If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(London Times)   Iraqi military has a plan: As soon as the U.S. forces leave, so do they. "As soon as it happens, I will quit my job and live outside Iraq," says one sergeant   (timesonline.co.uk) divider line 305
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

7557 clicks; posted to Main » on 07 Dec 2006 at 3:13 AM (7 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



305 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
TJL
2006-12-07 08:18:41 AM
aycu28.webshots.com

/From North Dakota w/ love
 
2006-12-07 08:20:28 AM
greyson: why should we stand up for them if they dont stand up for themselves. I guess thats why they were living under a bloodthirsty dictator. freedom isnt given to you.

Then we need to reinstall another bloodthirsty dictator with as little bloodshed as possible. Remember, in the end, this is our fault.

HotWingConspiracy: Well you seem unable to provide any names of or actions taken by the "left" that directly affected the way the war was fought. Nor can you explain why Bush would capitulate to them when he held all relevent power in the government in terms of fighting the war.

It's a myth designed to absolve your heroes of failure.


HWC, hasn't it been pretty well established that Alidade is a troll? He hasn't responded to any of your questions directly, which supports that theory.
 
2006-12-07 08:22:58 AM
Code_Archeologist: Iraq victory was never clearly defined,

alidade: That is a bogus statement. The idea was to establish a stable democratic government in Iraq.

Was that before or after the 9/11 link? Or the WMD's?

You, sir, are a troll.
 
2006-12-07 08:23:25 AM
"However, the left never wanted anything good to come of this. We fought too gently"

What. A. Retard. The Left in the Congress and the Senate voted for the war. Even Hitlery.

Bush and Rumsfeld and Cheney ran a failed campaign. That's it.
 
TJL
2006-12-07 08:24:24 AM
aycu19.webshots.com
/How about we use these things for what they were designed for?


aycu08.webshots.com
//Might as well complete the triad
 
2006-12-07 08:24:51 AM
The solution is:
redefine victory.
From a strategic political perspective, that's the only way this administration (or the next, for that matter) can get out of this with clean hands.

I'm not talking about "Mission Accomplished!" type BS, where Bush arbitrarily declared victory. I just think that the goals set were absolutely ridiculous. The idea of turning Iraq into one stable nation is unrealistic. I'm sure it's been said before, but in an undeveloped region, the only way to keep such an ethnically heterogeneous population in check is really to have a dictatorship. (Yugoslavia, Tito, etc.)

Rather than pretending this unification can be accomplished, the administration should focus on building infrastructure. At least try to fix things we broke, and maybe make them better. That's the best way to promote a "U.S. Friendly" society.

Hearts and minds and whatnot.
 
2006-12-07 08:24:56 AM
"The federal goverment discovered in my city, only after resettlement, that Sudanese and Somalis don't get along. They've been fighting a ceaseless gang war for about the last year or so."

This just goes to prove that our government knows squat about anybody outside of our own country. When the Bushbots invaded Iraq they must've thought it would be like sending the cops into Compton.
 
2006-12-07 08:26:10 AM
alidade

The war should have been much more brutal and devastating than it was. That's how to win a war,destroy the enemy. The interim governmet was established too soon. We took a defensive posture too soon, and we simply did not kill enough people, including civilians. We beat Japan by slaughter. We trying to beat jihadism by understanding them.

No argument here. If you had gone to Iraq and killed, say, 26,074,906 people, then it would be a real peaceful place right now.
 
2006-12-07 08:27:00 AM
greyson: why should we stand up for them if they dont stand up for themselves. I guess thats why they were living under a bloodthirsty dictator.

Well, that and the fact that Saddam's regime was openly supported by the United States during the 1980s.

F***wit.
 
2006-12-07 08:27:15 AM
alibade

When you see a bunch jihadis jumping up and down celebrating the downing of an American aircraft, that's the enemy, not the future parliamentary leadership. Drop a bomb 'tween the minarets, if ya know I mean.

I suggest you play a little flash game called "September 12th". It portrays a simple fact.

There's a fine line between "terrorist" and someone who simply dislikes us.

It's all fueled by hatred, which can come for any reason.

And it's not like you reach 50 hate-points and all of a sudden *POOF*, you're a full fledged terrorist.

If everyone who boo'ed us and cheered when something went wrong for us was a "jihadist", then there are a LOT of them out there...

So unless you advocate conquoring the entire planet, and enslaving the human population, we'll just have to suck it up and know our place... a country that shares this little planet with a bunch of other countries.
 
