Jump to content
3000AD Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Supreme Cmdr

U.S should pull out!!

Recommended Posts

What nationalite's where the high jackers?

It doesn't MATTER what nation they came from; both Iraq and Afgan are muslim countries and in case you've clearly forgotten, our soldiers DID find terrorist training camps IN Iraq. (of course; that wasn't on CNN or CBS, only the wall-street-journel and the drudge report)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

e,

I'm with you. You need to do it right. It isn't something that should be done like the start of the war was, we should actually have a sound military plan and execute it by the numbers this time. I say this not only in a concern for our people over there, but for the citizens of those countries in the region as well. But lets be real here, it is going to be unstable with or without us. Sometimes problems are better left alone least you make them worse as in the case of the Middle East, American intervention has never brought any stability to it and never can. It is a local issue that will have to be solved by the locals.

However, in the long run, I really do not think that we can or should take upon ourselves the responsibility of ensuring stability in that part of the world. It isn't our region. We have instability in LA county we need to worry about first.

As far as an entire region being thrown into chaos ... it never has gotten out of a state of chaos to begin with has it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"terrorist training camps IN Iraq."

Yeah, thanks for reminding me of that. It does appear something was going on there, just what, you have to wonder.

"This represents an extraordinarily troubling dysfunctionality at the top levels of our intelligence apparatus. Even with the most technologically sophisticated satellites and signals intercept equipment known to man, our ÔÇ£analystsÔÇØ at the CIA were still unable to uncover a training program from which 2,000 hardened jihadists graduated every year. Could they have been blind to this danger because of stupidity? Or was there something more at work here? ...Are we to believe that trained professionals were unable to spot these terrorist sites? Someone at the CIA has some explaining to do."

He suggests that the CIA kept this from the administration as part of their struggle with one another in their desire not to usurp Saddam. Who know for sure? No one at the moment. There need to be congressional investigations. If it turns out the CIA holds all the blame then so be it, I'll eat my hat, but I doubt I'll need to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have much patiance for people who don't listen so listen well.

While I agree we shouldn't be world cops; the problem is the military is run by the politicions.

YOU want this war to come to victory; take the politicions OUT of the military and let the military DO IT'S JOB.

Trust me, this war would end in twenty four hours if the military was allowed to do it's job

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest $iLk

quote:

Originally posted by Darkling:

quote:

Originally posted by $iLk:

The figure for U.S. deaths is a bit misleading. The figure for Washington is everyone in Washington D.C. - the first figure only includes American soldiers, not the 40,000+ Iraqis who have died during the conflict.

Are we also including the figures of all those who died during Saddam's purge and Biological warfare binges? He killed hundreds of thousands, if not millions, but of course, all everyone wants to talk about is the people that died since the US has been involved. Everything else, just "Didn't happen"


I never said that it "didn't happen" nor would I ever imply that.

My comment was limited to the scope of the first post, i.e. what has occurred in the past several years is not quite so rosy.

My only concern has been that only U.S. deaths seem to be counted in this conflict, and while some Americans clap their hands and say "see we fixed the plumbing!" they ignore the deaths of those who are the people we are supposed to be helping.

Before the U.S. invasion there was no threat of another genocide on the scale of anything Saddam had ever done. We are standing at the precipice, and the President does not have a real plan for victory. The Congress (neither party) is not interested in a plan for victory either.

So while the polticians debate in Washington - these troops whom you support so dearly are fighting and dying in a war that had no reason to involve the United States in the first place.

There are millions dying around the world. What makes the Iraqis so special that they deserve our special attention beyond the fact that Iraq sits on 1/4 of the world's oil?

Hopefully Ron Paul makes some headway on the nomination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"

Trust me, this war would end in twenty four hours if the military was allowed to do it's job"

I'm really interested. What do you think could be done militarily to win the war in 24 hrs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Listen and Listen closly:

1. Our troops aren't allowed to attack a moscue (shrine; whatever) without permission from high command. EVEN IF THEY ARE BEING ATTACKED FROM IT.

