Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: StSanta on June 27, 2003, 05:12:19 AM
-
With Iraq I mean? Deaths from ambushes etc. will mount. It is clear that Saddam loyalists still control large parts of the population - everyone is afraid of reprisals and whatnot. Not a word has been said about it, but probably because it is hard to tell a murder as a reprisal from someone killed during a breakin/looting thingy.
I've seen no steps towards making Iraq a democratic nation yet. Granted, there are enormous difficulties and I recognize the huge problems. Yet there seems to not even be a serious dialogue. The temporary Iraqi government thingie was stopped when there was concerns that it'd be another Afghanistan or turn out to be a theocracy.
I just find the lack of any progress disconcerting. The ordinary Iraqi might well support the US going after Saddam, but they're proud people too. Resentment will just grow and grow the longer they're occupied - leading to more and more ambushes.
Me, I think the US must move quickly before the average Iraqi turns against them. As mentioned; huge problems. But as it is, if I don't hear about any progress towards an iraq led by Iraqis, you can bet the average Iraqi ain't either.
This isn't a post critical of the US. More liked comments from a worried friend. You chaps can find yerself in an awful mess if your administration fails to understand the importance of the Iraqi culture and desires for self-rule. I understand that you need a US friendly administration there as you wish to move yer forces from Saudi Arabia (which hardly is a friend of the US anyway), but it seems to me the best way of going about this is ensuring that resentment from the average Iraqi is held at a minimum. Occupation with no noticeable progress towards free elections etc won't help.
Anyone in the know - update me on just what the US policy is with regards to the future of Iraq?
-
The war in Iraq isn't over - it's just changed from conventional to coin (counter insurgency) and you can't win a coin war without the support of the local people.
I do not think the USA and the UK will ever obtain the support of the local Iraq population - the urban guerilla fighters opposing the Allied forces in Iraq - to paraphrase Mao - will be able to swim
amongst the urban population as fish swim in the sea.
My personal experience of coin operations was a low intensity affair - with contacts once a month - the daily wounding and killing the US army faces will be extremely difficult to counter - harsh measures will simply force more of Iraq's well armed population to look upon them as conquerors and foreign oppressors.
It's a horrible bloody mess with no clear way out and I think it will have a profound effect on both America's view of itself and how it is viewed by the rest of the world - the next election is going to be interesting.
Soldiers are being left to deal with a mess that the politicians created and I am appalled that Colin Powell - of whom I have the highest regard allowed this to happen.
One final point - does ANYONE actually feel safer from terrorist attack now? I know I don't.
-
Dont worry gents, some thousand Carabinieri (militar police) are on the way for south Iraq, we will reestabilish order, not using kicks and shooting like you, but....
With Pizza, music and Spaghetti!!! :)
And our amaizing friendly behaviour. :D
-
Nuke 'em
-
And make an big parking lot....
-
The big glass parking lot cliche! I thought I'd never see that one again. Like a dog turd in a milk bottle, it's always a pleasant surprise.
-
Originally posted by Raubvogel
Nuke 'em
I see the Cliff Claven view of RealPolitik is alive and well - someone probably will get nuked in the next 10 years - my bet it isn't Iraq.
-
Originally posted by Naso
Dont worry gents, some thousand Carabinieri (militar police) are on the way for south Iraq, we will reestabilish order, not using kicks and shooting like you, but....
With Pizza, music and Spaghetti!!! :)
And our amaizing friendly behaviour. :D
sigh - would personally kill someone for a decent Arrabiata right now
-
The coalition forces shouldn't leave the country until there is an army and stable goverment.
Without an army and the goverment, Iraq could become like afganistan after russians left.
So.. US wanted this, they'd better also finish the job well.
Freedom is something to sacrifice your life for.. wasnt that right?
Therefore I hope yanks wont begin complaining about the weekly losses in Iraq after couple months, after first wanting to go liberate them so badly....
-
"Freedom is something to sacrifice your life for.. wasnt that right?
Therefore I hope yanks wont begin complaining about the weekly losses in Iraq after couple months, after first wanting to go liberate them so badly...."
Strangely it's not the Americans who are 'complaining' about the daily attacks.
-
Originally posted by ra
"Freedom is something to sacrifice your life for.. wasnt that right?
