Do You Approve of Bush's SURGE/ESCALATION???

[LoungeMachine]

Yes or No?

[LoungeMachine]

No.

No more lives sacrificed for this president.

No rewarding the Iraqi "Government" for failing to get their own shit together.

No.

[blueturk]

This "surge" is just "staying the cause" at a higher level. Bush wanted Saddam. He used 9/11 and the American people's shock and sorrow to justify his personal vendetta. The fucking chickenhawk had no idea what he would do after the fall of Hussein, and still doesn't. Anybody who thinks he does is either delusional or so commited to the GOP that they'll believe anything.

"It's bad in Iraq. Does that help?" --George W. Bush, after being asked by a reporter whether he's in denial about Iraq, Washington, D.C., Dec. 7, 2006

[FORD]

There is no such country as Iraq. The only way to maintain the illusion of "Iraq" was through brutal suppression, and the guy who did that best is no longer eligible, due to a permanently disabling neck injury.

It's time to let the three seperate ethnic regions decide their own fates. The Kurds will have their own state. The Shias will either join Iran outright or form what would essentially be an Iranian client state. The Sunnis could become an annex of either Jordan or Syria. Any of the above is far more likely than a mythical democracy in a fake country.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by FORD


and the guy who did that best is no longer eligible, due to a permanently disabling neck injury.




You just KNOW somewhere right now Guitar Shark's ears perked up. :D

[FORD]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
You just KNOW somewhere right now Guitar Shark's ears perked up. :D

Yeah, but Saddam's going to have a hard time accessing any of his Swiss bank accounts from Hell, so I doubt Matt could make any money there. ;)

[pflo]

The only surge should be to add bush and cheney and rummy to the army and force them to patrol central Bagdad unescorted.I think that is the fair thing to do. I hear them Iraqis like to hang the bad guys.;)

[knuckleboner]

hard to say.

we're not currently putting guns in the hands of the insurgents who are killing other iraqis. nonetheless, but for our invasion, that would not be happening.

i'm not saying we should therefore babysit the iraqis forever. but at this point, i still think they are our responsibility.

i definitely didn't agree with the decision to go to war. and i'm certain that the war planners did not anticipate the likely outcome that the various iraqi ethnic groups would vie for power.

while FORD is right, it's likely that the colonial state of iraq is probably unstable on its own, the location of the oil will keep the ethnic power struggle going. the shias would have it, and it's doubtful that the sunnis would simply give it up.



so...what does that all mean to troop levels? i'm not sure that the bush plan for simple troop increases will improve the problem. though, i'm sure that there are increased troop level scenarios, especially those more prominently involving other countries, could help the process.

so i'm opposing the bush plan. but i'm not opposed in theory to increased troop levels.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by knuckleboner
hard to say.

we're not currently putting guns in the hands of the insurgents who are killing other iraqis...

No. The Shiite "Iraqi" ("Tyranny of the majority") gov't is indeed murdering a lot of its own Sunni citizens via death squads.

[Warham]

What about McCain's plan?

He'd like to send another 40,000 troops over there.

[Ellyllions]

No surge.

Just seal off the borders all the way around. Move all Coalition troops to the borders to make sure that nothing gets through (in or out), cut the TV feeds, and leave the Iraqi's to squash their own shit.

If they destroy each other, then so-be-it. If not, the country is sealed off until they can find a way to co-exist.

If Syria, Iran, et. al truly are behind anything going on in Iraq. This would at least put a hiatus on it. And when the dust clears just maybe the Iraqi's will be ready to stand together for the world.

Maybe....

[LoungeMachine]

11 votes, only 1 for the plan....

WarBOT

LMMFAO


Some things never change......

[Isaac R.]

Originally posted by Ellyllions

If not, the country is sealed off until they can find a way to co-exist.


Don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen;)

[Warham]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
11 votes, only 1 for the plan....

WarBOT

LMMFAO


Some things never change......