(This is because of our liberals here in Washington who don't want to risk making the muslim people mad)

Solution?

Order our troops to destry ANY moscue that is being used to harbor terrorists.

2. Currently our troops aren't allowed to just shot people unless they fire at them (The old - Return Fire only if fired upon - bit)

Solution?

Enact martial law and forbid ANY vehicles from being driven on the road this will not only reduce the amount of car bombs used but will also make it more difficult for the terrorists to move around.

Furthermore - increase the number of apaches that fly over the city to make interception easier.

And the last part peice of the cake - keep a b52 flying over the city at all times so if a massive terrorist attack occurs they can easily drop there payload of bombs on these terrorists and render them dead.

Exthreme? You better believe it.

Inhuman? Perhaps, but not as inhuman as what a vast majority of child malesters do in the US to innocent CHILDREN.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The way I see it, the first thing to do is kick the media out of Iraq which should have been done from the very beginning. They should not have been allowed in there in the first place until everything was done. It's not too late, get the media out of there now and put a total media blackout on Iraq. Hence, eliminating any sounding board for the nutters and terrorists that are using the media for their own agenda.

Why do I say this? I was watching NBC news here in NYC last Thursday or Friday and Brian Williams was interviewing and woman who has been over in Iraq reporting the news. I was quite surprised however when Williams ask the reporter "what about all the good things over there that we know is going on?" She used this response as an example, "I see children walking to school everyday in bagdad, just like over here in the states, but that they will not report such stories for fear of putting those kids in danger." Do you see where I'm going with this?

The next step would be for the politicians to step back and let the military commanders do what they need to do and stop the the backseat driving. Politicians are not military commanders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a good piece of film on the Iraqi training situation. The Iraqis aren't going to really deal with anything until they absolutely have to. Any further assistance on our part is just enabling behavior that is determinable to the Iraqis' future.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/video/page/0,,1927660,00.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Frozen Ghost:

Oh good grief man, Iraq had nothing to do with 911. Tell me, what nationalities were the 911 high-jackers? If this is about keeping them from ÔÇ£following us back hereÔÇØ why didn't we attack those countries? And in case you haven't noticed. They are already here preaching Jihad in the mosques every day.

I didn't say that they had anything to do with 911, but if you think that they're just going to "wave us off", you're mistaken, they'll gather their forces, plot and plan and come and attack. You'll see.

quote:

Originally posted by Frozen Ghost:

ÔÇØYou really think this is all about Oil? .....

So it isn't about Oil its about Saddam insulting America and being a bad-guy in the region? Well then we need to impeach the President, he lied to us about why he wanted to go to war.

Did he lie? Or was it US Intelligence, or was it Russian intelligence, or was it British intelligence. Hell, the whole world thought he was amassing weapons of mass distruction.

quote:

Originally posted by Frozen Ghost:

Also, what was the kill-rate during Saddam's reign? Does it come anywhere near the kill-rate occurring now? ...

So what you're saying is "Innocent Iraquies were dying, not US soldiers and Innocent Iraq citizens don't count for a hill of beans in my book"

In other words, US citizens are the only ones that matter when people die. Anyone else that dies, well they don't count, they're not really "Human Beings", they're more like animals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by $iLk:

There are
millions
dying around the world. What makes the Iraqis so special that they deserve our special attention beyond the fact that Iraq sits on 1/4 of the world's oil?

