It's Dying Time In Baghdad.

Pages: 1 2

Index »
Community »
Debate and Serious Talk »
It's Dying Time In Baghdad.

2007-02-07 16:30:18

ATG: Banned; +5,233|6955|Global Command

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070207/D8N5621O2.html

reasonably non-biased news source wrote:
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - Baghdad's streets were electric with tension Wednesday as U.S. officials confirmed the new security operation was under way. U.S. armor rushed through streets, and Iraqi armored personnel carriers guarded bridges and major intersections.

New coils of barbed-wire and blast barriers marked checkpoints that caused traffic bottlenecks. U.S. Apache helicopters whipped the air over parts of the capital where they hadn't been seen before.

In parts of the city only a few shops were open, a reminder of the fear people have of more car and suicide bombings, which have hit Baghdad with regularity in recent weeks.

Lines outside gas stations stretched for more than a mile, as the city is experiencing its worst fuel crisis in months. Supplies are very low because refining capacity is down, a problem compounded by hoarding.
"Our streets are deserted and our blood is fair game," declared one that showed an empty street strewn with debris from a bombing.

Another billboard showed a young man weeping because he had not reported suspicious activity to authorities. "I should have done the right thing," he says. Still another billboard message implored: "Be a hero and report suspicious behavior." A giant billboard near the site of a series of attacks - including the one that wounded al-Moussawi - displays the pictures of more than 40 victims, many of them children. A woman clad in black is shown weeping, her face buried in her hands.

And so we unleash the dogs of war.

In this last great gamble of lives and treasure in Baghdad let us try to put away politics and do the humanitarian thing.

My question to esteemed members of the forum opposition is; what is the most humanitarian thing to now from this point forward?

Everyone agrees that if the U.S. retreats the the M.E. there will be blood bath. What do you suggest the world should do?

I shall soon present my plan and world map redefined as I see it should be.

Meanwhile...

2007-02-07 16:37:12

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6831|North Carolina

I'll put it this way. I'm not a humanitarian. I'm a cynical realist.

Iraq is beyond hope. Fuck them.

Fighting Iran conventionally is a really dumb idea, but supporting an insurgency within Iran is a viable tactic in keeping them busy. Then again, if you think about it, when we pull out of Iraq, Iran will likely try to conquer Iraq for its own gain. When they do that, they will experience the same monetary and military drains we have. This is actually a great way to slow their progress in developing nukes. Let them have Iraq to deal with.

In the meantime, we can keep several thousand of our troops in Saudi Arabia as the Saudis aid the Sunni insurgents in Iraq.

Most of our forces could be aimed at the Afghanistan conflict and preparations for dealing with Pakistan. Hopefully, this fight won't extend into Pakistan, but we're going to have to arrange something with Musharraf concerning the extremists in his country.

In short, forget about Iraq. It's a lost cause.

2007-02-07 16:41:59

King_County_Downy: shitfaced; +2,791|7023|Seattle

We need to kill every male in Iraq. But make it look like the Chinese did it

Sober enough to know what I'm doing, drunk enough to really enjoy doing it

2007-02-07 16:45:15

ATG: Banned; +5,233|6955|Global Command

Turquoise wrote:
I'll put it this way. I'm not a humanitarian. I'm a cynical realist.

Iraq is beyond hope. Fuck them.

Fighting Iran conventionally is a really dumb idea, but supporting an insurgency within Iran is a viable tactic in keeping them busy. Then again, if you think about it, when we pull out of Iraq, Iran will likely try to conquer Iraq for its own gain. When they do that, they will experience the same monetary and military drains we have. This is actually a great way to slow their progress in developing nukes. Let them have Iraq to deal with.

In the meantime, we can keep several thousand of our troops in Saudi Arabia as the Saudis aid the Sunni insurgents in Iraq.

Most of our forces could be aimed at the Afghanistan conflict and preparations for dealing with Pakistan. Hopefully, this fight won't extend into Pakistan, but we're going to have to arrange something with Musharraf concerning the extremists in his country.

In short, forget about Iraq. It's a lost cause.

You made some really excellent points.
Polish you up and make a bracelet I will.

2007-02-07 16:45:44

Fancy_Pollux: Connoisseur of Fine Wine; +1,306|7072

Turquoise wrote:
Iraq is beyond hope. Fuck them.

2007-02-07 16:50:24

ATG: Banned; +5,233|6955|Global Command

Fancy_Pollux wrote:
Turquoise wrote:
Iraq is beyond hope. Fuck them.

I'm asking for suggestions, beings as the liberal faction is glaringly silent, may you enlighten us, oh Fancy?

2007-02-07 17:07:26

Fancy_Pollux: Connoisseur of Fine Wine; +1,306|7072

At this point it really doesn't matter what we do. Whether or not we quell the insurgency, Iraq will become the same radical Middle Eastern shithole it has always been. We are doing too much for a country that will inevitably regress back to what it once was. This is the Middle East we're talking about here. They don't want peace, and they don't deserve it. If they want to live in the year 1000 for another 1000 years, let them. What we should do is quarantine the region--create a "zoo", so to speak. They can stay in their designated area and kill each other all they want, but they won't affect the outside world. As history has shown us, they have a tendency to bring their shenanigans all around the globe.

2007-02-07 17:13:30

JihaadJack: Member; +12|6716|Southampton, Hampshire

ATG wrote:
In parts of the city only a few shops were open, a reminder of the fear people have of more car and suicide bombings, which have hit Baghdad with regularity in recent weeks.

fear of their families getting pasted by americans more like

2007-02-07 17:20:57

ATG: Banned; +5,233|6955|Global Command

JihaadJack wrote:
ATG wrote:
In parts of the city only a few shops were open, a reminder of the fear people have of more car and suicide bombings, which have hit Baghdad with regularity in recent weeks.
fear of their families getting pasted by americans more like

M8thod?

or however you spell your name.

Dude, if you want back in, pm chuy, your just gonna get banned again.

Silly fake nOOb.

2007-02-07 17:23:38

King_County_Downy: shitfaced; +2,791|7023|Seattle

We need to stop buying oil from them. If they have no money, they'll have less weapons. Until we can make them poor again, this shit will continue to fester like it has since the 70's.

Sober enough to know what I'm doing, drunk enough to really enjoy doing it

2007-02-07 17:37:59

lowing: Banned; +1,662|7077|USA

ATG,Turquoise, Fancy. You warm the void where my small, cold, withering, neocon heart used to reside. I think I am going to cry as I re-read your words of realism over and over......."Iraq is beyond hope..fuck them"......it rings in my ears like poetry....I love you guys.........

2007-02-07 17:40:27

KEN-JENNINGS: I am all that is MOD!; +2,991|7058|949

Let them fight it out. Remove our troops. If they (the Iraqi government) want military/financial aid, make the government jump through the same hoops as any other nation (Pakistan, Israel, etc).

Fuck Afghanistan too. That was a steaming pile of shit we jumped into right there.

Start taking steps to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil. As I have said before, energy companies can make a killing off any sort of energy, because it is in demand. It seems like the people running these companies think so ass-backward that they are afraid of trying any type of innovative idea, instead going to any means necessary to control the oil market.

This is easier said than done. So many entities have their hands in the war effort in Iraq that it would be next to impossible to simply pull our troops out. Halliburton, Dyncorp, Carlyle Group, Chevron, all these companies flourish in war time. Seeing as politicians in office and ex-politicians have a vested monetary interest in the military-industrial complex, the reality is that nothing of the sort is going to happen any time soon.

Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2007-02-07 17:56:02)

2007-02-07 17:44:11

BN: smells like wee wee; +159|7194

ATG wrote:
http://i8.tinypic.com/3zlj044.jpgMy question to esteemed members of the forum opposition is; what is the most humanitarian thing to now from this point forward?

This surge will not do anything but you cant cut and run either. The coalition statred this, they must see it through. It wont be GWB or his family who is paying for this. it will be the lives and taxpayers of the coalition.

You have to weigh up...when are you doing more harm than good?

2007-02-07 17:45:01

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6831|North Carolina

Fancy_Pollux wrote:
At this point it really doesn't matter what we do. Whether or not we quell the insurgency, Iraq will become the same radical Middle Eastern shithole it has always been. We are doing too much for a country that will inevitably regress back to what it once was. This is the Middle East we're talking about here. They don't want peace, and they don't deserve it. If they want to live in the year 1000 for another 1000 years, let them. What we should do is quarantine the region--create a "zoo", so to speak. They can stay in their designated area and kill each other all they want, but they won't affect the outside world. As history has shown us, they have a tendency to bring their shenanigans all around the globe.

For the most part, I agree.

2007-02-07 17:48:42

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6831|North Carolina

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Let them fight it out. Remove our troops. If they (the Iraqi government) want military/financial aid, make the government jump through the same hoops as any other nation (Pakistan, Israel, etc).

Fuck Afghanistan too. That was a steaming pile of shit we jumped into right there.

Start taking steps to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil. As I have said before, energy companies can make a killing off any sort of energy, because it is in demand. It seems like the people running these companies think so ass-backward that they are afraid of trying any type of innovative idea, instead going to any means necessary to control the oil market.

This is easier said than done. So many entities have their hands in the war effort in Iraq that it would be next to impossible to simply pull our troops out. Halliburton, Dyncorp, Carlyle Group, Chevron, all these companies flourish in war time. Seeing as politicians in office and ex-politicians have a vested monetary interest in the military-industrial complex, the reality is that nothing of the sort is going to happen any time soon.

Good points, although I believe we can simultaneously fix Afghanistan while moving away from oil. However, the corporations you mentioned are really the core of this military adventurism problem.

2007-02-07 17:54:19

KEN-JENNINGS: I am all that is MOD!; +2,991|7058|949

Turquoise wrote:
Good points, although I believe we can simultaneously fix Afghanistan while moving away from oil. However, the corporations you mentioned are really the core of this military adventurism problem.

Yeah, it is pretty shitty that we even jumped into Afghanistan. We don't even have control of the country, and we have been there for like 6 years. Plus, they have no army to fight. So what the hell is taking so long? The structure of the country is largely tribal, much like Iraq. They are not used to democracy. So why should we impose it on them?

The US should not be the world humanitarian foundation or the world peacekeepers.

Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2007-02-07 17:54:50)

2007-02-07 17:56:38

TrollmeaT: Aspiring Objectivist; +492|7099|Colorado

What can we do but trust in the leaders we elected to office to get the job done, what was the job again?, what were the names of our leaders again?
Oh the hell with it whats on TV?!

2007-02-07 17:57:59

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6831|North Carolina

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Turquoise wrote:
Good points, although I believe we can simultaneously fix Afghanistan while moving away from oil. However, the corporations you mentioned are really the core of this military adventurism problem.
Yeah, it is pretty shitty that we even jumped into Afghanistan. We don't even have control of the country, and we have been there for like 6 years. Plus, they have no army to fight. So what the hell is taking so long? The structure of the country is largely tribal, much like Iraq. They are not used to democracy. So why should we impose it on them?

The US should not be the world humanitarian foundation or the world peacekeepers.

Again, I agree, but I think the argument of finishing the job makes more sense in Afghanistan. It just doesn't make sense in Iraq.

We had the world's approval when entering Afghanistan, and we did with plenty of allies. There is still hope for Afghanistan.

Buy yes, democracy there is a pipe dream.

2007-02-07 17:58:11

ATG: Banned; +5,233|6955|Global Command

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Turquoise wrote:
Good points, although I believe we can simultaneously fix Afghanistan while moving away from oil. However, the corporations you mentioned are really the core of this military adventurism problem.
Yeah, it is pretty shitty that we even jumped into Afghanistan. We don't even have control of the country, and we have been there for like 6 years. Plus, they have no army to fight. So what the hell is taking so long? The structure of the country is largely tribal, much like Iraq. They are not used to democracy. So why should we impose it on them?

The US should not be the world humanitarian foundation or the world peacekeepers.

What were we going to do, let the Taliban contiue blowing up buildings and statues?

And as to your karma question, I work in the O.C. and read the weekly.

Last edited by ATG (2007-02-07 17:58:30)

2007-02-07 17:58:13

lowing: Banned; +1,662|7077|USA

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Turquoise wrote:
Good points, although I believe we can simultaneously fix Afghanistan while moving away from oil. However, the corporations you mentioned are really the core of this military adventurism problem.
Yeah, it is pretty shitty that we even jumped into Afghanistan. We don't even have control of the country, and we have been there for like 6 years. Plus, they have no army to fight. So what the hell is taking so long? The structure of the country is largely tribal, much like Iraq. They are not used to democracy. So why should we impose it on them?

The US should not be the world humanitarian foundation or the world peacekeepers.

I am not interested in imposing democracy on Afghanistan, and I no longer give a shit what happens to the animals in Iraq. Terrorism must not be allowed to take hold anywhere, however. Like has been posted before, fuck them, we should not facilitate what they fully intend on doing to each other. Just sit back and kick them in bounds whenever they stray a little too far outside the borders with their bullshit.

2007-02-07 18:01:58

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6831|North Carolina

lowing wrote:
KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Turquoise wrote:
Good points, although I believe we can simultaneously fix Afghanistan while moving away from oil. However, the corporations you mentioned are really the core of this military adventurism problem.
Yeah, it is pretty shitty that we even jumped into Afghanistan. We don't even have control of the country, and we have been there for like 6 years. Plus, they have no army to fight. So what the hell is taking so long? The structure of the country is largely tribal, much like Iraq. They are not used to democracy. So why should we impose it on them?