Therefore I hope yanks wont begin complaining about the weekly losses in Iraq after couple months, after first wanting to go liberate them so badly...."
Strangely it's not the Americans who are 'complaining' about the daily attacks.
exactly what I was thinking.
-
Originally posted by StSanta
I just find the lack of any progress disconcerting. The ordinary Iraqi might well support the US going after Saddam, but they're proud people too. Resentment will just grow and grow the longer they're occupied - leading to more and more ambushes.
Me, I think the US must move quickly before the average Iraqi turns against them. As mentioned; huge problems. But as it is, if I don't hear about any progress towards an iraq led by Iraqis, you can bet the average Iraqi ain't either.
Its been less than 2 months since the end of the major conflict. We spent what, 7 years in Germany and Japan after WWII. We can either give it time and fix it right, or do what a large portion of the world wants us to do, cut and run (so they can say they told us so nan na na).
I dont have any idea what I would do if I was in charge of the situation, I admire the people on the ground who are working their tulips off to help the people of Iraq get their act together. The more we are attacked the deeper we should dig our heals in. If we leave before they are stable Iraq is doomed to a terrible future.
-
Originally posted by ra
Strangely it's not the Americans who are 'complaining' about the daily attacks.
Strangely things tend to change in a democratic country when the casualty rates goes up.
-
Originally posted by ra
"Freedom is something to sacrifice your life for.. wasnt that right?
Therefore I hope yanks wont begin complaining about the weekly losses in Iraq after couple months, after first wanting to go liberate them so badly...."
Strangely it's not the Americans who are 'complaining' about the daily attacks.
Early days yet - give it another 6 months or a year ot two.
-
If they don't appreciate all the wonderful things we're doing for them then let 'em go back where they came from!!
-
Haven't heard anybody complaining about afgan and that's been almost 2 years now. We don't even have the power on in Iraq yet. So it's going to be a long haul, why would anybody think it could be done in 2 months?
Almost 2 years ago when Bush declaired the war on terror, what part of "It will be a long fight" did people not understand? This whole war on terror will probably last 20 years or more. Then we'll have another generation of people who will raise their kids to hate america like the Euro's....
-
Originally posted by Udie
Haven't heard anybody complaining about afgan and that's been almost 2 years now.
The media hype has kept people still inspirated and afganistan is hardly a bad place, considering that nobody really liked talibans in the middle east..
It's yet to be seen whether Iraq will be little bit tougher with the guerrilla warfare, since as a nation, it was much better built up than the talibans afganistan.
Theres actually some support for saddam... compared to talibans.
and hes still out there with a bunch of his commanders and lots of pissed off troops loyal to saddam.
(plus those whackos from other middle east countries coming to Iraq to have their Jihad....)
I wouldn't expect any big guerrilla war in Iraq though, albeit it can well be persistant for a longer while in a such small scale we're seeing it right now.
It's hard to say, when theres no information at all about Saddam loyalists organization at the moment.
If Saddam is alive, hiding in Iraq and not wussying in a hideout, he could very well put up some better organized guerrilla warfare than those ahmed doe's without a leader, who just goes and shoots whatever looks american till they get shot... unless someone has a better idea.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
exactly what I was thinking.
I want to know if your opinion will change when your friend will come back without his legs. Or when your neighbour will arrive dressed in zinc as a "cargo 200", 10 months after your president derlared "victory".
I admire your media, and it's ability to manipulate public opinion. Even if it's free as you tell me ad nauseum - it's like an "opium for the people", to reduce the pain and make the world a happy idiot's daydream, simple and clear and easy.
:(
-
Originally posted by Udie
Then we'll have another generation of people who will raise their kids to hate america like the Euro's....
Yep.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
I want to know if your opinion will change when your friend will come back without his legs. Or when your neighbour will arrive dressed in zinc as a "cargo 200", 10 months after your president derlared "victory".
I admire your media, and it's ability to manipulate public opinion. Even if it's free as you tell me ad nauseum - it's like an "opium for the people", to reduce the pain and make the world a happy idiot's daydream, simple and clear and easy.