I haven't voted yet.

[Ellyllions]

Originally posted by Isaac R.
Don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen;)

I won't.
But, let them fucking kill each other off then. I'm sick of the pandering crap.

[ULTRAMAN VH]

Originally posted by Ellyllions
No surge.

Just seal off the borders all the way around. Move all Coalition troops to the borders to make sure that nothing gets through (in or out), cut the TV feeds, and leave the Iraqi's to squash their own shit.

If they destroy each other, then so-be-it. If not, the country is sealed off until they can find a way to co-exist.

If Syria, Iran, et. al truly are behind anything going on in Iraq. This would at least put a hiatus on it. And when the dust clears just maybe the Iraqi's will be ready to stand together for the world.

Maybe....

Nice plan Ell, but we can't even seal our own borders.

[ppg960]

Bush is going to take this to the Bitter end. Unfortunatly, the next President will have to clean up this shit pile.
I voted NO.
Time to Pull the Plug. They are not winning over there.

[Warham]

What makes you think the next president is not going to do the same thing? I'm afraid islamic fascism doesn't take vacations.

[DLR'sCock]

fas·cism /ˈfæʃɪzəm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[fash-iz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. (sometimes initial capital letter) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.
2. (sometimes initial capital letter) the philosophy, principles, or methods of fascism.
3. (initial capital letter) a fascist movement, esp. the one established by Mussolini in Italy 1922–43.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Origin: 1915–20; < It fascismo, equiv. to fasc(io) bundle, political group (see fasces) + -ismo -ism]
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

[LoungeMachine]

Don't interfere with WarBOT's FOX talking points...

If O'Reilly says they're Fascists, they're fascists.

WarBOT doesn't know what fascism means.

[Lqskdiver]

Some poll considering the majority of Frontline posters consist of FordSheep...I mean, democrats.

That's like going into New Orleans 9 Ward and asking who there deserves a new home.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Warham
I haven't voted yet.


Waiting for Rush to tell you how to vote again?

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Lqskdiver
Some poll considering the majority of Frontline posters consist of FordSheep...I mean, democrats.

That's like going into New Orleans 9 Ward and asking who there deserves a new home.


Like it's our fault all of the Neo Con Shitbags have run away beaten.

I knew the mid-terms would shut most of them up. :D

[Lqskdiver]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Like it's our fault all of the Neo Con Shitbags have run away beaten.

I knew the mid-terms would shut most of them up. :D

Funny, it was mid-terms that brought me back...back...back from oblivion.

Well, consider your majority "occupation" of the FrontLine TEMPORARY...I foresee in the near future a surge in troops.
;)

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Lqskdiver
Funny, it was mid-terms that brought me back...back...back from oblivion.

Well, consider your majority "occupation" of the FrontLine TEMPORARY...I foresee in the near future a surge in troops.
;)


Bring 'em on !!

We will not be deterred by you Godless infidels.

:D ;) :cool:

[Warham]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Don't interfere with WarBOT's FOX talking points...

If O'Reilly says they're Fascists, they're fascists.

WarBOT doesn't know what fascism means.

You apparently don't either, because I always hear about Bush's fascism, even though he's done nothing worthy of being impeached, or even having a hearing on being impeached.

You must listen to O'Reilly, since you apparently know what he talks about all the time. Hey, at least we know Democrats actually listen to him more than they do Air America.

[Warham]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Like it's our fault all of the Neo Con Shitbags have run away beaten.

I knew the mid-terms would shut most of them up. :D

They left because the level of intelligent discussion in here bottomed out last year.

Much like you say Iraq isn't going to turn around, I don't think this will either.

[Diamondjimi]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
No.

No more lives sacrificed for this president.

No rewarding the Iraqi "Government" for failing to get their own shit together.

No.

Yup !

