Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
AEON said:
there are over 4 million Iraqi refugees; 2 million have the means to leave, the other 2 million have fled to more ethnically friendly areas.
one could argue that we already have a genocide on our hands.
And the chaos continues...day of death in Baghdad
- Thread starter trevster2k
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
there are over 4 million Iraqi refugees; 2 million have the means to leave, the other 2 million have fled to more ethnically friendly areas.
one could argue that we already have a genocide on our hands.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
AEON said:
And you don't think the two are related?
The only way that your going to get peace in Iraq is if the coalition is allowed to complete the nationbuilding process and build a new government as well as a military that can provide for internal security within the country. Its exactly the same process that is under way in Afghanistan. It takes 10 plus years to complete such a task, and abandoning it now is certainly not in the interest of the Iraqi's, the region, and the United States.
Partition in Iraq will never work. The ethnic and religious groups are not as clearly divided as everyone thinks. There are certainly Sunni majority, Shia majority, and Kurdish majority area's, but even these area's have sizable minorities. In fact, only half of the country actually has area's where one ethnic or religious group forms a clear majority. The Iraq Study Group looked at the partition option and rejected it. Partition in fact, is the way to a real civil war.
Bosnia for example although it had an internal division between the Serb area and the Muslim/Croat area remained a united country. The Muslims and Croats were able to resolve their differences earlier. In fact, this year, all serbs, muslims and croats will serve in a unified Bosnian military which is remarkable given what happened in Bosnia in the early 1990s. Eventually, the remaining divisions will ceace to exist. It proves that all the assesments that Bosnia was an impossible situation that the United States and Europeans could not solve with military intervention were false. Bosnia had worse divisions and less history of being a country than Iraq, but today its a united country with a standard of living better than Brazil and Russia. Not bad for a country that not long ago had 10% of its population slaughtered and was refered to as the United States next Vietnam.
Afghanistan is larger than Iraq, has 20 ethnic groups and a much longer history, 5,000 years in fact, of warlordism and opposition to any sort of central government. Many people who live in southern Afghanistan don't recognize the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan. So Iraq is actually in good shape compared to Afghanistan and Bosnia in terms of having a country with a real united history and the sense of being a member of that country as opposed to ones tribe or ethnic group.
Withdrawing coalition combat forces before Iraqi forces are ready to replace the task they peform on a daily basis will only give Sunni insurgents, Al Quada, and Shia Militia's more room and ease to conduct suicide bombings, plant IED's, and murder those they feel will be a threat to them once any pullout is complete. It does not make any sense to cripple the security situation for the Iraqi government and people, which is what a pre-mature pullout of US combat forces would do. It also makes it more difficult for US forces who remain in Iraq and will have less resources to deal with an increasingly demanding security situation brought on by the effects of a pre-mature pullout.
The Iraqi military needs at least another 4 years of training and development of a competent fighting force that can replace coalition forces that are withdrawn. A pre-mature withdrawal not only hurts the immediate security situation, it will hurt the Iraqi military as well, as confidence and the numbers of recruits will decrease. That will likely prevent the Iraqi military from developing beyond that point. As the security situation worsens with the rapid pre-mature withdrawal of all coalition combat forces, its potentially possible the Iraqi military would completely disolve. It will be at least 4 years before they can handle much of the day to day security situation to a degree that US combat troops could pull out, and it will take even more time to develop their own logistical support base to supply their forces. Right now, the coalition is the logistical support base for the Iraqi military.
The economic situation in Iraq, vital to any efforts to bring about peace and stability in the country, would be adversly effected by the worsened security situation brought on by a pre-mature withdrawal. Pre-mature withdrawal only makes the country less secure as coalition troops performing important security task are withdrawn and not sufficiently replaced because the Iraqi military is not ready. Politically, negotiation will prove impossible as Sunni insurgent groups double their efforts to prepare for the coming day when no coalition forces can stand in their way. This helps to spread the sectarianism that the coalition is trying to stop as these groups will suddenly feel empowered by a pre-mature withdrawal and an Iraqi military that is unable to stand on its own.