What makes them so special is that the Oil they sit on is worth Trillions. Do you REALLY want Trillions of dollars in the hands of a lunatic? Keep in mind that the only reason Hitler was able to accomplish his plans were because he was well financed. Some reports go as far as saying that Petro-dollars from Royal Dutch financed him by anywhere from 4 to 55 Million Guilders. Imagine Trillions in the hands of lunatics, what they could do with that kind of cash? In other parts of the world, despot's don't have the cash to carry out their dilusional plans, but in Iraq, they did, and then some.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The current middle east (and for the last hundred + years since before World War 1, has been a timebomb waiting to go off, always at odds with powers on every side. The region is dominated majorly by religous fanatics, becasue the people who arent fanatics dont do anything to stop the fanatics. In the midst of that, dictators and tyrants rise to power, criminal organizations, black markets, terror groups build and thrive without check. Its the "bad-guy HQ of the world", even if there hadn't been 9/11, or afganistan, or iraq, eventually there would have been a meltdown. As difficult as it is, if we fail to keep some stability within iraq and afghanistan, this is all going to start boiling over really fast. With even little threats like North Korea and Iran (little compared to major powers) there is a potential for a bad end to all this, or just a bad begining.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ÔÇØDid he lie? Or was it US Intelligence, or was it Russian intelligence, or was it British intelligence. Hell, the whole world thought he was amassing weapons of mass distruction. ÔÇ£

Well, unfortunately he did, and as far as the everyone else saying the same thing, that really wasn't the case, the whole world didn't think that.

ÔÇØ

In other words, US citizens are the only ones that matter when people die. Anyone else that dies, well they don't count, they're not really "Human Beings", they're more like animals. ÔÇ£

My point is more people are getting killed now, I wasn't trying to make a distinction between the two. But now that you mention it, yes I am saying as an American taxpayer and citizen I believe that my interests, the interests of my fellow Americans, and the interests of my country come before any foreign citizens interests, i.e. New Orleans vs Baghdad.

If the damn Iraqis wanted to be shed of Saddam they should have stepped up to the plate and dealt with him themselves. This was not about saving Iraqi lives or making the lives of Iraqis any better. It was based on the lies about Saddam and his intentions towards the United States.

The Bush Administration has tried to rewrite the history of this war several times now. Stop buying into the Orwellian nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest $iLk

quote:

Originally posted by Darkling:

quote:

Originally posted by $iLk:

There are
millions
dying around the world. What makes the Iraqis so special that they deserve our special attention beyond the fact that Iraq sits on 1/4 of the world's oil?

What makes them so special is that the Oil they sit on is worth Trillions. Do you REALLY want Trillions of dollars in the hands of a lunatic? Keep in mind that the only reason Hitler was able to accomplish his plans were because he was well financed. Some reports go as far as saying that Petro-dollars from Royal Dutch financed him by anywhere from 4 to 55 Million Guilders. Imagine Trillions in the hands of lunatics, what they could do with that kind of cash? In other parts of the world, despot's don't have the cash to carry out their dilusional plans, but in Iraq, they did, and then some.


Yeah, the nerve of those people being born on top of our oil.

It used to be that you didn't attack another country unless that country attacked you first.

Now the only justification you need is that a country might at some point in the indeterminate future gain access to advanced weapons technology, and if so they might later on in the future at some point decide to use those weapons against us.

Sorry - I don't buy that. I believe it is not a justification for armed conflict in which human beings will die.

If someone attacks the United States, I am all on board carrying the war to the enemy and unleashing the gates of hell on them. The case of Iraq was not such an occasion. We invaded a country that had never attacked, declared an intention to attack, nor possessed the capability to attack the United States of America.

The choice wasn't "Saddam or no Saddam", as in the Cold War, you isolated those who were not behaving as a civilized nation. You didn't hear Republicans screaming "Stalin or no Stalin" or "Kruschev or no Kruschev" during the Cold War. Instead the Soviet Union (a country much larger and powerful than Iraq) was isolated to the point of falling apart.

If you want to point the finger at the real problem with Saddam funneling oil money - look no further than the United Nations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You completley ignored Silk's 'real problem' Nomad

The United Nations is partly responsible for many problems that have befallen the country as of late. They didn't bother to enforce sanctions, a lot of them where corrupt and paid off, hell I wouldn't be half surprised if some of those yahoo's financed the terrorists considering how corrupt they where...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest $iLk

quote:

Originally posted by Nomad:

Kal, I don't ignore the corruption of the UN. It's a grave problem that is actually the object of a multitude of investigations.

