Thread: Iraq: One Year Later

Well, I'm fucking bored... how about you?

You didnt actually make a point what so ever... you just called some names and then walked on your merry way.

What exactly is your point Snaffi?

Mr Snafu needs to get laid.

Originally posted by I Are Baboon
Mr Snafu needs to get laid.

By a guy named Bubba. lol

Originally posted by BUSTINOUT
By a guy named Bubba. lol

Quoted for the truth.

we need to pull out of Iraq.....then nuke the entire region.

Originally posted by Eggs
You didnt actually make a point what so ever... you just called some names and then walked on your merry way.

What exactly is your point Snaffi?

I noticed that as well!

i just hope we do a better job tying loose ends in Iraq than the job we did in Afghanistan.

Ditto.

My point is that this is a mess, and it's going to last for a long, long time. It's too expensive, there aren't enough soldiers, and if there were, it wouldn't keep the Shiites from controlling post-Saddam Iraq. The current nation state of Iraq could possible end up as 3 separate nation states, or end up in a struggle for power among Kurds, Sunnis, various regional tribes and the dominant Shiites.

It would have happened eventually regardless of Bush... he was just a catalyst. Once the current dictator fell out of power, there would have been a power struggle and factions would have split off.

As to it being a mess... so was post WW2 Germany. Its the cost of doing battle. I really wish that our guys didnt have to be over there, I dont think the area is truly worth the effort the US is putting in to it. Well, it is from a standpoint of trying to inject a seed of stability into the region to help undermine radicals, unfortunately that will take some time to see through.

I do believe in using Guerilla warfare in like kind. Perhaps it would be better if anybody that held up a "Death to Americans" sign or those that gather to cause unrest were just killed. Its not very nice, but effective. We've long since lost the touch of dealing with troublesome nations. I dont recall us taking a death toll and fretting about German lives lost in WW2. Iraq is a better situation the Vietnam, but everyone is still trying to play the nice guy.

I hate to loose civilian lives, they certainly dont deserve it. But if they were working as hard to keep terrorists from bombing targets as they were at complaining then this would all be over a whole lot quicker.

Originally posted by Eggs
It would have happened eventually regardless of Bush... he was just a catalyst. Once the current dictator fell out of power, there would have been a power struggle and factions would have split off.

Hussein would not have fallen from power eventually. His secret police forces and organizational structure was comprehensive and strong. His repression and police and military forces were as strong as ever.

As to it being a mess... so was post WW2 Germany.

Many have made anologies for post world-war Europe in general and Germany in particular. They dynamics are completely different, however.

dont think the area is truly worth the effort the US is putting in to it. Well, it is from a standpoint of trying to inject a seed of stability into the region to help undermine radicals....

I agree it's not worth the effort. For the War on Terrorism they should have left Hussein in power. Any Al-Qaeda found in Saddams' Iraq would be jailed and/or killed. Now that Hussein is gone, Al-Qaeda and other extremists from inside and outside Iraq are operating there.

It's a welfare program for the Military-Industrial complex and American corporation that Eisenhower warned us so much about in the 1950s.

leave the stupid iraq...iraq is nth but a oil rich country...

Originally posted by Mr_Snafu
Hussein would not have fallen from power eventually. His secret police forces and organizational structure was comprehensive and strong. His repression and police and military forces were as strong as ever.

I meant dead, but I'll be more blunt next time.

Many have made anologies for post world-war Europe in general and Germany in particular. They dynamics are completely different, however.

There sure were... but regardless, they do have their similarities, such as both requiring an amazing effort. On the down side, the Russians had control of half of Berlin... and theres never been a doubt of their willingness to kill any and everything as it suited them. I commend them. Theres a big difference between a free populace and a country which you want to pacify. As to extremists... I have no doubts they were operating there as well. I'm sure Hussi's Secret Police were good at terrorizing, but its silly to think that there couldnt have been any Al Queda operating there.

A welfare program... you can call it that if you wish, and its partially true. Regardless, they are doing a job and while not always making the best of progress they are at least heading in that direction. We'll see where it goes from here.

*an oil rich country

btw what is the purpose of mass demostration in spain? It is good that everyone there now oppose against terrorists; but this won't stop those from planting another bombs..and it would be hell if they blast up those huge crowd on the road.
They should do sth more substantial than just showing their feelings and they should support those who r leading to crack down extremists. There is nth those terrorists care , may not even be their own people.
just like an old line. 'kill or be killed'

Originally posted by Eggs
I meant dead, but I'll be more blunt next time.

One of his sons would have taken over, which prolly would have been worse. One of them did not have the "restraint" Sadaam had.

But would the generals have supported his sons? Simply being the son of a dictator does not guarantee power, especially in this day of revolution and assassination. History is full of political forces that split under such a strain.

I think we were going to go back into Iraq at some point, just based the fact that Iraq was violating numerous UN sanctions.

Not politically correct:

We need to surround the cities that are causing problems, letting no food, no water, no electricity, etc. into the city. Give the population 48 hours to come out at a check point to be searched, and possibly arrested. After 48 hours - level the city and make an example of it for others. Anyone left in the city would be those that chose to stay and die.

The Iraqis evidently don't understand anything but brutality - we should be treating them in a manner they can understand.

They actually respond very well to brutality... and little else. My brother was over there for a year and we talked about how you could be completely nice to a person and they wouldnt respect you... and wouldnt mind some terrorist coming up and blowing off your head. However, if you told them that they'd be thrown in jail and their house bulldozed (or whatever use of force is appropriate), they'd quickly prove helpful

Unfortunately, its a learned behavior from Saddam and Co.

now that the iraqi's are dead, and the al-qaida are killed or w/e

who else thinks we should go after Castro?
anyone?

Castro? Nahhh, that wouldnt be a good idea IMO.

dang...well we are taking out all of the other idiots...i figure why not jump on the bandwagon and kill castro

Castro nah.....he's not a threat........Hell i think we should go back to somalia and do some fricken ass kicken

One can only invade so many third world countries before you piss people off... the world looking for an excuse to stick it to the US right now.

Besides, Castro really hasnt done too much bad lately. He's shot up a few people trying to escape, but overall he's a lot less barbaric than Saddam. We'd have a hard time just making a case about nailing him.

Originally posted by myCATpowerlifts
now that the iraqi's are dead, and the al-qaida are killed or w/e

Should we not kill Bin Laden first?

Castro is in check. He's old and doesn't really have anything that can hurt us. Let him die, see who replaces him, and see what happens.