:(
Your concern for the welfare of US troops is touching.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
I want to know if your opinion will change when your friend will come back without his legs. Or when your neighbour will arrive dressed in zinc as a "cargo 200", 10 months after your president derlared "victory".
I admire your media, and it's ability to manipulate public opinion. Even if it's free as you tell me ad nauseum - it's like an "opium for the people", to reduce the pain and make the world a happy idiot's daydream, simple and clear and easy.
:(
No, my opinion won't change at all.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
I admire your media, and it's ability to manipulate public opinion. Even if it's free as you tell me ad nauseum - it's like an "opium for the people", to reduce the pain and make the world a happy idiot's daydream, simple and clear and easy.
The old soviet times... the sunny leaders told where to go and people went there.. was it siberia, coal mine, war or another town.
People just had to do what was told..
Kind of makes even your worst media propaganda hallucinate of yours sound like a dream compared to old soviet style.
At least people are with the goverment then and not being pushed around regardless of their opinion.
So it's all merry life.
You really should learn one thing: western media doesnt manipulate people, its free press, but it's the ones who manipulates media.
Most media goes with the highlight news.
Whats more highlight than live speech from Mr. Bush talking crap every now and then and midst of it doing wars for the higlhight news and other pulls to keep the citizens attention there where wanted, instead of those issues where you don't want citizens to get their attention to.
..and the masses are predictable sheeps.
So if you want to congratule something for manipulating, you should look at the Bush administration, whoever in there is yanking the chains.
Bush Jr. is probably worst presidents USA has had, but he seems to have the best people to make up his status... the best manipulators you can get as the US president, something the others didnt have.
The way his lil' helpers have manipulated masses of USA, is admirable, but meanwhile also stinks badly.
-
I don't know about you guys, but I expected a fully functioning, competent, fair Iraqi government to be in place the day Bush declared the combat phase over.
I mean, what's taking so long?
How come every Iraqi doesn't have a new car, a new home and two chickens in every pot by now?
Jeez, what an incredible failure!
-
Originally posted by Boroda
I want to know if your opinion will change when your friend will come back without his legs. Or when your neighbour will arrive dressed in zinc as a "cargo 200", 10 months after your president derlared "victory".
I admire your media, and it's ability to manipulate public opinion. Even if it's free as you tell me ad nauseum - it's like an "opium for the people", to reduce the pain and make the world a happy idiot's daydream, simple and clear and easy.
:(
Everytime you make one of these stupid posts it answers my question of how the once strong and proud Soviet Union became the POS it is,
thanks.
-
the rest of the hand wriggin world needs to just shut their pie hole, stand back and watch how the #1 country in the world & her allies gets the job done
to the men and women on the ground making it happen & making the rest of us proud
-
Originally posted by Eagler
the rest of the hand wriggin world needs to just shut their pie hole, stand back and watch how the #1 country in the world & her allies gets the job done
to the men and women on the ground making it happen & making the rest of us proud
At the current rate the #1 country is making alot of enemies and not so good friends....
Bush is rotten POS.
-
Originally posted by Fishu
At the current rate the #1 country is making alot of enemies and not so good friends....
Bush is rotten POS.
Fishu, how dare you, a European, call our President a rotten POS. That's for us, as US citizens to decide.
Hmmmm. Yup, rotten POS it is.
-
Amen, Eagler!
I want to know if your opinion will change when your friend will come back without his legs. - Boroda
No. If the horrors and sacrifices of war had anything to do with the validity or purpose of a war, there wouldn't be any wars.
Boroda, I think you are still tangling Iraqi issues up with Chechnya. That is a terribly painful thing going on over there, so I can understand, but the issues are so totally different.
Casualty rates are not comparable, either.
One more thing. A lot of the people who say they hate America and call Bush a POS would be like that EVEN IF AMERICA HADN'T LIBERATED IRAQ. It goes with the territory.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
I want to know if your opinion will change when your friend will come back without his legs. Or when your neighbour will arrive dressed in zinc as a "cargo 200", 10 months after your president derlared "victory".
I admire your media, and it's ability to manipulate public opinion. Even if it's free as you tell me ad nauseum - it's like an "opium for the people", to reduce the pain and make the world a happy idiot's daydream, simple and clear and easy.