What I'am saying is that you can't ignore the reality that the term "UN" is a mere tag glued on an association formed by official representatives of the nations forming it.

No representant in the UN acts without full knowledge of the government it represents if you understand where I'am going... That said governments later on dismiss having knowledge of corruption schemes is PR crappola for the public.

It's a bit difficult to accept, but at the end all this is only a game. Countries respect the agreements they subscribe within the UN framework only when it suits their own unilateral agenda. The rest of the time they reluctantly comply with the bare minimum, or give nice speeches but act completely differently on the field. The only thing that always continues unscathed is business, under a form or another one.

I agree it's sad, but don't expect the UN to be better than the morality of the sum of its single components. The UN is just a mere reflection at planetary scale of our greed, egoism & hypocrisy. Machiavelli would feel at home there

While I don't disagree on any particular point you've made in regard to the United Nations, the corruption extended to the Secretary General and his son.

The organization itself and its existence is a flaw. Nations behaved much more predictably when they didn't have a pseudo-diplomatic agency to hide behind.

Instead, as in regards to global warming - instead of each nation acting individually they supposedly come to "work together" but in realtiy use the problems associated with the UN to refuse doing anything domestically about the issue.

I still am not sure how much to believe about the issue as the science behind it is so politically motivated, especially under the soapbox of the UN pointed at the US, that we can't get any clear science out.

I see scientific papers all the time which 'prove' the existence of man-made component of global warming pushed under the UN yet these papers do not even mention the changes in temperature of the Sun, and other basic facts which ought to be taken into account.

The UN as you state is just an excuse for countries to act unilaterally under the cover of globalism. I believe we could do without the charade and let each country make its policies without this agency to hide behind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest $iLk

quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar:


I'm quite awake. If you find a terrorist camp, in any country, anywhere - I fully support either dropping a large bomb on it or sending in a special forces team to kill everyone in it.

What I do not support is invading countries under dubious rationale and wasting trillions of dollars that could go towards actually killing terrorists/Islamic fundamentalists instead of going towards pacifying a populace who we shouldn't be dealing with anyway.

Bush created the very situation that website describes by invading a country that he didn't have to invade. If there were a solid rationale for the war, a solid reason that Americans supported, then I guarantee we'd be in it for the long haul instead of getting tired at this juncture.

I remember 2002/2003 and Bush's mad dash for Congressional and UN approval. Fresh off an election success he had no problem getting the former, but pretty much everyone else saw that he was rushing.

Instead of giving a solid logical rationale he and his advisors passed out soundbites here and there. Once we went to war, sure everyone wanted to win. I supported a 'win' myself while I didn't support the invasion. That doesn't mean I support a 'win' in which radical Shiite Muslims (buddies of Iran) gain the aparatus of a nation-state and pacify the Sunni minority out of vengeance once we are gone.

We've created one big mess by a series of stupid decisions before and after the invasion. I do believe that we should remove the embedded media from any future conflicts.

I'm not a "peace at any price" lunatic. I just believe in common sense policies and strategies for winning this conflict - and I have not seen many politicians in Washington who are interested in offering any. The only good thing to say about the Republican Party at this point is that at least they are offering ideas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by $iLk:

I see scientific papers all the time which 'prove' the existence of man-made component of global warming pushed under the UN yet these papers do not even mention the changes in temperature of the Sun, and other basic facts which ought to be taken into account.

The temperature of the sun??? That's news to me. Maybe that's a topic for another thread, but I fail to see its relevance since we can hardly do anything about it, short of building a heat shield in orbit perhaps. It's quite unsurprizing that we tend to look for the culprit elsewhere, when we don't want to tackle an issue that falls well into the realm of our own responsibility. The ecosystem of this planet is at stake and while I don't mind warmer winters, if the consquences far outweigh the benefits, I don't think we should put our future on the line just because we don't want to act reasonably. The Earth doesn't need us, and it will spin around the sun long after we are gone, but I do hope that we can find a way to fix our climate.

What we should do for starters is plant more trees.