2006-12-07 08:27:20 AM
The point of American "wars" is not to remove tyrants, find WMDs, install freedom, or any other reason offered by our government. It is to make money for the beltway bandits and other war profiteers, thereby keeping Congressman and other pols in office.
/that is all
 
2006-12-07 08:29:05 AM
"HWC, hasn't it been pretty well established that Alidade is a troll? He hasn't responded to any of your questions directly, which supports that theory."

I suppose you're right. I am on some level too though.

Plus, I like to see the inner workings of a zealot's mind.
 
2006-12-07 08:30:28 AM
It's amazing the number of batshiat crazy "nuke 'em all" douchebags that have come out of nowhere in the past few months.

I love this new "American soldiers didn't fight hard enough!" new blame-game that the pro-war crowd seems to be rolling out. I figured that one would eventually surface, just didn't expect to see it so soon.

/I'll be Ramadi in February, I seriously doubt I'll run into any of you losers at the PX.
 
2006-12-07 08:30:57 AM
HotWing

Nor can you explain why Bush would capitulate

Am I supposed to know Bush's thoughts? Who the hell knows why? He was too chummy with the likes of Ted Kennedy, supported too many RINO's and basically departed from the Reagan revolution. I originally voted for Bush because I thought he was gonna go put a big Texas boot right in the ass of the democrats. But he was a "uniter not a divider". Compromise with the left means going over to their side, not meeting in the middle, unfortunately.

So did you ever wish for the US to win this war?


It's a myth designed to absolve your heroes of failure.

Bush is not my hero. But I suppose you would be all for the ideas of Dick Durbin, Murtha, Kerry, et al....no support, only constant opposition. "Loyal opposition" might be patriotic, but appeasement is certainly not.
 
2006-12-07 08:32:37 AM
Sgt Otter

I love this new "American soldiers didn't fight hard enough!" new blame-game that the pro-war crowd seems to be rolling out.

I noticed that too. Just all of a sudden, every other Bush-puppet starts spouting that.

It's almost like they all had a get-together and decided on a new gameplan.
 
2006-12-07 08:33:32 AM
For those who have forgotten (or never took) Civics class, the movie Why We Fight is mandatory for understanding what American war making is all about.
 
2006-12-07 08:33:58 AM
Smarshmallow

Actually, not a troll, I just hate spineless liberals.
 
2006-12-07 08:36:58 AM
Sgt Otter: I love this new "American soldiers didn't fight hard enough!" new blame-game that the pro-war crowd seems to be rolling out. I figured that one would eventually surface, just didn't expect to see it so soon.

Apologies for Godwinning, but I can think of a certain Teutonic leader who invoked this near the end of WWII. At least he had the guts to blow out his brains though; doubt if these armchair quarterbacks will do anything more than go grab another beer from the fridge.
 
2006-12-07 08:37:08 AM
alidade: Actually, not a troll, I just hate spineless liberals.

You repeat the same garbage every time the war comes up. When people ask you to defend your statements, you ignore them. Your arguments were been debunked months or years ago, and yet you continue to repeat them.

I'm not sure how much more of a troll you could be.
 
2006-12-07 08:37:51 AM
dubya's...

Bush and Rumsfeld and Cheney ran a failed campaign. That's it.

I said basically the same thing. The left in congress are nearly as treacherous as the jihadis. Friend's when people are looking, mkaing their own plans in private.

Did you ever want the US to win the war?
 
TJL
2006-12-07 08:38:18 AM
They already think we're "The Great Satan," might as well act like it.
aycu12.webshots.com

/The whole world hates us anyway, might as well make 'em fear us.
 
2006-12-07 08:38:59 AM
"So did you ever wish for the US to win this war?"

In a sense, yes. During the run up, I wished the US would have reconsidered and not invaded in the first place. That would have been a win in my book, since there was never a way to impose democracy on Iraqis. Plenty of smart people knew this (including former presidents), but your heroes ignored them.

After the war began, there was no longer any need to wish one way or the other. The outcome was already known. Idealism isn't good war policy.
 
2006-12-07 08:39:51 AM
spineless liberals

Tell me, how much spine does it take to send other men off to war?

Seriously, this war is no skin off my back either way. Why does being against it make me spineless?
 
2006-12-07 08:40:00 AM
alidade:
Am I supposed to know Bush's thoughts? Who the hell knows why? He was too chummy with the likes of Ted Kennedy, supported too many RINO's and basically departed from the Reagan revolution. I originally voted for Bush because I thought he was gonna go put a big Texas boot right in the ass of the democrats. But he was a "uniter not a divider". Compromise with the left means going over to their side, not meeting in the middle, unfortunately.