:(
As if Pravda or the Russian Armyu Newspaper is any better. Then to top it off, we have a wannabe Commie trying to tell others how to stabilize a country, when it is notorious of his own country to cause upheaval, economic strife, and mass persecution....
I think I have seen it all.
Tell ya what Boroda, when it comes to mass executions, civil oppression, or supporting terrorism, you can offer an opinion, until then keep your snotty opinions to yourself. :mad:
-
Most supprising things in this war to me.
Turkish refusal to allow northern front through their land.
That largest resistance was OUTSIDE Bagdad.
The survivablility of US ground vehicles. The Bradley routinly survived RPG hits. Increadable. And very very demoralizing I would imagine to the Iraqis.
The increadable diplomatic win of the decisive US victory. little bit of a tease in there but really the US army are the Prussians of our time. That was a phenominal victory. There was no doubt. anywhere. The Iraqis got cocky and fought and they got hammered not from orbit..but almost man to man. Lots of leaders in the world looked at their military leaders across the table and raised thier eye brows. Options obviosly changed.
US replacment of the occupying administration almost imediatly(2 weeks?) love to be a fly on the walll at that one.
Terrorist attacks in Saudi Arabia, they were obviosly inspired to move that country higher up on the US list of targets but instead moved that country stongly into the anti terror camp. Enormous misscalculation. Enormous win for Bush and co.
But,
anyone that is supprised at the quickening resistance to US and British rule didnt think about it very much.
It is easy for the iraqi resistance to deny the US the effective export of oil indefinalty.
Unless they some how convince the Iraqis to stop being muslims they will pay to the tune of 400 troops a year dead, maybe 2000 injured, triple those numbers for the Iraqis.
If they dont stablalize a local goverment in Afganistan in the near future we can look forward to the same thing there. Only with Canadian deaths.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
I admire your media, and it's ability to manipulate public opinion. Even if it's free as you tell me ad nauseum - it's like an "opium for the people", to reduce the pain and make the world a happy idiot's daydream, simple and clear and easy.
:( [/B]
"Our" media is the world's media..... we have access to whatever the rest of the world has access to. You think you have a media source that we don't and that it is somehow more truthful?
"Blues leaves in Russia, tough born in the US-Say"
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
One more thing. A lot of the people who say they hate America and call Bush a POS would be like that EVEN IF AMERICA HADN'T LIBERATED IRAQ. It goes with the territory.
Never ever say 'who' 'hate america' 'call bush a pos' in same sentence.
Since thats totally wrong way to say things.
I don't think theres many on these boards who 'hate america'
Nuke,
They have reporters with better imagination.
-
Hey dudes, don't confuse me with Boroda or some of the other more extreme people on this board.
Like Eagler, who says 'shut up coz we number one we be bellybutton kickerz yaaaah we no have no problems never we always do right' :D
Give it time. Worked in Germany and Japan, but that is comparing apples to oranges. Two totally different geopolitical situations. One was after aggressive war supported by the population which was eventually throughoutly defeated, where both sides showed they'd not care too much about enemy casualties (nuke sorta proves the point; we want this war won now, and we want peace now - or else). After that war the population of say japan was included in the 'losers' bit, thanks to their active and adamant support for the armed forces. The situation in Iraq is very different. Here the liberated Iraqis are themselves victims. Lots of other differences I won't go into.
And Afghanistan Udie, is a mess still. US has some control in Kabul, and while it is not very much reported to, tribal rivalry is rampant with lots of small skirmishes and the occasional assassination. Hardly a stable country, and hardly one where one can say the US is in firm control. Iraq and Afghanistan also have some noticeable differences - including the speed at which a provisional government was formed.
Thing is, Iraqis don't see any progress, they don't hear about it. They have some hopes about the distant future, but what stares them in the face is the possibility of having their country run by Americans indefinitely. To an Arab that is a very humiliating thought. And all the evidence points in that direction if you're of an Arab mindset. No visible steps towards provisional government is equalled to US wish to keep the status quo. Read just about any Arab newspaper editorial if you do not believe me.
What I fear ist hat casualties will mount and the US will be forced to pull out before the job is done properly. This is why there needs to be visible progress.