On the topic, it's a tough decision, damned if you do, damned if you don't. But I don't think just pulling out is going to do any good. By taking the war on terrorism to Iraq, bombs are exploding in Iraq and not on US soil. If you pull out your army out of Iraq you'll just be inviting those fanatics to your own backyards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by $iLk:

Bush created the very situation that (wake up America) website describes by invading a country that he didn't have to invade. .....

Is this your canned response to everything? So when the Jihadists bombed the WTC the first time (under Clinton) what was that? Did they bomb us because they KNEW we would be voting for Bush in the future?

The Wake up America website basically makes the point that THEY declared war on US .... YEARS Ago, not just recently, and not 'because of Bush'. So obviously, you sir, are still asleep.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What still amaze's me is that NO ONE has bothered to talk to the soldiers who are THERE and ask for THEIR opinion and for THEIR recommendation.

THEY are the one's fighting this war, not congress, not the house, it's the SOLDIERS and ONLY the soldiers...

It further amaze's me that no one in congress or the house of represenatives has bothered to go on a fact finding tour in Iraq and Afgan. Their opinions are based solely on what they've seen in the media.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest $iLk

quote:

Originally posted by Darkling:

quote:

Originally posted by $iLk:

Bush created the very situation that (wake up America) website describes by invading a country that he didn't have to invade. .....

Is this your canned response to everything? So when the Jihadists bombed the WTC the first time (under Clinton) what was that? Did they bomb us because they KNEW we would be voting for Bush in the future?

The Wake up America website basically makes the point that THEY declared war on US .... YEARS Ago, not just recently, and not 'because of Bush'. So obviously, you sir, are still asleep.


I'm pretty sure the Jihadists (the ominous "they") are laughing their asses off because we invaded the country that didn't attack us, threaten to attack us, or even possess the capability to attack us. Not in 92, 93, 00, 01, or... ever.

It seems like we are acting out like the man who beats his wife because his boss fired him. Misdirected rage is not a virtue.

The vast majority of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. When is the last time you ever heard of us catching a terrorist with Iraqi ties?

I hate that it comes across as a canned response, or cliche', or however you want to see it. Facts are facts. Just because the simple fact that Iraq never attacked us or threatened to attack us or possessed the capability to attack us drives a hole through the entire pre-emptive war argument isn't my fault.

I think it eloquently illustrates the absurdity of both:

A. Pre-emptive War against countries who pose no threat and who aren't threatening you to begin with.

B. Congress washing its hands of the political responsibility to declare war. We haven't declared war in nearly 70 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest $iLk

quote:

Originally posted by Kalshion:

What still amaze's me is that
NO ONE
has bothered to talk to the soldiers who are THERE and ask for THEIR opinion and for THEIR recommendation.

THEY are the one's fighting this war, not congress, not the house, it's the SOLDIERS and ONLY the soldiers...

It further amaze's me that no one in congress or the house of represenatives has bothered to go on a fact finding tour in Iraq and Afgan. Their opinions are based solely on what they've seen in the media.

Ummmm... read the news maybe? Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, and many Democrats have been to Iraq and Afghanistan. As have Republicans. You are overstating it a bit when you say "no one" in both counts, because there is more than one soldier who fought in Iraq who thinks the entire reasoning was B.S. to begin with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest $iLk

quote:

Originally posted by Nomad:

quote:

Originally posted by $iLk:

While I don't disagree on any particular point you've made in regard to the United Nations, the corruption extended to the Secretary General and his son.

Unless I'm mistaken, I did not see any instance, be it national or internatiobal, indicting Mr. Annan or his son. Also no proof of direct enrichment but rather mismanagement or conflicting interests. If we were to consider corrupt anyone with close ties to financial players involved at some degree in aspects of his political decisions, how would we define the relations of Mr. Bush with Enron or Mr. Cheney with Kellogs and Halliburton ?


While I don't really disagree much with your last two points - I am surprised that you are defending on a technicality the elites in the world protecting their own.

Just because no one 'indicted' a world leader means they are innocent? You of all people should know better than that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×