Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6593|132 and Bush

.                                     .https://i19.tinypic.com/499vpya.jpg
                                                                             I call BS


The more I learn about the details in recent attacks the more I feel that there is a alliance between the leaders of Iraq and the ones causing all the trouble. I'm talking about the top of the Iraqi government, not just the Sunni bodyguards. This last attack in the "Green Zone" has confirmed it for me. It was just last week I read about Iraqi government officials complaining about unnecesary searches. I am bothered by the security at airports yet I understand it. If I were in Iraq I would be even more willing to undergo the scrutiny. The signs are obvious to me, it is much more widespread than any of us could imagine.

While American troops control the entrances to the Green Zone, Iraqis control the entrance to the parliament building itself.


A little note about our most recent bomber.
Security officials told The Associated Press then that the bodyguard was a distant relative who had been arrested as an insurgent, freed at al-Zubaie's request, then hired as a bodyguard. At the time, the assassination attempt was at least the third major security breach involving a top politician in four months.

https://i13.tinypic.com/2h81mjd.jpg


We continue to support this government who is getting it's orders from Al-Sadr. I understand the need for Iraqis to look towards the future and who will be there when we leave, but what I can't comprehend is how we can support this alignment. You would have to be completely blind to not see this conflict of interest. I don't know how to say it any other way. It is the clearest it has ever been. What are we fighting for? A stable government that sides with terrorist? Isn't that the very fucking thing we took out? (Or at least claimed)

You can not support a government who is in bed with the people who are trying to destroy you.

It's not about letting the military do their job. It is politics and it is unfair to them.
https://i13.tinypic.com/330xlap.jpg

Last edited by Kmarion (2007-04-13 08:59:50)

Xbone Stormsurgezz
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6521|Global Command
Way to call a spade a spade.



I see it as we have two logical choices;

Begin mass executions of any suspected trouble-makers or gtfo.
It's a complete mess.


Then you have people supporting obviously bad, perhaps even evil deeds that Americans sometimes do;



http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=69838

Further destroying whatever chance we had to make it a better place.
san4
The Mas
+311|6681|NYC, a place to live

Kmarion wrote:

We continue to support this government who is getting it's orders from Al-Sadr. I understand the need for Iraqis to look towards the future and who will be there when we leave, but what I can't comprehend is how we can support this alignment. You would have to be completely blind to not see this conflict of interest. I don't know how to say it any other way. It is the clearest it has ever been.

You can not support a government who is in bed with the very people who are trying to destroy you.

It's not about letting the military do their job. It is politics and it is unfair to them.
I agree 100%.  The moment the U.S. leaves Iraq, Iraq will be our enemy.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6397|North Carolina

Kmarion wrote:

http://i19.tinypic.com/499vpya.jpg
I call BS


The more I learn about the details in recent attacks the more I feel that there is a alliance between the leaders of Iraq and the ones causing all the trouble. I'm talking about the top of the Iraqi government, not just the Sunni bodyguards. This last attack in the "Green Zone" has confirmed it for me. It was just last week I read about Iraqi government officials complaining about unnecesary searches. I am bothered by the security at airports yet I understand it. If I were in Iraq I would be even more willing to undergo the scrutiny. The signs are obvious to me, it is much more widespread than any of us could imagine.

While American troops control the entrances to the Green Zone, Iraqis control the entrance to the parliament building itself.


A little note about our most recent bomber.
Security officials told The Associated Press then that the bodyguard was a distant relative who had been arrested as an insurgent, freed at al-Zubaie's request, then hired as a bodyguard. At the time, the assassination attempt was at least the third major security breach involving a top politician in four months.

http://i13.tinypic.com/2h81mjd.jpg


We continue to support this government who is getting it's orders from Al-Sadr. I understand the need for Iraqis to look towards the future and who will be there when we leave, but what I can't comprehend is how we can support this alignment. You would have to be completely blind to not see this conflict of interest. I don't know how to say it any other way. It is the clearest it has ever been.

You can not support a government who is in bed with the very people who are trying to destroy you.

It's not about letting the military do their job. It is politics and it is unfair to them.
http://i13.tinypic.com/330xlap.jpg
Why not just leave then?
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6521|Global Command

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

http://i19.tinypic.com/499vpya.jpg
I call BS


The more I learn about the details in recent attacks the more I feel that there is a alliance between the leaders of Iraq and the ones causing all the trouble. I'm talking about the top of the Iraqi government, not just the Sunni bodyguards. This last attack in the "Green Zone" has confirmed it for me. It was just last week I read about Iraqi government officials complaining about unnecesary searches. I am bothered by the security at airports yet I understand it. If I were in Iraq I would be even more willing to undergo the scrutiny. The signs are obvious to me, it is much more widespread than any of us could imagine.