No knee jerk reactions please. Think it through and gimme a decent answer, I deserve that at least. *Stay out of our business' isn't valid - you're in Iraq, if you do not stay out of Iraq's business, neither will I business. And your presence and doings in Iraq is Iraq's business beyond your own. Man, my logic is bulletproof - 'business by proxy' argument it shall be called! Sucks to be caught up like that eh? :D
System: Kill: 'outta our business argument' killed by Santa :D
'America is number one'. Doesn't mean the US never have failed to achieve their goals. The US does really well at large scale conflicts. There's more problems when it comes to 'insurgency wars', as Vietnam proved. So, this argument fails because the US being number one is not a guarantee (or a decent argument) that things will work out.
'Give it time' is a reasonable answer. It begs the question, however; how to keep the insurgency and casualties so low that the US public won't start demanding 'bring back our GI's'?
-
If you think Afghanistan is a model of stability and a good measure of success in re-building a country...
-
Say, Dowding....... your country has loads of experience in stabilising and rebuilding other countries after military conquest...
how long should it take?
-
Originally posted by Toad
Say, Dowding....... your country has loads of experience in stabilising and rebuilding other countries after military conquest...
how long should it take?
LOL :)
-
Originally posted by Toad
Say, Dowding....... your country has loads of experience in stabilising and rebuilding other countries after military conquest...
how long should it take?
Couple of hundred years - oh and you ALWAYS get kicked out in the end.
-
Oh yes, of corse we mean to colonize Iraq.... :rolleyes:
-
Maybe he just means the British model might not be the most applicable in this case Grun. ;)
It may be really hard to get an "official" estimate of how long this may take.
-
You'll find I was referring to Udie's implied point that Afghanistan was A-OK:
"Haven't heard anybody complaining about afgan and that's been almost 2 years now."
Is that ok by you? Next time I'll email prior to posting, just to point out the bloody obvious clarifications and save BBS server space.
And BTW, it takes a good long while to stabilise a country after conquest. Your comparison of Iraq with British colonial conquests made centuries ago is very glib; however, by implication Iraq is a colonial conquest. Given that is a very unpopular view with you in the past, I'll simply conclude it was cheap shot.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Oh yes, of corse we mean to colonize Iraq.... :rolleyes:
Perhaps not, however it would seem that the Iraqi's would disagree with you.
Do you think that casualty rates of the current levels would have an effect on the run up to the Presidential election?
I only ask this as long term low intensity conflict can be extremely sapping for a modern democracy.
-
This is just in my circle of friends and family, who run the gamut from pretty conservative to pretty liberal, but I don't hear anything like "Oh ****, we've got ourselves into another Vietnam" regarding either Iraq or Afganistan. Most are disturbed by the lack of WMD evidence, and most of them who supported the war are starting to question whether it was necessary or in our best interests. That may have an effect on the election, but as for a perception that this is becoming anything like vietnam -- well, its just a long ways off still.
Hell, I was very much against the war, and I think we've got to stay over there till we get a government in place that can stand on its own two feet. The absolute worse possible outcome of this would be for Iraq to become a radical, fundamentalist muslim theocracy that funnels its considerable resources into terrorist causes. If just left to chance, it is very possible that this would happen, and the new Iraq would be much, much more of a threat to the U.S. than the old Iraq ever was.
Anyway, I think it would take something like the tet offensive to really shake up the American public. Several hundred U.S. troops getting killed in a coordinated attack or something. Then you might see some real wavering in terms of people thinking we should stick it out in these countries.
-
Originally posted by StSanta
Give it time. Worked in Germany and Japan, but that is comparing apples to oranges. Two totally different geopolitical situations.
That well may be true but again I say, give it TIME.
If it took 7+ years there you cant possibly think it will take less time in Iraq? We have been in the Balkans 6 years longer than we were supposed to be (and counting). We have spent decades keeping North Korea away from south Korea. Germany started two world wars that resulted in the deaths of a 100 million people, should we have pulled out in 1946 and trust them not to go for three?
I am not saying you are one of them StSanta, but you know as well as we do that many Europeans are silently (and not so silently) cheering every American death, every American failure and every American setback. Watching from the sidelines waiting to shout their "I told you so's". They want to rub our collective noses in every piece of news that supports their point of view. Try and remember that when you see a post on this board that isn't very complimentary of the European point of view. The collective "piling on" of some of our friends is starting to wear thin.
-
i'm curious, some people imply that bush will lose the 04 election because of iraq, what do you think a democrat president would "do" with iraq?
A) bomb baghdad
B) withdraw all US troops from iraq
C) do what bush is doing
D) non of the above(explain)
-
Originally posted by john9001
i'm curious, some people imply that bush will lose the 04 election because of iraq, what do you think a democrat president would "do" with iraq?
A) bomb baghdad
B) withdraw all US troops from iraq
C) do what bush is doing
D) non of the above(explain)
D) Scramble around trying to find a way to recover from the horrible mess Dubya's gonna leave.
-
Originally posted by Arfann
D) Scramble around trying to find a way to recover from the horrible mess Dubya's gonna leave.
I did read something that said George W would win in 2004, then would campaign with Jeb for 2008 and 2012 leaving a Mr Bush in the White House till 2016!!
-
Originally posted by _Schadenfreude_
I did read something that said George W would win in 2004, then would campaign with Jeb for 2008 and 2012 leaving a Mr Bush in the White House till 2016!!
I hope so.
-
Krusher, it runs bouth ways. What came first, the chicken or the egg?
I doubt many Europeans get excited and happy each time an American soldier dies. Those that I know that are very critical of the US uses it as 'I told you so' material, but they take no pleasure in the deaths. Quite the contrary; they'd been prevented (they claim) if there wasn't a war.
At any rate, I can understand Americans getting annoyed at anti-US sentiments in Europe. But you gotta understand that the ugly American legend has soem truth to it. We've seen time and time again members on this board express that 'I don't care about world opinion'. So it comes from a perception that Americans are arrogant and non caring, doing what they will because they *can*.
Am just trying to say that both sides need to chill out and that both sides are to blame/are victims.
-
Originally posted by _Schadenfreude_
I did read something that said George W would win in 2004, then would campaign with Jeb for 2008 and 2012 leaving a Mr Bush in the White House till 2016!!
No doubt wishful thinking conservative rhetoric being quoted here. I still have faith that the American public will wake up way before then and throw the little weasels out. Did I say weasels? I'm sorry, I meant cockroaches.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
I hope so.
If so what about getting ride of those all politics and switch to monarchy ?
it would be simpler no ? :D
-
Originally posted by straffo
If so what about getting ride of those all politics and switch to monarchy ?
it would be simpler no ? :D
Maybe in France.
-
Originally posted by _Schadenfreude_
I did read something that said George W would win in 2004, then would campaign with Jeb for 2008 and 2012 leaving a Mr Bush in the White House till 2016!!
2004 - GWB jr
2008 - GWB Sr
2012 - Jeb
2016 - Jeb
till 2020 :)
that'd make 32 years of bush in the white house 1988 - 2020, just that the bush from 92 - 00 belonged to an intern :)
-
Originally posted by StSanta
Krusher, it runs bouth ways. What came first, the chicken or the egg?
I doubt many Europeans get excited and happy each time an American soldier dies. Those that I know that are very critical of the US uses it as 'I told you so' material, but they take no pleasure in the deaths. Quite the contrary; they'd been prevented (they claim) if there wasn't a war.
At any rate, I can understand Americans getting annoyed at anti-US sentiments in Europe. But you gotta understand that the ugly American legend has soem truth to it. We've seen time and time again members on this board express that 'I don't care about world opinion'. So it comes from a perception that Americans are arrogant and non caring, doing what they will because they *can*.
Am just trying to say that both sides need to chill out and that both sides are to blame/are victims.
StSanta, I respect your pov but,
wellllll i wrote a long reply, but it was way off topic
-
What I would like to see is some of these Europens contriput some of their Police force to help Iraq. It would be nice if we could start sending some of our troops home and let the civilian authorities take over some of these jobs. But then that would mean Europe would have to do something for peace in the world, and we cann't do that. Let the American taxpayer pay for that.
-
Originally posted by Naso
With Pizza, music and Spaghetti!!! :)
Bringing anything to drink?
-
Originally posted by Jack55
Bringing anything to drink?
