very good job sir. but, the man has mad cow and listens to the spice girls.xstax981 wrote:
Now don't take this as a knock against Britain or Europe as a whole, because everyone from there is respectful and level-headed from what I read. I only mean this to rammunition, to wake him up from his "Europe has never done wrong" deluded fantasy world as he calls it.rammunition wrote:
LOL!!!!!!!!!![TUF]Catbox wrote:
George Bush made the world a safer place... he saw the trouble in Iraq and went in and fixed it.
you have to love how americans live in their own deluded fantasy world were they write there own false history.
America helped Saddam into power.
America gave Saddam WMD and urged him to use it on the Iranian civilians.
America then demonised Saddam.
America destroyed Iraq in the first Gulf War then starved 1million Iraqis to death and thought it was a "price worth paying"
America then removed Saddam from power, dismantled all security and civilian infrastructure creating a mayhem of terrorism and poverty, but free oilfields.
Every American involvement in Iraq has been selfish and catastrophic.
Your continent colonized Africa, which was doing mighty fine on its own.
Your continent tore up eastern Africa in battles to protect only its commercial interests
Your continent then ditched Africa and left it to stew in its war torn state
Your continent spawned many civil wars, in which there were many more deaths than that in Iraq
Your continent spawned World War II, the deadliest war that has ever occured in the period of mankind.
Your continent/country's involvement in America when it first began was only for selfish reasons.
I'm not also going to say America is perfect either. We've done pretty stupid crap (slave trade), and we still do some stupid crap too. But ramm can't gloat about Britain when they've had a dark shadow as well.
All in all, every country has had their bad points. But ramm bloating his ego about America being the devil was just aggravating me for the longest time now.
/rant
(feel free to correct me on different things)
Pages: 1 2
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- Did George Bush change American Foreign policy post 9/11?...
That's always going to be the challenge with Iraq. Naturally the country should really be three separate countries or states, with Shiites, Sunni and Kurds.Shahter wrote:
i'll agree with you when i see current "democratically elected" iraq regime maintaining control after US occupation forces leave - which (maintaning control that is) is very unlikely to happen, imho, not without consistent outside support anyway.TheAussieReaper wrote:
If this is foreign policy from now on, to integrate the local populace of a toppled regime\hostile-state as it's own protection then I believe that is good strategy both in terms of saving lives and stabilising a potentially disastrous situation of local rebellion and revolt.
But the policy could be far more effective elsewhere. You are less likely to revolt against your own police made up of your own countrymen, family, relatives, etc than you are against an occupying militia.
How effective Iraq can be maintaining stability is in the air. You won't find out until the US forces leave to see what follows.
ot: guys just don't reply to rammunition or quote his bullshit. Your just feeding the machine. If he goes off topic the best we can do is stay on topic and forget that clown
The Op has a good point.
The plan of the US CENTCOM (Central Command) was to bring over the Iraqi Army but under new leadership, but the Iraqi Army disappeared into the civilian population, the US was going to pay them and it may have led to an initially more stable situation. This would have reduced hostility, but the fading of the Iraqi Military into the shadows was somewhat unforseen.rammunition wrote:
LOL!!!!!!!!!![TUF]Catbox wrote:
George Bush made the world a safer place... he saw the trouble in Iraq and went in and fixed it.
you have to love how americans live in their own deluded fantasy world were they write there own false history.
America helped Saddam into power.
America gave Saddam WMD and urged him to use it on the Iranian civilians.
America then demonised Saddam.
America destroyed Iraq in the first Gulf War then starved 1million Iraqis to death and thought it was a "price worth paying"
America then removed Saddam from power, dismantled all security and civilian infrastructure creating a mayhem of terrorism and poverty, but free oilfields.
Every American involvement in Iraq has been selfish and catastrophic.
Oil did not get cheaper here in the US, rather, more expensive, so I don't ever understand the concept of saying that we invaded to get cheap oil, hell, we were paying $4 dollars a gallon just this summer, but now prices have dropped with the economic recession.
Many consider the recession the fault of President Bush, but the economy took the dive after the 2006 congressional elections, in which the Democrats came into more power with close to a majority, so I think it may be there fault, and I don't see how their "pay more taxes, spend more" concept will work to save the economy.
Sorry about being offtopic there, just wanted to get that out. Maybe lower gas prices will help the economy abit, who knows?
Not sure where you got your info from, the army was intentionally disbanded, their pay was stopped.NickB64 wrote:
The plan of the US CENTCOM (Central Command) was to bring over the Iraqi Army but under new leadership, but the Iraqi Army disappeared into the civilian population, the US was going to pay them and it may have led to an initially more stable situation. This would have reduced hostility, but the fading of the Iraqi Military into the shadows was somewhat unforseen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_Army2003 U.S. Administrator of Iraq Paul Bremer dissolves all of Saddam Hussein's armed forces except the Iraqi Police under the impression from pre-war intelligence that the post-war security situation would be relatively calm. This would provide enough time to build a new army free of members from Saddam's former Ba'th Party. Bremer would later continue to defend his highly criticized decision stating that it was necessary to convince the Kurdish population of Iraq not to secede
The whole regime was de-Baathified.
(Don't like wiki? Find some other info.)
Correct, you didn't get cheap petrol , but the oil companies made tons of moolah - that was the intention.NickB64 wrote:
Oil did not get cheaper here in the US, rather, more expensive, so I don't ever understand the concept of saying that we invaded to get cheap oil, hell, we were paying $4 dollars a gallon just this summer, but now prices have dropped with the economic recession.
Price of extraction remains the same, market price triples -> Joe Schmuck pays into Republican coffers.
Yes, everything which goes wrong is the Democrats fault.
Maybe it is the Democraps fault.
Maybe its Duhbya's fault, performing so badly he had congress pulled out from under him, letting the Democraps in.
Maybe its Duhbya's fault, failing to work with the Demcraps in the interest of the nation.
Maybe everyone should stop blaming each other and find some solutions.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2008-12-17 04:03:51)
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Yes, it was, but that was not the original plan of CENTCOM, that is what Bremer did. CENTCOM wanted to use the Iraqi Military to help pacify Iraq, but they disappeared as soon as the invasion had clearly succeeded.Dilbert_X wrote:
Not sure where you got your info from, the army was intentionally disbanded, their pay was stopped.NickB64 wrote:
The plan of the US CENTCOM (Central Command) was to bring over the Iraqi Army but under new leadership, but the Iraqi Army disappeared into the civilian population, the US was going to pay them and it may have led to an initially more stable situation. This would have reduced hostility, but the fading of the Iraqi Military into the shadows was somewhat unforseen.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_Army2003 U.S. Administrator of Iraq Paul Bremer dissolves all of Saddam Hussein's armed forces except the Iraqi Police under the impression from pre-war intelligence that the post-war security situation would be relatively calm. This would provide enough time to build a new army free of members from Saddam's former Ba'th Party. Bremer would later continue to defend his highly criticized decision stating that it was necessary to convince the Kurdish population of Iraq not to secede
The whole regime was de-Baathified.
(Don't like wiki? Find some other info.)
Correct, you didn't get cheap petrol , but the oil companies made tons of moolah - that was the intention.NickB64 wrote:
Oil did not get cheaper here in the US, rather, more expensive, so I don't ever understand the concept of saying that we invaded to get cheap oil, hell, we were paying $4 dollars a gallon just this summer, but now prices have dropped with the economic recession.
Price of extraction remains the same, market price triples -> Joe Schmuck pays into Republican coffers.
Yes, everything which goes wrong is the Democrats fault.
Maybe it is the Democraps fault.
Maybe its Duhbya's fault, performing so badly he had congress pulled out from under him, letting the Democraps in.
Maybe its Duhbya's fault, failing to work with the Demcraps in the interest of the nation.
Maybe everyone should stop blaming each other and find some solutions.
Last edited by nickb64 (2009-03-31 22:04:22)
Pages: 1 2
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- Did George Bush change American Foreign policy post 9/11?...