Pullout consequences
Printed From: Tippmann Paintball
Category: News And Views
Forum Name: Thoughts and Opinions
Forum Description: Got something you need to say?
URL: http://www.tippmannsports.com/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=165560
Printed Date: 07 January 2026 at 5:05am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Pullout consequences
Posted By: oldsoldier
Subject: Pullout consequences
Date Posted: 28 March 2007 at 4:13pm
|
A little History, Jan 1972, a brokered peace treaty signed in Paris ending US involvement in Vietnam. America pulls out with the promise to return on any aggression showed by the North. Mar/Apr 1975, North Vietnam invades South Vietnam, South Vietnam pleads for our help, the Democratic Congress who made the promise to return, turn thier backs, many the same who backed Johnson on the initial deployments in 1964. President Ford attempts to send forces, the Democratic controlled Congress revokes his ability to do so. The world wonders on American commitment and promises. 1975-1979 massive retaliations against any South Vietnamese who were "involved" with the Americans, mass executions, re-education concentration camps, and the beginnings of the exodus of the "boat people". Cambodia, 1975 the Khemer Rouge begin thier re-education no longer fearing American intervention based on the Vietnam example. Anyone remmember "The Killing Fields".
I challenge any of you to go and talk to any older Vietnamese on thier expieriences of this time, thier opinions of todays situation in Iraq, and see if they do not see a parrallel. Hypothetical- 2008 the American Pullout- Now lets think a little here. First off any Iraqi who has aligned him/herself currently with American/British forces will see it in thier best interest to change alligences (quickly) in order to avoid the vendettas of the Jihadists. Iraqi Government/police/military will begin to desert in mass numbers once pullout date announced, again to hopefully avoid the vendettas of the Jihadists. This alone will tend to increase the level of violence as civil control vanishes. Now after the pullout and the religious genocide/vendettas commence of those who supported the "infidel", along with any religios faction not aligned with the "victorious" Jihadists, what will be Americas "official" stance? America has no lost any credense in foriegn policy in assisting those who find their desire for democracy challenged. Who in thier right mind will ask for our help, knowing that we will politically tuck tail and run as soon as politically required by the Democrats. Some Interesting Reads: http://www.ctc.usma.edu/naji.asp - http://www.ctc.usma.edu/naji.asp http://www.ctc.usma.edu/Management_of_Savagery.pdf - http://www.ctc.usma.edu/Management_of_Savagery.pdf Just thier view of the "future" ------------- 
|
Replies:
Posted By: chronic future
Date Posted: 28 March 2007 at 4:15pm
| no kids? |
Posted By: welcome guest
Date Posted: 28 March 2007 at 4:17pm
How to Select a Gift for Your HostWhile guests are never obligated to bring anything to a party other than themselves, offering a simple gift to the host is a thoughtful gesture. Instructions
Tips & Warnings
------------- http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml - http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. 
|
Posted By: Dune
Date Posted: 28 March 2007 at 4:17pm
|
4 years to set democaracy in a country with no official army. I'd say other countries wouldn't want our help because of our progress reports, not from pulling out. |
Posted By: -ProDigY-
Date Posted: 28 March 2007 at 4:17pm
|
and, uh.... If you don't wear a helmet, you don't have any brains to protect! ------------- 
|
Posted By: Clark Kent
Date Posted: 28 March 2007 at 4:26pm
|
A little history: 1812 - Napoleon invades Russia. The French army has overwhelming force, but is fighting the locals on their ground. Despite heavy losses and an opponent that just won't give up, Napoleon refuses to pull out. Result: 95% of the invaders dead, Napoleon's grip on Europe destroyed, Napoleon defeated. 1941 - Hitler invades the Soviet Union. The German army has overwhelming force, but is fighting the locals on their ground. Despite heavy losses and an opponent that just won't give up, Hitler refuses to pull out. Result: 75% of the invaders dead, Hitler's grip on the Eastern front destroyed, Hitler defeated. 1979 - The Soviet Union invades Afghanistan. The Soviet army has overwhelming force, but is fighting the locals on their ground. Despite heavy losses and an opponent that just won't give up, the USSR refuses to pull out. Result: Tens of thousands dead, no apparent gain in Afghanistan, the Taliban left in power. Sometimes pulling out is a good thing. |