Muslims cannot drink alchool :)
-
Originally posted by firbal
What I would like to see is some of these Europens contriput some of their Police force to help Iraq. It would be nice if we could start sending some of our troops home and let the civilian authorities take over some of these jobs. But then that would mean Europe would have to do something for peace in the world, and we cann't do that. Let the American taxpayer pay for that.
What Gsholz said.
We (Italy) have troops deployed in the border zone in Afghanistan, and are deploying military/police forces in Southern Iraq.
But that does'nt count, correct?
-
Originally posted by firbal
What I would like to see is some of these Europens contriput some of their Police force to help Iraq. It would be nice if we could start sending some of our troops home and let the civilian authorities take over some of these jobs. But then that would mean Europe would have to do something for peace in the world, and we cann't do that. Let the American taxpayer pay for that.
Excuse me mister ignorant american, wasn't it Bush Jr. who was reluctant to allow UN to go in Iraq now after the war?
and UN as we know, pretty much includes most of the europe under the question here.
Also, europe has always been the one to clean up things after US.
US had an idea to have a bombardment war in Kosovo -> soon as they were done with the bombing, european countries took over cleaning up the mess caused by all the three.
So europe is put to pay something which US should be contributing as well - but doesn't.
Sounds like you're ready to make claims without any research, just to mock the europeans.
Hypocrit perhaps?
My stepbrother has served in the UN forces and been out there in the problem countries to help with the peace process.
I suppose he was there on a holiday trip paid by finnish UN forces, not to help with the peace.
-
Could we leave the Yank and Euro bashing behind - doesn't serve any purpose and just gets nasty quickly - agree to disagree and move on.
-
Originally posted by _Schadenfreude_
I did read something that said George W would win in 2004, then would campaign with Jeb for 2008 and 2012 leaving a Mr Bush in the White House till 2016!!
Close, but that's not quite how it's going to happen. GW will win in '04. Then Hillary is gonna win in both '08 and '12. Then younger brother Geb will take it in '16 and '20.
It's going to go Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush. 32 straight years of Clinton/Bush.
Hhm... by then Chelsea and the drunk Bush daughters might be ready to give it a run.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Close, but that's not quite how it's going to happen. GW will win in '04. Then Hillary is gonna win in both '08 and '12. Then younger brother Geb will take it in '16 and '20.
It's going to go Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush. 32 straight years of Clinton/Bush.
Hhm... by then Chelsea and the drunk Bush daughters might be ready to give it a run.
Pity Mr Bush doesn't have any son's - if I was given a Bruce Almighty day by God I'd get one of them hitched to Chelsea.
-
Jeb has a son...
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Jeb has a son...
Bikini babes or people hitting each other - as if there's a choice!!
-
Originally posted by Naso
Muslims cannot drink alchool :)
Some do. Some have live-in girlfriends too.
-
If it was bush's intention to weed out terrorism by invading Iraq, he failed.
If it was bush's intention to get saddam, he failed.
If it was bush's intention to eliminate weapons of mass destruction, he somewhat succeeded for there already were none.
If it was bush's intention to bring peace to the region, he failed.
If it was bush's intention to liberate Iraqi people from a tyran, he ultimately failed.
what is the intention of this fellow, really? Is he a total failure, or does he have intentions and goals other than those he reveals?
he is a total liar and a criminal for misleading a nation, lying to the congress, and worst of all shedding blood of thousands of people; both Americans and Iraqis. he also is a coward for not having the guts to speak out his true intentions.
things look grim in this region. no sight of peace, but instead more blood shed. it's like a crazy man's dream, what this bush created. but then, who lives by the sword, dies by the sword. someone will eventually put a stop to this tyranny.
peace
-
Originally posted by zonta123
If it was bush's intention to weed out terrorism by invading Iraq, he failed.
If it was bush's intention to get saddam, he failed.
If it was bush's intention to eliminate weapons of mass destruction, he somewhat succeeded for there already were none.
If it was bush's intention to bring peace to the region, he failed.
