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

U.S should pull out!!

Recommended Posts

Consider this!!

If you consider that there has been an average of 160,000 troops in the

Iraq theatre of operations during the last 22 months, and a total of 2,112

deaths, that gives a firearm death rate of 60 per 100,000 soldiers.

The firearm death rate in Washington, D.C. is 80.6 per 100,000 for the

same period.

That means that you are about 25% more likely to be shot and killed in the

U.S. Capitol, which has some of the strictest gun control laws in the

nation, than you are in Iraq.

Conclusion: The U.S. should pull out of Washington immediately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EDIT - lol.

You can make Iraq even safer if you divide the death roll with whole duration of the war. Even more reason to pull out!

-v

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have yet to hear a viable military solution to Iraq. Putting more troops in and kicking down more doors won't solve the problem. The fact is there simply is no military solution to the problem unless you really tear the place up and the people with it.

The religious fanatics want an Islamic government operating under Islamic law. Islamic law violates the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. They will toss away any chance of a democratic government to set up a theocratic one.

I happen to have plans for solving all the worlds problems on Post-It notes stuck around on the consoles in the bridge here. Let me see ...Oh! Here it is.

Solving the problem of "Iraq".

Plan A:

1. Impeach Bush immediately and begin congressional investigations into the Bush administrations actions.

2. Admit that we have made a grave mistake in Iraqi and become determined to correct it.

3. Tell the Iraqi government and military to prepare for our imminent departure.

4. Have the Pentagon draw up plans to begin the safe and timely withdrawal of our troops and advisers. If they say that it must be done slowly then we'd do it slowly. We wouldn't over-ride the professionals as the Bush administration has continued to do.

Plan B:

1. Advise all militias in Iraq to come forward and disarm immediately within 48 hours.

2. After 48 hours advise the civilian population to flee the cities controlled by militias.

3. Bomb, burn, and test experimental weapons until said cities are rubble.

4. Advise the world that any Jihadi terrorist attack on US assets anywhere in the world will result in immediate and unannounced destruction of Mecca and surrounding area. Disarm radical Islam by demonstrating the inability of "Allah" to protect them.

Plan B has a few problems that need to be worked out I admit. I prefer the, "Get your shit together because we're leaving." approach myself.

"Nuke 'em from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually B is the joke. If we did that we would not "win" anything. We would still be in the same fix trying to hand off responsibility to the Iraqi's. I don't care to send anymore American's to die for those ungrateful bastards, not a single one. We should tell them to get their shit together post haste and get everyone back home. We need to stop pouring money into this fruitless exercise.

I say screw them. If they want to live like bronze age morons let them. They can kill on each other for Allah all they freak'n want. If we had put the money we wasted on this nonsense into research, we could have already found an alternative to letting OPEC pull our strings.

I have yet to even hear a plan that provides a military victory from gun-ho yahoos who want to send someone else's sons and daughters to die in a war based on a lie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

The old lie tale again.

Luhteeduh, sorry, that old BS doesn't fly, and if you actually believe that nonsense, well, not a lot I can do for ya.

And this crap about sending other peoples sons and daughters to die, is just that CRAP.

They are VOLUNTEERS, not cannon fodder johnny come lately, be in the military or else.

They volunteered, they took an oath, they respect that oath and are doing their duty, to the country and the constitution.

And if yuou don't understand that, or appreciate it either, again, NOTHING I can do for ya, you're too far gone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest $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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's also misleading is that the mass media is playing this war as being wrong and saying that we haven't acccomplished a thing. Yet if you where to ask any US soldier that's been there you would discover something quite differently.

Watch the Military Channel or the Pentagon challen and you'll discover just how much the Mass Media has LIED about this war.

You'll also discover that the war is actually quite isolated to certain regions, and you'll discover that HALF of american deaths AREN'T related to the terrorists, but are related to mechnical failure in equipment.

Oh well; I tried.

Oh and the death rate in California is climbing since they issued that gun ban law

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One good thing I read from your post Nomad is that everyone is tied up in the affairs of Iraq and more so if we left. It may sound callus but in may regards I think the solution would be getting the entire region to fall into internal conflict and monitor the whole situation from a distance. If they are more concerned with vieing for power they should have less resources available to affect the rest of the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ÔÇØThey volunteered, they took an oath, they respect that oath and are doing their duty, to the country and the constitution.ÔÇØ

It is with great respect for them and their oaths that I say they should not be dieing in the streets of Iraq. There are plenty who will argue, and with good cause, that the war is unconstitutional. The fact is th war on Iraq was initiated based on something that turned out not to be true. It does nothing to help us in our ÔÇ£war on terrorismÔÇØ. Why? Sound military advise was ignored by the administration.