[Guitar Shark]

Originally posted by knuckleboner
hard to say.

we're not currently putting guns in the hands of the insurgents who are killing other iraqis. nonetheless, but for our invasion, that would not be happening.

i'm not saying we should therefore babysit the iraqis forever. but at this point, i still think they are our responsibility.

i definitely didn't agree with the decision to go to war. and i'm certain that the war planners did not anticipate the likely outcome that the various iraqi ethnic groups would vie for power.

while FORD is right, it's likely that the colonial state of iraq is probably unstable on its own, the location of the oil will keep the ethnic power struggle going. the shias would have it, and it's doubtful that the sunnis would simply give it up.



so...what does that all mean to troop levels? i'm not sure that the bush plan for simple troop increases will improve the problem. though, i'm sure that there are increased troop level scenarios, especially those more prominently involving other countries, could help the process.

so i'm opposing the bush plan. but i'm not opposed in theory to increased troop levels.

I agree with this post. However, I would also add that I believe a "surge" (what a ridiculous term) sends the wrong message to the Iraqi government. If the ultimate goal is to allow the Iraqis to take control themselves, we send them the opposite message by running to their rescue with more troops. We need to establish a greater sense of urgency on the part of the Iraqi government, and I think we're doing the opposite with this "plan."

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Warham
They left because the level of intelligent discussion in here bottomed out last year.

.

LMMFAO

Whatever. If you need to tell yourself this to feel better, more power to you.

Again I ask the same question. If you have no affection or respect for this forum, and no answer to improve it, why mod it?

Change forums.

Lqskdiver would make a great replacement.

He'd have my vote.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Guitar Shark
I agree with this post. However, I would also add that I believe a "surge" (what a ridiculous term) sends the wrong message to the Iraqi government. If the ultimate goal is to allow the Iraqis to take control themselves, we send them the opposite message by running to their rescue with more troops. We need to establish a greater sense of urgency on the part of the Iraqi government, and I think we're doing the opposite with this "plan."

Fucking exactly.

Adding 22,000 more targets is all Bush is doing.

That, and wet nursing a bunch of morons who don't appreciate anything we do anyway.

Of course, perhaps the real reason is if we left, Halliburton would have to ante up for more security personell at their own expense.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
What about McCain's plan?

He'd like to send another 40,000 troops over there.

As soon as we draft them, we'll get back to you on that...

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Lqskdiver
Some poll considering the majority of Frontline posters consist of FordSheep...

Apparently, so does two-thirds of the American population (on this issue, not his kooky conspiracy crap):)...

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
You apparently don't either, because I always hear about Bush's fascism, even though he's done nothing worthy of being impeached, or even having a hearing on being impeached....

Except breaking the FISA laws...

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
They left because the level of intelligent discussion in here bottomed out last year.


No...









They cut and run because:




































http://www.saneworks.us/uploads/small/183.jpg
"YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!"

[ppg960]

With the public unrest about the Middle East, anyone campaining would have to prmise to "pull out".
I don't think they would get in otherwise.
Besides, what a great platform to beat the shit out of the Republicans with!!!

[pflo]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
No...









They cut and run because:



































http://www.saneworks.us/uploads/small/183.jpg
"YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!" Thats a MOVIE and an ACTOR, champ.Consider stepping back into reality.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by pflo
Thats a MOVIE and an ACTOR, champ.Consider stepping back into reality.

Really? No shit...

Actually, I'm am Jack Nicholson!!

[Warham]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
LMMFAO

Whatever. If you need to tell yourself this to feel better, more power to you.

Again I ask the same question. If you have no affection or respect for this forum, and no answer to improve it, why mod it?

Change forums.

Lqskdiver would make a great replacement.

He'd have my vote.

I'm not saying it to make myself feel better. I'm saying it to smack some sense into you.

I don't think Lqskdiver would consider your endorsement worth accepting. You've propped up some weak posters here over the last three years. He's better than that.

[Ellyllions]

Hate to interject but did you guys watch the speech last night?