If it was bush's intention to liberate Iraqi people from a tyran, he ultimately failed.
what is the intention of this fellow, really? Is he a total failure, or does he have intentions and goals other than those he reveals?
he is a total liar and a criminal for misleading a nation, lying to the congress, and worst of all shedding blood of thousands of people; both Americans and Iraqis. he also is a coward for not having the guts to speak out his true intentions.
things look grim in this region. no sight of peace, but instead more blood shed. it's like a crazy man's dream, what this bush created. but then, who lives by the sword, dies by the sword. someone will eventually put a stop to this tyranny.
peace
Well if you're going to get all picky!! sheesh
-
Hello Mr. Al Gore and welcome to AH!
-
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/06/30/timep.wmd.tm/index.html
:D
-
If it was bush's intention to weed out terrorism by invading Iraq, he failed.
We've killed or captured several thousand terrorists on their own turf since the war started. How many terrorist attacks have happened on American soil since?
If it was bush's intention to get saddam, he failed.
Who's giving up yet?
If it was bush's intention to eliminate weapons of mass destruction, he somewhat succeeded for there already were none.
Really? Do you have access to some secret information that no one else in the world has? Time will tell.
If it was bush's intention to bring peace to the region, he failed.
Really? Hundreds of civillians are no longer being raped tortured and killed daily by one of the most horrific regiems since the 3rd reich. If that isn't a step towards peace, then please lets hear your definition.
If it was bush's intention to liberate Iraqi people from a tyran, he ultimately failed.
And "there is no spoon" either, right?
what is the intention of this fellow, really?
Thanks for asking. Now pay attention:
1) Eliminate the untrackable black hole of funding, training and supporting of terrorism.
2) Find and destroy weapons of mass destruction.
3) Provide humanitarian relief to the innocent civilians of Iraq by toppling Saddams tyrancial deadly grip on his country, and return it's rescources to the Iraqi people.
things look grim in this region. no sight of peace, but instead more blood shed. it's like a crazy man's dream, what this bush created. but then, who lives by the sword, dies by the sword. someone will eventually put a stop to this tyranny.
Hey, finger-pointer who talks of death, ignoring twenty years of the most brutal slayings on all the world. How does it feel to be purposefully blind to reality?
-
We've killed or captured several thousand terrorists on their own turf since the war started. How many terrorist attacks have happened on American soil since?
This argument is really silly.
We are winning the "war on Alligators" here in California too.
Or put it another way... Clinton was hugely successful in his "war on terror" by limiting Al Quiada attacks on US soil to one attempt on the WTC in 1993.
BTW we are winning the "war on glaciers" in Hawaii.
-
Ummmm are you referring to your home grown terrorists or your more exotic imported variety?
-
This argument is really silly.
We are winning the "war on Alligators" here in California too.
Or put it another way... Clinton was hugely successful in his "war on terror" by limiting Al Quiada attacks on US soil to one attempt on the WTC in 1993.
BTW we are winning the "war on glaciers" in Hawaii.
I'm having trouble finding the logic in your position.
1) Alligators are not a threat to California. Your example is inapplicable.
2) Any terrorist attacks on US soil are unacceptable. The terrorist threat of today is the result of years of downsizing our intelligence community (partly under Clinton, as well as Bush Sr). So no, Clinton was NOT successful in limiting terrorist attacks to "one" because that "one" is unacceptable. Neither Clinton's nor Bush Jr's administation took a hint from the bombing of the WTC in '93, the bombing of the USS Cole, nor the bombing the US Embassy. So no, your illustration shows a great example of failure, not success; the opposite of what I assume you were intending to produce.
3) Glaciers are not a threat to the Hawaii. This example is inapplicable.
During the war with Iraq, thousands of terrorists trained to kill Americans, Austrailians, French, British, Tiawanese and other citizens of free countries, poured out of training camps and into Iraq to get a shot at coalition GI's. Thousands were subsequently dispatched or captured. Every one of them who died in Iraq, means one less potential suicide bomber. Yes, I call that a victory.
-
Originally posted by Tyrus
I'm having trouble finding the logic in your position.
3) Glaciers are not a threat to the Hawaii. This example is inapplicable.
Who cares about Hawaii? Just make ppl pack their things and move to Appalachian mountains.
-
Anyway Glaciers are so far away from Hawaii that I don't think waterlevel will rise at all :)
-
Originally posted by zonta123
but then, who lives by the sword, dies by the sword. someone will eventually put a stop to this tyranny.
Bring it squeak, we're ready.