With the end of the Iraqi government and military, elements that could later threaten regional security will fight for control and will not be hindered in any way by Iraqi or coalition forces. Bosnia on an Iraqi scale would mean nearly 3 million dead within 4 years. On a Rwandan scale, perhaps 5 or 6 million dead in an even shorter time frame. Things may be terrible in Iraq at the moment, but their not even a fraction of how bad it could be.
In the middle of all this, Al Quada will finally have its new safe haven that it lost after the US invasion of Afghanistan. Al Anbar is not a safe haven for Al Quada at the moment because the 1st Marine MEF is there, but it will be a safe haven for them if Democrats in congress are able to force the 1st Marine MEF to withdraw by 2008. Giving Al Quada a safe haven to launch new 9/11's is not in the interest of the United States or any other country for that matter.
It is rather strange to see the unwavering committment by Democrats in Congress to keeping troops in place in Afghanistan where there is virtually no Al Quada activity and where Afghanistan's location, resources, and demographics make it a less important country to US security compared to Iraq. If the Democrats answer to the situation in Iraq is withdrawal, then they should have pressed for pulling US troops out of Afghanistan long ago.
Looking even further down the road, country's like Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are unlikely to benefit from a security standpoint if a new dictatorship rises from the potential bloodbath following a pre-mature coalition withdrawal. While instability and refugee flows may stop, such a dictatorship could be potentially hostile to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia creating huge risk for the rest of the planet, as the planets energy reserves are once again threatened by a potentially undeterable regime.
If Iraq was located in another part of the world, away from vital energy reserves and other area's important to the global economy, chances are the United States could easily walk away from the conflict with little to worry about security wise. But given the growing dependence of the global economy on energy from Saudi Arabia and Kuwait just across the border, plus the potential creation of a new safe haven for Al Quada within Iraq, pre-mature withdrawal is not an option if one wants to prevent serious risk to US and global security.
Victory in Iraq and Afghanistan means developing a stable government that can protect itself and provide internal security without the presense of significant coalition combat forces. It takes years to develop that, and neither Iraq or Afghanistan are there yet. But provided the coalition continues to pursue effective nationbuiding and counterinsurgency tactics in both country's and provides the necessary resources, eventually Iraq and Afghanistan will develop the governments and security forces they need to stand on their own.
The United States staying power in both Iraq and Afghanistan is only limited by the political situation in the USA. From a financial perspective, the United States is still currently spending less on Iraq, Afghanistan, the entire US military, as a percentage of GDP per year than it spent in any year the United States was involved in the Cold War. In fact, its only spending 40% more than it did during the lightest year of the defense spending holidays of the 1990s.
If the United States withdraws prematurely, as could likely be the case given the political situation in the US, then the United States will likely face in the years following that withdrawal a whole number of different consequences that will likely at some point force it to send in troops again under far worse and more difficult circumstances. Iraq is not Somalia.
Partition in Iraq will never work. The ethnic and religious groups are not as clearly divided as everyone thinks. There are certainly Sunni majority, Shia majority, and Kurdish majority area's, but even these area's have sizable minorities. In fact, only half of the country actually has area's where one ethnic or religious group forms a clear majority. The Iraq Study Group looked at the partition option and rejected it. Partition in fact, is the way to a real civil war.
Bosnia for example although it had an internal division between the Serb area and the Muslim/Croat area remained a united country. The Muslims and Croats were able to resolve their differences earlier. In fact, this year, all serbs, muslims and croats will serve in a unified Bosnian military which is remarkable given what happened in Bosnia in the early 1990s. Eventually, the remaining divisions will ceace to exist. It proves that all the assesments that Bosnia was an impossible situation that the United States and Europeans could not solve with military intervention were false. Bosnia had worse divisions and less history of being a country than Iraq, but today its a united country with a standard of living better than Brazil and Russia. Not bad for a country that not long ago had 10% of its population slaughtered and was refered to as the United States next Vietnam.
Afghanistan is larger than Iraq, has 20 ethnic groups and a much longer history, 5,000 years in fact, of warlordism and opposition to any sort of central government. Many people who live in southern Afghanistan don't recognize the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan. So Iraq is actually in good shape compared to Afghanistan and Bosnia in terms of having a country with a real united history and the sense of being a member of that country as opposed to ones tribe or ethnic group.
Withdrawing coalition combat forces before Iraqi forces are ready to replace the task they peform on a daily basis will only give Sunni insurgents, Al Quada, and Shia Militia's more room and ease to conduct suicide bombings, plant IED's, and murder those they feel will be a threat to them once any pullout is complete. It does not make any sense to cripple the security situation for the Iraqi government and people, which is what a pre-mature pullout of US combat forces would do. It also makes it more difficult for US forces who remain in Iraq and will have less resources to deal with an increasingly demanding security situation brought on by the effects of a pre-mature pullout.
The Iraqi military needs at least another 4 years of training and development of a competent fighting force that can replace coalition forces that are withdrawn. A pre-mature withdrawal not only hurts the immediate security situation, it will hurt the Iraqi military as well, as confidence and the numbers of recruits will decrease. That will likely prevent the Iraqi military from developing beyond that point. As the security situation worsens with the rapid pre-mature withdrawal of all coalition combat forces, its potentially possible the Iraqi military would completely disolve. It will be at least 4 years before they can handle much of the day to day security situation to a degree that US combat troops could pull out, and it will take even more time to develop their own logistical support base to supply their forces. Right now, the coalition is the logistical support base for the Iraqi military.
The economic situation in Iraq, vital to any efforts to bring about peace and stability in the country, would be adversly effected by the worsened security situation brought on by a pre-mature withdrawal. Pre-mature withdrawal only makes the country less secure as coalition troops performing important security task are withdrawn and not sufficiently replaced because the Iraqi military is not ready. Politically, negotiation will prove impossible as Sunni insurgent groups double their efforts to prepare for the coming day when no coalition forces can stand in their way. This helps to spread the sectarianism that the coalition is trying to stop as these groups will suddenly feel empowered by a pre-mature withdrawal and an Iraqi military that is unable to stand on its own.
With the end of the Iraqi government and military, elements that could later threaten regional security will fight for control and will not be hindered in any way by Iraqi or coalition forces. Bosnia on an Iraqi scale would mean nearly 3 million dead within 4 years. On a Rwandan scale, perhaps 5 or 6 million dead in an even shorter time frame. Things may be terrible in Iraq at the moment, but their not even a fraction of how bad it could be.
In the middle of all this, Al Quada will finally have its new safe haven that it lost after the US invasion of Afghanistan. Al Anbar is not a safe haven for Al Quada at the moment because the 1st Marine MEF is there, but it will be a safe haven for them if Democrats in congress are able to force the 1st Marine MEF to withdraw by 2008. Giving Al Quada a safe haven to launch new 9/11's is not in the interest of the United States or any other country for that matter.
It is rather strange to see the unwavering committment by Democrats in Congress to keeping troops in place in Afghanistan where there is virtually no Al Quada activity and where Afghanistan's location, resources, and demographics make it a less important country to US security compared to Iraq. If the Democrats answer to the situation in Iraq is withdrawal, then they should have pressed for pulling US troops out of Afghanistan long ago.
Looking even further down the road, country's like Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are unlikely to benefit from a security standpoint if a new dictatorship rises from the potential bloodbath following a pre-mature coalition withdrawal. While instability and refugee flows may stop, such a dictatorship could be potentially hostile to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia creating huge risk for the rest of the planet, as the planets energy reserves are once again threatened by a potentially undeterable regime.
If Iraq was located in another part of the world, away from vital energy reserves and other area's important to the global economy, chances are the United States could easily walk away from the conflict with little to worry about security wise. But given the growing dependence of the global economy on energy from Saudi Arabia and Kuwait just across the border, plus the potential creation of a new safe haven for Al Quada within Iraq, pre-mature withdrawal is not an option if one wants to prevent serious risk to US and global security.
Victory in Iraq and Afghanistan means developing a stable government that can protect itself and provide internal security without the presense of significant coalition combat forces. It takes years to develop that, and neither Iraq or Afghanistan are there yet. But provided the coalition continues to pursue effective nationbuiding and counterinsurgency tactics in both country's and provides the necessary resources, eventually Iraq and Afghanistan will develop the governments and security forces they need to stand on their own.
The United States staying power in both Iraq and Afghanistan is only limited by the political situation in the USA. From a financial perspective, the United States is still currently spending less on Iraq, Afghanistan, the entire US military, as a percentage of GDP per year than it spent in any year the United States was involved in the Cold War. In fact, its only spending 40% more than it did during the lightest year of the defense spending holidays of the 1990s.
If the United States withdraws prematurely, as could likely be the case given the political situation in the US, then the United States will likely face in the years following that withdrawal a whole number of different consequences that will likely at some point force it to send in troops again under far worse and more difficult circumstances. Iraq is not Somalia.
Earnie Shavers
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
STING2 said:
And, apparently, 4 years to figure that out. Should have thought of that, I don't know, before invading?
AEON
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
Earnie Shavers said:
Well, it doesn't really matter at this point HOW we got there or WHY we go there. What matters now is that we ARE there and we must do the right thing from this point forward.
Debating who is to blame will not improve the Iraq situation. I say it is certainly fair game to bring it up when we are again confronted with a similar situation.
As of right now, working together to develop a reasonable plan for the future of Iraq is what we have left.
A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
Ethnic cleansing is different than genocide.Irvine511 said:
AEON
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
Dreadsox said:
I wish this was the case, but it is not. So, we need to plan accordingly. I think the UN may come back once there is SOME sense of stability. In my opinion - we are making progress. I think we will know more by the end of the summer.
It doesn't matter anymore that we are essentially going at this alone. It's just the way it is. It's too late to call "do over." So let's roll with what we have.
Vincent Vega
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
A_Wanderer said:
This term become popular during the Bosnian "conflict" (another euphemism) and there was no difference to a genocide.
Here it seems like a genocide in its beginning.
AEON said:
I disagree. It matters to me. It matters to my friends who lost a son, brother, cousin.
It matters in the eyes of the world, a world in which the US used to be considered a leader. But all of theat goodwill towrds us, is down the shitter.
It matters to me, a former soldier, who signed up to defend his country and the constitution. A constitution that apparently means nothing to anyone anymore. It matters to me, because I do not remember signing up to install democracy. It matters to me, because that was NOT what we went to war for.
It matters to the next soldier that dies, and the soldier after that. How do you explain the death of the last soldier to the parents as we leave and the entire place is consumed by war after we leave. Gee Mom and Dad we are so very sorry, but he/she died to install a democracy....oh shit....sorry about that....he died to save face.
It matters to me! One more death is too many.
The right thing from this point forward? Installing a democracy in a region that has not shown any interest in being deomcratic.
AEON said:
WE are to blame. The American People. We let them LIE LIE LIE and MANIPULATE. WE talk accountability, but we do not vote out the CONGRESS, who authorized it and have failed to do anything about it. The sack of shit that we were handed, created by a group of people with NO regaurd for the truth. That fiorced people out of the intelligence business by cutting pieces of reports that backed their world view even though the reports had totally different conclusions. I am sick of hearing do not change the course, fuck that. Fuck McCain, Fuck Bush Cheny and all of the Congress who authorized this. If we the people got off our asses and voted these cocksuckers out (CONGRESS) mayby just maybe someone would get the hint that the average citizen gives a shit.
But we do not. We do not because a soldier or an Iraqi dies and we are insulated. They volunteered. And to be honest, I see NOBODY talking about the war. ITs like it exists in the back of our consciouness, and yeah its there....but the fact is......AMERICANS no longer care or feel the pain.
Last edited:
Zoots
Blue Crack Supplier
BonoVoxSupastar said:
Haha what a solid question!
AEON said:
What bullshit! How do you know this for sure? How can you say "it's safe to say"? We are unable to even distinguish who is good and who is bad out there! It is not our country, it is theirs. Let them decide their own fate! I like how this is lost on the republicans!
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Dread
AEON
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
Dreadsox said:
I understand how you feel. Most of us at this point have felt some of the pain of this war. My Guard unit was one of the hardest hit in Iraq - I am reminded every drill how much sacrifice has been required. My brother has done tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. My Platoon Sergeant has the scar from a tracheotomy staring right at me every time we talk.
However, the discussion of how we got there and why we got there really won't help us move forward - will it? I could be wrong, but I’ve never seen blame attached to an actual plan for success in any operation or exercise. It's like Project Management, at some point we all have to agree that things haven’t been working as planned – but we must come up with a new plan to succeed (that is assuming success is actually desired). Debating about how the project got messed up in the first place doesn’t usually help until AFTER the project is complete. Instead, you reassess, carry on, and make it happen. Root cause analysis ALWAYS follows resolution.
The pain you’ve encountered is valid. And it should be expressed. But we still must keep an eye on the future and use our imagination to come up with a real solution for Iraq.
Earnie Shavers
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
That sure doesn't fly in my workplace. Yeah, I lost a million dollars, we all know that, lets not talk about that now, it's in the past, let's just focus on the fact that we are a million dollars down and now we must all pull together here and stay the course and figure out how to make a million dollars.
Yes, thorough and open discussion about where to go from here, but also get to the bottom of how everyone got here and roll EVERY head that got this thing into this position. From the very top down. I'm amazed more haven't been held accountable, for what someone else perhaps correctly pointed out as what may well go down in history as the United States' single greatest foreign policy fuck up of all time.
Have you read Eternal Life in the Emerald City? Sure, one book is one book, but it doesn't differ from the general consensus out there through most things you read, regardless of whatever political slant they have, that 150% of the blame for this lies fair and square on the shoulders of the neo-cons. Only this book details it better (obviously) than any previous single articles I've read. They locked out anyone and everyone from planning and roles in post-initial invasion Iraq who didn't follow their politics and viewpoint perfectly. Even within Republican circles. That means if you worked for that evil State Dept, you were out. Even if you had decades of experience in the region and spoke fluent Arabic. You weren't as good a candidate as a 23yr old from the Pentagon with no experience, but understood Iraq as seen through the neo-con dream. You really should read the book if you haven't. It is very thorough. The fuck ups are just incredible and are entirely why the situation exists as it does today. Just an amazing chronicle of exactly how you can fuck everything up at every turn.
There really should have been a public outrage from all corners of political beliefs over it. No matter how justified or not you felt the initial act was, what happened afterwards was such a stunning failure, one due entirely to blinding arrogance mixed with stunning incompetence.
The thing is, if the US Government was a public company, with shareholders, and you had Bush/Cheney as the CEO/Vice, and they oversaw such a fuck up, they would have been booted out of there years ago, as would many others at the top. And I don't see what the difference is. You are a shareholder, you do have a financial stake. The only difference I see is that you also have a significant emotional stake. I think the more passionate a supporter of the war you are, the more you would have wanted to see people held accountable. I don't think that was/would be an anti-war, anti-President, anti-troop, leftie/liberal/whatever thing to do. I think if you truly believe in the cause, and truly wanted success, you would have turned on the "neo-cons" a long, long time ago.
Yes, thorough and open discussion about where to go from here, but also get to the bottom of how everyone got here and roll EVERY head that got this thing into this position. From the very top down. I'm amazed more haven't been held accountable, for what someone else perhaps correctly pointed out as what may well go down in history as the United States' single greatest foreign policy fuck up of all time.
Have you read Eternal Life in the Emerald City? Sure, one book is one book, but it doesn't differ from the general consensus out there through most things you read, regardless of whatever political slant they have, that 150% of the blame for this lies fair and square on the shoulders of the neo-cons. Only this book details it better (obviously) than any previous single articles I've read. They locked out anyone and everyone from planning and roles in post-initial invasion Iraq who didn't follow their politics and viewpoint perfectly. Even within Republican circles. That means if you worked for that evil State Dept, you were out. Even if you had decades of experience in the region and spoke fluent Arabic. You weren't as good a candidate as a 23yr old from the Pentagon with no experience, but understood Iraq as seen through the neo-con dream. You really should read the book if you haven't. It is very thorough. The fuck ups are just incredible and are entirely why the situation exists as it does today. Just an amazing chronicle of exactly how you can fuck everything up at every turn.
There really should have been a public outrage from all corners of political beliefs over it. No matter how justified or not you felt the initial act was, what happened afterwards was such a stunning failure, one due entirely to blinding arrogance mixed with stunning incompetence.
The thing is, if the US Government was a public company, with shareholders, and you had Bush/Cheney as the CEO/Vice, and they oversaw such a fuck up, they would have been booted out of there years ago, as would many others at the top. And I don't see what the difference is. You are a shareholder, you do have a financial stake. The only difference I see is that you also have a significant emotional stake. I think the more passionate a supporter of the war you are, the more you would have wanted to see people held accountable. I don't think that was/would be an anti-war, anti-President, anti-troop, leftie/liberal/whatever thing to do. I think if you truly believe in the cause, and truly wanted success, you would have turned on the "neo-cons" a long, long time ago.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
AEON said:
You would make a horrible project manager. You don't assess the project when it's "complete". In fact you would never get anything completed if you weren't assessing the situation as you go.