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 28 March 2007 at 4:34pm
|
1942-
Our Pacific Fleet sits at the bottom of Pearl Harbor, Japan rules the western Pacific, the Phillipines fall, Austrailia threatened, most of our pacific garrisons overrun... U-Boats off the eastern seaboard, Britian and Russia tetering on defeat, our first major action in North Africa a resounding defeat for American forces in the face of the Afrika Corps (Kassirine Pass)... Maybe we should have pulled out, and put our heads in the sand and hope it all works out.....if it were today...the Dems would insist on it........... -------------
|
Posted By: c4cypher
Date Posted: 28 March 2007 at 4:34pm
|
"You fool. You fell victim to one of the classic blunders. The most famous is "Never get involved in a land war in Asia." But only slightly less well known is this: "Never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line." Ah ha ha ha! Ah ha ha ha! Ah ha ha ha!" |
Posted By: Dune
Date Posted: 28 March 2007 at 4:37pm
|
Of course, because Dems are evil? I think you only have an on and off switch, no in between dimmer system. I don't really see the comparison you're trying to pull off here. I think you're stretching a bit. |
oldsoldier wrote:Posted By: Clark Kent
Date Posted: 28 March 2007 at 4:39pm
|
1274 - Kublai Khan tries to invade Japan with a fleet of 900 ships. Poor planning, bad weather, and good defense destroy the biggest fleet to date. 1281 - Kublai Khan tries to invade Japan with a fleet of 1,170 ships. Poor planning, bad weather, and good defense destroy the biggest fleet to date. Sometimes just staying at home is the best plan. I can do this all day, OS. Your absolutist generalizations are simply wrong. |
Posted By: Styro Folme
Date Posted: 28 March 2007 at 4:40pm
|
i pull out.
------------- X |
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 28 March 2007 at 4:41pm
|
Again stuck in a T/S waitin to pick up in am to head home.
Have you read Management of Savagery? They are accomplishing thier goals, turn our populace, turn our politics, defang our military....etc Where will it stop............... BTW- It took US 11 years to consolidate our democracy way back when there Dune.............. -------------
|
Posted By: Skillet42565
Date Posted: 28 March 2007 at 4:46pm
Go read your book again and quit making annoying posts, please? ------------- 
|
Posted By: welcome guest
Date Posted: 28 March 2007 at 4:48pm
|
I won't read it until "Opra" suggest it. Or did I miss it when she did? ------------- http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml - http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.
|
Posted By: Dune
Date Posted: 28 March 2007 at 4:58pm
|
I wasn't talking about our Democracy. Two different countries, two different histories, two different ideologies. |
Posted By: Gatyr
Date Posted: 28 March 2007 at 5:20pm
Different enemies and different circumstances. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Mack
Date Posted: 28 March 2007 at 7:31pm
Yes, OS. Please do cease making annoying posts. God forbid that their should be any serious thoughts/opinions expressed that don't agree with the accepted/popular liberal leanings on this forum. After all, free speech should only apply to those who agree with us. ------------- 
|
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 28 March 2007 at 7:39pm
|
Totally agree on that one. The party of Diversity only allows you to voice thier opinion, all others are nonsense, and to be ridiculed.
Remmember these people support the troops as they burn them in effigy during the recent protests. I am Proud Member of The Patriot Guard, and now Rolling Thunder, and please let me voice my opinion on your protests, and express my 1st admendment rights, as you attempt to desecrate the memorials to our honored fallen. Officer, believe me Joe Protester here fell over that rake, and broke both his knees, I swear.... The one thing todays left protesters can not deal with nor understand is actuall resistance, as was demonstrated by the Gathering of Eagles -------------
|
Posted By: BARREL BREAK
Date Posted: 28 March 2007 at 7:51pm
|
A truly remarkable job on the generalizing, OS. Yes, because everyone of liberal leanings burns the troops in effigy, not just a few nutjobs. Obviously.
EDIT: About Skillet's comments, ignore him, he sucks at humor. |
Posted By: Skillet42565
Date Posted: 28 March 2007 at 7:52pm
|
Its not that he doesnt agree with liberal ideas. Personally, I consider myself moderate/slightly republican in my political views. But he makes the same post about every 3 minutes with the same argument. Regardless of political affiliation, it is annoying.
-------------
|
Posted By: Mack
Date Posted: 28 March 2007 at 11:51pm
One of the neat things about living in this country is that the constitution gives us the right to express our views repeatedly no matter how annoying that may prove to other's who may or may not disagree with them. However, those others have the right to ignore them, or to disagree with them in an equally annoying manner if they so choose. What I took offense to in your post was that it came closer the (attempted) stifling of an opinion as opposed to countering it. If this mess (actually most of the messes) in this country are going to be worked out, the unrestricted exchange of ideas/opinions will be a very big part of it. -------------
|
Posted By: Darur
Date Posted: 29 March 2007 at 12:49am
Clark, couldn't one argue that in all of those wars, the nation who should have pulled out also had other military obligations and other matters which affected their final defeat? Napoleon was conquering much of Europe and North Africa at the time he waged war with Russia. His forces weren't necessarily focused on one objective at the time. Hitler was invading and attacking Western Europe and Britain while invading Russia. He didn't really have the man power to wage multiple fronts. Plus Italy and North Africa were falling to Allied forces. When Russia invaded Afghanistan, they were in the middle of the cold war. While not technically a war, much of their resources were being spent on trying to out do the West as well as hold together their many newly gained countries. The West was also supplying the rebels at the time. Just a thought ------------- Real Men play Tuba [IMG]http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/1859/newsmall6xz.jpg"> PH33R TEH 1337 Dwarf! http://www.tippmann.com/forum/wwf77a/log_off_user.asp" rel="nofollow - DONT CLICK ME!!1 |
Posted By: Tae Kwon Do
Date Posted: 29 March 2007 at 1:07am
Excellent point on why we should have been focusing on hunting down Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, instead of worrying about what Iraq is/was doing at the time. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Darur
Date Posted: 29 March 2007 at 1:40am
Sorry, didn't really finish my point, was interrupted for dinner. Although we do have military obligations in Afghanistan and a few other places around the world, they aren't quite as cumbersome as the obligations I mentioned in my post. Much of the War on Terror is being fought by the government (CIA, FBI, NSA, Homeland Security, etc.). I could be mistaken but I don't believe our military forces are as built up in Afghanistan as they are in Iraq. Similarly, in Vietnam, our military may have had forces in other areas, but the bulk of our armed forces weren't engaged in other conflicts to my knowledge. And part of my post was more to tease Clark and see what he had to say :) ------------- Real Men play Tuba [IMG]http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/1859/newsmall6xz.jpg"> PH33R TEH 1337 Dwarf! http://www.tippmann.com/forum/wwf77a/log_off_user.asp" rel="nofollow - DONT CLICK ME!!1 |
Posted By: Clark Kent
Date Posted: 29 March 2007 at 12:30pm
|
Sure - as well as a thousand other reasons why those wars were different. I am certainly not trying to argue that pulling out is automatically a good thing. I am trying to argue that flatly declaring pulling out a BAD thing by arbitrary comparison to a single other situation is silly. Each situation much be evaluated individually. |
Posted By: Hades
Date Posted: 29 March 2007 at 12:48pm
|
All I know is that if one doesn't pullout in time, you get stuck with dumping tons of money and time into a problem that shouldn't be there in the first place.
All because it is the "right" thing to do. |
Posted By: Brian Fellows
Date Posted: 29 March 2007 at 12:52pm
| Pulling out DOESN'T prevent pregnancy; it's a myth. |
Posted By: Hades
Date Posted: 29 March 2007 at 1:00pm
|
Wrong.
While it is not as effective as other birth control methods, it still works 96 percent of the time with perfect use or 81 percent with imperfect use. Every birth control method is not 100 percent effective except abstinence. The only reason why abstinence is 100 percent effective is because sexual intercourse is not occurring. |
Posted By: -ProDigY-
Date Posted: 29 March 2007 at 1:19pm
|
says....). If "used perfectly" it's, statistically, only 73% effective. And it's pretty tough to do perfectly. If you rely primarily on withdrawal as your form of birth control, you're pretty much an asshole. -------------
|
Posted By: Hades
Date Posted: 29 March 2007 at 1:57pm
|
We are looking at 2 different studies: Your study claims 73 percent effective with perfect use. Mine says 96 percent effective with perfect use.