We're in big trouble in Iraq and he's not sure if this will fix it. When he said, "As long as the Iraqis honor their promises..." my stomach fell. I knew right then that we're sending these troops in to die.

Instead of worrying about whether or not we should've gone into Iraq, at this point we all need to be hoping we can fix this mess before we're run out of Iraq.

: (

[FORD]

It's even worse than that. Chimpy made it obvious last night that he intends to attack Iran, Syria, and whomever else the Likud Zionfascist PNAC bastards want him to. And 20,000 more troops are just a drop in the blood bucket when that happens.

It's time to stop this madness.

[Ellyllions]

Forgive me to the second reply.

Scenerio:
When you've got a known drug area in your city there's certain ways you can handle it.

-You really don't want to go in guns blazing and causing the dealers/cohorts to scatter. Cause when they scatter, they end up at the upscale Harris Teeter parking lot in the old money part of town and that's never a good thing.

-You don't want to have too much of a "black and blue" presence because honest studies have shown that constant police presence can actually increase criminal activity.

What you do want to do is find out who lives in that area and put people in place that can give you information and get to know your offenders. So....you let a few small-time dealers "go" on the contingent that you'll be watching them. They're the people you press for information. You risk their lives instead of your own. And you don't want to take the toads to the County lock-up where their little 2 year sentence can put them in touch with an even bigger supplier in another part of town. It gets a little hard to control when your dimers leave your patrol.

The next thing that you do is that you "quarantine" the area. I've seen cities build actual chain link fences around entire neighborhoods. Or build an "apartment" complex and offer it to the public as "low-income housing". It serves a dual purpose. It's location is chosen specifically.

Once you've got your "cage" built, you can work it from the outside knowing what new folks coming in and out are there for and basically maintaining the area. Because in all honesty you can't eradicate it.

Here's my point:
As an officer, chief, town official you know that if you forget to handle that area it will grow. It will take over other neighborhoods. The whole contingent will spread. So it need constant attention. You can never leave it out of any plans.

There is no fix for Iraq. There is nothing that we can do to change the course of the people there. Unless....we stay. And stay. And stay. Because once we walk away, they will finish what's been started. It's just a waiting game at this point.

[FORD]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Apparently, so does two-thirds of the American population (on this issue, not his kooky conspiracy crap):)...

That's cookie conspiracy crap, damn it!! :mad:

http://img129.echo.cx/img129/5936/cookiemonster6jc.jpg

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine

No rewarding the Iraqi "Government" for failing to get their own shit together.



True enough.

[BigBadBrian]

BTW....NO!!!

[knuckleboner]

Originally posted by FORD
It's even worse than that. Chimpy made it obvious last night that he intends to attack Iran, Syria,

there's no chance we send ground troops into syria and/or iran.

there's a reason why iran has been so emboldened towards its nuclear weapons program lately. they know that the U.S. will not currently be able to field ground forces in afghanistan, iraq AND another country. and there's no way that the American people will support another mideast incursion.

[Ellyllions]

I don't think it matters anymore what the American people want. And I don't think that mentality is exclusive to the President's administration. I think our Government has become used to the moniker "Most powerful" and the entire commune of them are sick with greed.

I think our biggest downfall in this whole middle east fiasco is that we trusted the people to want something that they have no idea about. Peace, co-existence with the rest of the planet. I think we underestimate the depth of their "third-world" mentality. I think the whole world is at a complete disadvantage because we want them to live with us when their goals are more short-sighted in that they just want to kill their next door neighbor instead.

[FORD]

So who are the two Busheep who are still in favor of wasting American lives for this bullshit?

Brian's on record as opposing the "surge".

WarPig? UltraDouche??

Step up and defend your votes. Better yet, see your local recruiter and put your support where it counts ;)

[Lqskdiver]

I haven't voted. But in response to this poll, my vote would be no. Let me tell you why.

I don't think 20,000 troops is enough to do the job.

