PDA

View Full Version : May we leave Iraq now?


TCO
14-07-2008, 13:31:28
Kitty said we had to stay longer a couple years ago. Ok. Now it's longer. May we leave, please?

MOBIUS
14-07-2008, 13:33:47
No, because I said so.

Dyl Ulenspiegel
14-07-2008, 13:34:17
You can check out any time you like
but you may never leave

TCO
14-07-2008, 13:45:49
I checked out as soon as we had Saddam Hussein in captivity. What's the use of getting all Stephen Decatur if you have to stay around?

Oerdin
14-07-2008, 17:06:48
The funny thing is for the last year the Iraqis have repeatedly been asking the US for a time line for withdrawal but Bush refuses to answer them. Basically the Iraqis want us to get the fuck out but Bush refuses to leave.

protein
14-07-2008, 19:14:32
that's like a serial murderer asking for his sentence to be cut after five years.

Drake Tungsten
14-07-2008, 19:34:55
The funny thing is for the last year the Iraqis have repeatedly been asking the US for a time line for withdrawal but Bush refuses to answer them. Basically the Iraqis want us to get the fuck out but Bush refuses to leave.

Are you ever right about anything?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7504571.stm

Venom
14-07-2008, 20:11:19
No. He's always wrong.

Dyl Ulenspiegel
14-07-2008, 20:19:00
Who cares about the Iraqis? That's for Kitty to decide.

Oerdin
14-07-2008, 21:45:26
On this issue I most certainly am right as many Iraqi MPs have said this and not just Maliki. Demanding the Americans leave has been a reliably populist move for any aspiring Iraqi politician for years.

Drake Tungsten
15-07-2008, 01:38:47
It figures that an Obama supporter can't tell the difference between empty political rhetoric and actual objectives.

Koshko
15-07-2008, 01:43:12
Not until January.

TCO
15-07-2008, 02:34:16
We should bail. I'm sick of all this occupation. Sick of all this saying we need to convert Arabs in gentleman, crap. We got the guy we wanted. We hung him. It was a mistake to go in anyhow. But it's over. Let's bail.

Asher
15-07-2008, 03:14:36
I say that you guys stay in Iraq, but you just send republicans out there.

Drake Tungsten
15-07-2008, 03:17:55
Given the demographics of the U.S. military, that's pretty much the case already.

Koshko
15-07-2008, 03:23:51
Well when Bush invades Iran, we'll be drafting across the board.

Asher
15-07-2008, 04:24:36
Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Given the demographics of the U.S. military, that's pretty much the case already.
No, there's still too many republicans in the continental US.

I don't think you understand -- I want all the republicans shipped there.

protein
15-07-2008, 08:29:13
Originally posted by TCO
We should bail. I'm sick of all this occupation. Sick of all this saying we need to convert Arabs in gentleman, crap. We got the guy we wanted. We hung him. It was a mistake to go in anyhow. But it's over. Let's bail.
you got the guy? i thought you were after weapons of mass destruction?

mr_B
15-07-2008, 08:39:34
iraq is a funny country with funny people

mr_B
15-07-2008, 08:40:19
most funniest thing about iraq is that's it rhymes with kak

mr_B
15-07-2008, 10:19:45
http://www.banksy.co.uk/drawing/images/justus.jpg

MDA
15-07-2008, 10:39:44
Originally posted by mr_B
iraq is a funny country with funny people

Nonono, you're thinking of Germany.

mr_B
15-07-2008, 10:49:30
owja

TCO
15-07-2008, 11:06:43
Originally posted by protein
you got the guy? i thought you were after weapons of mass destruction?

Third sentence from the last. Still why stay around to eliminate WMD when we opened the fridge and found there weren't any. :clueless:

TCO
15-07-2008, 11:07:50
Oh...and hanging Saddam was always a very tactical, good realpolitik action. Dicking around for years before doing so was a waste. But swinging him. That was a good reach back to 1900. Very Kipling.

mr_B
15-07-2008, 11:18:19
http://youtube.com/watch?v=iFbo-lL-go8

King_Ghidra
15-07-2008, 12:21:57
At the risk of things getting all poly, TCO, i think you've forgotten the oil bit.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/04/oil.oilandgascompanies

TCO
15-07-2008, 12:25:01
At the risk of acting like a liberal nutter...

Kitsuki
15-07-2008, 12:29:32
My personal view is that we shouldn't have gone in in the first place - we were led in to war on a total lie. Now that we have made an almighty mess though we can't just wash our hands of it.

