Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
moon

Increased Violence Means We Are Winning?

Recommended Posts

Putin has clearly visited the Pit and agrees with rob.

 

I'm not sure which name he goes by though. :lol:

 

 

 

 

'doc

They're not statements doc, they're opinions, and if you can't see them as contradictory by now then I'd be wasting my time.

They are statements of opinion, and hence are statements. There is no contradiction. If you are finding one then you are mining for it, and that mine shaft must be pretty deep and dark....and low on O2. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From whos perspective, ours or what we THINK is theirs?

neither, perspective isnt an issue. Its a fact that the removal of Saddam increased Iraq potential. Saddam was a sticking point of modernization and freedom in the country. His removal increased the potential of Iraq becoming a peaceful modern country with vast human rights.

 

Theres a reason I also posted that the under was also increased. If we fail Iraq will become the terrorist safe haven afganistan once was.

Edited by one2gamble

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peace...umm...no more terrorists...save the whales...bloodshed is, err, bad? :blink:

 

:P

 

When I talk to soldiers who were in Iraq and they describe the huge masses of people, literally the entire city, standing outside greeting and cheering our troops, laughing, smiling, and generally having a good time, it's very telling about their mentality of us there.

 

I don't know about the rest of you, but when I'm :censored: about someone invading me, I laugh, smile, and have a good time with my neighbors in front of my invaders :rolleyes:

 

 

 

 

Please do not try o evade the language filter

Edited by Countrydave55

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't you know all that was staged for the cameras? :rolleyes:

 

Right after the cameras were turned off the revelers rebuilt the statues of Saddam and started shooting at the soldiers. :rolleyes:

 

 

 

According to one friend of mine the most shocking thing to him was the affection, he had not pictured the Iraqi people that way.

 

He related to me a conversation with a shopkeeper. The man said that it was time for the Americans to go, he was tired of it all. But then he admitted that the only reason he could express his views openly was because the Americans were there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, right...

 

Our media is the biggest bunch of lying *self-censored*...can't even rely on them for the *Censored by Moderator*weather, much less the situation in a country 1 continent and a few cultures away.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Please do not try to evade the language filter

Edited by Countrydave55

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As of April 5:

 

Afghanistan

Albania

Angola

Australia

Azerbaijan

Bulgaria

Colombia

Costa Rica

Czech Republic

Denmark

Dominican Republic

El Salvador

Eritrea

Estonia

Ethiopia

Georgia

Honduras

Hungary

Iceland

Italy

Japan

Kuwait

Latvia

Lithuania

Macedonia

Marshall Islands

Micronesia

Mongolia

Netherlands

Nicaragua

Palau

Panama

Philippines

Poland

Portugal

Romania

Rwanda

Singapore

Slovakia

Solomon Islands

South Korea

Spain

Tonga

Turkey

Uganda

Ukraine

United Kingdom

United States

Uzbekistan

You call that a coalition? :lol:

 

With the exception of a couple, it looks more like a list of the worlds welfare rolls. :mrsgreen::rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I don't. The United States does, and so does the UK, as well as the rest.

 

 

 

As far as the insults, that has been a problem all along. The lack of respect and downright insulting attitude demonstrated to some of the smaller nations was actually an issue from the very first day that the Coalition was announced. It was a matter of some official protest between nations. Nice to see you are consistent and have not given up on that....at least that is something.

 

I guess it isn't popular to respect the smaller one's...but I never concern myself too much with popularity.

 

 

With the exception of a couple? Which? Australia? The UK? Maybe Italy? The Netherlands? Japan? Demark perhaps? Poland? Iceland? Maybe you prefer to pick on Tonga or the Dominican Republic? That could be fun! I have family in the Dominican Republic, so go on, entertain us.....

 

I see....shall we impose some standards of participation? Maybe they have to pass a test or a credit application?

Edited by Chopdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, Bush seems to have a test. Your either with us or against us.

 

Thats a pretty sad test, and the most insulting of them all.

 

A coalition is a bit more then a list of countries that have done little or "nothing"

 

Nope I don't count 99% of them as being members of anything but members of the lip service crowd, that contribute to the Bush spin, spin, spin, look at the list, spin, spin, spin.

 

It is for the most part a list of do nothing get a lot countries. ;)

 

How many billions of dollars, aircraft, troops............... has the almighty Dominican Republic supplied? :shrug: Because they are on a "list" don't mean squat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I am asking a legitimate question. You call it a war coalition, I sincerely want to know what all these do nothing countries have done?

 

The list don't mean diddley squat. They either need to put up something worth while, or just go away.

 

I want to know where the billions and billions of dollars, the bombs, airplanes, troops, guns, missles, warships are, where is this coalition?

 

Why are they not sending their sons and daughters to the tune of 100,000 or more to fight in this glorious coalition.

 

Or is this just a pat on the back good job coalition?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets take it easy guys...I know where both of ya are headed and respect both ya'll...but this is a hot topic and we all need to keep as cool as we can...Iraq ain't going anywhere and we ain't either most likely...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, I don't believe you are asking a legitimate question.

 

But since you insist: Some of those very small countries did indeed send troops. They happen to have very few at all and hence sent very few. As for the Dominican Republic, they only have about 2.7 million males between the ages of 15 and 64....... Their standing army consists of only about 24,000 and is the largest in the Caribbean with the exception of Cuba. Where would you like them to get 100,000 soldiers to send?

 

 

I would say that the spin is yours, not Bush's.

 

In addition, I never called it a war coalition. I called it a coalition. The actual name, though I have not mentioned it before in this forum is "The Coalition of the Willing". Actually, at least 28 of those countries actually currently have troops there. There are about 25,000 non- US troops there. The Dominican Republic sent about 300.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets take it easy guys...I know where both of ya are headed and respect both ya'll...but this is a hot topic and we all need to keep as cool as we can...Iraq ain't going anywhere and we ain't either most likely...

Yeah, yeah, OK.

 

But nobody is shooting anybody here.....but they sure are elsewhere.

 

It's an important topic, that's all. We're cool. :beer: :beer:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think that really matters, but it would depend on the resources available. A straight percentage is not a fair assesment of "significant".

 

Frankly, if they sent one person that is significant enough for me. Just joining the cause in any capacity is enough for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is sending 1.2% of your military a significant contribution?

Probably not unless your China... :lol: vj

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

neither, perspective isnt an issue. Its a fact that the removal of Saddam increased Iraq potential. Saddam was a sticking point of modernization and freedom in the country. His removal increased the potential of Iraq becoming a peaceful modern country with vast human rights.

 

Theres a reason I also posted that the under was also increased. If we fail Iraq will become the terrorist safe haven afganistan once was.

Modernization? Or Americanization?

 

I am not debating that Saddam was an evil person, however I question the logic behind an American citizen thousands of miles away describing the situation in Iraq from what has been force fed to him through media and government outlets. Maybe his removal increased Iraq's potential but the US presence has certainly hindered that potential again. It is not a fact that Iraq has more potential, it is your opinion based on propoganda and biased outlets.

 

What is failing versus winning to you? Is winning making Iraq an American stronghold in the middle east? Making Iraq free? Making Iraq terrorist free? Seeing oil prices drop below $45 a barrel? Maybe winning is finding the weapons of mass destruction :P What does the US need to do to win this war? It seems everyone "pro" the war in Iraq talks about winning it however has no clue what they are fighting for let alone trying to win.

 

If you ask my opinion this conflict has already been lost and has been since the very day they entered Iraq. The US has lost international credibility, respect from many allies, killed over 10,000 Iraqi's (all terrorists I assume :rolleyes: ) and the US has lost many of their own. Not to mention the billions after billions being poured into this problem while domestic problems still plague the US.

 

The increase in violence while fighting in conventional warfare could be read as a last ditch effort, however the enemy here is far from conventional. Even if stabilty is gained in Iraq, sleeper cells will still exist and will continue to manifest themselves spawning more and more hatred.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Due to mismanagement, the distinction between Islamic Fundamentalists ( the terrorists- remember ? ) and insurgents/malcontents/resistance has been blurred, if not lost. We should have encouraged Islamic culture to weed out its own bad apples from the start, but even now it's not too late for that.

As things stand, Islamic culture has many reasons to believe that we are trying to kill it, not coexist with it, and the Father of the New Iraq is largely responsible for that.

 

Interest in Arabic Soars

 

Primary motivation for American students of the language is to land a job with a government security agency

 

Kirk Belnap, director of the Middle East Language Resource Center, confirms that many Arabs are "nervous" about the new attention. But he believes the Arab world should be pleased. He recounts an anecdote: At a recent conference on the study of languages for defense, a US military officer argued that instructors shouldn't teach recruits Arabic culture along with the language lest they become sympathetic. Belnap thinks the officer is fighting a lost battle. It's impossible to separate language from culture and "you can't learn that much about a culture and not come to have some sympathy for that culture," he says. "So all these spies and soldiers we are training are an investment in peace."

 

http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=5148 Edited by moon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for the Dominican Republic, they only have about 2.7 million males between the ages of 15 and 64....... Their standing army consists of only about 24,000.

And they're poor as dirt. So why are they sending troops to Iraq that could be better deployed at home? I can guaruntee it's not for altruistic purposes. It's to curry favour with their feudal lords in the North Atlantic.

 

So much for the Coalition of the Willing: More like the Coalition of the Needy.

 

I

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Due to mismanagement, the distinction between Islamic Fundamentalists ( the terrorists- remember ? ) and insurgents/malcontents/resistance has been blurred, if not lost.

 

 

IU'm sorry you feel that way. Do you need some reference materials to refresh that for you?

 

We should have encouraged Islamic culture to weed out its own bad apples from the start, but even now it's not too late for that.

How does one do that? The Coalition is not interfering with Islamic Culture.

 

 

As things stand, Islamic culture has many reasons to believe that we are trying to kill it, not coexist with it, and the Father of the New Iraq is largely responsible for that.

No, it does not. And besides, a culture does not "think", people do.....and some don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They could be used at home to help build and supply some of the basic necessities. The conditions in the D. R. are horrific. Poor as dirt doesn't begin to describe it. Maybe they are sending them there so they will have better surroundings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...