Obviously perfect use was occurring a lot less in your study if 23% more of the couples using the method got pregnant in your study. I was originally referring to Iraq anyways, not birth control methods. |
Posted By: rednekk98
Date Posted: 29 March 2007 at 2:23pm
|
A timetable for a final withdrawl that does not take into account conditions on the ground is a waste of time. You might as well say "we dont care what happens to iraq after we leave, since we're committed to leaving by ____ 2008 regardless." If that's really the attitude, why not pull out tomorrow? To give the dems some credit, at least they're beyond critisizing the invasion and looking forward. That idea of repealing congressional support for the war after it had started would be like passing a resolution for Bush father to pull out......
of Iraq. |
Posted By: Kristofer
Date Posted: 29 March 2007 at 7:07pm
| Yeah lets quit when the going gets tough. I mean, we can just let thousands of Americans die in vain.. again. Not to mention those wounded both mentally and physically. Hey guys, sorry we didnt let you finish your job and do what we thought you could do. You just werent comcastic enough and fast enough like we in America want. Besides, you dont know how to do your job, we politicians, tv generals, and American Citizens know more about whats going on on the ground there where you were trained to be and fight, and where you currently are, so we deem you lacking the ability to make informed decisions so we'll call the shots. Also we will go against the constitution and start running the war by congress, because the constitution was wrong to make the President the Commander in Chief. But needless to say you dont know how to do your job, and if you did you would have accomplished it immediately because thats how we like things done in America. We forget everything over night dont you remember that? We also like to quit once it becomes difficult... |
Posted By: Dune
Date Posted: 29 March 2007 at 7:19pm
| Going just got tough? Really? That's the same arrogance that Clark pointed out destroyed many others in history. It's impossible to get back the dead soldiers...as well as all of the dead civilians, but that's no reason to get more killed. |
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 29 March 2007 at 7:31pm
|
I'm not on the ground in Iraq, so I don't really no what's going on. The way I see it though is that we are in the same place that we have been for a while. We are creating an Iraqi police and military(maybe done? i don't pay much attention) and we are fighting insurgents. The only thing I see as being done is more insurgents coming in planting IED's and shooting people. More suicide bombers, and more Shiites killing Sunnis. How can they even want a democracy if one tribe is killing another tribe for god knows what? And since when did it just become difficult? Why shouldn't we pull out and let them create their own goverment? Isn't that what Britain did to our own American insurgents when our constitution was made? (Sue me for the loose comparison) Obviously I don't know a whole lot, but this is the way I see it. ------------- Que pasa? 
|
Posted By: Gatyr
Date Posted: 29 March 2007 at 8:09pm
The colonists had a strong desire for the nation to grow and prosper. Not to mention there was no civil war at the time. Plus Britain didn't come here to set up a new government. -------------
|
Posted By: Clark Kent
Date Posted: 29 March 2007 at 9:06pm
Worst reason ever. We dont make national security decisions to make the troops feel good. The troops serve national security, not the other way around. "Justifying" the deaths of soldiers, or making soldiers feel that they done good, are NOT legitimate foundations for important decisions like this. |
Posted By: newzealand kiwi
Date Posted: 30 March 2007 at 3:47am
|
old soldier, an old friend of yours was in regulars today just in case you missed him butch was his name he spoke of the old ways of the forum and how it used to be... he said it had been 2 years ..hope ya catch up with him.i think he wanted to catch up with you.long before my time as you can see. As for the subject at hand..no comment. |
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 30 March 2007 at 8:38am
|
I do hope most of you understand that the primary targets of the insurgents is the civilian population. One of the rules of insurgency is turn the populace against the occupier/assister. Now that the populace is being fed that we may leave ASAP, the potential of the beginnings of mass desertions of pro-Iraqi government forces will increase, less control assets available for the pro forces, hense increased violence, and of course a more agitated US population at the "lack of progress". It is a vicious circle.
Now for those of narrow mind that think the Al-Queda will sing "Kumbaya" and instantly love america and cease any terrorist activities against the US, well as long as those who "legislate" defeat I hope are brave enough to take blame by name if and when it is required. But we know better of polititians. -------------
|
Posted By: -ProDigY-
Date Posted: 30 March 2007 at 9:18am
|
Killer avatar, man! -------------
|
Posted By: -ProDigY-
Date Posted: 30 March 2007 at 9:19am
|
-------------
|
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 30 March 2007 at 10:17am
|
Glad you could tell my avatar's substance totally by your expierience...... -------------
|
Posted By: Gatyr
Date Posted: 30 March 2007 at 10:20am
|
You make it sound like being gay is a bad thing.
-------------
|
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 30 March 2007 at 10:21am
|
Whatever floats your boat............I make no distinctions, only observations -------------
|
Posted By: -ProDigY-
Date Posted: 30 March 2007 at 12:23pm
-------------
|
Posted By: White o Light
Date Posted: 30 March 2007 at 6:08pm
|
People still get pregnant sometimes. They said so in health class.
------------- 
|
Posted By: welcome guest
Date Posted: 30 March 2007 at 6:52pm
 ------------- http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml - http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.
|
Posted By: c4cypher
Date Posted: 30 March 2007 at 7:55pm
Too late ... XD |
Posted By: Tae Kwon Do
Date Posted: 01 April 2007 at 3:15am
-------------
|
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 01 April 2007 at 8:50am
|
To bad to many believe supporting the troops is just monitary. To support the morale, reputation and fighting abilility is just as important. After Vietnam the military was demoralized and a shell of its formal self, as for the first time in the minds of many we lost.
Now we have our potential enemies again see the lack of will of America, so the next military adventure our military is involved in, the bad guy just has to inflict some casualities on us, sit back and wait till thier victory as our spineless polititians again place thier vast military expartise over the generals and declare defeat, and pull us out, again One more time 2008 
-------------
|
Posted By: CarbineKid
Date Posted: 01 April 2007 at 11:31am
Os let me remind you about the politics in this. When we are winning Bush looks good, and thats not good for his political enemies. Now if we are "perceived" to be losing then Bush looks bad...which is good for his political enemies. Its gotta make you wonder what side Bush's congressional opponents are on? 
|
Posted By: Tae Kwon Do
Date Posted: 01 April 2007 at 2:21pm
Thats just silly. Most people were against the war in Iraq from the get-go. Not to mention, quite a few people who support withdrawal from Iraq support increased troops and support in Afghanistan, I being one of them. -------------
|
Posted By: Kristofer
Date Posted: 01 April 2007 at 5:06pm
Care to tell us where you got this most peopel were against the war from the start with Iraq? The polls I saw on many news stations showed otherwise. Especially after the dixie chicks had their little tirade in france. |
Posted By: Tae Kwon Do
Date Posted: 01 April 2007 at 5:20pm
|
I should have clarified. The support the idea of the war received was nowhere near that of Afghanistan.
-------------
|
Posted By: rednekk98
Date Posted: 01 April 2007 at 5:23pm
|
Whale, Bush's approval ratings were damn close to 90% in the run-up to this war, higher than in post 9/11. The media was ready to shoot in their pants just to get their imbeds in on this story after they missed what was, at the time, a huge sucess in Afghanistan. Until it became apparent that Saddam wasn't going to SCUD our troops, in fact, up until that statue when down, I'd say everybody thought the war was going well. The amazing thing about this war isn't how little support it has now, but how low it's dropped from where it was. |
Posted By: ANARCHY_SCOUT
Date Posted: 01 April 2007 at 5:50pm
|
Has the idea of spliting Iraq into 3 countries based on tribes ever been though of? I dont know if thats better or worse just an idea. ------------- Gamertag: Kataklysm999 
|
Posted By: BARREL BREAK
Date Posted: 01 April 2007 at 5:54pm
|
Posted By: rednekk98
Date Posted: 01 April 2007 at 6:04pm
The sunni's are either arab foreign fighters that have some rudimentry training, or are ex-iraqi army. They recruit suicide bombers, and co-ordinate simultaneous attacks. The shi'ites basically decide they dont like that sunni shopkeepers, grab AK's and mow him down. The sunni militants are the reason we need to keep some levels of troops there. The shi'ites, despite Iranian support and control of the Iraqi government, are mainly pissed-off church groups that formed militias, couldn't locate the real sunni militants, so they took it out on their shi'ite neighbors. |
Posted By: ANARCHY_SCOUT
Date Posted: 01 April 2007 at 6:19pm
|
Ok so that Idea is a no. Another idea,lets put up a giant wall seperating east and west Iraq? /sarcasm ------------- Gamertag: Kataklysm999
|
Posted By: Tae Kwon Do
Date Posted: 01 April 2007 at 6:28pm
This has circulated amongst the internet for awhile now.  -------------
|
Posted By: Tolgak
Date Posted: 01 April 2007 at 6:49pm
|
No way the Kurds will take away any of our land.
------------- 
|
Posted By: Tae Kwon Do
Date Posted: 01 April 2007 at 6:54pm
Not a Kurd fan? -------------
|
Posted By: Tolgak
Date Posted: 01 April 2007 at 7:26pm
|
I've got some Kurdish friends. It's no problem. I know they dominate the southeast. But think of it this way. If the Mexicans become the majority in Texas, would you be willing to let Mexico annex that state because they're the dominant nationality?
-------------
|
Posted By: ShortyBP
Date Posted: 01 April 2007 at 7:31pm
I'm personally for a seperate Kurdish state... but not at the expense of any current sovereign Turkish territory. |
Posted By: Butch
Date Posted: 01 April 2007 at 8:02pm
|
OldSoldier...I agree with you 100%. You can't explain reasoning to Liberals who already have their minds made up. If we pull out of Iraq, they win. Next, Iran will will continue to push their luck in the region and start a global war. The US Military must win the battle in Iraq and also in Iran. Iran recently took English prisoners and is using them as a bargaining chip. What do you Liberals think of this? Since they aren't from our country, just let them rot in an Iranian jail? You guys wouldn't mind that because they aren't American. I really don't care what most of you think because you don't know what the heck is going on.
P.S. I hate Rosie O'Donnel. ------------- I have returned to the Tippmann Forum. |
Posted By: Tae Kwon Do
Date Posted: 01 April 2007 at 8:12pm
Please explain who "they" are.
Please define what it means to "win" in Iraq. We have captured and subsequently executed Saddam Hussein. What do you consider a "win?" Also, explain what the battle in Iran is.
I don't think it is smart of you to assume. As it stands, I think the United Kingdom has the right to rescue their troops, if they see fit. I also think they have other options, such as trading off prisoners, if they choose. That one is up to them, really.
I am sorry we do not speak in the rhetoric tongue. I find this quite silly of you, to go into something like this, an open debate, with that kind of mindset. What is really even the point of openly discussing anything if you are not going to care what anyone else says. That mindset is how misconception and stupidity spreads, the "I don't care what you may have to say at all, no matter what I will always think what think."
Yawn. -------------
|
Posted By: Butch
Date Posted: 01 April 2007 at 8:23pm
|
Tae Kwon Do...do you need a big Conservative bear hug?
P.S. Bill O'Reilly pwns. ------------- I have returned to the Tippmann Forum. |
Posted By: Tae Kwon Do
Date Posted: 01 April 2007 at 8:27pm
|
Do you have any valid points, or are you just a troll? -------------
|
Posted By: Butch
Date Posted: 01 April 2007 at 8:31pm
|
I'm just a big Conservative troll. Do you have any valid points? ------------- I have returned to the Tippmann Forum. |
Posted By: Dune
Date Posted: 01 April 2007 at 8:58pm
|
[QUOTE=Butch]I'm just a big Conservative troll. QUOTE] Well I'm glad we agree on someting. You are pushing for war with Iran, which makes me wonder why you want more of our boys to die. You also say that no one else but you and OS has any idea what's going on, so there's reason enough to just yawn at you. Saying "you can't explain anything to liberals" is counterproductive and makes you look like a little kid. I'm hoping that your warmongering is more of a rant than a truth. |
Posted By: BARREL BREAK
Date Posted: 01 April 2007 at 9:02pm
Besides, we did take it from them.
|
Posted By: Mr. Doodles
Date Posted: 01 April 2007 at 9:24pm
|
Yeah really we need to own these guy's asses. We need to get the job done. Period. ------------- I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell |
Posted By: Tae Kwon Do
Date Posted: 01 April 2007 at 9:25pm
Who are "These guys" What is involved in "getting the job done." -------------
|
Posted By: Dune
Date Posted: 01 April 2007 at 9:27pm
| So you believe we need to get in and kill them all? That approached hasn't worked for 4 years now, we need to start figuring something else out. Call it cutting and running if you want, but it might be the only way to keep our boys from dying in some desert. |
Posted By: Mr. Doodles
Date Posted: 01 April 2007 at 9:31pm
|
By "these guys" I mean the insurgents, and by getting the job done I mean getting Iraq under control. And no, I don't believe in killing them all, that would never happen and besides all they're doing is killing us ------------- I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell |
Posted By: Dune
Date Posted: 01 April 2007 at 9:32pm
| That's been the goal for 4 years. Same goal in Vietnam, same goal in Korea. |
Posted By: Mr. Doodles
Date Posted: 01 April 2007 at 9:35pm
|
Yeah and now its even harder with the media and politics ------------- I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell |
Posted By: Dune
Date Posted: 01 April 2007 at 9:38pm
| You can't blame the media for the country continuing to be unstable. You may blame the media for public opinion being low, but insurgents would still attack and civil war will still wage. |
Posted By: Mr. Doodles
Date Posted: 01 April 2007 at 9:42pm
|
True, but fighting a war is alot harder without public opinion. You also have to realize that they have been fighting for hundreds of years. ------------- I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell |
Posted By: Dune
Date Posted: 01 April 2007 at 9:44pm
|
I do not think staying in Iraq is the best choice for the military. I agree with the withdrawl, as much as I worry about the civilians in Iraq, it is not helping for us to continue to occupy, or try to occupy these lands. |
Posted By: Tae Kwon Do
Date Posted: 01 April 2007 at 9:47pm
Riddle me this, when we withdraw from Iraq, who will the insurgents fight? -------------
|
Posted By: Mr. Doodles
Date Posted: 01 April 2007 at 9:47pm
|
Yeah, but we have to do something, we have the most military whoop ass of any country in the world ------------- I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell |
Posted By: Tae Kwon Do
Date Posted: 01 April 2007 at 9:49pm
Simply because we have a strong military does not mean we should automatically destroy everything. -------------
|
Posted By: Mr. Doodles
Date Posted: 01 April 2007 at 9:55pm
|
Simply because we have a strong military does not mean we should automatically destroy everything. [/QUOTE] I never said we should destroy everything, and aren't we supposed to help people? ------------- I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell |
Posted By: Howler23
Date Posted: 01 April 2007 at 10:08pm
|
First of all, I will admit I have been lurking these forums for awhile. Second of all, some of the people in this thread are making me ashamed to be a conservative. |
Posted By: Mr. Doodles
Date Posted: 01 April 2007 at 10:10pm
|
hey man, freedom of speech ------------- I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell |
Posted By: Jack Carver
Date Posted: 01 April 2007 at 10:20pm
That could change in the next year, and I hope it does, but I don't think that country is gonna stabilize by itself for a long time. |
Posted By: ANARCHY_SCOUT
Date Posted: 01 April 2007 at 10:21pm
------------- Gamertag: Kataklysm999
|
Posted By: Howler23
Date Posted: 01 April 2007 at 10:22pm
| I never said you shouldn't continue to voice your opinion, I only stated mine. When I get into the Army this summer and graduate and go active-duty in 4 years I certainly don't want to be sent somewhere in the world simply because I am part of a "whoop-ass" military. |
Posted By: Butch
Date Posted: 01 April 2007 at 10:33pm
So, you don't care if other people die that are from a different nation. Would you rather have 5,000 foreigners die, or 1,000 Americans die? Lives are lives, in the eyes of my God. The US military is fighting to save lives and install democracy in Iraq. Under Saddam, civilians were targets for terror. The goal of the Bush admin. is to target the insurgents to make the area safer for normal civilians. I hate to say it, but 1 US soldier that has died in Iraq has saved many Iraqi lives. ------------- I have returned to the Tippmann Forum. |
Posted By: Cedric
Date Posted: 01 April 2007 at 10:36pm
|
You might not get her pregnant.
------------- 
|
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 01 April 2007 at 10:38pm
Lets take a guess, anyone who does not believe in thier idealogy. Maybe the "Great Satan" anywhere in the world they can get away with it (remmember the 90's?). I doubt the Jihadists will sit and sing Kumbaya and leave the rest of the world alone, as they put thier quest for one Islamic World on hold. And lets not forget our friends the Iranians, sure working for world peace in thier current forign policy fiascos. In other times a true act of war, but against the "politically castrated west" they have all the cards. -------------
|
Posted By: Tae Kwon Do
Date Posted: 01 April 2007 at 11:06pm
Well in that case, we should probably invade every middle eastern country that might have extremists in it. Just to be careful. Waging war against a mindset always works. -------------
|
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 01 April 2007 at 11:13pm
|
Na, we just leave them alone and eventually fight them here, once they do thier thing here, it will be easier to sort em out. And people like you will be screaming on how it came to this and search for the scapegoats as required.
How succesfull is your little war on a "mindset" going? (Those who do not agree with you.) -------------
|
Posted By: Tae Kwon Do
Date Posted: 01 April 2007 at 11:17pm
Yawn. Because we all know that Iraqi insurgents, whose goal is to get us out of Iraq, their next step is a full scale invasion of America. This whole "Fight 'em there not here" rhetoric is getting old when it comes to the Iraq war.
What now? -------------
|