Funko
15-07-2008, 12:29:32
It's hardly an extreme/ludicrous view to say that US/UK companies owning the rights to 75% interests in half of the Iraqi oil reserves is a fairly compelling reason for us not to leave.

TCO
15-07-2008, 12:34:01
Originally posted by Kitsuki
My personal view is that we shouldn't have gone in in the first place - we were led in to war on a total lie. Now that we have made an almighty mess though we can't just wash our hands of it.

This is the direct opposite of efficient use of force.

And you say crap like this because to you it's all theoretical.

Funko
15-07-2008, 12:36:54
You're out there fighting are you?

TCO
15-07-2008, 12:40:43
The answer to the reply does not affect the impact of the original statement. Think about it, moron.

Funko
15-07-2008, 12:41:46
The impact of the original statement was like a wet turd on a clowns face.

TCO
15-07-2008, 12:44:01
That's your problem. Like a lot of people. You can't think when something insulting is said.

Dyl Ulenspiegel
15-07-2008, 12:46:27
While TCO is not depending on any condition in that regard.

mr_B
15-07-2008, 12:47:21
:lol: at least you can

damn you are great man

mr_B
15-07-2008, 12:48:03
great Xpost

Dyl is the man!!!!!!!!!!

Kitsuki
15-07-2008, 12:52:25
Originally posted by TCO
This is the direct opposite of efficient use of force.

And you say crap like this because to you it's all theoretical.

Do you honestly think Iraq would become the land of milk and honey if we suddenly withdrew all of the British and American forces? (Most other coalition countries are not fighting in the dangerous parts of either Iraq or Afghanistan.)

I do have friends out in both Iraq and Afghanistan and I would dearly love for them not to be there, but I don't think we can just decide to pull out when we tire of the project.

Funko
15-07-2008, 12:53:15
There's nothing to think about. Your statement was bullshit.

Efficient use of force means "using an optimal arrangement of different weapons systems to achieve stated military goals". And they haven't (all) been met yet. Iraq isn't a stable democracy is it?

Nothing Kitsuki said was the direct opposite of that.

He didn't even say the total opposite of what you think "efficient use of force" means.

And it's no more theoretical to him than it is to you.

TCO
15-07-2008, 13:06:07
Originally posted by Dyl Ulenspiegel
While TCO is not depending on any condition in that regard.

1. Terse to the point, that I don't know what your point is (for sure) and also allowing you to claim you meant something else as the discussion unwinds. :hmm:

2. Again, how much a shithead I am does not change how much a shithead someone else is. :cute:

TCO
15-07-2008, 13:10:14
Originally posted by Kitsuki
Do you honestly think Iraq would become the land of milk and honey if we suddenly withdrew all of the British and American forces? (Most other coalition countries are not fighting in the dangerous parts of either Iraq or Afghanistan.)

I do have friends out in both Iraq and Afghanistan and I would dearly love for them not to be there, but I don't think we can just decide to pull out when we tire of the project.


I hope your friends return safely. And that their tour does not suck too bad.

TCO
15-07-2008, 13:13:39
Originally posted by TCO
Again, how much a shithead I am does not change how much a shithead someone else is. :cute: [/B]

It's like a principle of logic or something. The independant property of ad hominems. Probably something in Aristotle. You would know. You're a classical trained Euro-lawyer. I'm a red state American who never took Latin or philosophy.

Funko
15-07-2008, 13:15:58
Originally posted by Kitsuki
I don't think we can just decide to pull out when we tire of the project.

tyre

TCO
15-07-2008, 13:17:38
Originally posted by Funko
There's nothing to think about. Your statement was bullshit.

Efficient use of force means "using an optimal arrangement of different weapons systems to achieve stated military goals". And they haven't (all) been met yet. Iraq isn't a stable democracy is it?

Nothing Kitsuki said was the direct opposite of that.

He didn't even say the total opposite of what you think "efficient use of force" means.

And it's no more theoretical to him than it is to you.

(cute) but I don't like that objective. It's too hard. I want easier ones. (/cute)

(serious) There are even higher level objectives than transforming a given country. Recognition that certain types of operations (like making the zebra change his stripes) are destined to failure, will help with realizing the higher level objective: US security. In addition, there must be some recognition that we do not live in a world of absolutes and that trade-offs must be made. bottom line, pacifying Iraq is a fool's errand. I could pacify it with "Roman" methods. But no way we will do that (nor should we). So better to bail. (/serious)

TCO
15-07-2008, 13:22:54
Originally posted by Asher
I say that you guys stay in Iraq, but you just send republicans out there.