The Iraqi's said they will commit another 40,000 bringing it to a 40k increase. But when their current trainees are blown up and killed I don't see them keeping that committment.

Still, if they manage to pull that one off, that won't effectively stabilize the regions.

We need another 120k troops to go in there and wipeout all insurgency and help seal the borders so that it stabilizes the region. That in turn will allow the Iraqi's to train their militia quicker and make them self dependant. Sure Saddam had his shit together, like FORD says...but he had time to train his military to help his rise in power in that region.

Now, wait, here are the downfalls of such as huge increase in troops.

1. The American people don't want to send any more troops. This is understandable and to have families stomach the thought of more of their men and women in combat would be difficult. Hence, one reason why the President is asking for this lesser amount.

2. We don't have the stock or pool and the funds to send that many troops to Iraq. The cost would triple in logistics and further send our budget into deficit. Another reason why the President is not sending the 30k we had originally anticipated.

3. That many troops would send a certified message that this occupation is permanent and the next on the lists are Syria and Iran. I believe both are threats to the region. But I also believe we can influence the young moderate idealists in that region who happen to love western culture that a change in the old regime is best. But by sending another 100k troops in the region, this would most likely stir up more resentment and further divide us from them.

I think this last reason is a major part of the grand scheme and how the future will pan out in that region. Unfortunately, the lives that are constantly being lost today is affecting how we view this. But to pull back now would be a major mistake. HUGE. It would lead to more chaos, certain civil war and WAY more bloodshed.

That apathetic view is a far worse scenario than the current one.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Warham
I'm not saying it to make myself feel better. I'm saying it to smack some sense into you.





:rolleyes:

Typical WarNOT bullshit.


What ever you do, make sure it's everyone else's fault but your own.

The Party of Deflection.

[BITEYOASS]

Get the troops out of there and leave the contractors behind if they want to stay. Those mercenary fucks can kiss my ass! Hell, from what I hear, they are a bunch of diehard neocons anyway, ones who simultaneous suck the chimp's and satan's cock for a fortune in oil money. So long KBR cocksuckers!

[knuckleboner]

Originally posted by Ellyllions
I don't think it matters anymore what the American people want. And I don't think that mentality is exclusive to the President's administration. I think our Government has become used to the moniker "Most powerful" and the entire commune of them are sick with greed.


sure the people's opinions matter. just ask the former republican majority congress. by and large, the 2006 elections were a referendum on the republicans' performance, iraq being the single biggest issue.

and why is bush now admitting that he's made mistakes in iraq? he knows where the sentiment lies.

and ultimately, the legisltors know that if they vote for a war in iran, especially under similar, first-strike circumstances like iraq, they're going to lose.



in fact, i could argue that the war in iraq actually hampered our national security aims. should we obtain evidence that iran (a country more likely to provide assistance to fanatical terrorist groups) has acquired WMD, will whatever U.S. administration that's in power at the time, be able to simply put on a justification-show like we did prior to the iraqi war and then expect the same level of support from the U.S. populace? would they expect ANY support? would congress immediately authorize the use of force?

iraq has turned us into the boy who cried wolf. and for better or for worse, in the near future, we're not believing the next story, regardless of the intel.

[Nitro Express]

Bush's Surge is another term for the president jacking off. Clinton got blowjobs, Bush gets off on abusing his power in stupid ways. I would take kak on the blue dress over a masturbating monkey any day.

[Keef]

Originally posted by Warham
You apparently don't either, because I always hear about Bush's fascism, even though he's done nothing worthy of being impeached, or even having a hearing on being impeached.

You must listen to O'Reilly, since you apparently know what he talks about all the time. Hey, at least we know Democrats actually listen to him more than they do Air America.

When are you going to give it up? I have seen many let go of thier ego and admit when they were wrong.

Otherwise, just let it be known to everyone and yourself that you are a racist bastard.

Simple either way...