And you say silly things like this.

Bush had six years of one-party rule, and although I agree that he's no Republican, to call him anything but radical right wing is silly. Here you are, though, trying to blame the war on the Democrats.

No thinking person would buy that statement, and thus, no thinking person would try to sell it, so you're either a moron, or a troll. Your spelling and grammar seem to be on target, so my vote goes with Troll.
 
2006-12-07 08:40:12 AM
I don't think its too late to send alidade off to Iraq so he can kill as many people as he sees fit. Yea Bush was too focused on pleasing Democrats to do anything right. ;)
 
2006-12-07 08:40:30 AM
Drasancas: I noticed that too. Just all of a sudden, every other Bush-puppet starts spouting that.

It's almost like they all had a get-together and decided on a new gameplan.


It's nothing new. My uncle was a LRRP in Vietnam, and the VFW and American Legion wouldn't let him join when he got home, because the WWII veterans who ran the place wouldn't let any "pussy-ass cowards who got their ass kicked by a bunch of 90 lb. gooks in pajamas" join.

The biggest assholes who talked the most shiat were always the POGues who spent World War II sitting on their ass in England.
 
2006-12-07 08:41:17 AM
And don't tell me this is the military that protects our freedom - hey, ladies and gentlemen, there ain't no one out there who's a farking threat to us. They don't exist. Oh - I'm talking now only of countries we don't arm first. All right, if you want to split hairs, you got a point. "Bill, what about the nations we sell arms to and then blow the fark out of?" Okay, they might be scary for about a day!
--Bill Hicks
 
2006-12-07 08:41:58 AM
Spaz -

Stay safe, I hope you and your fellow soldiers keep your chins up, not everyone disagrees with you. Some of us are actually interested in what you have to say.

Everyone else -

There is a lot of armchair leadership on Fark. There are quite a few people who feel that things were done improperly, and that the way they feel things should have/be done is the correct one. However, I pose to each of you this question. Have you taken the time to consider the methods and mindset of an aggressive entity who despises you for acting against them, for their people, or for their country? Have you taken the time to step back from the US political situation and evaluated what messages are being sent between opposing sides?

I view wars as I view trolls. Some trolls are quite good at lacing an paragraph to provoke a response, only to reverse and attempt to defame/flame you for any response made. Nobody is 100% troll proof, we all get caught up in it at some time. Once the process begins, you must identity their mindset and desires. Do they do it for fun? Do they do it for attention, perhaps even merely to continue provoking until you cease provocation?

In my mind, it's the trolls who troll purely for fun that are the most disturbing. Once you begin interacting with them you must it less fun, to provoke a response of disinterest. With the most terrible of trolls, they don't care about the length, location, or backlash. They feed off every aspect within the conflict. So, after the initial bite, walking away leads to more trolling, increasingly disruptive, because you provide them the pleasure of 'winning' in their twisted sense of 'combat'. The only way to run the troll off is to create an environment where they no longer have fun.

Surely, some folks will disagree. However, there will be others who have witnessed the stalker trolls, who bounce forum to forum, going incredible lengths to maintain the ocnflict.

I liken trolls to our current situation because of this 'neverending' cycle.

Should we step back from anything that can be remotely connected to these groups, we will be inviting further confrontations. Should we pull out of Iraq before they have their own steady hand and continuing forward progress, they will perceive it as a victory. We will be enabling the organizations, the mindset, the mentality.

One must question, who is winning the psychological war? I'm sure many here will quip that the 'Administration' is winning, as they convinced a nation to go to war. Such a quip would be negative and dividing. Fracturing the foundation on which we support ourselves and our policies in the name of honesty and responsibility. However, do you stop and wonder if such a response is the one being sought by the other side? Do you consider that you, yourself, behind your computer screen, may be subject to a part of this battle within the borders?

Circling back from the longwinded break - the mindset. Would you prefer to go against a nation who is united, or one who watches itself with such intensity that any misstep spells doom for those who take it?

Our soldiers are over there now. To remove them would cause much more harm than good, on many different fronts. If we see this action through, we have a chance at providing a reason NOT to be interested in attacking the US, or any other established country. The cost being too great, too time-consuming, and not fitting to the original purpose. If you don't feel that the soldiers are being handled well and cite things like body armor, go raise money for more. If you prefer to go through your political party, ask them to push it through as the sole agenda. If you feel they'll be torn away from their families, ease the discomfort with well wishes and support. You can't deal with a troll in halfass efforts, you have to give them everything you can or else they'll put another notch on their belt and own your reactions.

Scoffed at the last remark? How many users on fark make you roll your eyes the moment you see they've posted, without reading what they've written?

That is power. Power that they have over your own emotions.

----

I would ask that you think about the words, let them settle. Do not leap to respond with counterpoints, undercuts, and teardowns. I know that many will take this as a 'republican', 'conservative', 'right' or whatever political label you can come up with. Put them aside, I have no agenda past placing my beliefs before you. I don't receive talking points. I don't even believe that continual bickering over "Left" and "Right" is healthy. I approached this conflict like I do many other things, asking myself what each side seeks to gain, and how will they best serve themselves to go about seeking it.

I know this is choppy, somewhat longwinded, and at times, hard to follow. This is a topic I could have quite a long discussion about and I find myself snipping ideas mid-sentence. For that, as a reader, you have my sympathy.
 
2006-12-07 08:42:07 AM
Hmm...If this story isn't total garbage, then it's our responsibility to offer those fleeing army folks citizenship here.
 
2006-12-07 08:42:12 AM
alidade

Did you ever want the US to win the war?

I'm not sure why you're asking this.

Assuming for a moment that the war on "Terrorism" was even winnable...

Of course we do.

You may as well be asking us "Do you ever want world peace?"

Of course we do.

But we're not going to go around the world napalming anyone who we think is an asshole to try to achieve it, as it typically only makes things worse.

The only way humans have managed to survive through their existance is through cooperation.. if not with others, than with within their groups.

We have to figure out how to co-exist with others.. not give a bunch of thugs big farkign sticks, and tell them to go into an area to beat the shiat out of anyone who disagrees with us.

The UN is the right idea, even if they are fairly disfunctional at the moment. The correct decision is to try to revamp the UN instead of abandoning it.

The world working together to solve problems shouldn't that alien of a concept.
 
2006-12-07 08:43:27 AM
Smarshmallow: Bush had six years of one-party rule, and although I agree that he's no Republican, to call him anything but radical right wing is silly. Here you are, though, trying to blame the war on the Democrats.

Even if true, the Repubs supported and coddled this guy until the political winds shifted. As did many spineless Dems.
 
2006-12-07 08:43:35 AM
I wasn't sure if I'd respond to you about that, since I don't have time to sit around and debate (like 10 more mins).
 
2006-12-07 08:43:45 AM
TJL

They already think we're "The Great Satan," might as well act like it.

/The whole world hates us anyway, might as well make 'em fear us.


Nukes are too cost effective to be used in a war by the US. The only way they can be profitable is to be made, maintained and updated, with no intention of using them. Fortunately for most of the world.
 
2006-12-07 08:43:45 AM
xria

and killed, say, 26,074,906 people

Right....kill them all let Allah sort them out?

Your smarm not withstanding, that's not what I meant and you know it.

You gotta have some compliant folks left to establish the democracy, right. According to the left only Americans can have democracy, not those crazy A-rabs. Ya know, they've been killing each other since before that invisible sky wizard came to Earth. You just can't deal with those crazy religious nut bags, eh?
 
2006-12-07 08:46:06 AM
HotWingConspiracy: Plus, I like to see the inner workings of a zealot's mind.

I'm not sure that he's a zealot. The excuses he tries haven't worked for years. Any zealot who was still trying to save republican face would be doing a better job than that.

At work, I listen to a right wing talk station when I'm at my bench, and all of the hosts, except for O'Reily, of course, have given up defending Bush and the war. Now they're trying to distance themselves from him, and distance the Republican party from him. One of them calls for Bush's impeachment.

Even O'Reily spends as little time as possible defending Bush and the war, focusing on more on important things like the "war on Christmas."

This war and the President are both indefensible, and even republican zealots now have to admit it.
 
2006-12-07 08:46:25 AM
Necrosis
and at this point it isn't worth wasting more American lives when we can't really fix it anyway.

Is it worth the Iraqi lives that will continue to be lost?

If you can't fix it, don't break it in the first place...
 
2006-12-07 08:48:32 AM
"According to the left only Americans can have democracy, not those crazy A-rabs. Ya know, they've been killing each other since before that invisible sky wizard came to Earth. You just can't deal with those crazy religious nut bags, eh?"

Maybe people just think that you can't force democracy on someone. It's more of a process that societies have to arrive at on their own.

Your solution of killing them until they are too destitute to refuse isn't exactly a shining model of democratic concepts.
 
