Soldiers say Iraq pullout would be devastating - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 11-06-2006, 05:38 PM   #16
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
LyricalDrug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: SF Bay Area, California, USA
Posts: 3,212
Local Time: 01:29 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox


I know plenty of successful alcoholics.

Bush was in the service did not dodge.

And he won the war but is losing the reconstruction.
Oh right, we "won the war." Where did you hear that? Oh, was it the big "Mission Accomplished" banner that Bush stood in front of, when he prematurely declared victory a couple years back? And which the White House has had to scramble to distance itself from?

Bush is a complete joke. He has an approval rating of 39%, and will be remembered as one of the least popular and worst Presidents in American history.
__________________

__________________
LyricalDrug is offline  
Old 11-06-2006, 06:02 PM   #17
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: London/Sydney
Posts: 6,608
Local Time: 09:29 PM
Re: Re: Soldiers say Iraq pullout would be devastating

Quote:
Originally posted by VintagePunk

You broke it, you fix it.
Exactly. The fact that the army feels leaving now will create such a storm is no boast. You broke it, fix it. You completely messed it up, you fix it. You tore the country apart, you fix it. You brought the whole region to such a dangerous place, you fucking fix it. You're right STING.
__________________

__________________
Earnie Shavers is offline  
Old 11-06-2006, 06:49 PM   #18
War Child
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posts: 760
Local Time: 08:29 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Macfistowannabe
Albania
Armenia
Australia
Azerbaijan
Bosnia-Herzegovina
Bulgaria
Czech Republic
Denmark
El Salvador
Estonia
Georgia
Italy
Japan
Kazakhstan
Latvia
Lithuania
Macedonia
Moldova
Mongolia
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Singapore
Slovakia
South Korea
Ukraine
United Kingdom
The numbers can be found in a table (at the bottom of the page) here (go Moldova!):

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita..._coalition.htm

Uh, i guess it's the moral support that counts more with most of these countries? (I'm trying to be understanding.)
__________________
Judah is offline  
Old 11-06-2006, 07:26 PM   #19
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,238
Local Time: 02:29 PM
So basically we can summarize the initial post like this.

If you walk up to a dam and hit it with a hammer, and a chunk falls out, you stick your finger in to try and stop the water. Now cracks are forming and it's leaking water like crazy, but it's better to sit there with your finger in the hole slowing the flow of water than taking your finger out and getting completely swamped.

Well duh. Either way it still sucks and you shouldn't have hit the damn thing with a hammer to begin with.
__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 11-06-2006, 07:50 PM   #20
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 06:29 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by LyricalDrug


Clinton removed Milosevic with 3 American casualties. How many more Americans are going to die for the removal of Saddam Hussein?

And why did Bush cut-and-run in Afghanistan, without capturing bin Laden?

Bush is an alcoholic draft-dodger who knows much, much less about the military than Clinton. He's losing this war.
And the lives cost under the sanction regime that the Clinton administration saw as a price worth paying? Responsibility for Iraq extends well before this administration and the body count already extended into the hundreds of thousands.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 11-06-2006, 08:17 PM   #21
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 03:29 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by LyricalDrug


Oh right, we "won the war." Where did you hear that? Oh, was it the big "Mission Accomplished" banner that Bush stood in front of, when he prematurely declared victory a couple years back? And which the White House has had to scramble to distance itself from?

Bush is a complete joke. He has an approval rating of 39%, and will be remembered as one of the least popular and worst Presidents in American history.
I think we disagree on everything.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 11-06-2006, 08:21 PM   #22
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 08:29 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by LyricalDrug
Too bad Bush couldn't convince enough other countries to send troops, so that we could bring more of our troops home and/or redeploy them elsewhere.

Remember the good old days, when Clinton was in office? When we removed Milosevic from power with a total of THREE American casualties, because we had a much better military and because we had a coalition of countries and allies working together?
Milosevic was not removed from power by Clinton, the United States or NATO, he was removed by the people of Serbia in October 2000, more than a year after the last bombs fell on Kosovo and NATO troops occupied the province.

The US Military today is far more advanced, experienced, trained, as well as funded than Clintons military of the 1990s. Casaulties did not occur in Kosovo or Bosnia because Clinton restricted combat to airstrikes at 15,000 feet above sea level. In addition, the airstrikes often targeted duel use faciliities important to the general public as well as the Serbian military. The destruction of Serbian infrustructure, not its military, led to Serb capitulation after 80 plus days of bombing.

As for the Allies, the United States conducted nearly 90% of all the airstrikes in both campaigns.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 11-06-2006, 08:25 PM   #23
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 08:29 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by LyricalDrug


Clinton removed Milosevic with 3 American casualties. How many more Americans are going to die for the removal of Saddam Hussein?

And why did Bush cut-and-run in Afghanistan, without capturing bin Laden?

Bush is an alcoholic draft-dodger who knows much, much less about the military than Clinton. He's losing this war.
Clinton did not remove Milosevic. Bush did not cut and run from Afghanistan. As the war in Iraq started, the number of troops in Afghanistan DOUBLED!

Clinton disarmament and containment strategy against Saddam failed which is why regime change became necessary in Iraq.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 11-06-2006, 08:27 PM   #24
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 08:29 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by DaveC


And now there are 43 dead Canadians, thanks to that decision.

Even if Iraq somehow manages to calm down and everything settles down, I will never - NEVER forgive Bush for that.

And he couldn't care less.

I will protest the man every chance I get until the day one of us dies.

43 of my countrymen are dead because of this mentally handicapped shitstain's personal vendetta.

Some days I wish he had put just a little too much blow up his nose in college. Thousands of people would be alive.

And he couldn't care less.

No one cut and ran from Afghanistan, the number of US troops on the ground has doubled in Afghanistan, not gone down. The invasion of Iraq, conducted primarily by Heavy Armor units, did not impact overall troop levels in Afgahnistan at all!
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 11-06-2006, 08:29 PM   #25
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 08:29 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by LyricalDrug




Bush is a complete joke. He has an approval rating of 39%, and will be remembered as one of the least popular and worst Presidents in American history.
Like Harry Truman right? Harry Truman was at 22% approval before he left office.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 11-06-2006, 08:35 PM   #26
Blue Crack Supplier
 
kellyahern's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: 8 years and I still can't think of anything witty to put here
Posts: 34,698
Local Time: 04:29 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


Clinton disarmament and containment strategy against Saddam failed which is why regime change became necessary in Iraq.
Why was it necessary? Yes, he was an evil person who killed hundreds of thousands of his own people, but there are quite a few evil murderous dictators in the world whose countries we don't invade.

Saddam didn't have WMDs (as Bush led us to believe) and wasn't involved with Al-Qaida (as he also led us to believe). So why was it necessary to remove him and not Kim Jong Il, who does have WMDs?
__________________
kellyahern is offline  
Old 11-06-2006, 08:36 PM   #27
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 08:29 PM
Re: Re: Re: Soldiers say Iraq pullout would be devastating

Quote:
Originally posted by Earnie Shavers


Exactly. The fact that the army feels leaving now will create such a storm is no boast. You broke it, fix it. You completely messed it up, you fix it. You tore the country apart, you fix it. You brought the whole region to such a dangerous place, you fucking fix it. You're right STING.
What was dangerous for the region was a man who invaded and attacked four different counties unprovoked, used WMD more times than any leader in history, murdered 1.7 million people, his own and foreigners, through his wars, threatened the planets chief source of energy supply with siezure and sabotage, would not verifiably disarm of WMD, and was actively doing everything he could to get out from under sanctions and succeeding.

Saddam Hussien broke Iraq and nearly the region, and was removed by the coalition. Now DEMOCRATS want to withdraw prematurely before the rebuilding of Iraq has been completed, which will only lead to another US intervention not long in the future under far worse circumstances.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 11-06-2006, 08:37 PM   #28
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
randhail's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Outside Providence
Posts: 3,557
Local Time: 03:29 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


The US Military today is far more advanced, experienced, trained,

I'm sorry but this made me laugh really hard. I wonder why the military is so much more experienced than under Clinton??? Hmmmmm, I wonder....
__________________
randhail is offline  
Old 11-06-2006, 08:42 PM   #29
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 08:29 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Diemen
So basically we can summarize the initial post like this.

If you walk up to a dam and hit it with a hammer, and a chunk falls out, you stick your finger in to try and stop the water. Now cracks are forming and it's leaking water like crazy, but it's better to sit there with your finger in the hole slowing the flow of water than taking your finger out and getting completely swamped.

Well duh. Either way it still sucks and you shouldn't have hit the damn thing with a hammer to begin with.
The United States did not invade Kuwait, Saudi Arabia or attack Israel, Saddam did. The United States did not use any WMD in the region unlike Saddam who has used more WMD than any leader in history. Saddam had failed to disarm and all of the elements of containment were crumbling. Your DAM was leaking water like crazy. The removal of Saddam has far now removed the immediate danger to Persian Gulf oil supply in Kuwait and Easter Saudi Arabia. But if the United States withdraws prematurely, it will likely create the conditions for another US intervention not to long down the road under far worse circumstances. The Planet is not going to be any less dependent on Oil from Eastern Saudi Arabia in 10 years. The Planet is far more dependent on Oil from Eastern Saudia Arabia than it was in 1990/1991 when the United States sent over 550,000 troops there to remove Saddam from Kuwait, a war that most DEMOCRATS opposed including John Kerry, Joe Biden, and then Rep. Jim Webb.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 11-06-2006, 08:46 PM   #30
Blue Crack Supplier
 
kellyahern's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: 8 years and I still can't think of anything witty to put here
Posts: 34,698
Local Time: 04:29 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


The United States did not use any WMD in the region unlike Saddam who has used more WMD than any leader in history. Saddam had failed to disarm and all of the elements of containment were crumbling.
These WMDs that you keep talking about, he had a lot of them didn't he? We found tons of them when we invaded, didn't we? Oh, right . . .
__________________

__________________
kellyahern is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:29 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com