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Keef
When are you going to give it up? I have seen many let go of thier ego and admit when they were wrong.

Otherwise, just let it be known to everyone and yourself that you are a racist bastard.

Simple either way...


Guess this guy didn't get your memo, WarNOT.

:D


*5 stars*

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by FORD
So who are the two Busheep who are still in favor of wasting American lives for this bullshit?

Brian's on record as opposing the "surge".

WarPig? UltraDouche??

Step up and defend your votes. Better yet, see your local recruiter and put your support where it counts ;)

This doesn't surprise me in the least.

[Terry]

Seems doubtful 25,000 odd are really gonna make the difference.

What would be the maximum number of current non-deployed forces that could be sent in there? In other words, how many more are available that already aren't there?

Whatever that number is, send most of them. Go all the fucking way if it is crucial that the US emerge victorious in Iraq. Get 'em all in there, and have them concentrate all those billions we're pouring in there to rebuilding the physical infrastructure.

We have to be closing in on a trillion spent there by now, and the fact that in many places electricity, running water and basic standard-of-living levels are LOWER than before the war is inexcusable.

Yes, it was a fucked-up bunch of outright lies that got us in there, but now it is our responsibility to make it right. It's just the decent thing to do.

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by Warham
They left because the level of intelligent discussion in here bottomed out last year.

Much like you say Iraq isn't going to turn around, I don't think this will either.

That is such fucking bullshit.

People against Bush in this forum used to be in a minority here, FORD, myself a couple of others. Just like US approval ratings of that fucking idiot which went from what, 85% to 28%?

I think considering how fucking wrong you and the now silent misguided supporters are like the John Ashcroft poster et al there hasn't been as many 'WE FUCKING TOLD YOU SO' posts as there should have been.

So anyone that is anti Bush is now suddenly a sheep?

First it was WMD's. There were many posts and arguments about how they were there and just about to found. Then they had been mysteriously moved to Syria or something. Iraq supported Al Queda and thus 9-11. Over and over again these bullshit arguments were shot down here. Until they became accepted FACTS.

When that argument was lost it was all about Saddam. He was a cunt that killed people. When that arguent was lost because there were more killings now than ever we are now apparently grasping at the straws of 'Well it's the UN inspectors fault for not finding non existent weapons and then getting thrown out.'

Gimme a fucking break...

Cheers!

:gulp:

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by Lqskdiver
I haven't voted. But in response to this poll, my vote would be no. Let me tell you why.

I don't think 20,000 troops is enough to do the job.



Simple question.

WHAT IS THE JOB?

The Iraqi government don't want any more troops because they might affect the actions of the Shiite militia. The Iraqi government wants to kill Sunni's and do to them what was done to them under Saddam.

The only role 'coalition' troops have is being targets in a civil war.

What happened to the Baker report exactly?

The people with the best foreign policy pedigree(not saying too much) in the US came up with a plan that even fucking Blair supported.

No lets scrap that idea and go with the fucking wise monkey...

Cheers!

:gulp:

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
That is such fucking bullshit.

People against Bush in this forum used to be in a minority here, FORD, myself a couple of others. Just like US approval ratings of that fucking idiot which went from what, 85% to 28%?

I think considering how fucking wrong you and the now silent misguided supporters are like the John Ashcroft poster et al there hasn't been as many 'WE FUCKING TOLD YOU SO' posts as there should have been.

So anyone that is anti Bush is now suddenly a sheep?

First it was WMD's. There were many posts and arguments about how they were there and just about to found. Then they had been mysteriously moved to Syria or something. Iraq supported Al Queda and thus 9-11. Over and over again these bullshit arguments were shot down here. Until they became accepted FACTS.

When that argument was lost it was all about Saddam. He was a cunt that killed people. When that arguent was lost because there were more killings now than ever we are now apparently grasping at the straws of 'Well it's the UN inspectors fault for not finding non existent weapons and then getting thrown out.'