I say we send half-homosexual, half-conservative, half-Canadian, half-technical people.

Funko
15-07-2008, 13:23:59
We've destabilised one of main middle eastern powers, if we leave before they can govern, police and defend themselves Iraq will descend into civil war, (if it isn't already) and there's very strong chance other countries will get drawn in. Aside from the human cost in the middle east western oil supplies will be totally fucked.

Getting out is very, very bad, staying in is probably slightly less bad.

Going in in the first place was a bad move, going in without a proper plan to manage the 'peace' was crazy. I guess we'll be there at least another 10 years.

TCO
15-07-2008, 13:26:52
Nah. Pull out. Threaten the other powers. Let the Shia grow a pair and put the Sunni's down. Problem is that the Sunnis just have more grab and more willingness to fight. Need to let the Shia get the country partitioned.

Poor Kurds. I feel for them. But then again they are landlocked. Landlocked countries are just, so at the mrecy of tothers. Like having to have someone lese give you permission to breathe.

TCO
15-07-2008, 13:33:51
We should pull out of Afghanistan as well.

Dyl Ulenspiegel
15-07-2008, 13:34:25
Originally posted by TCO
1. Terse to the point, that I don't know what your point is (for sure) and also allowing you to claim you meant something else as the discussion unwinds. :hmm:


uuuh smartje!!!

Funko
15-07-2008, 13:36:18
Afghanistan we actually have a chance to do something good.

TCO
15-07-2008, 13:38:00
Nah more like Charlie Brown after the 10th time that he's landed on his back after Lucy pulling the football away.

Fistandantilus
15-07-2008, 13:38:04
I forsee a forum crysys approaching.

TCO
15-07-2008, 13:39:30
Originally posted by Funko
Afghanistan we actually have a chance to do something good.

Have a blast then. Lead an EU mission there. Subjagate the Pathans. I'd rather use economy of force than spoon the ocean.

Drake Tungsten
15-07-2008, 20:46:11
Afghanistan is more fucked up than Iraq is. Always has been, always will be. You'd figure the Brits would know that considering the Pashtuns have kicked their ass before. Let's learn from history and get out now.

TCO
15-07-2008, 22:11:16
It's landlocked. I don't want to fuck with landlocked countries.

Althought it's looking more and more like we may be joining up via Pakistan rather than Iran in the future...

Drake Tungsten
15-07-2008, 22:14:59
I don't want to fuck with nuclear countries. Leave Pakistan alone...

TCO
15-07-2008, 22:15:39
I'm not starting anything. It's president-elect Obama.

Drake Tungsten
15-07-2008, 22:26:20
I'm really looking forward to watching another inexperienced Commander in Chief learn on the job.

Scabrous Birdseed
15-07-2008, 22:42:58
Are you suggesting the current one has actually learned something?

Drake Tungsten
15-07-2008, 22:49:09
Yes. U.S. foreign policy in Bush's second term has been pretty solid, actually.

Kitsuki
15-07-2008, 22:54:43
Other than the two big blots that are Afghanistan and Iraq, US foreign policy has been pretty good over the last 8 years, though I would credit that to Powell and Rice rather than Bush.

Obama has the potential to be equally disastrous, but in a different way. He seems very inexperienced in this field, and is very protectionist (already rubbing the EU, Canada and Mexico up the wrong way.)

TCO
15-07-2008, 22:58:51
Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Yes. U.S. foreign policy in Bush's second term has been pretty solid, actually.

He hasn't learned shit. He's just prolonging a problem. Like pouring money into the Fed. He is just going for that tape to let all th shit blow onto the next guy. He fucking sucks. I hate him. And all the fuckers who winge on about him. He's destroyed the Republican party. GRRRRRRRRRR

Drake Tungsten
15-07-2008, 23:01:53
He's destroyed the Republican party.

True enough. The Republicans in Congress deserve a share of the blame as well, though.

TCO
15-07-2008, 23:02:37
They all need an enema. with lava.

Scabrous Birdseed
15-07-2008, 23:29:10
Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Yes. U.S. foreign policy in Bush's second term has been pretty solid, actually.

*blinks*

Er, what's that you're saying? Name one area where it's been successful. Or alternatively one area where it's done any good.

Oerdin
15-07-2008, 23:42:08
Originally posted by mr_B
great Xpost

Dyl is the man!!!!!!!!!!

It was a perfect serve. ;)

Drake Tungsten
15-07-2008, 23:42:22
Name one area where it's been successful. Or alternatively one area where it's done any good.

Relations with China are as good as they've ever been. Same with Japan and India. Good progress has been made on North Korea; hopefully it will last. Iraq is much better now after the surge. Even relations with Europe have improved in the second term.

Oerdin
15-07-2008, 23:46:30
Hard to get worse.

Koshko
16-07-2008, 00:16:56
Bush really might be the worst president we've ever had. He's a massive fuckup in every conceivable way.

Koshko
16-07-2008, 00:17:25
Also I look forward to WW3.

Drake Tungsten
16-07-2008, 00:31:49
Bush isn't even the worst President of the last 50 years. LBJ and Carter easily trump him.

Fistandantilus
16-07-2008, 00:49:43
LeBron James has been president? :eek:

Drake Tungsten
16-07-2008, 01:48:42
He was king. King James.

Koshko
16-07-2008, 02:12:36
Well I think even Carter managed to do something that didn't turn to shit.

Koshko
16-07-2008, 02:16:16
Also to actually talk about the original topic, leaving Iraq would realistically require a progressive withdraw over a period of a couple of years or so. Bush obviously isn't going to do that, so best case scenario is that people start leaving in early 09 ... if Obama gets elected. McCain's comments about the war ending at around 2013 leads me to believe that his not going to pull out anyone right off.

TCO
16-07-2008, 02:17:50
WTF? I could have forces out of there in 6 months. Maybe we leave some refrigerators behind or something. But we could have every man and every major military peice of equipment out in that time.

Koshko
16-07-2008, 02:24:23
Originally posted by TCO
WTF? I could have forces out of there in 6 months. Maybe we leave some refrigerators behind or something. But we could have every man and every major military peice of equipment out in that time.


You still need to have able forces within the Iraqi military to replace many of those you pull out. That requires time and coordination. Also even after we are all 'pulled out', we will still have military bases there and likely would still be leading missions against suspected terrorist organizations there.

TCO
16-07-2008, 02:35:14
I don't need Iraqi forces to cover our rear. We can do that very well ourselves.

Who cares about the fucking bases. We're LEAVING. The Iraqis can fight over the bases.

Koshko
16-07-2008, 03:02:33
We still have active bases in freaking Europe from WW2. What makes you think that we'll be completely out of Iraq any time soon?

KrazyHorse
16-07-2008, 03:29:51
Originally posted by TCO
Kitty said we had to stay longer a couple years ago. Ok. Now it's longer. May we leave, please?

Maybe. Wrap shit up. I don't think they're in immediate danger of slaughtering millions when you leave now, so it might be a good time.

KrazyHorse
16-07-2008, 03:34:47
In other words, I think that the US is a lot closer to fulfilling its moral obligations to the Iraqis now than they were 2 years ago.

TCO
16-07-2008, 04:14:24
fuck. I don't want to do that. just want to boogie. It's their country.

TCO
16-07-2008, 04:16:15
Originally posted by Koshko
You still need to have able forces within the Iraqi military to replace many of those you pull out. That requires time and coordination. Also even after we are all 'pulled out', we will still have military bases there and likely would still be leading missions against suspected terrorist organizations there.

We should pull out of Europe also.

Kitsuki
16-07-2008, 06:35:50
Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Relations with China are as good as they've ever been. Same with Japan and India. Good progress has been made on North Korea; hopefully it will last. Iraq is much better now after the surge. Even relations with Europe have improved in the second term.

They have also done a lot of good in South America and fostered even closer links with countries like Australia. He is also largely responsible for the enlarging membership of NATO, and for the dialogue with North Korea. NAFTA has been coming on in leaps and bounds too.

Not saying it's all rosy, but we Europeans tend to look at Iraq and Afghanistan and judge American foreign policy solely in those terms.

Don't get me wrong, I think Bush has been a shit President, but that doesn't mean he's the anti-Christ or that he hasn't achieved some good things too.

Oerdin
16-07-2008, 07:31:13
Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Bush isn't even the worst President of the last 50 years. LBJ and Carter easily trump him.

:clueless:

Oerdin
16-07-2008, 07:33:22
Originally posted by TCO
I don't need Iraqi forces to cover our rear. We can do that very well ourselves.

Who cares about the fucking bases. We're LEAVING. The Iraqis can fight over the bases.

And when militias take them over and start divvying up the country? Much better to leave in an organized way turning stuff over to Iraqi government forces as we go.

Drake Tungsten
16-07-2008, 08:53:11
I think Bush has been a shit President, but that doesn't mean he's the anti-Christ or that he hasn't achieved some good things too.

I agree.

Dyl Ulenspiegel
16-07-2008, 09:00:17
Originally posted by Kitsuki

Don't get me wrong, I think Bush has been a shit President, but that doesn't mean he's the anti-Christ or that he hasn't achieved some good things too.

The most important thing of the Bush presidency is the destruction of the (mostly economic) basis of the american empire. Really impressive job there, but with Greenspan to help it was easy, I suppose.

The little improvement in foreign policy is mostly due to the retard keeping his mouth shut and being unable to pull further shit after being tied down in Iraq and Afghanistan. But who knows, maybe he'll leave us an Iran war, still.

And he's definately Satan's offspring. :D

KrazyHorse
16-07-2008, 11:50:43
Originally posted by TCO
fuck. I don't want to do that. just want to boogie. It's their country.

Yeah, and when you knocked off the guy in charge and destroyed all the institutions which kept order and stopped them from slaughtering each other you assumed a moral obligation...

Drake Tungsten
16-07-2008, 12:04:32
I don't think TCO cares about moral obligations. I envy him...

King_Ghidra
16-07-2008, 12:52:49
Maybe it would be more appropriate to say some good things happened while or despite bush being president

KrazyHorse
16-07-2008, 14:09:41
Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
I don't think TCO cares about moral obligations. I envy him...

I think he does...when it comes to individuals. Somehow he believes that moral obligations disappear when there are organizations/countries involved.

TCO
16-07-2008, 14:42:58
Originally posted by Oerdin
And when militias take them over and start divvying up the country? Much better to leave in an organized way turning stuff over to Iraqi government forces as we go.

Same thing. We turn it over if they have their shit together. If they don't we still leave. I don't know if they surprise us in a good way or a bad way. But either way, we do what's good for us and we don't stay in this paternalistic manner. We use our forces for our pruposes.

TCO
16-07-2008, 14:45:50
Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Yeah, and when you knocked off the guy in charge and destroyed all the institutions which kept order and stopped them from slaughtering each other you assumed a moral obligation...

A. that was a long time ago.

B. It's THEIR COUNTRY. Regardless.

C. I think decapitating snakes is a useful method of policy. I don't feel any need to stay in Afhanistan either. We are there for some Taliban and AQ scalp. After getting it, it's up to the Afghans to sieze the day....or not. I don't have a beef with the people. Just want to find and (literally) hang the beys.

Lurker the Second
16-07-2008, 14:45:52
Originally posted by TCO
WTF? I could have forces out of there in 6 months.

You're a bus driver like Greg?

Fistandantilus
16-07-2008, 14:46:52
Never underestimate bus drivers!

TCO
16-07-2008, 14:49:18
I don't think it's worth another US casualty. Don't think it's worth another guy losing an arm or a leg.

Heck, it's actually COUNTERPRODUCTIVE to our aims to let ourselves get roped down and spoon oceans. It's inefficient. Makes suckers out of us. Holds us back from other invasions or preferabbly Monica missile strikes.

TCO
16-07-2008, 14:52:28
Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Yeah, and when you knocked off the guy in charge and destroyed all the institutions which kept order and stopped them from slaughtering each other you assumed a moral obligation...

I don't feel an obligation to lead a difficult to manage country because we deposed a dictator. If they want to magically become a bunch of Thomas Jeffersons, good on them. If they don't, well that's fine too. Heck...maybe they have something with valuing the family over the ideal. But at the end of the day, it's their fucking country!

Lurker the Second
16-07-2008, 14:54:44
So if you depose a dictator and don't care who replaces him, what's the point of deposing the dictator in the first place?

King_Ghidra
16-07-2008, 14:56:51
Originally posted by TCO


C. I think decapitating snakes is a useful method of policy.

and then you walk away and another snake appears. you get bitten again.

that's not a policy, that's the absence of policy.

TCO
16-07-2008, 14:58:48
Originally posted by Lurker the Second
So if you depose a dictator and don't care who replaces him, what's the point of deposing the dictator in the first place?

Think about it. Seriously. Tell me some of the benefits of simply walking into Tangiers, hanging a bey and walking back out. You can't find any?

TCO
16-07-2008, 15:00:26
Originally posted by King_Ghidra
and then you walk away and another snake appears. you get bitten again.

that's not a policy, that's the absence of policy.

Oh really? It's impossible to imagine a time when it is more efficient to deal with snakes ad hoc? Rather than moving out of your hose and sleeping next to a snake hole? You can't even FRAME two alternatives and list plusses and minusses?

