just a few threads ago you were saying we should cut and run? http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=1219991&postcount=46 What happened?
I didn't think you could offer anything better. Lord knows I tried, but look at what I have to work with "Death to America" and all that other stuff
Isn't that a bit of a twist, chief?..not all Iraqi's are terrorists, so it's kind of hard to put together what you just put together. The bulk of Iraq's elected leaders have expressed condemnation of any violence domestically...if ones to believe that those elections were valid, one is to assume that the citizens elected people that wish to keep the peace. I prefer to call it irrational civil disputes, not necessarily terrorism...although all the hallmarks are there.
What happend? Read the rest of the thread and recount how you and yo! got suckered That thread was a blast, watching the two of you whiz all over yourselves while getting owned! And you suggest I'm getting senile
Gtech keeps saying we want to leave Iraq for the "terrorists"... The truth is, those "terrorists" are two religous sects fighting each other. They are IRAQIS. If Iraqi's want to fight each other, why is that our problem? If france has a civil war are we going to occupy their country too? Yeh.. while their own death squads are being caught red handed every month. You assume the elections were actually valid, so naive rick.. so naive.
Has no answer for question, so he takes question completely off topic by, asking yet another question. Sometimes I feeling like I am talking to a drunk blond at a body shop.
I wouldn't say it's everyone, though ie they don't represent all the people of Iraq. Here's a interesting tit-bit for you...while oil is not the end-all be all of everything, it is clearly responsible for the population growth in the world. It makes production so much cheaper. They say if we hit peak oil, and we don't have a valid subsititute, then a huge,...huge chunk of us will die. Now I don't know if that will happen, but I won't bring that fate any closer. A huge conflict in that region, would be bad, and if it went nucleur we'd be pumping oil with nuke suits on. Nothings ideal about what I say, it's just the practical nature of survival...it's sad we're in this position. I would hope so...they have nukes that could go everwhere. Wouldn't be smart security to just let them be in anyones hands...but we'll let that situation hit us when it comes ie it depends on the situation. You read what I wrote...no assuming at all. My language was used with a level of skepticism,...I think you know that. 'if ones to believe that those elections were valid, one is to assume that the citizens elected people that wish to keep the peace.'
Well then the people of Iraq need to get off their assess and start fixing their country. I'm not advocating we just leave (like gtech would lead you to believe), you've heard me say before - the war created a situation with no good outcomes and I don't know what the best thing to do is. But like ferret has expressed, without some kind of timeline and real plan (which bush doesn't seem to have) - Iraq is going to continue taking our soldiers (not my favorite group of people, but they are americans none the less) lives and drain our bank accounts. And for what? PS: Iraq election fraud Sunni Arabs complain of Iraq election fraud Did Washington try to manipulate Iraq’s election?
Oh yeh rick... see what kind of democracy we've set up in Iraq... the kind where the most wanted terrorist has government officials on speed dial Numbers of Iraqi Officials Found in Zarqawi's Phone Yep... real "valid" government we've got going over there... certainly no corruption.
Not much different than the US in her own fight for independence. Took a very long time. There was corruption, murder, and eventually a civil war. In the overall scheme of things, Iraq is coming along a lot faster and further than the US did. Ah, if only Lafayette were alive today!
Not an easy task for a country that's been under someone elses thumb for such a long time. I try to side with optimism, even though the reasonings not there. That whole region is a matter of hoping for the best. It's good that you aren't just a 'fuck man it's time to leave now,' kind of person. I don't think a timeline...maybe a set of goals and generally a review time in which the generals would be questioned on their progress.To some level I like that liberals are pushing their views on this, because I'm quite sure if that didn't exist, we'd be there forever. While I don't mind the idea of station some people there (as we've always been in Germany), I think we should have a good set of goals that are practical and are being reviewed. Not all soldiers are bad people...many of them I know and care for. In war some people will misbehave and should be punished (and we're one of the few countries that tries our own for such), but please don't wholly look down-upon all soldiers.
I googled it and took the first "mainstream" news site that popped up so I wouldn't get "liberal media bias" nutcase remarks. The action they say they're taking against unnamed persons. Which actually means what? No I am a tough critic of the soldiers (they're occupying someone elses country) - and I knew if i didn't add that in, gtech would come running. I know their are great honorable soldiers - and they deserve much respect.
Revolutionary officers (not just low ranked soldiers) actually considered overthrowing the US government.... Although since George was such a great leader (not much of a general), he convinced his officers that they were fighting a just cause, and that he would continuely stand by their side in this cause...as he knew the actual threat and truely cared about his soldiers. George Washington was the most practical leader we've ever had....good man. His idealism was fair, generally, but leaders don't focus on idealism they focus on what works.
They saw what he was willing to give up, land, life, home, everything for that cause side by side with others not so fortuante as he. But again, it took a LONG time. Even rebuilding Europe after WWII took a LONG time. What did people think, we would just walk in there, remove Saddam, say, here is your new government and leave? It's a bit more complicated than that. We are in it for the long haul, as we should be. Stopping now would be far worse than continuing what we began.
They're in investigation mode, according to the article. Before you charge anyone with crimes you look into it first, don't you? They're suppose to follow orders, not pick and chose. I know it's morally wrong to you, but if we had an individualistic military (where everyone makes their own decesions on policies/actions), we wouldn't have a military. I'm sure many of the soldiers came with a sense of false pretense and feel otherwise now, but like you and I to some level, they feel an obligation to do what's best (most of them). That isn't up to them, and shouldn't be. A military is a tool of political control (which to some level is in our hands).
Supposedly the speech that changed everything,...he said, 'my eyes have gone blind fighting with you,' which made the officers cry, because they sensed the utter betrayal that was conceived among them as no-longer possible...they felt the emphathy that George had as a leader and person. Somehow among the people today...they believe the rules have changed. I truely can't imagine the current idealogy win world war II.