Our invasion of Afghanistan is another story entirely and although ÔÇ£justÔÇØ it was poorly executed, again because our civilian administration over-rode sound military strategy proposed by the generals who know better. We should have Ben-Ladens head on pike by now but we don't. Why? Is it a military or a management problem? Management. They need to be held accountable. Oh, and you can be sure that the draft is not far down the road, they won't be volunteers then.

ÔÇØnot a lot I can do for ya. ÔÇ£

You've made that quite obvious by your devastatingly well thought out rebuttals to my posts Offensive Advisor Jaguar.

ÔÇØAnother big mistake in Iraq has been to undervalue how deeply entreched are sectarian and ethnic influences. Almost every country with relatively artificial borders which englobe distinct communities need to reach a high level of civilization before being able to live in peace under a democratic regime. Until then, the only way for said countries to evolve is under a dictatorship. It's maybe sad, but it's like that.ÔÇØ

This is the central reality of the situation that few seem to grasp . They have to ÔÇ£reach a high [enough] level of civilizationÔÇØ before they can embrace a democratic system rather than one based on superstition and thugs. Ignorance of their culture has bitten us in the rear since day one.

ÔÇØYou can't expect a peaceful islam when you allow saudi's billions of petrodollars spreading wahhabism. But in order to achieve this, you must do it in a way muslims believe that the change is internal and free of foreign intervention. Any other approach will only unite radicals further and turn against us. ÔÇ£

You have hit the nail on the head!

ÔÇØI think the solution would be getting the entire region to fall into internal conflict and monitor the whole situation from a distance ÔÇ£

Somebody else who gets it. Exactly. America should withdraw and allow the region to equalize, whatever the outcome. That means no more propping up countries in the region with aid of any kind. That means brutal civil war and all that comes with it. Someone once said that it is useless to beat a man if he loves the whip. Somehow their society has to come to a point where it does not love the sting of the whip. Thousands of years of war and turmoil seem to suggest it will continue until Islam reforms greatly, Islam is outlawed like Nazism and eradicated, or Islam wins and we all live under Islamic laws. Even then we would be in turmoil and war over sectarian differences just like Islam has had from day one. Trends. You just have to ask yourself what are the trends and patterns of the history of the region are to see where it is leading. They will fight until they develop means to eradicate their enemies and in doing so will most likely destroy themselves. Nuclear Weapons in the hands of insane Wahhabi Muslim governments will mean the destruction of Israel and a good bit of everything else if their past enthusiasm for killing for Allah is any indication.

We should get the hell out of there and let them kill on themselves until someone pulls out a nuke. We immediately destroy whatever government used or tried to use the nuke by any means necessary and tell the rest of them to look for the same if they want to toss that crap around too. We don't go in and rebuild the damn place like we did Japan!

We cannot depend on those yahoos getting their shit together ... ever. We must come up with solutions to our energy and oil problems that do not hinge on the intelligent behavior of Middle Eastern governments and their general populations. We're eternally screwed if we do not disengage from them.

That's my humble opinion anyway. Screw the bastards! Who needs 'em! We'll come up with something that will make their oil obsolete and they can all go back to riding camels and living in mud-huts when the money dries up.

Take the money we've spent on this war and put in hard research and I guarantee you we will have a dozen solutions to the energy/oil problem. The war was ill conceived (they'll welcome us with flowers) and improperly executed (shock and awe, minimal troops) and will go down as the biggest mistake this country has ever made. Those who argue otherwise are choosing to ignore the facts of the matter.

Also, I would like to point out, I have yet to see a viable plan for military victory coming from anyone who wants us there. There is trouble even defining what constitutes military victory in this situation. What is it? How do we get there? For Pete's sake "Kill 'em all" just isn't practical.

[ 01-22-2007, 01:16 PM: Message edited by: Frozen Ghost ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*yawn*

Will I do agree with both Frozen and Nomad; I disagree with throwing the country into turmoil... they have cells in other countries.. so trust me.. the islamic war won't be isolated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Frozen Ghost:

Screw the bastards! Who needs 'em! We'll come up with something that will make their oil obsolete and they can all go back to riding camels and living in mud-huts when the money dries up.

I think you are forgetting an important fact that a lot of that oil-money has been re-invested in Western companies and thus they have a say as to what economic and political decisions are taken over here. The situation is not as simple as it may seem. The true muslim puppeteers don't live in mud huts or ride camels anymore, they dress sharp, park their luxury cars in marbled underground garages and fly around the world in their private 747's...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by stingray:

quote:

Originally posted by Frozen Ghost:

Screw the bastards! Who needs 'em! We'll come up with something that will make their oil obsolete and they can all go back to riding camels and living in mud-huts when the money dries up.

