by Raz_Kaz

I don't believe even with the size of the amry the Americans have will be sufficent to hold peace in several countries...just trying to maintain peace and control in one requires a lot of dedication, money and soldiers. Does anyone know how much it cost extra to maintain forces in Iraq alone?

Actually you're correct on that one. The american military is around 2.5-3 million strong at full muster, (which it's not right now), and quite a few of those are based elsewhere in the world. Then you have to figure on how many of those soldiers are in support operations, not combat operations. There aren't as many 'on the ground' fighting soldiers as you think, it's why our military supplements them so much with firepower from heavy weaponry. In WW2, using the draft mind you, we managed to get around 12 million men in uniform during the war. With that many, (although they would be mostly draftees, ie. 'conscripts', who are notoriously low on morale and fighting skill during war), MAYBE, we could hold a few countries the size of Iraq. There's a BIG difference between fighting and occupying. Occupying is a VERY hard thing to do because it involves NOT killing everyone.

But that's only assuming money has no meaning. During WW2, people were buying war bonds left and right to support the effort, do you see people doing that right now? Nope... the money has to come from somewhere and it's not cheap.

[Raz_Kaz]

Originally Posted by justacruiser

Actually you're correct on that one. The american military is around 2.5-3 million strong at full muster, (which it's not right now), and quite a few of those are based elsewhere in the world. Then you have to figure on how many of those soldiers are in support operations, not combat operations. There aren't as many 'on the ground' fighting soldiers as you think, it's why our military supplements them so much with firepower from heavy weaponry. In WW2, using the draft mind you, we managed to get around 12 million men in uniform during the war. With that many, (although they would be mostly draftees, ie. 'conscripts', who are notoriously low on morale and fighting skill during war), MAYBE, we could hold a few countries the size of Iraq. There's a BIG difference between fighting and occupying. Occupying is a VERY hard thing to do because it involves NOT killing everyone.

But that's only assuming money has no meaning. During WW2, people were buying war bonds left and right to support the effort, do you see people doing that right now? Nope... the money has to come from somewhere and it's not cheap.

On that note, the States whole motive for war in other countries seems to be to "liberate" the people and to brng peace. Hence occupying a country, but if it was to go and slaughter every single living thing that they come across, I doubt they can acheive that as well. Why, you ask? Simple, how many countries would actually allow that to happen and I doubt very many soldiers will go to war just to eliminate a country just because the president "said so"

[erricer]

Originally Posted by taranaki

What is wrong with this picture?Simple.People are still dying.Iraq is scattered with unexploded cluster bombs and depleted uranium.I don't recall any Iraqis hating their leadership enough to risk their lives throwing petrol bombs and stones at their own army.The mission,as you refer to it was a failure,and no amount of stubborn refusal to accept failure will change that.

As for the crap about baseball........do grow up,gladhater.This is not a fucking game.This is war,and America will only continue its presence in Iraq by sacrificing more of her own troops.A vote for Bush in the upcoming election is a vote for more dead Americans.

........and on the subject of armchair supporters..........when exactly do you plan to enlist,buddy?

What do you know about war? Were you over their fighting? So you call this war a failure hunh. I guess removing a dictator that killed over 300,000 people and tortured many more a failure. I guess producing over 50% more oil than when saddam was in power a failure. I guess opening more than 2000 schools with proper fundings is a failure. The only people who don't want us their is the terrorist and saddams loyalist who reeped the benefits of others while he was in power. If you haven't risked your life for this war you haven't earned an opinion on it!

[Raz_Kaz]

Originally Posted by erricer

What do you know about war? Were you over their fighting? So you call this war a failure hunh. I guess removing a dictator that killed over 300,000 people and tortured many more a failure. I guess producing over 50% more oil than when saddam was in power a failure. I guess opening more than 2000 schools with proper fundings is a failure. The only people who don't want us their is the terrorist and saddams loyalist who reeped the benefits of others while he was in power. If you haven't risked your life for this war you haven't earned an opinion on it!

50% more oil but where is it going? Not to the Iraqi's that's for sure and the security is was worse at some point during US occupancy then under the Saddam' regime. Now things seemed to have gotten better but mistreatment of prisoners have rallied up another revolution

[erricer]

Originally Posted by Raz_Kaz

50% more oil but where is it going? Not to the Iraqi's that's for sure and the security is was worse at some point during US occupancy then under the Saddam' regime. Now things seemed to have gotten better but mistreatment of prisoners have rallied up another revolution

What makes you believe that the oil profit is not going to the Iraqi's? Ofcourse the security was lower for a while, what did you expect? If the big bad Americans were taking Iraq's oil wouldn't gas prices be declining instead of increasing? Saddar was going to find any excuse to rally against the United States, if it wasn't the prisoners it would have been something else.

[YogsVR4]

Originally Posted by erricer

What do you know about war? Were you over their fighting? So you call this war a failure hunh. I guess removing a dictator that killed over 300,000 people and tortured many more a failure. I guess producing over 50% more oil than when saddam was in power a failure. I guess opening more than 2000 schools with proper fundings is a failure. The only people who don't want us their is the terrorist and saddams loyalist who reeped the benefits of others while he was in power. If you haven't risked your life for this war you haven't earned an opinion on it!

Now thats the wrong way to get involved in this discussion. The war has been debated over and over again around here. You should spend some time reading the posts - especially of the members who've been here from day one. While I disagree with Taranaki's assessments, he has every right to voice his opinion just like everyone else.

You can feel free to take into account anyones participation in the conflich when forming your opinions but don't ever use it as an excuse to tell someone else that they can't have one.

[Raz_Kaz]

Originally Posted by erricer

What makes you believe that the oil profit is not going to the Iraqi's? Ofcourse the security was lower for a while, what did you expect? If the big bad Americans were taking Iraq's oil wouldn't gas prices be declining instead of increasing? Saddar was going to find any excuse to rally against the United States, if it wasn't the prisoners it would have been something else.

Who says that the Americans are giving the profits to the Iraqi's, with all these held back info from the people how can we tell whats going on. If you do a quick search on google.com or yahoo.com about the rescent changes in pipelines in Iraq you can see that the pipelines going from Iraq to Iran or Saudia Arabia have been redirected to go to Isreal...can anybody tell me why? The only major reason why the security got more under control was because of the mass hiring of contractors.