Lurker the Second
16-07-2008, 15:02:45
Sure -- you want the rest of the world to think you're a crazy muthafucka. Kind of like Saddam Hussein.

TCO
16-07-2008, 15:02:56
Just to be clear. I'm not advocating willy nilly killing dictators and not occupying countries (although it may be useful at times). But given that we did kill the dictator, why STAY? I mean if I had a time machine, maybe I don't go into Iraq. But now that we did, why STAY? It's their god damned mother fucking country. Let them sort it out.

TCO
16-07-2008, 15:03:57
Originally posted by Lurker the Second
Sure -- you want the rest of the world to think you're a crazy muthafucka. Kind of like Saddam Hussein.

I'm actually more interested in BEING smart than having people THINK I'm smart. Do you capisce, mofo?

Funko
16-07-2008, 15:04:22
Good luck with that.

Lurker the Second
16-07-2008, 15:06:08
Yeah, I never capisce anything. :(

TCO
16-07-2008, 15:06:12
Originally posted by Funko
Good luck with that.

And you with the converse.

TCO
16-07-2008, 15:07:51
Originally posted by Lurker the Second
Yeah, I never capisce anything. :(

You failed to answer the question. :coolgrin:

"Yeah" and "never" are not consistent.

Actually you capisce things a lot.

TCO
16-07-2008, 15:19:14
Originally posted by Lurker the Second
So if you depose a dictator and don't care who replaces him, what's the point of deposing the dictator in the first place?

A lot of treasure, life and initiative is being sacrificed to justify a previous decision. Like pouring money into something to justify a sunk cost. It's a fallacy. A deadly one. I think Bush would rather do the wrong thing and let more men die, than admit he was wrong. But I don't even CARE about that. I just want us to boogie. The knee-jerk Repukes and pacifist Democrats can go have a ball fighting over the blame pinning.

Lurker the Second
16-07-2008, 15:58:43
Originally posted by TCO

"Yeah" and "never" are not consistent.



Damn, I had to think about it, but that's true.

So if we just up and bail overnight, do you think that might have any impact on future efforts to convince other countries to join us in an effort to invade other countries to depose dictators of a similar ilk?

Funko
16-07-2008, 16:04:49
You'd want to do it again?!

KrazyHorse
16-07-2008, 16:13:06
Originally posted by TCO
A. that was a long time ago.

5 years is not a long time to reinvent a country.

B. It's THEIR COUNTRY. Regardless.

If you didn't want any responsibility for it then you shouldn't have gone in. When you fucked up their army, their government, their infrastructure, their police you brought this shit on yourself. When you take a country which is mostly at peace (though under an evil dictatorship to be sure) and create a situation where genocide becomes a real possibility then you are morally responsible for the results. It was their country, but it was your army which put them in the situation they were in circa 2004.

C. I think decapitating snakes is a useful method of policy. I don't feel any need to stay in Afhanistan either. We are there for some Taliban and AQ scalp. After getting it, it's up to the Afghans to sieze the day....or not. I don't have a beef with the people. Just want to find and (literally) hang the beys.

I think that decapitating snakes is SOMETIMES a useful method of policy. Like, for example, if somebody were to put a bullet in Mugabe's brain. Sometimes, however, it creates more problems than it solves. Iraq is (and has been for a long time) a powderkeg waiting to explode. It was a spark away from genocide. You provided the spark. Now you have to be the firemen too.

As I said, it seems as though things are starting to calm down a little bit over there. I'm not asking that the US stay until they all become happy little democrats who respect each other's civil rights. Just that they don't immediately explode into an orgy of slaughter.

KrazyHorse
16-07-2008, 16:15:48
Originally posted by TCO
Just to be clear. I'm not advocating willy nilly killing dictators and not occupying countries (although it may be useful at times). But given that we did kill the dictator, why STAY? I mean if I had a time machine, maybe I don't go into Iraq. But now that we did, why STAY? It's their god damned mother fucking country. Let them sort it out.

Oops. Sorry we broke your shit. See you 'round.

TCO
16-07-2008, 18:24:14
Originally posted by Lurker the Second
Damn, I had to think about it, but that's true.

So if we just up and bail overnight, do you think that might have any impact on future efforts to convince other countries to join us in an effort to invade other countries to depose dictators of a similar ilk?

uh...yeah maybe. Of course, they're really window dressing anyhow. Plus, if we are going to leave years from now, why not leave now. Perhaps it makes a better story to cut losses now than to keep digging the hole deeper.

Plus, fuck, it's their country.

TCO
16-07-2008, 18:26:26
5 years is long enough for them to get their shit together. If they have implacable differences, then that is just the nature of it. I'm fine for staying for a few weeks, months as security (after the invasion). But after 5 years, their fate is up to them.

I don't beleive in "transforming" countries.

TCO
16-07-2008, 18:28:13
Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Oops. Sorry we broke your shit. See you 'round.

We took care of the guy we had a beef with. Now things are up to them. And we've dumped hundreds of billions of dollars into the occupation.

Their fate is in their hands. Leave them be.

TCO
16-07-2008, 18:29:30
So Kitty are you a McCainer? What if it really does take 100 years? What if it's like pushing a rope? What if it's actually COUNTERPRODUCTIVE to keep our forces on hand rather then letting them settle their own hash?

TCO
16-07-2008, 18:35:06
Originally posted by KrazyHorse
If you didn't want any responsibility for it then you shouldn't have gone in. When you fucked up their army, their government, their infrastructure, their police you brought this shit on yourself. When you take a country which is mostly at peace (though under an evil dictatorship to be sure) and create a situation where genocide becomes a real possibility then you are morally responsible for the results. It was their country, but it was your army which put them in the situation they were in circa 2004.
[/B]

Well, they can always go back if they prefer that.

TCO
16-07-2008, 18:36:51
But whatever they do, it will be them doing it.

KrazyHorse
16-07-2008, 21:07:49
Originally posted by TCO
So Kitty are you a McCainer? What if it really does take 100 years? What if it's like pushing a rope? What if it's actually COUNTERPRODUCTIVE to keep our forces on hand rather then letting them settle their own hash?

Have you been listening to a word I've said?

I've already stated that it might be as good a time as any for you to wrap it up and get out.

My argument with you is that you seem to think it's okay to go into a house and kill the abusive father, then walk away and let the kids starve.

KrazyHorse
16-07-2008, 21:09:06
Originally posted by TCO
Well, they can always go back if they prefer that.

How the fuck can they go back? Do you think the Shia are going to go back to being the whipping boys without a fight?

Going back is not an option. You removed the status quo from the list of possibilities.

Asher
16-07-2008, 22:29:13
Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Have you been listening to a word I've said?

I've already stated that it might be as good a time as any for you to wrap it up and get out.

My argument with you is that you seem to think it's okay to go into a house and kill the abusive father, then walk away and let the kids starve.

Kids who grow up in abusive homes tend to be abusing themselves.

This is just a pre-emptive strike.

TCO
16-07-2008, 23:22:24
Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Have you been listening to a word I've said?

I've already stated that it might be as good a time as any for you to wrap it up and get out.

My argument with you is that you seem to think it's okay to go into a house and kill the abusive father, then walk away and let the kids starve.


I heard that part. We are still discussing the issues in general.

I don't think we killed the father because he was abusive. We killed hikm because he threatened us (or we thouight so). I also think the anology of a father is way too kind to Saddam. Also that the analogy of children is too feeble for the people. They've had long enough. If they want to take advantage of the opportunity and manage their affairs fine. IF they want to fight it out, I don't want to police them. I've already noted the practical issue of stabilizing things in the immediate aftermath of the invasion (actual physucal secruity). WE are 5 years out now. If the Iraqis are incapable of order without a dictator or an occupier, so be it. I have no desire to provide either for them.

TCO
16-07-2008, 23:23:52
Originally posted by KrazyHorse
How the fuck can they go back? Do you think the Shia are going to go back to being the whipping boys without a fight?

Going back is not an option. You removed the status quo from the list of possibilities.

come on man. It's a point in generality that they are capable of moving back to an autocracy (and very well may do so).

TCO
16-07-2008, 23:25:00
They are NOT physically children. They are ADULTS. Capable of fighting for their tribe.

TCO
16-07-2008, 23:26:06
It's their country. As long as they are not actively attacking the US, I see no reason to have our people in there.

TCO
16-07-2008, 23:50:37
Ok, Kitty, maybe we are each trying to have our way too much. Since, you said it's ok for us to leave now, we'll do so. You can have as a sop whatever you think needed in terms of rationales. As long as we leave. And don't come calling me if things start to go to shit. I want hard core time lines and troops moving. Come hell or high water.

Asher
17-07-2008, 02:48:09
You're both wrong, see my post about killing everyone.

TCO
17-07-2008, 03:31:37
everyone is republican? I'm voting for Barr.

Asher
17-07-2008, 03:53:43
Roseanne Barr? Fuck you

TCO
17-07-2008, 04:00:22
grabs crotch

Oerdin
17-07-2008, 04:08:06
Whose?

KrazyHorse
17-07-2008, 04:48:19
Originally posted by TCO
They are NOT physically children. They are ADULTS. Capable of fighting for their tribe.

They aren't physically children. But this shit that's going on between different tribes was an obvious consequence of taking out the strongman who kept them quiet.

Anybody who didn't realise that was an idiot. Anybody who realised but thought the US should just start the fire and walk away was an asshole.

KrazyHorse
17-07-2008, 04:50:18
Originally posted by TCO
It's their country. As long as they are not actively attacking the US, I see no reason to have our people in there.

That's because you obviously don't see third worlders as having an inherent moral value.

Asher
17-07-2008, 05:09:22
They gots oil

Drake Tungsten
17-07-2008, 05:10:16
Has nothing to do with the Third World. Canadians and Europeans don't have any inherent moral value either and they're part of the First World. It's about Americans vs non-Americans.

Funko
17-07-2008, 08:02:46
Americans aren't actually worth more than anyone else, some just think they are. Just like some Brits think Brits are worth more than anyone else or Asher thinks Canadians are worth something.

Dyl Ulenspiegel
17-07-2008, 08:11:21
Originally posted by TCO
It's their country. As long as they are not actively attacking the US, I see no reason to have our people in there.

You don't, your ruling class does. Strategic control of the middle east. Executed with extreme incompetence, but going to stick.

Drake Tungsten
17-07-2008, 08:16:43
I doubt it will stick. Even the Brits couldn't keep the Middle East under the boot for long, and they were more cold-blooded, ruthless and competent than the U.S. can ever hope to be.

Funko
17-07-2008, 08:31:19
Yep!

Dyl Ulenspiegel
17-07-2008, 08:56:40
I meant the Iraq occupation going to stick. Essentially several bases, with the rest of the country controlled by warlords or ethnic/sectarian entities losely tied to the occupyer.

TCO
17-07-2008, 12:11:13
Originally posted by KrazyHorse
They aren't physically children. But this shit that's going on between different tribes was an obvious consequence of taking out the strongman who kept them quiet.

Anybody who didn't realise that was an idiot. Anybody who realised but thought the US should just start the fire and walk away was an asshole.

When I asked you before if we needed to stay for 100 years, you begged off with something that misses the point (saying that you think things aer settled down now). What if they're not? What if they persist in this state of rivalry absetn a strongman or US policeman? How long should we take care of Kitt's children?

I actually wish them well. I just think they need to determin their own fate.

TCO
17-07-2008, 12:12:35
Originally posted by KrazyHorse
That's because you obviously don't see third worlders as having an inherent moral value.

Not solely.

TCO
17-07-2008, 12:17:58
Originally posted by Dyl Ulenspiegel
You don't, your ruling class does. Strategic control of the middle east. Executed with extreme incompetence, but going to stick.


This thread is all about debate against the current policy.

I think it is a mistake (on many levels) to try to control the ME. Also,I think that the "policy of strategic control" has a connoctation of rationale explotiation that is simply not there. I think the idiots really did thinkthat they coul dhange things with radical Islam.

I think we are better off shipping booze and pornos and just having Naval control of the seas. Maybe fucking around a little in a way that does not tie us down (like having the Ethipoians fuck with the Somalis).

Dyl Ulenspiegel
17-07-2008, 12:40:22
"I think the idiots really did thinkthat they coul dhange things with radical Islam."

Hmm... maybe. The really really retarded fringe of a bunch of braindead assclowns may have believed that. But looking at Cheney Co, I doubt it.

Don't forget the other advantages of the Iraq war. Contracts for admin cronies, political destraction, etc.

The point is that "you" will stay there in some way or another. Obama is a clown, McCain loves this war. It is a suicidal policy, but that's standard modus operandi for falling empires.

mr_B
17-07-2008, 12:42:36
me thinks (sorry tizzy) this thread is way way too polyesque

TCO
17-07-2008, 12:46:38
Originally posted by Dyl Ulenspiegel
"I think the idiots really did thinkthat they coul dhange things with radical Islam."

Hmm... maybe. The really really retarded fringe of a bunch of braindead assclowns may have believed that. But looking at Cheney Co, I doubt it.

Don't forget the other advantages of the Iraq war. Contracts for admin cronies, political destraction, etc.

The point is that "you" will stay there in some way or another. Obama is a clown, McCain loves this war. It is a suicidal policy, but that's standard modus operandi for falling empires.

Occupation sucks. Easier to smash things without occupying. resmash if needed.