I think you are forgetting an important fact that a lot of that oil-money has been re-invested in Western companies and thus they have a say as to what economic and political decisions are taken over here. The situation is not as simple as it may seem. The true muslim puppeteers don't live in mud huts or ride camels anymore, they dress sharp, park their luxury cars in marbled underground garages and fly around the world in their private 747's...


But then you haave Osama Bin Laden, who likes to hide like a coward while his minions do all the dirty work.

Not much of a leader if you aren't going to show yourself everyone once in awhile.

Oh. And wb Nomad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Come on, this isn't about Bin Laden, never has been."

Any "War on Terror" that the US might engage in has to be on Bin Laden and his thugs first, sympathizing bastards second. We let the scum get away and now we're digging ourselves a hole in a country that didn't have squat to do with 9/11. You have to ask yourself why?

We screwed up and attacked the wrong damn country for a reason, what is it? Big Oil? If so Bush is a criminal and needs to stand trial. Was it about WMDs? No, there is plenty of evidence that they knew there weren't any WMDs to begin with, that was a rouse. It wasn't Al Queda because its been shown Saddam had nothing to do with them, that was a fall back excuse. Stupid? Was the administration so stupid as to put America into a war for no good reason and lie to us about it?

The war in Iraq isn't about stopping terrorism. What the hell is it about then? Stabilizing the Middle East through projection of American power by establishing a democracy in the region? Good god I hope not, if so then they are more out of touch with reality than I thought. This is a Keystone Cops war of screw-ups and mistakes made by the Bush administration for whatever reasons they may have had.

I don't think that we have the right or the means to go around the world spreading democracy through force. Indigence populations have to rise up and establish it themselves for it to work.

However, punishing governments for using nuclear weapons by destroying them and a good part of their country via remote control and then not cleaning up the mess, I can see. If an Islamic state gets nuclear weapons they will use them at the first opportunity. You can bet your life on it. If Iran gets a nuclear weapon WWIII will be in full bloom before you know what's happened. I think we're going to wind up making war on Iran and its allies before long. That's when the draft kicks in.

This isn't about left and right or democrats or republicans, its about doing what is right for this country. Ben Franklin said, 'If we don't hang together, we will all hang separately.'

We need to think about that and the current division about this war we are experiencing in this country. There is way too much passion and far too little skull work going on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The real answer is neutron-beam weapons on space platforms. Neutron radiation is highly economical. It destroys living tissue while leaving valuable assets intact for future occupation, thus saving billions in reconstruction costs. No messy rubble!

Several large nuclear powered neutron-beam projectors in low earth orbit could be used to 'pacify' everything from a nasty crowd to entire nations lickity split. Maybe it would just take large microwave weapons like the army's 'pain ray' instead of neutron radiation. That would drastically shorten the time an area would be uninhabitable I would think.

Of course that would be immoral and in violation of several treaties. Hmmm, I wonder how long before they do that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We shouldn't pull out of Iraq as already stated at the top, but the real strategy for victory is not to hunt out every terrorist and muslim extremist, it is to hit them at the top of the line where it will spread down in a sort of chain reaction. This whole thing reminds me a lot of the Terror of the French revolution ...which is ironic because the French refuse to help in this war. The guy at the top, Robespeire, was calling the shots against all the people getting killed because of him, and he used whatever people he could convince to side with him. The current situation sees two major side of the islamic religion pitted against eachother, and the leaders of both sides are egging it on -not just because they truly beleive they are correct to kill the others -but also to get rid of the coalition troops from Iraq, which would be a major political/theocratical victory for one side or the other in the Mideast. It is these leaders that are the ones who control the populace and the dirty-workers who blow themselves up in car bombings, because they follow what is told to them. We have to go for the head, and not the arms.

At the end of the terror, Robespiere was killed and the terror ended. It wont work the same way here, but logically, eliminating these top people, while extraordinarily difficult in some way might stop the bombings. The radicals would still hate our guts but who cares, they already do, and thats why we have the Patriot Act.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Frozen Ghost:

I don't care to send anymore American's to die for those ungrateful bastards, not a single one.

Problem is they don't share the same outlook, if we pull out, they'll just follow us back here. You do remember what happened on Sept. 11th don't you?

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"

quote:

Originally posted by Frozen Ghost:

Take the money we've spent on this war and put in hard research and I guarantee you we will have a dozen solutions to the energy/oil problem.

You really think this is all about Oil? Please, the US has spent FAR MORE on this problem than any savings or whatever to be reaped from Oil. This was about letting someone like Saddam thumb his nose at us, while he had billions in petro-dollars to do whatever he wanted to do. He gassed his own population to control them, how soon before he would be doing the same to his other enemies in the region, and more importantly, how would the US be seen if we allowed him to stay in power. It would be the equivalent of letting Hitler keep his presidency after WWII if he had survived. Note that right after we invaded Iraq, Syria (at least I think it was Syria, which one is Mohamar Kadafee president of again) gave up their nuclear program and asked the US to come over and take it all away. Why did they do this? Because they realized that the US was serious. We weren't the Paper Tiger that we had been under Clinton.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

The complete and utter cluelessness flying around this thread, not including you Kalshion, or you Darkling, has brought me to the decision to abandon the thread.

