News from the Colonies - America's War in Iraq

Status
Not open for further replies.
“Thieves in Naked Shame.”
haha! serves them right! they shud of engraved it on their face tho.. would of been more entertaining to read :)
 
:) i cant get the link, but its on the first page posted by goofyfish :)

no peace. war. war makes peace. peace is protected once their are afraid of war. peace would be broken without war. :D
 
Go Down Moses said:
You must be kidding.

The new Iraqi constitution will most likely be based on Sharia. Women will most likely not be able to vote and, ironically, will have fewer legal rights than they did under Saddam Hussein. Additionally, the new Iraqi government will almost assuredly be closedly allied with Iran ---- part of the Axis of Evil. Is this what our tax dollars and our soldier's lives are subsidizing?
Click to expand...
We'll see. I don't think so. But even if you are correct, at least the women will have the right to not be tortured and raped for the amusement of Saddam and his insane offspring. Furthermore, this is a long range plan. I realize you on the left consider a war a failure if victory is not instantaneous, but that's life. Even if a free Iraq alligns itself with Iran (an outcome that is by no means certain), the people of the middle east will see that the US is willing to back up its words with blood and treasure and does not run from a fight (like Spain). After Clinton pulled the US out of Somalia at the first sign of bloodshed, Osama believed the US to be a paper tiger. He has now seen that, at least with Republicans in power, we are willing and able to fight. Pulling out of Iraq would be a sign of weakness. Terrorists are basically bullies. They attack the weak. Women and children, and Spain. Why don't they attack China? If England responds to the London bombings like Spain did, it will only encourage further attacks. These bastards must be opposed on every front. We must fight then in Iraq, Afganistan, all the other 'stans. So long as no Democrat gets into office, we will beat them into submission. At the same time, we are creating the only true democracies in the middle east. You may think Arabs will freely choose tyranny if given a choice, I don't.
 
I realize you on the left consider a war a failure if victory is not instantaneous, but that's life.
Click to expand...


Considering that I spent 14 months in Iraq from Dec. 2003 to Feb. 2005 and that I have never voted for a candidate who could be presumed to be "on the left," you presuppose a lot about me.

I've noticed that it is easy for people who sit behind a keyboard to say that others should go and fight. I lost one of my best friends over there the last time and my unit is in rotation to go back in a few months, so perhaps my perspective is different from most. You say "we must fight them in Iraq, Afghanistan, and all the other 'stans." Do I take you to mean, then, that you are on your way down to enlist? When you say "we," I take it to mean "you and I," and not just me, a lowly sergeant major. I know some great recruiters and I'll bet there are some in your area.

By the way, your "pulling out would be a sign of weakness" reasoning is exactly what Robert McNamera was saying in 1965. But the Vietnam war was not winnable for the very same reasons, in my opinion, that the war in Iraq is unwinnable: a) not enough manpower/firepower committed in the beginning, when it could have made a difference b) unclear strategic objectives.

Get McNamara's book or go watch "Fog of War" and the parallels will become clear to you.

About a year ago in Baghdad several of our men were nearly killed by a hand grenade that dropped from a rooftop. One of the lesser wounded looked at me afterwards and said "this is what happens when men in grey suits get to plan the wars." I winced, and I still wince, when I think of his words. Yup.

Why don't they attack China? I would imagine that it's because China isn't in what they view to be their holy lands. Hell, I am stationed here at Ft. Hood in central Texas and I can tell you what the response of any group of true Texans would be to the kind of invasion that are engaged in. A fight to the death is what the response would be.



So long as no Democrat gets into office, we will beat them into submission.
Click to expand...


Just like we did when Nixon came to power in 1968, right?

One would think that the lessons of Vietnam regarding the folly of trying to install a government in an area the size of Texas and that contains 20 million people and that has porous borders would not be lost on the current generation, but it appears to be the case. Hell, the Russians couldn't do it in Afghanistan, a country that is much more sparsely populated and was RIGHT ON THEIR OWN BORDER.