The US should not be the world humanitarian foundation or the world peacekeepers.
I am not interested in imposing democracy on Afghanistan, and I no longer give a shit what happens to the animals in Iraq. Terrorism must not be allowed to take hold anywhere, however. Like has been posted before, fuck them, we should not facilitate what they fully intend on doing to each other. Just sit back and kick them in bounds whenever they stray a little too far outside the borders with their bullshit.

Pretty much... We should focus our efforts on securing the Saudi and Kuwaiti borders, so that this doesn't spill into our allies.

2007-02-07 18:04:49

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|7027|132 and Bush

This must be the non existent new plan we have been hearing of.

^{An Iraqi army soldier looks away as his colleague searches a motorist at a vehicle checkpoint
in central Baghdad, Iraq, Wednesday, Feb. 7, 2007. At least five people were killed in morning
attacks in the Baghdad area as frustration is mounting over delays in the implementation of a
U.S.-Iraqi security operation to quell the sectarian violence that has left the Iraqi capital a battlefield.}

^{A soldier from Delta Company, 4th Battalion, 31st Infantry
Regiment stands guard outside a house search near Youssifiyah,
12 miles (20 kilometers) south of Baghdad, Iraq Wednesday,
Feb. 7, 2007.}

Last edited by Kmarion (2007-02-07 18:05:35)

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2007-02-07 18:06:31

KEN-JENNINGS: I am all that is MOD!; +2,991|7058|949

Turquoise wrote:
Again, I agree, but I think the argument of finishing the job makes more sense in Afghanistan. It just doesn't make sense in Iraq.

We had the world's approval when entering Afghanistan, and we did with plenty of allies. There is still hope for Afghanistan.

Buy yes, democracy there is a pipe dream.

Afghanistan does have more of a chance, mostly because there is much less faction on faction violence there. We CAN really help put in place an industrial/societal/political infastructure there without too much resistance. I just don't like the fact that we spend billions and billions of dollars somewhere, when that money could be put to much better use here.

2007-02-07 18:10:32

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|7027|132 and Bush

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Turquoise wrote:
Again, I agree, but I think the argument of finishing the job makes more sense in Afghanistan. It just doesn't make sense in Iraq.

We had the world's approval when entering Afghanistan, and we did with plenty of allies. There is still hope for Afghanistan.

Buy yes, democracy there is a pipe dream.
Afghanistan does have more of a chance, mostly because there is much less faction on faction violence there. We CAN really help put in place an industrial/societal/political infastructure there without too much resistance. I just don't like the fact that we spend billions and billions of dollars somewhere, when that money could be put to much better use here.

You do understand that is the problem also. Our money is wasted there.

"The Iraqi people need to earn it to respect it. Positive changes will only be successful if they come from the Iraqi people. The resentment level from the west is high enough. They need to build their house, that way they will respect it."

^^Tired of typing out the same reply in different threads..

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2007-02-07 18:12:43

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6831|North Carolina

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Turquoise wrote:
Again, I agree, but I think the argument of finishing the job makes more sense in Afghanistan. It just doesn't make sense in Iraq.

We had the world's approval when entering Afghanistan, and we did with plenty of allies. There is still hope for Afghanistan.

Buy yes, democracy there is a pipe dream.
Afghanistan does have more of a chance, mostly because there is much less faction on faction violence there. We CAN really help put in place an industrial/societal/political infastructure there without too much resistance. I just don't like the fact that we spend billions and billions of dollars somewhere, when that money could be put to much better use here.

Totally... It's just that we have more of an obligation to help Afghanistan, since it's more than just our money and lives at stake -- we have a lot of allies that have put a lot of stock into Afghanistan. Pulling out of that country would just be irresponsible at this point.

I know people make similar arguments about Iraq, but the difference is, as you said, the lack of potential in Iraq. We're not really losing much by leaving Iraq compared to staying there. Afghanistan seems very different altogether.

Also, Pakistan is truly a national security threat, because the remnants of the Taliban have some truly dangerous extremists among them. These are really the kind of terrorists that the neocons talk about. We seem to think the ones who would fly over here to attack are in Iraq right now, but in truth, it's really the guys we've been chasing in between Pakistan and Afghanistan that have the potential to attack us again on our own soil if we leave now.

Pages: 1 2

Index »
Community »
Debate and Serious Talk »
It's Dying Time In Baghdad.

Board footer

Jump to

BF2S Forums It's Dying Time In Baghdad.

reasonably non-biased news source wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

ATG wrote:

JihaadJack wrote:

ATG wrote:

ATG wrote:

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Board footer