Gimme a fucking break...

Cheers!

:gulp:

Dead on.

:gulp:

[Terry]

Originally posted by Ellyllions
I don't think it matters anymore what the American people want. And I don't think that mentality is exclusive to the President's administration. I think our Government has become used to the moniker "Most powerful" and the entire commune of them are sick with greed.

I think our biggest downfall in this whole middle east fiasco is that we trusted the people to want something that they have no idea about. Peace, co-existence with the rest of the planet. I think we underestimate the depth of their "third-world" mentality. I think the whole world is at a complete disadvantage because we want them to live with us when their goals are more short-sighted in that they just want to kill their next door neighbor instead.

Yeah, well, less than half who could vote do, and people don't boycott products made by companies with greedy CEOs, or from companies who close up shop stateside while jobs are shipped overseas, so we get what we deserve when we willingly let the ruling class roll over us while we sit at home watching crappy reality shows. Probably shouldn't speak for everyone, but I know I'm guilty of it.

A world where the strong don't victimize the weak, and the primary goal isn't chasing around little green slips of paper as a means to lord it over those who have less...sounds nice.

[pflo]

As long as the US has "interests" in the middle east, as the stupid fuck himself admitted last night, they will be hated and mistrusted by those people.Its their job to make their country as they want it. If that isnt a democracy like us, tough shit, it aint the states. FUCK OFF!!! You cant impose a way of life or ideals, it has NEVER worked, it is earned. The Yanks need to get the fuck out of ALL countries . Hypocrisy breeds hatred. Remember the Nazis thought they were doing the right thing for humanity. How did that turn out?

[Seshmeister]

The best thing a US ggovernment could do is come out with rhetoric adding Israel and Saudi Arabia to the Axis of evil and then doing nothing for 5 or 10 years. Just keep out of it,

Economically it wouldn't do any damage to the American people and it would remove 99% of the terrorist threat.

Cheers!

:gulp:

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by FORD
So who are the two Busheep who are still in favor of wasting American lives for this bullshit?

Brian's on record as opposing the "surge".

WarPig? UltraDouche??

Step up and defend your votes. Better yet, see your local recruiter and put your support where it counts ;)

Sorry --Warpig is wondering how Clinton can be blamed for all this, and UltraDouche is fixing to post an op-ed piece on why America going off the gold standard is sheer communist-inspired evil...

[Seshmeister]

It's all about ego now which makes me sick.

It's all about Bush and Blair's legacy now. American and British troops now have to wait for a change of president/Prime Minister. So basically around 1 or 2 thousand of our troops will be killed because they will not admit they fucked up big time. Most of the Britsih will be out by the end of the year because Blair will be gone by the Summer but a lot of American kids will be killed for nothing les than the political expediency of Bush.

It's totally fucked up but the bottom line is that the majority of US voters chose him again.

[pflo]

yup, a lot of FUCKIN IDIOTS!! I hope those who re elected the "waste of blood" are themselves in Iraq or have a family member there, but I doubt it. Fuckin armchair quarterbacks...go get em bush, its just like a football game. For fuck sakes, someone has to take him out of action! he, by proxy , has killed more civilians in his term than all terrorist acts combined in the last 30 years. That is so fucked.

[Nitro Express]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
The best thing a US ggovernment could do is come out with rhetoric adding Israel and Saudi Arabia to the Axis of evil and then doing nothing for 5 or 10 years. Just keep out of it,

Economically it wouldn't do any damage to the American people and it would remove 99% of the terrorist threat.

Cheers!

:gulp:

I like your idea. After WWII the US started meddling in other countries. We were playing chess with the Soviets and using the whole globe as the board. After the Soviet Union collapsed we didn't leave the chess board and continued to play are meddling game.

I'm afraid we can't afford it no longer with $3 Trillion in debt and a busted down military. We couldn't do shit if China invaded Taiwan tommorrow or if N. Korea invaded the south. We are spread too thin.