While American troops control the entrances to the Green Zone, Iraqis control the entrance to the parliament building itself.


A little note about our most recent bomber.
Security officials told The Associated Press then that the bodyguard was a distant relative who had been arrested as an insurgent, freed at al-Zubaie's request, then hired as a bodyguard. At the time, the assassination attempt was at least the third major security breach involving a top politician in four months.

http://i13.tinypic.com/2h81mjd.jpg


We continue to support this government who is getting it's orders from Al-Sadr. I understand the need for Iraqis to look towards the future and who will be there when we leave, but what I can't comprehend is how we can support this alignment. You would have to be completely blind to not see this conflict of interest. I don't know how to say it any other way. It is the clearest it has ever been.

You can not support a government who is in bed with the very people who are trying to destroy you.

It's not about letting the military do their job. It is politics and it is unfair to them.
http://i13.tinypic.com/330xlap.jpg
Why not just leave then?
Maybe it's time we did.


Unless your preparred to  see what I suggested above we can't stop the madness.
We don't have a stomach for the brutality required.
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6593|132 and Bush

Obviously that is what I was hinting at.

What are we fighting for? A stable government that sides with terrorist? Isn't that the very fucking thing we took out?

Last edited by Kmarion (2007-04-12 21:00:25)

Xbone Stormsurgezz
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6397|North Carolina

ATG wrote:

Unless your preparred to  see what I suggested above we can't stop the madness.
We don't have a stomach for the brutality required.
I have a stomach for it, but I don't think we have the budget for it.
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6593|132 and Bush

Turquoise wrote:

ATG wrote:

Unless your preparred to  see what I suggested above we can't stop the madness.
We don't have a stomach for the brutality required.
I have a stomach for it, but I don't think we have the budget for it.
It's not about having the stomach or funds. As I said before it is a conflict of interest (See my previous post above yours).
Xbone Stormsurgezz
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6521|Global Command

Turquoise wrote:

ATG wrote:

Unless your preparred to  see what I suggested above we can't stop the madness.
We don't have a stomach for the brutality required.
I have a stomach for it, but I don't think we have the budget for it.
I tried to find the link to a story about South Koreans executing " insurgents" 500 at a time. American officers were there as witnesses. They made them join hands and lay on their bellies and shot them in the head, one by one.


Budget hell, bullets are cheap. We don't have the stomach to murder the tens of thousands we would have to to " pacify " the country.

We'd be better off just announcing that we are going to take enough oil to pay for the service of disposing of Saddam, declare victory and bail.

Next time, we take out a regime, that's all we do; the rest is up to the people.
Fen321
Member
+54|6490|Singularity
Or we can learn from this and there won't be a next time
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6397|North Carolina

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

ATG wrote:

Unless your preparred to  see what I suggested above we can't stop the madness.
We don't have a stomach for the brutality required.
I have a stomach for it, but I don't think we have the budget for it.
It's not about having the stomach or funds. As I said before it is a conflict of interest (See my previous post above yours).
Well, it's not against our interests to execute the troublemakers, but then again, we'd be basically killing a lot of the government (and the public) off.

At this point, maybe it's just better to blow the shit out of a country and immediately leave.  Then, if they look like they're causing problems again, you just rinse and repeat.  Just continually keep problem countries weak and battletorn.  It's evil, but it does work.

Last edited by Turquoise (2007-04-12 20:59:43)

Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6593|132 and Bush

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I have a stomach for it, but I don't think we have the budget for it.
It's not about having the stomach or funds. As I said before it is a conflict of interest (See my previous post above yours).
Well, it's not against our interests to execute the troublemakers, but then again, we'd be basically killing a lot of the government (and the public) off.

At this point, maybe it's just better to blow the shit out of a country and immediately leave.  Then, if they look like they're causing problems again, you just rinse and repeat.  Just continually keep problem countries weak and battletorn.  It's evil, but it does work.
Won't happen in todays world of high definition 24 hour news coverage.

