Bring the Troops Home...and then?? by Geezer

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Bring the Troops Home...and then??

POSTED BY: GEEZER
UPDATED: Wednesday, May 3, 2006 22:10
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 4783
PAGE 1 of 1

Saturday, April 29, 2006 11:34 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Thousands in NYC March Against Iraq War
Apr 29th By DESMOND BUTLER Associated Press Writer
NEW YORK (AP) - A day after the military announced that April was the deadliest month for U.S. forces in Iraq this year, thousands of anti-war demonstrators marched Saturday through lower Manhattan to demand an immediate withdrawal of troops.
Cindy Sheehan, a vociferous critic of the war whose soldier son also died in Iraq, joined in the march, as did actress Susan Sarandon and the Rev. Jesse Jackson.
"End this war, bring the troops home," read one sign lifted by marchers on the sunny afternoon, three years after the war in Iraq began. The mother of a Marine killed two years ago in Iraq held a picture of her son, born in 1984 and killed 20 years later.

http://www.wtop.com/?nid=104&sid=775595

So. We end our involvement in Iraq and bring the troops home, immediately, as soon as possible. The question remains, regardless of the rightness or wrongness of our actions in Iraq prior to this moment, do we have any responsibility to the Iraqi people to leave them in at least a viable position? We can't go back to 2003 and undo the entire thing. Does leaving them before they have a good start at a new government, and with the insurgency still trying their best to return to a non-democratic regime, really make sense? Is it fair?

If anyone has a suggestion of how we could accomplish a complete, immediate, pull-out of Coalition forces and leave Iraqis with any chance at a stable, just, government, I'd be glad to hear it.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 29, 2006 11:45 AM

HARDWARE

Especially since our troops staying in the region just continues to turn it into a lightning rod and attract manpower to the opposing force. I'd like to see a few suggestions about how keeping the troops in Iraq is going to assure stability in the region and give the Iraqi's a viable government.

There are exact parallels to Iraq and Vietnam. Except this time we started the whole mess. I sure wish our current administration had a plan to get our troops out. Bush has already admitted he's leaving the whole mess to a succeeding adminstration. Now there's leadership folks.

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 29, 2006 12:19 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Hardware:
Especially since our troops staying in the region just continues to turn it into a lightning rod and attract manpower to the opposing force. I'd like to see a few suggestions about how keeping the troops in Iraq is going to assure stability in the region and give the Iraqi's a viable government.

There are exact parallels to Iraq and Vietnam. Except this time we started the whole mess. I sure wish our current administration had a plan to get our troops out. Bush has already admitted he's leaving the whole mess to a succeeding adminstration. Now there's leadership folks.

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

Hey. If you want to start another thread asking "...how keeping the troops in Iraq is going to assure stability in the region and give the Iraqi's a viable government." go right ahead. You got any suggestions how an immediate pullout could be successful? And before you bring up Vietnam parallels, perhaps you should talk to the South Vietnamese who had to survive after our pullout there.

Just for the purposes of this discussion, let's assume that everyone now realizes that the Iraq invasion of 2003 was a bad idea, within the past week Bush and Co. have all resigned in disgrace, and there is now an administration in place that wants to pull out of Iraq immediately. How do they accomplish this without shafting the Iraqi people? Surely someone has a suggestion that doesn't just end up as another slam at Bush.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 29, 2006 12:33 PM

ZISKER

It would involve magic.

But one way we might expidite the process is by cutting some of the frivilous civilian contractor costs that the Army is currently paying (ex. $100-200k per year for a civ to sit in a morale computer lab and watch the soldiers use it) and recycle that into the Iraqi training program. My friends there tell me it's coming along slowly, but surely, although there's problems with extended leaves because a) they can't get rid of them, no one would join and b) it makes it hard to build unit cohesion. My honest opinion is that to actually create stability we'd need to be in there a lot longer than this country has the stomach for - it will be a dead weight around the executive office's neck for however long we're there.

One day.
One plan.
One army of Browncoats.

On June 23rd, we aim to misbehave.
http://www.serenityday.org/

Little or no free time, but want to help?
Help Spread the Signal: http://www.geocities.com/browncoatsignalcorps

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 29, 2006 4:00 PM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
You got any suggestions how an immediate pullout could be successful? And before you bring up Vietnam parallels, perhaps you should talk to the South Vietnamese who had to survive after our pullout there.

Vietnam and Iraq are two very different situations. I'm not sure how bad things were for the South Vietnamese but they'd be worse for the Iraqi's.

Quote:
Just for the purposes of this discussion, let's assume that everyone now realizes that the Iraq invasion of 2003 was a bad idea, within the past week Bush and Co. have all resigned in disgrace, and there is now an administration in place that wants to pull out of Iraq immediately. How do they accomplish this without shafting the Iraqi people? Surely someone has a suggestion that doesn't just end up as another slam at Bush.

Erm, we can't.

Assuming the Iraqi army is fully manned and operational by next Tuesday and the 'insurgents' all get bored and go away by the following Thursday we could possibly start a staged withdrawal in the next few months.

But back to reality Allied troops are still stationed in Germany, after 60 years. JHQ Rheindahlen is still the largest allied military base in Europe.

I don't see a short term withdrawal as particularly likely.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 29, 2006 5:51 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Does anyone remember Cambodia, and the Khmer Rouge ?

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 29, 2006 6:10 PM

EVILDINOSAUR

it's a crappy situation, we really can't leave now that we've created all this chaos. However we also can't stay on our current course of action, as it's not working. I wish I had an answer.

"Haha, mine is an evil laugh."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 29, 2006 6:31 PM

CRAJON

If you want to bring the troops home then let them win agaist the terrorist. Support the troops, do not criticize what goes on there. Have protest in support of the troops, do not protest agaist them.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 29, 2006 7:28 PM

SERGEANTX

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
...If anyone has a suggestion of how we could accomplish a complete, immediate, pull-out of Coalition forces and leave Iraqis with any chance at a stable, just, government, I'd be glad to hear it.

So would I. But let's face the ugly truth here, we can't. We've fucked them over royal and it'll only get worse. We've created the nightmare scenario that was used as an excuse to go in the first place - we've destablised an oil rich regime and made it ripe pickings for terrorists. The terrorists want Iraq so bad they can taste it - finally the wealth and the technology base they need to get their hands on nukes.

We can't and won't make things better for the Iraqi people because that was never our intent in the first place. The folks who created this aren't stupid. They knew this is how things would turn out and they knew it would leave the next administration with no choice.

Personally, I can't understand how it ever happened. Everyone knew exactly how this was going to play out. Anyone who cared to look into it, read the writing on the webpage (- literally, the neo-cons had been planning this for years and helping the Iraqi people wasn't part of the deal). In a sense, we've all been complicit in an invasion for conquest. That was the deal all along, still is. You can tell yourself it was for our defense (invaders always say that), but it sure as hell wasn't to create the good life for the Iraqis.

So lets quit pretending we give a shit. We took over, we can't leave. The question is, how are we gonna rule it without needless loss of life and without bankrupting our nation in the process? Once again, the answer is, we can't.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 29, 2006 7:58 PM

FLETCH2

You do what every Empire in history has done. You conscript soldiers from another part of the Empire (lots of them) and you place them in country with American officers and support personel. You let them take the war to the enemy while recruiting locals to gradually replace them. Should be nice and stable in a decade or two.

In your case, go to Mexico, recruit 1 Million young men and say serve with us for 10 years and you get American citizenship or a cash bounty to repatriate to Mexico, your choice. You train them in the US put them in country in Iraq and pay their families in Mexico while they serve. The money flowing into Mexico empowers people there, boosts the economy and hopefully bring about usefull change.

This brings most US troops home gets politics out of the equation and tells the Iraqi's that they are screwed because no matter how many they kill there will always be more. Since Arab culture respects force various factions will over time decide to side with the winners.

It is of course completely immoral to the point of being unAmerican but it would get the job done.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 29, 2006 8:09 PM

SASSALICIOUS

Quote:
Originally posted by Crajon:
If you want to bring the troops home then let them win agaist the terrorist. Support the troops, do not criticize what goes on there. Have protest in support of the troops, do not protest agaist them.

They're not going to win, ever. "Terrorists" is an incredibly vague term. There are terrorists all over the world, but for whatever reason our current administration decided to fight the terrorists that were essentially nonexistant in Iraq prior to the start of the war.

Furthermore, when I protest the war, I blast the administration and the higher ups that sent the troops there. I don't protest the soldiers that were sent out on a futile quest, I protest the bastards that sent them. I have some level of respect for people who are willing to fight for something they don't necessarily believe in. I certainly wouldn't.

And as a quick question, how would one "protest in support of the troops"?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 29, 2006 8:11 PM

SASSALICIOUS

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Does anyone remember Cambodia, and the Khmer Rouge ?

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

If by remember you mean studied a bit in class and saw the movie "The Killing Fields", then yes.

But I'm not entirely sure I see the connection and/or parallel . . .

(not trying to be bitch,,,just kinda drunk and confused at the moment)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 29, 2006 8:19 PM

FLETCH2

Quote:
Originally posted by Sassalicious:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Does anyone remember Cambodia, and the Khmer Rouge ?

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

If by remember you mean studied a bit in class and saw the movie "The Killing Fields", then yes.

But I'm not entirely sure I see the connection and/or parallel . . .

(not trying to be bitch,,,just kinda drunk and confused at the moment)

I think the point he was trying to make is that there are in effect two kinds of civil war, limited civil war and genocidal civil war. The US Civil War was brutal but it was limited, nobody "clensed" the South of Confederates after the war was over. The Khmer Rouge slaughtered millions of their own people, they make the Nazi's look like rank amateurs.

You could envisage a situation where someone like Sadar gets assasinated and his militia ethnically clense the south of all Sunni's or a future Shiite state decides Sunni insurgency can only be solved by removing those Sunni villiages that harbour them --- permainently.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 29, 2006 8:21 PM

SASSALICIOUS

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Quote:
Originally posted by Sassalicious:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Does anyone remember Cambodia, and the Khmer Rouge ?

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

If by remember you mean studied a bit in class and saw the movie "The Killing Fields", then yes.

But I'm not entirely sure I see the connection and/or parallel . . .

(not trying to be bitch,,,just kinda drunk and confused at the moment)

I think the point he was trying to make is that there are in effect two kinds of civil war, limited civil war and genocidal civil war. The US Civil War was brutal but it was limited, nobody "clensed" the South of Confederates after the war was over. The Khmer Rouge slaughtered millions of their own people, they make the Nazi's look like rank amateurs.

You could envisage a situation where someone like Sadar gets assasinated and his militia ethnically clense the south of all Sunni's or a future Shiite state decides Sunni insurgency can only be solved by removing those Sunni villiages that harbour them --- permainently.

I get it now. Thank you.

Off to bed for me.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 29, 2006 9:36 PM

GINOBIFFARONI

Quote:
Originally posted by Sassalicious:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Does anyone remember Cambodia, and the Khmer Rouge ?

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

If by remember you mean studied a bit in class and saw the movie "The Killing Fields", then yes.

But I'm not entirely sure I see the connection and/or parallel . . .

(not trying to be bitch,,,just kinda drunk and confused at the moment)

The parawell I see is that is in Cambodia the US helped overthrow a stable government that wasn't kissing their ass without much of a plan to replace it with anything else.... and vacuum equal s Pol Pot...

The same lack of endgame and lack of will is showing itself in Iraq...

You can't walk away, and it will become your undoing....

The people that have been fighting your foreign policy for decades have finally fiqured out that they can't beat you directly, they have to create the situation where you play to lose...

and the US is in the biggest zugzwang of all time

" Over and in, last call for sin
While everyone's lost, the battle is won
With all these things that I've done "

The Killers

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/killers/allthesethingsthativedone.html

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 29, 2006 10:26 PM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

Plastic Hummers are NOT combat vehicles
www.david-sadler.org

200,000 DEAD US Gulf War soldiers, so far.

500,000 disabled US vets, so far.

50% US Gulf War casualty rate.

1.7-million genocided Iraqis.

$4.5-Trillion looted from Pentagon CAFR pension funds since 2001.

White House armed Iraq before, during, and "after" the 15-year Gulf War, just like USA armed Vietnam, Korea and Nazi Germany.

Sir Donald Rumsfeld Jewish Knight of
the British Empire selling WMDs to Saddam

Pentagon's Operation Northwoods paid enemy soldiers to attack US troops, and paid Israel to sink USS Liberty.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92662&page=1
www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/doc1.pdf

Iraqi car bombs killing US troops are cars stolen in USA.

Bushes bombed USA on 9/11/2001.

7,000 US citizens are genocided in Death Camps every day in USA.

80-million US citizens Holocausted in USA since US Supreme Court legalized genocide with Roe v Wade in 1973.

US border is undefended.

30-million criminal terrorists are rioting in USA to celebrate their successful invasion and Civil War on Monday, May 1 (Communist May Day and birthdate of Bavarian Illuminati led by Jewish professor Weishopt).

The New World Odor shadow dictatorship is in control.

Suckers.

http://tv.groups.yahoo.com/group/piratenewsrss/message/200

Dr Doug Rocce
www.traprockpeace.org/depleted_uranium.html

Capt Joyce Riley RN
www.thepowerhour.com
www.gulfwarvets.com

Pirate News
www.geocities.com/pentagonwhistleblower
www.geocities.com/gulfwarnationalguard

Rense Radio
www.rense.com

Infowars Radio
www.infowars.com

September 911 Surprise
www.september911surprise.com

Wash: Grenades?
Zoe: Yes. Thank you Dear.
-War Stories

FIREFLY SERENITY PILOT MUSIC VIDEO V2
Tangerine Dream - Thief Soundtrack: Confrontation
http://radio.indymedia.org/news/2006/03/8912.php

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 29, 2006 11:28 PM

STDOUBT

Here's a wild-assed idea...
We could say "Hey China -your turn!".