It's time to pack it all up and come back home and fix our problems here. We can focus on making stuff again and exporting it and getting other countries money instead of borrowing money to invade other countries.

[Nitro Express]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
The best thing a US ggovernment could do is come out with rhetoric adding Israel and Saudi Arabia to the Axis of evil and then doing nothing for 5 or 10 years. Just keep out of it,

Economically it wouldn't do any damage to the American people and it would remove 99% of the terrorist threat.

Cheers!

:gulp:

I like your idea. After WWII the US started meddling in other countries. We were playing chess with the Soviets and using the whole globe as the board. After the Soviet Union collapsed we didn't leave the chess board and continued to play are meddling game.

I'm afraid we can't afford it no longer with $3 Trillion in debt and a busted down military. We couldn't do shit if China invaded Taiwan tommorrow or if N. Korea invaded the south. We are spread too thin.

It's time to pack it all up and come back home and fix our problems here. We can focus on making stuff again and exporting it and getting other countries money instead of borrowing money to invade other countries.
Originally posted by Seshmeister
It's all about ego now which makes me sick.

It's all about Bush and Blair's legacy now. American and British troops now have to wait for a change of president/Prime Minister. So basically around 1 or 2 thousand of our troops will be killed because they will not admit they fucked up big time. Most of the Britsih will be out by the end of the year because Blair will be gone by the Summer but a lot of American kids will be killed for nothing les than the political expediency of Bush.

It's totally fucked up but the bottom line is that the majority of US voters chose him again.

Yup, Bush wants a gloriouse excuse to prolong the war in Iraq until the next president has to be the one to end it. Bush used to be a CEO and thinks like a CEO, time it so the shit happens on the next guys watch.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
It's all about ego now which makes me sick.

It's all about Bush and Blair's legacy now. American and British troops now have to wait for a change of president/Prime Minister. So basically around 1 or 2 thousand of our troops will be killed because they will not admit they fucked up big time. Most of the Britsih will be out by the end of the year because Blair will be gone by the Summer but a lot of American kids will be killed for nothing les than the political expediency of Bush.

It's totally fucked up but the bottom line is that the majority of US voters chose him again.

Actually, a majority of dummy Americans voted for him the second time, but Gore won the popular vote the first time. And I think he probably won the election, but was screwed by Krazytheleen Harris...

[Lqskdiver]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
Simple question.

WHAT IS THE JOB?

The Iraqi government don't want any more troops because they might affect the actions of the Shiite militia. The Iraqi government wants to kill Sunni's and do to them what was done to them under Saddam.

The only role 'coalition' troops have is being targets in a civil war.

What happened to the Baker report exactly?

The people with the best foreign policy pedigree(not saying too much) in the US came up with a plan that even fucking Blair supported.

No lets scrap that idea and go with the fucking wise monkey...

Cheers!

:gulp:


Just so I'm on same page with you, reiterate what Bakers report said.

[Phil theStalker]

Originally posted by FORD
There is no such country as Iraq. The only way to maintain the illusion of "Iraq" was through brutal suppression, and the guy who did that best is no longer eligible, due to a permanently disabling neck injury.

It's time to let the three seperate ethnic regions decide their own fates. The Kurds will have their own state. The Shias will either join Iran outright or form what would essentially be an Iranian client state. The Sunnis could become an annex of either Jordan or Syria. Any of the above is far more likely than a mythical democracy in a fake country.
I've thought of this, too. Once you give power and oil prosperity t2o these groups you create new problems for neighbors. Turkey will be directly targeted by a newly formed Kurdish state with fighting and war breaking out to claim land now held by Turkey where Kurds live.

It's a mess doing it right without leaving your fingerprints on the next wars.

Should have never invaded the Mid East and developed FUEL CELLS instead.

Well, maybe next year. If we have another year which we don't according to Pat Robertson.


:spank: