junebugs
This post has been edited by muddpuppy95 on Oct 19 2006, 02:46 PM
should we pull troops out of iraq
whats going on
booze, sex, and partying, eh?
I know i am a retard i put it in the wrong place, but then again I got a reply from you.. how is everything
I'm taking it easy, when I take the bus
Posts: 4725 Joined: 26-September 04 College: Memorial
Nice save.
can I bring you two some beverages or anything?
already have one thanks but nice thought. I am jsut thinking of getting out of the military and needed some input from our bright young and vigerous humans
Dude, it's all about the air that the foot pushes.
Posts: 1442 Joined: 3-June 04 College: SUNY Brockport
vigorous..... 
Dude, it's all about the air that the foot pushes.
Posts: 1442 Joined: 3-June 04 College: SUNY Brockport
That dude is hilarious
yeah, pulling out is ALWAYS a good idea.
QUOTE (FatCampDropout6 @ Oct 19 2006, 05:38 PM)
yeah, pulling out is ALWAYS a good idea.
qft
![drinkup[1].gif](http://www.collegeslackers.com/forum/html/emoticons/drinkup[1].gif)
I'm taking it easy, when I take the bus
Posts: 4725 Joined: 26-September 04 College: MemorialQUOTE (FatCampDropout6 @ Oct 19 2006, 03:38 PM)
yeah, pulling out is ALWAYS a good idea.
Quoted from "Waiting"
Monty (Ryan Reynolds): Come on, mom! Of course I'm being safe. I pull out.
Monty's Mom: Yes, well your father pulled out too but we've all seen the tragic end of that story.
Monty: You think I wanna have kids? Absolutely not! That's why I stick to anal sex.
Monty's Mom: If only I had been so lucky.
QUOTE (FatCampDropout6 @ Oct 19 2006, 02:38 PM)
yeah, pulling out is ALWAYS a good idea.
too bad Geroge H. didnt pull out back in the day
"Pull out like your daddy should have."
QUOTE (bwyble @ Oct 20 2006, 05:10 AM)
"Pull out like your daddy should have."
Damn,I'm gonna use that one, its a wee bit cold though.
then put a jacket on.
QUOTE (sec @ Nov 1 2006, 08:07 AM)
then put a jacket on.
Angry, Gun-Toting, Meat Eating, Beer Drinking Liberal
Posts: 11617 Joined: 2-June 04 College: MSUQUOTE
Monday marked the day that we had been in Iraq longer than we were in all of World War II.
That's right. We were able to defeat all of Nazi Germany, Mussolini, and the entire Japanese empire in LESS time than it's taken the world's only superpower to secure the road from the airport to downtown Baghdad.
And we haven't even done THAT. After 1,347 days, in the same time it took us to took us to sweep across North Africa, storm the beaches of Italy, conquer the South Pacific, and liberate all of Western Europe, we cannot, after over 3 and 1/2 years, even take over a single highway and protect ourselves from a homemade device of two tin cans placed in a pothole. No wonder the cab fare from the airport into Baghdad is now running around $35,000 for the 25-minute ride. And that doesn't even include a friggin' helmet.
Is this utter failure the fault of our troops? Hardly. That's because no amount of troops or choppers or democracy shot out of the barrel of a gun is ever going to "win" the war in Iraq. It is a lost war, lost because it never had a right to be won, lost because it was started by men who have never been to war, men who hide behind others sent to fight and die.
Let's listen to what the Iraqi people are saying, according to a recent poll conducted by the University of Maryland:
** 71% of all Iraqis now want the U.S. out of Iraq.
** 61% of all Iraqis SUPPORT insurgent attacks on U.S. troops.
Yes, the vast majority of Iraqi citizens believe that our soldiers should be killed and maimed! So what the hell are we still doing there? Talk about not getting the hint.
There are many ways to liberate a country. Usually the residents of that country rise up and liberate themselves. That's how we did it. You can also do it through nonviolent, mass civil disobedience. That's how India did it. You can get the world to boycott a regime until they are so ostracized they capitulate. That's how South Africa did it. Or you can just wait them out and, sooner or later, the king's legions simply leave (sometimes just because they're too cold). That's how Canada did it.
The one way that DOESN'T work is to invade a country and tell the people, "We are here to liberate you!" -- when they have done NOTHING to liberate themselves. Where were all the suicide bombers when Saddam was oppressing them? Where were the insurgents planting bombs along the roadside as the evildoer Saddam's convoy passed them by? I guess ol' Saddam was a cruel despot -- but not cruel enough for thousands to risk their necks. "Oh no, Mike, they couldn't do that! Saddam would have had them killed!" Really? You don't think King George had any of the colonial insurgents killed? You don't think Patrick Henry or Tom Paine were afraid? That didn't stop them. When tens of thousands aren't willing to shed their own blood to remove a dictator, that should be the first clue that they aren't going to be willing participants when you decide you're going to do the liberating for them.
A country can HELP another people overthrow a tyrant (that's what the French did for us in our revolution), but after you help them, you leave. Immediately. The French didn't stay and tell us how to set up our government. They didn't say, "we're not leaving because we want your natural resources." They left us to our own devices and it took us six years before we had an election. And then we had a bloody civil war. That's what happens, and history is full of these examples. The French didn't say, "Oh, we better stay in America, otherwise they're going to kill each other over that slavery issue!"
That's right. We were able to defeat all of Nazi Germany, Mussolini, and the entire Japanese empire in LESS time than it's taken the world's only superpower to secure the road from the airport to downtown Baghdad.
And we haven't even done THAT. After 1,347 days, in the same time it took us to took us to sweep across North Africa, storm the beaches of Italy, conquer the South Pacific, and liberate all of Western Europe, we cannot, after over 3 and 1/2 years, even take over a single highway and protect ourselves from a homemade device of two tin cans placed in a pothole. No wonder the cab fare from the airport into Baghdad is now running around $35,000 for the 25-minute ride. And that doesn't even include a friggin' helmet.
Is this utter failure the fault of our troops? Hardly. That's because no amount of troops or choppers or democracy shot out of the barrel of a gun is ever going to "win" the war in Iraq. It is a lost war, lost because it never had a right to be won, lost because it was started by men who have never been to war, men who hide behind others sent to fight and die.
Let's listen to what the Iraqi people are saying, according to a recent poll conducted by the University of Maryland:
** 71% of all Iraqis now want the U.S. out of Iraq.
** 61% of all Iraqis SUPPORT insurgent attacks on U.S. troops.
Yes, the vast majority of Iraqi citizens believe that our soldiers should be killed and maimed! So what the hell are we still doing there? Talk about not getting the hint.
There are many ways to liberate a country. Usually the residents of that country rise up and liberate themselves. That's how we did it. You can also do it through nonviolent, mass civil disobedience. That's how India did it. You can get the world to boycott a regime until they are so ostracized they capitulate. That's how South Africa did it. Or you can just wait them out and, sooner or later, the king's legions simply leave (sometimes just because they're too cold). That's how Canada did it.
The one way that DOESN'T work is to invade a country and tell the people, "We are here to liberate you!" -- when they have done NOTHING to liberate themselves. Where were all the suicide bombers when Saddam was oppressing them? Where were the insurgents planting bombs along the roadside as the evildoer Saddam's convoy passed them by? I guess ol' Saddam was a cruel despot -- but not cruel enough for thousands to risk their necks. "Oh no, Mike, they couldn't do that! Saddam would have had them killed!" Really? You don't think King George had any of the colonial insurgents killed? You don't think Patrick Henry or Tom Paine were afraid? That didn't stop them. When tens of thousands aren't willing to shed their own blood to remove a dictator, that should be the first clue that they aren't going to be willing participants when you decide you're going to do the liberating for them.
A country can HELP another people overthrow a tyrant (that's what the French did for us in our revolution), but after you help them, you leave. Immediately. The French didn't stay and tell us how to set up our government. They didn't say, "we're not leaving because we want your natural resources." They left us to our own devices and it took us six years before we had an election. And then we had a bloody civil war. That's what happens, and history is full of these examples. The French didn't say, "Oh, we better stay in America, otherwise they're going to kill each other over that slavery issue!"
Attached Image
You couldn't find a better thread than this one to put that in?
I still think that taking out Saddam was necessary and just. However, our war plan in Iraq was obviously fundamentally flawed from the beginning, and it does not appear that anyone has a plan to turn things around (if it's even possible at this point). We should have overtaken Iraq with overwhelming force (just like we did Germany and Japan in WWII), we should have never allowed the lawlessness that we did after the invasion, we should have destroyed Muqtada Al Sadr when we had the chance a couple of years ago, and for God's sakes, Bush should have fired Rumsfeld about 18 months sooner than he did.
I still think that taking out Saddam was necessary and just. However, our war plan in Iraq was obviously fundamentally flawed from the beginning, and it does not appear that anyone has a plan to turn things around (if it's even possible at this point). We should have overtaken Iraq with overwhelming force (just like we did Germany and Japan in WWII), we should have never allowed the lawlessness that we did after the invasion, we should have destroyed Muqtada Al Sadr when we had the chance a couple of years ago, and for God's sakes, Bush should have fired Rumsfeld about 18 months sooner than he did.
War plan worked fine, it was the nation building that fell right on its ass. More troops were/are needed to keep order. Waiting for the Iraqi people to take care of themselves was a gross mistake on our part. Where was the post war strategy beyond Mission Accomplished? Although I don't want them to I think our troops will have to stay a lot longer then anyone can currently say. 2010 at the earliest.
Take a listen, An army Ranger comments on Iraq.
Link
Edited: to fix link
Link
Edited: to fix link
This post has been edited by AAisforwimps on Apr 27 2007, 11:53 AM
*yawn*
Is it official?
QUOTE (junkiecosmonaut @ Apr 27 2007, 09:48 PM)
Is it official?
That's what iiiiiiiiii'd like to know.