They're hungry for oil, and have about 30 million
men who have no prospects for marriage (not enough
females). They'd demand first dibs on all Iraqi
oil, but hey -share and share alike, I say.
I have no doubt they could establish order there in no-time.

Sad fact is though, "we" have no intention of
pulling out. We have how many permanent military
bases there? 14? Had to put them somewhere after
the Saudis kicked us out of their oh-so-holy land.
Really sucks we're going to scrap
like dogs for the last barrels of a resource that
should have been obsolete by now... I just pity
our soldiers. IMO, the protests are about 4 years too late.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 30, 2006 3:13 AM

ZISKER

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

Assuming the Iraqi army is fully manned and operational by next Tuesday and the 'insurgents' all get bored and go away by the following Thursday we could possibly start a staged withdrawal in the next few months.

But back to reality Allied troops are still stationed in Germany, after 60 years. JHQ Rheindahlen is still the largest allied military base in Europe.

I don't see a short term withdrawal as particularly likely.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

Hey now, we ARE starting a massive pull-out of Germany

Out of Iraq in 2067!

One day.
One plan.
One army of Browncoats.

On June 23rd, we aim to misbehave.
http://www.serenityday.org/

Little or no free time, but want to help?
Help Spread the Signal: http://www.geocities.com/browncoatsignalcorps

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 30, 2006 3:14 AM

CITIZEN

Sooo, 2063 for Iraq then?

JHQ is the largest NATO base in Europe, and it's largely manned by British personnel. There’s a smattering of Dutch, Czech, American, German and others, but it's mostly Brits. And the British aren't leaving anytime soon...

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 30, 2006 3:41 AM

HARDWARE

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
You do what every Empire in history has done. You conscript soldiers from another part of the Empire (lots of them) and you place them in country with American officers and support personel. You let them take the war to the enemy while recruiting locals to gradually replace them. Should be nice and stable in a decade or two.

In your case, go to Mexico, recruit 1 Million young men and say serve with us for 10 years and you get American citizenship or a cash bounty to repatriate to Mexico, your choice. You train them in the US put them in country in Iraq and pay their families in Mexico while they serve. The money flowing into Mexico empowers people there, boosts the economy and hopefully bring about usefull change.

This brings most US troops home gets politics out of the equation and tells the Iraqi's that they are screwed because no matter how many they kill there will always be more. Since Arab culture respects force various factions will over time decide to side with the winners.

It is of course completely immoral to the point of being unAmerican but it would get the job done.

Thank you Fletch2, that was the first workable solution anyone has offered. Too bad there's no way in hell Washington has the actual moral certainty to apply such a brutal solution. Even though when the bright light of public scrutiny isn't shining on them they would do much worse. Doing something so callous and manipulative to young Mexican men would be horrible. Pro-immigration groups would cause all kinds of fuss. You know what a hot topic immigration is right now. /sarcasm

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 30, 2006 4:21 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

There is no rational argument for an immediate withdraw of troops that does not including accepting the very real possibility of massive death, but these people who are calling for immediate withdraw are doing so for completely selfish reasons, such as the Kerrys and the Moores, or completely irrational reasons such as the Sheehans, and it does not appear that they have any concern at all for the political consequences of their actions and words no matter how many people die. They will blame the US for collateral damage as they advocate policies that will result in as much or more death. They will take responsibility for nothing, and use the death to further their politics, entertainment careers or personal hatreds. The only moral and rational thing that the US/UK can do is to ignore these people.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 30, 2006 5:14 AM

RIGHTEOUS9

I don't remember Kerry, even to date, suggesting that we needed to do a complete withdraw from Iraq. It certainly wasn't what he was saying during the campaign. Not sure about Sheehan or Moore.

I do know that there is a broad spectrum of ideas from the left on this one, while from the right there only seems to be the argument that "we can't pull out. That would be a form of birth control wouldn't it?" Maybe they're getting their issues mixed up.

I like the question posed by this thread. The very fact that it's being asked suggests that we've at leat come to the common ground of recognizing our current involvement as a disaster.

If I'm misinterpereting you I'm sorry.

Well, one thing we'd accomplish is less American Deaths. There's that. You could argue, rhetorically, that "they're killing us over there so that they don't have to kill us over here," but I don't feel any safer over here, as it is.

We might stop being personally responsible for surges of fundamentalism over there, and with it the terrorism it is inviting.

Or, being pessimistic, if we are truly looking at long-term failure in Iraq, and I think we are, then by staying for 10, 20, 30 more years, we aren't helping these people at all...we are perpetuating this quagmire. By getting out, we can let the inevitable Civil War happen, and allow the country to restabilize at that point.

I don't like that answer. I think we can do better than that. What has made the most sense of all arguments I've heard, is to pull U.S. troops out of the Cities of Iraq, to use them to patrol the boders of that nation in an effort to stop the foreign influx of people who are joining the holy war, to stop the influence of the border countries from interfering with things in general. I don't know all the details on this one,

but the bottom line is pulling out of Iraq, while not my choice, is certainly no worse than what we are currently doing there. Perhaps I lack the optimism that would allow me to see all of the success we're having in that region...I'm not an Exxon Mobile Shareholder, but perhaps the war apologists lack the evidence that would support such success.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 30, 2006 5:25 AM

RIGHTEOUS9

and there's a question I would ask those of you who are now saying "these people are our responsibility. We have to think about their well being."

I mean, I like the humanitarian tone of your concern. You wouldn't be the same people though, who thought that idea in the Senate to make it a crime to provide humanitarian aid to illegal aliens was a good idea would you? Consistency in one's philosophy would be a virtue.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 3, 2006 8:13 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Just flat out pack up and leave.

Sure, it sucks to be them, will cause a lot of carnage and death, and leave a state that will be at best very unfriendly to us.

Same damned thing is gonna happen if we stay and continue to screw it up too, only we'll also manage to piss off every nearby country, especially with the amount of threats and hate rhetoric being spouted at them right now.

The SMARTEST thing we could do, is pack up and leave, immediately.. put our crap back in the boats and planes and get out of that mess before we wind up deeper into the same post-middle-east situation the soviets did after afghanistan.

As for the poor locals left on the ground ? tough noogies, be glad we're LEAVING, instead of taking up permanent residence... you might actually get a shot at building your own government that's not a USA puppet-dictator regime like the Shah or Saddam.

Folks, you can't give freedom to others at the point of a gun, they won't take it, don't want it, and will resent you for it - the only way they'll ever be free is if they're willing to spill the blood to TAKE it, and KEEP it - and believe me, as long as we're there and class them folks as 'terrorists' same as the ones blowing crap up to get even with us specifically, that just ain't gonna happen.

To hell with the niceties, no one believes any of the BS rationale for us invading in the first place (not even our resident FF board cheerleaders) and no one is gonna believe any humanitarian rationalizations from us now.

Pull up stakes, get the hell out, and start having some of these guys do some good by actually securing our borders, or going back to their civvie jobs (if they haven't been outsourced, divorced and left homeless in the meantime) thus strengthening our economy and helping through their taxes to pay off the insane bill from this act of lunacy.

It's time to take that overcooked steak off the grill before it starts a fire.

Just fekkin LEAVE.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 3, 2006 8:47 AM

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Citizen

I think you will find that we still have bases in Germany, because it is expedient for us to do so. They act as staging areas for American forces - in situations where we have to deploy in the region on an immedite basis - NOT because we are shoring up an young democracy!

We are also in the european region as part of the NATO agreement. We are no longer "occupying" Japan, but we have a large military presence there as well.

Your example makes no sense in the context of this thread.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 3, 2006 8:57 AM

CITIZEN

No it has every relevance, unless you honestly think there won't still be troops in Iraq because of strategic reasons 60 years from now.

In which case you'd be extremely naive.

Now beyond that a very big part of the continued presence was 'propping up' West Germany during the cold, which was one of the main reasons for having the headquarters for the Allied Rapid Reaction Corps there.

Germany was only 'rebuilt' recently, troops were still there precisely to 'prop up' and defend Germany until very recently.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 3, 2006 9:06 AM

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Your example still makes no sense in the context of this thread. We are talking about how we would go about removing troops from Iraq. Not whether or not it would be in "our" (because the UK has bases in Germany as well as troops in Iraq) political best interest to have strategic bases in the region 60 years hence.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 3, 2006 9:12 AM

CITIZEN

Firstly I pointed out that the bases are primarily British. Second I was saying we can't pull the troops out now, and part of the justification for that statement was the continuing presence in Germany.

Please actually read my post before replying to them.

So yes it is relevent. Telling me my post isn't relevent, not so much.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 3, 2006 9:12 AM

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Crajon

One can be fully supportive of the troops and still wish to bring them home.

They are not mutually exclusive.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 3, 2006 9:22 AM

FUTUREMRSFILLION

I have actually read your post citizen.

The example does not work in the context of this thread. You can argue all you want. Doesn't make it pertinent.

The thread is whether or not it is feasible or advisable to pull the troops out of Iraq NOW.

Perhaps you should read the initial post before you post a response to me.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 3, 2006 9:31 AM

CITIZEN

I'll say this slowly for you, you seem to be having trouble with it.

My initial post said we can't take the troops out of Iraq, and I doubt we will be able to for sometime. In your own words:
The thread is whether or not it is feasible or advisable to pull the troops out of Iraq NOW.
That is therefore pertinent to this thread.

I supported that by pointing out the continued presence in a comparable situation. Since I'm using it to support my original point, which by your own words is pertinent to this thread, it is pertinent.

You can argue all you like but your wrong, best you just deal with it.

Long story short you can tell me I'm wrong, go for it, but you can't tell me it's not pertinent just because it doesn't support your POV.

Oh and by the fact you still don't have a clue what my point was, when it was fairly obvious kinda proves you either didn't read my post or need to take a night school course in reading comprehension.

Maybe you need me to go over it again, if so just tell me.

So please, go away and actually read my post this time, instead of just assuming you have because you saw the word Germany in it.

Thank you

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 3, 2006 9:38 AM

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Oh Citizen. Did someone pee in your weetabix this morning?

You are being deliberately obtuse.

It is NOT a good look for you.

I had forgotten the infinite amusement to be found as a female when one disagrees with a british man.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 3, 2006 9:42 AM

CITIZEN

So now not only are you wrong and refusing to argue the point on merit but your judging me based on which country I was born in and my sex.

And I'm the sexist, right?

Well I guess an evil sexist backward Brit (well that's all British men isn't it) like me isn't worth talking too, being lowly scum and all, so maybe we should just leave it there huh.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 3, 2006 9:50 AM

FUTUREMRSFILLION

I never said British men were lowly scum.

And one can not argue something on "merit"
when the respondent simply refuses to discuss the point and prefers to make insulting references to ones intelligence.

You don't discuss things on merit Citizen, you attempt to browbeat people into coming over to your way of thinking - and YES I have noticed this particular tendency in a portion of the UK male population. Doesn't mean I am a sexist to point it out.

The fact that you are getting all worked up, and that I can imagine you jumping up and down and stamping your feet - supports my theory that I, as a female, have dared to disagree with you, and you can't deal with it.

Now IF you want to discuss the MERITS of my argument, I am HAPPY to comply. However, as I stated before, since you seem to be incapable of doing so, I will not continue this debate.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 3, 2006 10:07 AM

FUTUREMRSFILLION

The American responsiibility in reference to Iraq was a moral responsibility to remove a dictator (that we funded) from power and to stop the attrocities perpetrated by his regime. I understand thats not WHY we went there, but it should have been.

We are then responsible in supporting them long enough to begin rebuildingtheir government and to allow them to start rebuilding the country.

It is not our responsibility to force our style of government on them, nor is it our responsibility to stand between the two factions that now exist, and try and stop what amounts to a civil war.

We should begin to withdraw troops, to the borders is a good idea. Allow the country's citizens to resolve it without the interference of the insurgents.

Iraq should be allowed to stand on its own feet and create the type of country they want to be. As long as we "occupy" the area, they will not be able to do so, regardless of our intentions - good or bad.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 3, 2006 10:32 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
I never said British men were lowly scum.

No, I took what you said and I ran with it. What you said is basically all British men are sexist.

Quote:
And one can not argue something on "merit"
when the respondent simply refuses to discuss the point and prefers to make insulting references to ones intelligence.

It's also kinda hard to argue on merit when the respondent merely says you’re wrong and tells you that you are sexist.

I also said that was pertinent to this thread. You told me it wasn't, based on taking part of what I said out of context. I didn't bring your intelligence until after you told me I was wrong without anything to back up your statements.

Quote:
Doesn't mean I am a sexist to point it out.

You said I was a sexiest when you brought up me being male and you being female like it meant something, based on nothing other than your preconceptions of British men. That's what I was replying to.

Quote:
The fact that you are getting all worked up, and that I can imagine you jumping up and down and stamping your feet - supports my theory that I, as a female, have dared to disagree with you, and you can't deal with it.

Actually I smiled when I read your post, it was funny. You imagining what I'm doing proves not a thing, I'm beginning to think that's your chip on your shoulder, it's certainly not mine.

You being a female didn't come into it, to all intents and purposes your a face less avatar to me here, you're the one assuming things based on MY sex.

Quote:
However, as I stated before, since you seem to be incapable of doing so, I will not continue this debate.

I outlined why my point was relevant, you called me sexiest. Now back to what I said:

My point is we can't take the troops out of Iraq right now because things would be worse for the Iraqi's. In circumstances in the past where a government has been removed by a foreign power, for whatever reason, the foreign power has remained for sometime, for instance Germany.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 3, 2006 11:11 AM

FUTUREMRSFILLION

You just don't know when to quit do you?

Thats very sad.

I find it interesting that you presume to tell me what I am thinking.

But as I said. When you want to discuss the merits, let me know.

If you want to continue to blow smoke, go right ahead. You will only make yourself look like and even bigger ass.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 3, 2006 11:16 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
You just don't know when to quit do you?
Thats very sad.

You mean I don't shut up because you've decided I'm not allowed to speak, no I don't. Well done.

I did discuss the merits, here it is again:
My point is we can't take the troops out of Iraq right now because things would be worse for the Iraqi's. In circumstances in the past where a government has been removed by a foreign power, for whatever reason, the foreign power has remained for sometime, for instance Germany.

We can discuss that, or you can insult me again, and call me sexist because I'm British and a man.

Interesting that you presume to tell me the only reason I'll argue my side is because I'm a sexist man. Very interesting.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 3, 2006 11:41 AM

FUTUREMRSFILLION

"Erm, we can't.

Assuming the Iraqi army is fully manned and operational by next Tuesday and the 'insurgents' all get bored and go away by the following Thursday we could possibly start a staged withdrawal in the next few months.

But back to reality Allied troops are still stationed in Germany, after 60 years. JHQ Rheindahlen is still the largest allied military base in Europe.

I don't see a short term withdrawal as particularly likely."

Let me type this slowly for you Citizen so it sinks in - We are NO LONGER in Germany, today, because we are shoring up WEST GERMANY. We are in Germany, today, because it is expedient for us to be. Your example of us being in Germany as proof that a short term withdrawal of the troops in Iraq MAY have been valid in 1979 - it does NOT work today. We ARE NOT acting as a force to control the region. We ARE NOT protecting the country from invading forces. We are utlizing a strategic area for the "our" countries political, financial and practical gain.

Therefore your use of Germany, in this context, no longer holds merit.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 3, 2006 11:52 AM

CITIZEN

No need to type slow, I can keep up fine.

End of Second World War:
1945
Taking your date of 1979 (I'd hold that it was later still):
That's 34 years.

Is that not a long time then? Or is it not relevant because it was a few years back like?

Your argument makes no sense, I can use it in 1979 when it was 34 years but I can't use it now, despite it still being a 34 years?

How does the 34 year figure diminish because it was 27 years ago?

Doesn't matter how long ago it was, we still had troops in Germany to prop up the government for sometime. It doesn't matter if those 34 years end next year, last week or 27 years ago, it's still 34 years.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 3, 2006 12:03 PM

FUTUREMRSFILLION

"Allied troops are still stationed in Germany, after 60 years"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 3, 2006 12:04 PM

JAYTEE

Whenever I read a post by Piratenews I'm always "envious" that I never get to smoke the really good kronik weed that guy gets ahold of. The "ditch" weed around here is barely passable and only gives you a mild buzz. I just read the post and end up wishing to indulge in some weed strong enough to induce the kind of hallucinations and paranoid delusions this guy's enjoying 24/7/365. Rock on, Major Burnout! I salute you.

Jaytee

P.S. I've got "proof" that the CIA had Kennedy killed and that NASA faked the moon landings. Check it out here: http://www.youareaparanoidmoron.com/

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 3, 2006 12:20 PM

CITIZEN

They are STILL stationed in Germany, unless I was seeing things while I was working out of JHQ, but even playing by your rules we're looking at 34 years, so my point is still relevant.

So, how does 34 years not count as a long time to have one's troops propping up a country because it happened 27 years ago?

Or better still:
Germany only became reintegrated in 1990, Allied troops were stationed there and helped over see the integration, helped stabilise the new country of Germany that was the result of the merger of East and West Germany. So now Allied troops were still helping to stabilise Germany 16 years ago, a total time of 45 years.

My point was I don't see a successful withdrawal likely anytime soon, I backed this up by saying we were in Germany for a long time.

Why does a long-time stop being a long time because it happened a few years ago?

Further more whatever reasons there are for them being there, THEY ARE STILL THERE. In a region far more stable than the Middle East is likely to be given the same time frame. All the reasons we're still in Germany are just as pertinent to Iraq if not more so, so even there what I say is relevant.

I realise my point goes counter to what you want, troops out now by the sounds of your posts (just an interpretation, don't want to be fallaciously accused of telling you what you think again), but you're going to have to try a hell of a lot harder to dismiss what I say.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 3, 2006 4:32 PM

FUTUREMRSFILLION

JayTee
Can you get me some? Cause I need some too.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 3, 2006 10:10 PM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
Can you get me some? Cause I need some too.

You're doing fine without.

So anyway, you want to talk about tactics or some such, you say I browbeat people to make them come round to my way of thinking.

Kind of like how you tried to browbeat me into silence earlier on (my point is irrelevant and I'm not allowed to defend it, don't know when to shut up, all that stuff) yeah?

Then that didn't work, oh dear, time to pull out the big guns. You know character assassination (where you said I was sexist or trying to browbeat despite having no point). Scroll up you'll find most of the posts here by me are me trying to defend myself and make my point, most by you are flagrant insults, character assassinations or just baselessly dismissing what I said because ‘it doesn’t count’.

Now you're insinuating I'm on drugs. Heh, and I'm the one who can't debate a point on merit, that's almost a joke right there

So, anyway I'm still waiting for an answer to my question. If I don't have a point it will be exceedingly easy to answer, after-all. Maybe you missed it, I’ve only asked it about three times so far, so maybe you need it again:

How does 34 years not count as a long time for Germany to be occupied because it ended 27 years ago?

This is quite an important question, especially since it seems to be the basic premise underpinning your entire argument.

Or since you've decided that the Germany analogy has no merit, we can go for another analogy:

American troops were stationed in Japan for 10 years after the end of the Second World War. Japan had officially surrendered, the peoples and governments will to fight was broken, yet it still took 10 years for American troops to hand Japan over in full to the Japanese government.

This is not true of Iraq, where as the Japanese as a whole worked with the Americans, there was NO terrorism nor insurgency to counter, in Iraq the will of the Ba’ath regime to fight wasn't broken (their ability maybe, their will no) and no surrender received. There is an Insurgency and there is terrorism, all distractions from the rebuilding exercises that are the same as what was done in Japan without such things.

Maybe you can now tell me how it would be expedient for the UK and US to remove troops now, given historical precedent which indicates that the optimal time for the hand over won't be for at least seven or eight years.

Or we can look at the situation in Iraq itself. Rebuilding work isn't even half done, there's no viable Iraqi police or Military (sorry one fully operational Brigade and a few below full operational readiness doesn’t count), there's still an active insurgency and terrorist element that this non-existent Iraq military and slightly better off police force would have to counter.

You get what you want and our troops are withdrawn now, here's what happens:
The government and its fledgling infrastructure collapse, this takes maybe two weeks.

Then we get fun for all the family: Civil war to fill the power vacuum:
The Shiites want to rule because hell, they remember what life was like for them under Sunni Saddam Hussein.
The Sunnis want to rule because they know the Shiites will be itching for some post Saddam style revenge.
The Kurds want to split off into their own Kurdistan nation, because they don't want to get oppressed by neither a Shiite nor Sunni run Iraq.

So:
The Shiites kill the Sunnis,
The Sunnis kill the Shiites,
And everyone kills the Kurds.

So then Iran steps in, just to keep the peace mind, on behalf of the Shiites. Well Syria can't have Iran running Iraq, a country that borders Syria, so they step in on the side of the Sunnis, just to keep the peace, obviously.

So now we have a civil war, where the Iranian backed Shiites kill the Syrian backed Sunnis, the Syrian backed Sunnis kill the Iranian backed Shiites and everyone kills the Kurds. We get some of that ethnic cleansing that we all know and love, but eventually both sides tire themselves out and Iraq is split into Syrian controlled West Iraq and Iranian controlled East Iraq.

In East Iraq the Shiites oppress the Sunnis, in West Iraq the Sunni’s oppresses the Shiites and everyone oppresses the Kurds (what’s left of them). Oh and there’s the occasional tear-up between East and West Iraq over borders and the like, just to keep the blood flowing.

Or maybe I'm wrong and US and UK troops that are forcing the various factions to fight will leave, the Shiites will realise the Sunnis are alright really, the Sunni’s will get common ground with the Shiites and everyone will love the Kurds.

Iran, Syria and a dozen other nations will recognise the truth and beauty of this new Iraq and give only the aid required to help it grow. The Euphrates River will flow with milk and honey, an uncorrupted democratic government will form and democratic Iraq stabilises the entire region and we all live happily ever-after, the end.

So you can answer my questions and debate the point on merit, you can try to insult me again, go for some more of that character assassination (tip: you’ve done the sexist thing with the offish male thing as an extension, you’ve also tried the drug addict thing, maybe you can try the Terrorist thing or the drug dealer thing, just a suggestion) or just ignore me.

Just so you know the only option that doesn’t prove that you can’t come up with a coherent argument, or an answer to the questions I posed is the first one

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER

POST DATE