2006-12-07 08:48:37 AM
xria: Nukes are too cost effective to be used in a war by the US. The only way they can be profitable is to be made, maintained and updated, with no intention of using them. Fortunately for most of the world.

Yep. And to say nukes are "cost effective" is really mind-boggling, but true. Suggest y'all read "House of War" by James Carroll about how we all got tied to the nuclear genie way back and haven't been able to get off.
 
2006-12-07 08:48:51 AM
Sad to think, but the Iraqis were better off under Saddam Hussein than they are now. At least their kids could go to school and people could earn a living.
 
2006-12-07 08:50:24 AM
Smarshmallow: Even O'Reily spends as little time as possible defending Bush and the war, focusing on more on important things like the "war on Christmas."

Yah. Last night Glen Beck was dealing with that evil Al Sharpton. Earth-shattering stuff.
 
2006-12-07 08:51:15 AM
submitter: "As soon as it happens, I will quit my job and live outside Iraq," says one sergeant

So? He's not doing anything right now I can guarantee it.

He's just a paper target waiting to get hit.

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED
 
2006-12-07 08:52:03 AM
esteban9: Yah. Last night Glen Beck was dealing with that evil Al Sharpton. Earth-shattering stuff.

Yeah, they all stretched the Kramer incident out to fill a whole week.
 
2006-12-07 08:54:24 AM
misanthropologist: If you can't fix it, don't break it in the first place...

Yeah, but if you do break it, don't delay the inevitable.
 
2006-12-07 08:57:13 AM
alidade

Right....kill them all let Allah sort them out?

Your smarm not withstanding, that's not what I meant and you know it.


So how many would be enough? Something like quarter to half a million have died and it has only made things worse - how many is enough, 1 million, 5 million, 10 million?

Maybe the US army should have had a monopoly on the violence and made sure the quarter to half a million all died at US soldiers hands - give them one group to hate and bring the various opposing sides in Iraq together against a common enemy?

Or did you have to kill half a million or more all at once to make a statement or something? If you levelled a couple of minor cities at the start would they have all fallen in line and complied out of fear of death? Would that have been a better plan?

Give us some numbers of how many civilian deaths would have brought peace and democracy in Iraq, when it would have been best to kill them, and what methods might have proved effective in keeping them in line.
 
2006-12-07 08:57:29 AM
Smarshmallow

Your spelling and grammar seem to be on target, so my vote goes with Troll.

Yep, I was turning my posts in for a grade on my grammer. I am just jumping back and forth from what I'm working on, so I left typos, mispelleds, etc....

Feel free to disregard everything I say. Did you think I was trying to change your mind?

I was a Bush supporter. He continued to operate in manner than was less leadership and more compromise.

The jihadi situation has been building for years. I originally thought we had an administration that would fight back for a change. Ultimately, it was half-hearted on the part of Bush et al and constantly berated and hindered by the left. I am unhappy with the whole damned lot for that matter. Left and right.

I was hoping for some FDR democrats and some Reagan republicans to get together and whip some ass for the good of the US first and the rest of the world next.

What I got was a compilation of "go to war, but not all the way".

Good jorb indeed....
 
2006-12-07 08:57:40 AM
Yes. Sometimes you can break things you don't have the power to fix.
 
2006-12-07 08:57:57 AM
esteban: For those who have forgotten (or never took) Civics class, the movie Why We Fight is mandatory for understanding what American war making is all about.

True that - one of the most important and depressing documentaries I have ever seen.
 
2006-12-07 09:00:50 AM
HotWing...

Your solution of killing them until they are too destitute to refuse isn't exactly a shining model of democratic concepts.

Worked pretty good on the Japanese. Beat the snot out of the Confederates and preserved the Union. But let's try it your way. What would that be, BTW?
 
2006-12-07 09:01:27 AM
Drasancas
alidade Did you ever want the US to win the war?

I'm not sure why you're asking this.

It is a question posed by most talking heads as a way to place every person or group on "America's side" or on the "Enemy's side". These juvenile binary formulas do nothing to find a solution for problem, infact they inflame the issue and deepen division. The reason he asks is that he is still in the self-destructive "With us or Against us" mindset. If you do not agree with killing the terrorists and fighting until we win in Iraq, then you are an enemy of the US.
 
2006-12-07 09:01:30 AM
We could have spent this money on bringing back the railroads, nuclear power plants, hydroelectric power plants and massive wind/sun farms. We could have had so many marvels of engineering and architecture to be proud of.
 
Displayed 50 of 305 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report