It is useless to argue with Liberals over this, they don't want a clue, don't have a clue, and refuse to find a clue.

I am therefore abandoning this thread before I throw up.

Impeach Bush, get a grip on reality, Our sons and daughters are dying for nothing? Yeah, right, that's why they keep VOLUNTEERING to go back over there.

Good Grief, Like I said, I am abandoning this thread before I lose my dinner, what a bunch of crap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Soldiers take an oath to follow the president, but the president needs to not take advantage of that too much. He needs to explain his strategy better so the troops and the public believe that they are fighting for something important. He made some good strategic changes but they seem a bit too late.

If we are going to lose, then admit it and get the best deal you can. On the other hand, if the new strategy can achieve victory, we should give it a chance. I think that the new strategy of spreading the troops out into districts so they can stop violence as it is happening rather than respond afterwards might work.

The timing of the leave should be based on the prospects for victory. If there is no hope for victory, then we should not delay the departure just to postpone the embarassement. Politics needs to be taken out of the timing on the leave. In every other activity in life, if you know you are going to lose, then you normally just stop doing it. War should not be an area that is any different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"it is to hit them at the top of the line where it will spread down in a sort of chain reaction. This whole thing reminds me a lot of the Terror of the French revolution"

Every time we kill one of the bastards another one steps up. Watch "The Battle Of Algiers", which more closely resembles Iraq than France I think. These people operate in cells and are religious fanatics, not your normal politically motivated greed based criminals we're used to in the western world working through traditional command and control.

The real guys we need to find and eliminate are the ones who are preaching Jihad in the mosques and streets of this country! It is happening every day and we're ignoring it.

"Impeach Bush, get a grip on reality,"

When Presidents commit crimes they should be prosecuted. If they don't have the balls to hold him responsible now I hope that there will at least be congressional investigations into his administration when he leaves office.

"Our sons and daughters are dying for nothing?"

Jag, when someone in command fails to plan properly, fails to correct their mistakes, and continues to ignore sound military advice and yet is allowed to continue to send men and women to die as a result of their commander's incompetence, just what in the hell do you think they are dying for?

" Yeah, right, that's why they keep VOLUNTEERING to go back over there."

They just keep volunteering huh? I bet you're not familiar with the terms "stop-loss policy" and "Extended Tours" are you Jaq? Look 'em up in 'current events'.

Here is something from the Boston Globe that outlines the situation:

"Stipulate for the sake of argument that President Bush is correct in saying that failure in Iraq is not an option. Then why limit the "surge" to a measly 21,500 additional troops? Why not 50,000? With the population of the United States having now surpassed 300 million, why not send 100,000 reinforcements to Iraq?

The question answers itself: There are not an additional 100,000 Americans willing to commit their lives to the cause. Even offering up 21,500 finds the Pentagon scraping the bottom of the barrel, extending the tours of soldiers already in the combat zone while accelerating the deployment of those heading back for a second or third tour of duty." The Boston Globe. January 21, 2007

"I am abandoning this thread "

Jaq, your inability to make much conversation on the subject beyond one liners and insulting those who hold opposing viewpoints to yours makes your departure from the discussion not likely to be missed by many.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ÔÇØif we pull out, they'll just follow us back here. You do remember what happened on Sept. 11th don't you? ÔÇ£

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.

ÔÇØYou really think this is all about Oil? Please, the US has spent FAR MORE on this problem than any savings or whatever to be reaped from Oil. This was about letting someone like Saddam thumb his nose at us, while he had billions in petro-dollars to do whatever he wanted to do. He gassed his own population to control them, how soon before he would be doing the same to his other enemies in the region, and more importantly, how would the US be seen if we allowed him to stay in power. ÔÇ£

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. Also, what was the kill-rate during Saddam's reign? Does it come anywhere near the kill-rate occurring now? I'm talking Iraq's killing other Iraq's not American's killing Iraqis. Is the region any more stable than if we would have attacked the right country? What do you think? I think if we'd actually went after the governments responsible for allowing this to happen we would have attacked someone other than Iraq.

I'm not so sure anyone knows what this war is really all about. In the end I think it comes down to radical Islam vs. the free world. But how that is being responded to, in the way of the Bush Administration's ill conceived war in Iraq, is another matter entirely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FG: I don't think that pulling out is a good solution right now and the ramifications of an entire region thrown into chaos need to be carefully weighed before proceeding which is why I said in many regards.

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  

×