AEON
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
Dreadsox said:
Thanks Dread - I know you are sincere and I agree with you more than I come across.
I also agree with Ernie's post above. I still don't see how this helps fix the current situation. However, it is important stuff to know so that the same mistakes are never repeated.
AEON
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
BonoVoxSupastar said:
Please read my post again. I actually advocate assessment. However, blame and root-cause analysis usually do not happen in mid-project. And if it does, it is only for the purpose of integrating these things into the actual solution. My civilian job is IT Manager, which involved a heavy does of project management – which is why I used it as an example.
Earnie Shavers
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
AEON said:
It helps because to move forward successfully, you might just need to have a look at management of the project, and if need be remove a few people who steered you down such a path of failure in such a stunningly arrogant and incompetent way that you believe they are unfit and unable to do the role succesfully. ie you don't trust that any shift in plan and ideas from them will work based on their previous attempts. To put it another way, I don't think you can look at the original plan and say "Well, who knew. Nice try, but let's look at a different angle." Again, if it were a public company, they would not only be fired but possibly face criminal charges. They wouldn't be getting 2nd and 3rd chances to get it right.
I completely agree that "getting it right" is the first and only priority now, but I don't see how "figuring out what went wrong and why" isn't a crucial part of that.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
AEON said:
Any decent business class would tell you otherwise...
Earnie Shavers
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
Like continually replacing the hands on the clock, but never checking the battery.
I still don't understand how Bush was re-elected.
Kerry was like a talking piece of 2x4, sure, but to re-elect that buffoon....generations of humans will wonder abut America, honestly.
It's clear that the people in charge are completely unable to fix this situation, and worse yet, unwilling to consider other points of view. So how can you band together to find a solution when the guy in charge treats the rest of the world (including your Congress, your Constitution and well, the majority viewpoint of your nation) like they're his own personal toilet to shit all over. You can't talk here about some kind of compromise - it's not possible. The entire administration should be run out of town with pitchforks.
Kerry was like a talking piece of 2x4, sure, but to re-elect that buffoon....generations of humans will wonder abut America, honestly.
It's clear that the people in charge are completely unable to fix this situation, and worse yet, unwilling to consider other points of view. So how can you band together to find a solution when the guy in charge treats the rest of the world (including your Congress, your Constitution and well, the majority viewpoint of your nation) like they're his own personal toilet to shit all over. You can't talk here about some kind of compromise - it's not possible. The entire administration should be run out of town with pitchforks.
deep
Blue Crack Addict
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
Earnie Shavers said:
this was an excellent post.
the only thing i have to add is that it's kind of impossible to express to a non-American just how dark and terrifying the 18 months following 9-11 were. and the administration knew this. and they squeezed that enormous tragedy for all it was worth.
yes, we fell for it (some of us ... and some of us are still drinking from the Kool-Aid), but up through the beginning of 2004, i am much more sympthetic to people who thought Bush was trying to attack the "root causes" of terrorism -- lack of democracy -- and that the manufacturing of democracy in a middle eastern country was not just a solution, but actaully feasible.
sadly, the man turned out to be as deep as spit on a hot sidewalk in the summer, and twice as stupid.
and i especially agree with your last sentence, and it is a point i've made over and over.
if you actually believed success in Iraq was possible, you'd have known that these fucktards were precisely the wrong people to go about it.
Last edited:
AEON
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
FDR and JFK were for all practical purposes "neocons" - so you may want to reconsider how throw you the term around.
Traditional Republicans are more isolationists - like Pat Buchanan.
Traditional Republicans are more isolationists - like Pat Buchanan.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
AEON said:
How do you figure?
MadelynIris
Refugee
Well, working it out with the Saudi's, Syrians and Iranians too of course. My guess is Iran would be first in when we leave, maybe not overtly, but will be there for the grab.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
MadelynIris said:
Iran is already there.
Similar threads
- Sticky