But I don't want to rain on your victory parade any longer, oh mighty keyboard warrior, so I'll sign off now. All I know is that I hope against hope that this is resolved before November 15th.
 
Last edited:
madanthonywayne said:
But even if you are correct, at least the women will have the right to not be tortured and raped for the amusement of Saddam and his insane offspring.
Click to expand...
Unless we send them to Abu Grabe or Guantanimo.
 
Go Down Moses: Hear, hear.

It's vital to our nation's future that more Americans hear from you. Little by little, the illusion so masterfully imprinted upon American consciousness and media is going to wear off. You who have seen this war, and your fellow soldiers who are dying in it will be the most influential voices in turning this nation away again from the certain downfall of (corny as it sounds) truth; justice; and the American way. Because when we as a nation lose our credibility and respect for justice in the eyes of the world, we will resultantly forfeit our way of life. Thanks for that post, Go Down Moses and thanks for your service.

Iraq Veterans Against the War
Veterans Against the Iraq War
Veterans for Common Sense
Veterans for Peace
Military Families Speaking Out
Bring Them Home Now
Gold Star Families For Peace
No More Victims
Not in Our Name
Education for Peace in Iraq Center
American Friends Service Committee

Magnetic Peace This link is not a commercial plug: MP is a vet-operated non-profit providing an alternative message and retort to all those thousands of "Support Our Troops" yellow ribbons. Easy Paypal, all profits to charitable antiwar causes.
 
Last edited:
Considering that I spent 14 months in Iraq from Dec. 2003 to Feb. 2005 and that I have never voted for a candidate who could be presumed to be "on the left," you presuppose a lot about me.
Click to expand...
My apologies for calling you a left winger, but on this site it's usually an accurate assumption.

I've noticed that it is easy for people who sit behind a keyboard to say that others should go and fight.
Click to expand...
I appreciate and respect your service to your country. However, we have a volunteer army. No one is forced to serve in the military. The vast majority of the population has no history of military service. Are we, therefore, obligated to become pacifists and oppose all military conflicts?

By the way, your "pulling out would be a sign of weakness" reasoning is exactly what Robert McNamera was saying in 1965.
Click to expand...
He was right, and we shouldn't have pulled out when we did.

About a year ago in Baghdad several of our men were nearly killed by a hand grenade that dropped from a rooftop. One of the lesser wounded looked at me afterwards and said "this is what happens when men in grey suits get to plan the wars." I winced, and I still wince, when I think of his words. Yup.
Click to expand...
I'm with you there.

Why don't they attack China? I would imagine that it's because China isn't in what they view to be their holy lands.
Click to expand...
OK, but what about attacks in Indonesia, Mombassa, Kenya, Bali, Argentina, etc. ?

Just like we did when Nixon came to power in 1968, right?
Click to expand...
I don't claim Nixon. He may have been Republican. He may have been anti-communist, but he was no conservative. I'd have voted for Kennedy over Nixon in a second.

One would think that the lessons of Vietnam regarding the folly of trying to install a government in an area the size of Texas and that contains 20 million people and that has porous borders would not be lost on the current generation, but it appears to be the case. Hell, the Russians couldn't do it in Afghanistan, a country that is much more sparsely populated and was RIGHT ON THEIR OWN BORDER.
Click to expand...
The diference is the Soviets were trying to install a dictatorship, while we are removing one. Bush is trying to change the landscape over there. He's trying to alter the conditions that lead to terrorism. Even if going into Iraq was wrong (a point I do not concede), we are there now and pulling out before the job is done is not an option.
 
"Even if going into Iraq was wrong (a point I do not concede), we are there now and pulling out before the job is done is not an option."

It doesn't matter one whit what our American intentions are, now that the exposure of our false, alarmist self-defense justifications are being replaced with loftier-sounding "democracy-building" rationalizations.

The locals do not trust us (study the history of Iraq to understand). The region does not trust us (study the history of US mideast policy to understand). We're not popularly recognized nor are we popularly accepted as the just authority over the future of Iraq. Pluralistic democracy will for the foreseeable future take a back seat in Iraq to authoritarianism, sectarianism, and religiousity. What little hope remains for an intact Iraq will clearly not be constructively worked out through foreign action, and sadly the issue will most likely be settled through a very bloody civil war. The USA will forever share some blame in kindling the Iraqi Civil War.

The United States cannot build a democracy in Iraq however more profound and prolonged our presence becomes. So far as we are concerned, "the Job" can never be done, because we have no valid mandate in Iraq. Sometimes in human affairs the only recourse is just to mind your own business.
 
Thats what anti-war citizens have been saying from day 1:

There are no WMDz
(Lame half-assed excuse)

Day 2:

You can't make a foreign country democratic
(If the acutal citizens that live there don't want it, it won't happen)

First U.S. soldiers that went to Iraq died for weapons of WMD that never existed and now soldiers are dying for a democracy that will most likely never happen.

Figure out the moral of the story boys and girls!!!!!
 
Prisme said:
Thats what anti-war citizens have been saying from day 1:

There are no WMDz
(Lame half-assed excuse)

Day 2:

You can't make a foreign country democratic
(If the acutal citizens that live there don't want it, it won't happen)

First U.S. soldiers that went to Iraq died for weapons of WMD that never existed and now soldiers are dying for a democracy that will most likely never happen.

Figure out the moral of the story boys and girls!!!!!
Click to expand...

moral? not required, just saves a bundle on welfare
 
madanthonywayne said:
The diference is the Soviets were trying to install a dictatorship, while we are removing one. Bush is trying to change the landscape over there. He's trying to alter the conditions that lead to terrorism. Even if going into Iraq was wrong (a point I do not concede), we are there now and pulling out before the job is done is not an option.
Click to expand...

Not forgetting that the dictatorship we removed is one we created, and
that is the reason the Iraqi people do not trust us.
 
When did we put the Ba'ath party in power? We may have given them weapons to combat Iran, but we never put them in power. As for why the Iraqis don't trust us it is because they fear us militarily and spiritually.
 
FEAR OUR SPIRITUALITY!

nope, that's not very scary. It only made my neighbour yell, "shut the fuck up, I'm trying to sleep you asshole!".
 
For decades, the miserable Arabs have been complaining that the US has kept the corrupt dictators, princes, and whatnot, in their little part of the world in power by buying oil. So the US now has a President willing to step up to the plate and DO something about that situation - and what happens? The miserable Arabs complain that the US is invading and occupying their so-called "holy" land. WTF!
 
All we had to do is not buy oil from corrupt leaders. I think killing fellow Arabs and taking their oil isn't what they had in mind.

The holy land is in Saudi Arabia, and guess what? We did get out of there pretty quick.
 
Hagar said:
When did we put the Ba'ath party in power? We may have given them weapons to combat Iran, but we never put them in power. As for why the Iraqis don't trust us it is because they fear us militarily and spiritually.
Click to expand...
We (Bush the first) kept Saddam's party in power by letting him fly helicopter gunships after the first Gulf War, so he could put down a popular rebellion against him. I think it's because as bad as he was, we preferred him to an Islamic state.
 
I know we gave him weapons to attack Iran, but I've never heard of the gunship incident. As far as I know, we were going to help fund the rebellion but decided against it at the last minute. I might be wrong on that, but I believe the CIA was allied with the Iraqi Liberation Front and the Kurds to overthrow his power.

Although I do recall the Saddamm saying in prision: "I like Reagan, he was a good guy, he gave me tanks to attack Iran. That Bush, I hate him".
 
All we had to do is not buy oil from corrupt leaders. I think killing fellow Arabs and taking their oil isn't what they had in mind.
Click to expand...

We aren't taking any oil from Iraq. We don't even get anything out of the deal. Our only hope is that the new Iraqi government will allow us to trade with them (which they probably will).
 
You know, there's nothing like coming from the savannah back to camp to talk with the women.

It puts one in touch with one's kinder, gentler side...

For a while, then one is compelled to return to the savannah because a greater reality lurks there.

Knit one, pearl two. Just stare at the flames and tell stories. There are no lions, tigers or bears -- oh, my.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top