Last edited by Kmarion (2007-04-12 21:01:56)

Xbone Stormsurgezz
Fen321
Member
+54|6490|Singularity

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:


I have a stomach for it, but I don't think we have the budget for it.
It's not about having the stomach or funds. As I said before it is a conflict of interest (See my previous post above yours).
Well, it's not against our interests to execute the troublemakers, but then again, we'd be basically killing a lot of the government (and the public) off.

At this point, maybe it's just better to blow the shit out of a country and immediately leave.  Then, if they look like they're causing problems again, you just rinse and repeat.  Just continually keep problem countries weak and battletorn.  It's evil, but it does work.
Holy Jesus ...  I must be seeing things. Did you just advocate the repeat of another Iraq before the first mess is even done!?

*gulp*

Evil -- the reason we went there an the reason why we get to go back over and over?
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6397|North Carolina

Fen321 wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:


It's not about having the stomach or funds. As I said before it is a conflict of interest (See my previous post above yours).
Well, it's not against our interests to execute the troublemakers, but then again, we'd be basically killing a lot of the government (and the public) off.

At this point, maybe it's just better to blow the shit out of a country and immediately leave.  Then, if they look like they're causing problems again, you just rinse and repeat.  Just continually keep problem countries weak and battletorn.  It's evil, but it does work.
Holy Jesus ...  I must be seeing things. Did you just advocate the repeat of another Iraq before the first mess is even done!?

*gulp*

Evil -- the reason we went there an the reason why we get to go back over and over?
Oh, I never believed Iraq was about morals.  This is why I don't really believe in the War on Terror either.
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6593|132 and Bush

Fen321 wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:


It's not about having the stomach or funds. As I said before it is a conflict of interest (See my previous post above yours).
Well, it's not against our interests to execute the troublemakers, but then again, we'd be basically killing a lot of the government (and the public) off.

At this point, maybe it's just better to blow the shit out of a country and immediately leave.  Then, if they look like they're causing problems again, you just rinse and repeat.  Just continually keep problem countries weak and battletorn.  It's evil, but it does work.
Holy Jesus ...  I must be seeing things. Did you just advocate the repeat of another Iraq before the first mess is even done!?

*gulp*

Evil -- the reason we went there an the reason why we get to go back over and over?
You forgot to mention Afghanistan too..

Last edited by Kmarion (2007-04-12 21:11:03)

Xbone Stormsurgezz
EVieira
Member
+105|6470|Lutenblaag, Molvania

ATG wrote:

Budget hell, bullets are cheap. We don't have the stomach to murder the tens of thousands we would have to to " pacify " the country.
If  the US was going to do that, might as well have left Saddam. And he would have done a nice job too, gas would probably been cheaper that bullets.

Its time to go. Even the puppet (Maliki) has turned on the pupeteer. But now its stricly political game. Bush isn't going to back down before the next election.
"All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered;  the point is to discover them."
Galileo Galilei  (1564-1642)
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6397|North Carolina

EVieira wrote:

ATG wrote:

Budget hell, bullets are cheap. We don't have the stomach to murder the tens of thousands we would have to to " pacify " the country.
If  the US was going to do that, might as well have left Saddam. And he would have done a nice job too, gas would probably been cheaper that bullets.
Agreed.  Saddam should've stayed in power.  Fuck the Iraqis.  I could give a shit less what happens to them.

America should follow its own interests, and withdrawal is exactly that.
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6521|Global Command

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:


It's not about having the stomach or funds. As I said before it is a conflict of interest (See my previous post above yours).
Well, it's not against our interests to execute the troublemakers, but then again, we'd be basically killing a lot of the government (and the public) off.

At this point, maybe it's just better to blow the shit out of a country and immediately leave.  Then, if they look like they're causing problems again, you just rinse and repeat.  Just continually keep problem countries weak and battletorn.  It's evil, but it does work.
Won't happen in todays world of high definition 24 hour news coverage.
It's basically what we are doing;


forget WMD and Saddam, we went to Iraq to kick some Muslim ass for Merica!

I originally advocated that we needed to do just that. They came here to The United States of America and slaughtered my people, I would have cheered our marines if they had mounted heads on pikes along the road  all  the way to Mecca. We were sold not that orgasmic conquest of democracy at gunpoint but stopping terrorism in the long run by freeing those sorry assed people.

We expected that they wanted freedom, and maybe they do, just not our flavor. Fine, lets get the fuck out but if we agree to do so it's on the condition that we have an understanding;

Next time we will hold the host country directly responsible for the actions of her sons. That means like, we level Mecca the next time there is a 9-11, dig? 

Those stupid, backwards animalistic people can have the life they want as far as I'm concerned; I'll even buy their  gas, but never attack America again. Or else.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6397|North Carolina

ATG wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:


Well, it's not against our interests to execute the troublemakers, but then again, we'd be basically killing a lot of the government (and the public) off.

At this point, maybe it's just better to blow the shit out of a country and immediately leave.  Then, if they look like they're causing problems again, you just rinse and repeat.  Just continually keep problem countries weak and battletorn.  It's evil, but it does work.
Won't happen in todays world of high definition 24 hour news coverage.
It's basically what we are doing;


forget WMD and Saddam, we went to Iraq to kick some Muslim ass for Merica!

I originally advocated that we needed to do just that. They came here to The United States of America and slaughtered my people, I would have cheered our marines if they had mounted heads on pikes along the road  all  the way to Mecca. We were sold not that orgasmic conquest of democracy at gunpoint but stopping terrorism in the long run by freeing those sorry assed people.

We expected that they wanted freedom, and maybe they do, just not our flavor. Fine, lets get the fuck out but if we agree to do so it's on the condition that we have an understanding;

Next time we will hold the host country directly responsible for the actions of her sons. That means like, we level Mecca the next time there is a 9-11, dig? 

Those stupid, backwards animalistic people can have the life they want as far as I'm concerned; I'll even buy their  gas, but never attack America again. Or else.
Well, Afghanistan is the country you're referring to really...  I mean, they were more to blame than anyone else.  You can't just attack all of the Muslims.
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6521|Global Command
Bullshit.

* edit

They came here to The United States of America and slaughtered my people, I would have cheered our marines if they had mounted heads on pikes along the road  all  the way to Mecca.

Last edited by ATG (2007-04-12 21:21:39)

Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6397|North Carolina

ATG wrote:

Bullshit.

* edit

They came here to The United States of America and slaughtered my people, I would have cheered our marines if they had mounted heads on pikes along the road  all  the way to Mecca.
Um...  that might work.  I just wanted to clarify that, because if you bomb Mecca, you've effectively declared war on all of the Islamic World.
san4
The Mas
+311|6681|NYC, a place to live

Turquoise wrote:

EVieira wrote:

ATG wrote:

Budget hell, bullets are cheap. We don't have the stomach to murder the tens of thousands we would have to to " pacify " the country.
If  the US was going to do that, might as well have left Saddam. And he would have done a nice job too, gas would probably been cheaper that bullets.
Agreed.  Saddam should've stayed in power.  Fuck the Iraqis.  I could give a shit less what happens to them.

America should follow its own interests, and withdrawal is exactly that.
The bizarre thing is that when the new Iraqi government aligns itself with Iran the U.S. is going to want to support a Sunni insurgency in Iraq.
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6521|Global Command

Turquoise wrote:

ATG wrote:

Bullshit.

* edit

They came here to The United States of America and slaughtered my people, I would have cheered our marines if they had mounted heads on pikes along the road  all  the way to Mecca.
Um...  that might work.  I just wanted to clarify that, because if you bomb Mecca, you've effectively declared war on all of the Islamic World.
Osama speaks for them, doesn't he? He declared war on us.

https://www.alertnet.org/thefacts/imagerepository/pa/1053596476/images/thumbs/thumb10.jpg

Last edited by ATG (2007-04-12 21:28:49)

Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6397|North Carolina

san4 wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

EVieira wrote:


If  the US was going to do that, might as well have left Saddam. And he would have done a nice job too, gas would probably been cheaper that bullets.
Agreed.  Saddam should've stayed in power.  Fuck the Iraqis.  I could give a shit less what happens to them.

America should follow its own interests, and withdrawal is exactly that.
The bizarre thing is that when the new Iraqi government aligns itself with Iran the U.S. is going to want to support a Sunni insurgency in Iraq.
Pretty much....  and in doing so, we will prove again that we're not really against terror unless it is against us.

It's only a War on Terror when it's convenient to our interests.
Fen321
Member
+54|6490|Singularity

ATG wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

ATG wrote:

Bullshit.

* edit


Um...  that might work.  I just wanted to clarify that, because if you bomb Mecca, you've effectively declared war on all of the Islamic World.
Osama speaks for them, doesn't he? He declared war on us.
Osama doesn't speak for all Muslims....I thought the South Park episode with the NAGGER problem solved this issue.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard