Red Dawn

[billvon 3,092]

>Are you saying that because we invaded, they got pissed off and
>started killing each other?

Nope. Because we invaded:

1) They have a target (US troops) to focus on (although US troops are much harder to kill than other Iraqis)

2) The government that had them under control is gone.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

>Are you saying that because we invaded, they got pissed off and
>started killing each other?

Nope. Because we invaded:

1) They have a target (US troops) to focus on (although US troops are much harder to kill than other Iraqis)

2) The government that had them under control is gone.

But..but..most of the killing is Iraqi on Iraqi. So if the cause of the violence is because we invaded, as you claim, then they must be killing themselves because they are mad at the U.S.

and/or

You believe the Iraqis (Muslims)are a violent people who can only live in peace it they are ruled by a brutal dictator who kills 10 to 20 thousand of them occasionally just to keep them in line and let them know who the "BOSS" is.

But perhaps we should test your theory and just withdraw all U.S. Troops as an experiment and see if the violence stops.

[billvon 3,092]

>So if the cause of the violence is because we invaded, as you claim,
>then they must be killing themselves because they are mad at the U.S.

That's part of the reason for the VIOLENCE. However, if an Iraqi takes an AK-47 and opens fire on US troops, he dies. If he opens fire on his unarmed neighbor, the neigbor dies. That's why most of the killing is between Iraqi and Iraqi. Not the attempts at violence, the killing.

>You believe the Iraqis (Muslims)are a violent people who can only live in
>peace it they are ruled by a brutal dictator who kills 10 to 20 thousand of
>them occasionally just to keep them in line and let them know who the
>"BOSS" is.

Uh, that's the standard US line, is it not? If we just kill enough Iraqis, there will be peace. How's that working?

>But perhaps we should test your theory and just withdraw all U.S. Troops as
>an experiment and see if the violence stops.

Fine with me. I suspect they will rapidly solve their own problem one way or another.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

>So if the cause of the violence is because we invaded, as you claim,
>then they must be killing themselves because they are mad at the U.S.

Quote

That's part of the reason for the VIOLENCE. However, if an Iraqi takes an AK-47 and opens fire on US troops, he dies. If he opens fire on his unarmed neighbor, the neigbor dies. That's why most of the killing is between Iraqi and Iraqi. Not the attempts at violence, the killing.

O.K. so you are saying the Iraqis are killing each other because they are pissed at the U.S. Thanks for clearing that up.

>You believe the Iraqis (Muslims)are a violent people who can only live in
>peace it they are ruled by a brutal dictator who kills 10 to 20 thousand of
>them occasionally just to keep them in line and let them know who the
>"BOSS" is.

Quote

Uh, that's the standard US line, is it not? If we just kill enough Iraqis, there will be peace. How's that working?

I thought you were the one making the claim? So now you are agreeing with Bush????? This is quite a change in philosophy.

>But perhaps we should test your theory and just withdraw all U.S. Troops as
>an experiment and see if the violence stops.

Quote

Fine with me. I suspect they will rapidly solve their own problem one way or another.

Not if they, as you claim, are incapable of quelling the violence unless they have a dictator like SH to keep them in line.

[birdlike 0]

Quote

>We are not colonizing the country . . .

No, but we did indeed invade it. Like you said, they are survivors of an invasion of their sovereign nation, fighting back against their attackers.

Hey, while we're at it, I want to mention that no one asked me if I thought the IRAQI insurgents were "freedom fighters" or "terrorists"...

Quote

>We are trying to set them up with a government that won't be a
>totalitarian islamic (read: dangerous and belligerent) regime.

From the Iraqi's perspective, we invaded their country, killed tens of thousands of innocent people, tried to impose an unfamiliar form of government on them, and then touched off a civil war. We, of course, are trying to get the country stable and get out. But to an Iraqi whose son was accidentally killed by US troops, whose wife was killed by a sectarian reprisal, and whose friend was tortured by the americans because they thought he was a terrorist - that's a hard sell.

Well, two different types of people look at this kind of scenario differently:

- Someone like me asks which is more important, the FACT of what we're there to do, or the PERCEPTION, HOWEVER INCORRECT, of the people who saw us come into their country.
- Someone who thinks that the perception, however wrong, of those who believe we're "invading" (in the CLASSICAL SENSE of "invading," please, like the way MONGOLS invaded, or MOORS invaded of old) even if it's not the case.

If we're going to do "A" and despite making it clear what we're intending to do, some set of people is going to accuse us of doing "B" there really isn't anything that can be done about that. If someone is intent on misconstruing your actions, lies about it, and won't reconcile his allegations with the facts once they've been made abundantly clear to him, you have to dismiss his opinions.

The funny thing, to me, is that Iraqis are killing Iraqis, muslims are killing muslims (something they were doing long before America was even a word on a map) and everyone wants to blame Americans. Hmph.

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[birdlike 0]

Quote

Quote

I think that the U.S. should get out of the middle east: it should use all the money and manpower it's expending on the current war on terror and put a MASSIVE military presence around its borders and shores; close immigration entirely; bring manufacturing and jobs back to the mainland; and FUCK the rest of the world. See how well y'all do when we won't fuckin' help you. (Let's watch how long Africa lasts without tens of billions of dollars in medicine, food, doctors...)

And how long would we last without the Chinese buying our 30 year treasuries, or trying to redeem all those purchased in the past couple years? Or without the oil and the foreign sales for our Fortune 500 companies?

The rest of the world needs the US, but we need them just about as much. If the above was more than just idle fantasy, time to start studying more economics.

All you're really telling me boils down to the fact that WE'RE truly fucked; THEY'RE truly fucked; the WORLD is truly fucked; HUMAN INTERACTION is an exercise in being truly fucked; and there ain't one fuckin' whit of reason to believe that this shit is EVER gonna get better, no matter what.

At this point, I'm a nihilist. I'd like nothing more than to see the world destroy itself, because that's all it's capable of doing, and that's all it deserves, frankly. If there's a God, and he sees it and it makes him sad, then I say fuck you, YOU bear the blame for this fuckin' fiasco, asshole.

So I'm a nihilist, and I think it would be entertaining in a "schadenfreude" kind of way. Everyone badmouths the U.S. no matter how much our heart may be in the right place, no matter how much we help. Let's see how they like it when we flip them off entirely, and BE as bad as they mischaracterize us as being. And yes, even if it means we sink with the rest of them into annihilation or decay or whatever. People have made this world into a spinning ball of shit, of hatred, of disease and decay and apathy and, worst of all IGNORANCE that cannot be excused. (See how many more people can identify Paris Hilton than, say, can name three Supreme Court justices.)

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[billvon 3,092]

>I thought you were the one making the claim? So now you are agreeing with Bush?

Nope! I happen to disagree with the philosophy that enough war will cause peace somehow.

>Not if they, as you claim, are incapable of quelling the violence unless
>they have a dictator like SH to keep them in line.

The violence will get quelled one way or another. Right now they can fight forever; why not? The US will keep the country limping along, and maintain food and water supplies. The insurgents can pick off a few US soldiers at a time while those same US soldiers make sure they are getting fed, watered and sheltered.

Take away that protection, though, and what will those poor insurgents do? If they keep fighting and killing the people doing the work they will die as well. Can't let that happen! Best keep US troops there forever, so the fighting can continue.

[Skyrad 0]

Funny thing is before the invasion of Iraq there were no terrorists there. They only came to fight the Americans in their back yard. Secondly..

Quote

Then why are those lazy, cowardly fucks leaving it to the U.S. to go it alone and fight these shitpiles?

Other countries in Iraq at the moment...

United Kingdom: 45,000 invasion--5,500 current (5/07)
Poland: 194 invasion--2,500 peak--900 current (2/07)
Australia: 2,000 invasion--638 current (2/07)
Denmark: 300 invasion--460 current (2/07)
TOTAL INVASION DEPLOYMENT, REGULAR TROOPS
297,494

South Korea: 3,600 peak – 1,200 current (5/07; deployed 5/03)
Romania: 730 peak – 405 current (5/07; deployed 7/03)
Georgia: 500 troops – 300 current (2/07)
El Salvador: 380 troops (2/07) (deployed 08/03)
Czech Republic: 300 peak--89 current (5/07)
Azerbaijan: 250 troops (2/07)
Latvia: 136 peak--125 current (2/07)(deployed 4/04)
Mongolia: 180 peak--100 current (2/07)(deployed 8/03)
Albania: 120 troops (2/07)
Lithuania: 120 peak--53 current (2/07)
Slovakia: 110 troops (2/07) (deployed 8/03)
Armenia: 46 current (2/07; deployed 1/05)
Bosnia and Herzegovina: 36 troops (2/07; deployed 6/05)
Estonia: 35 current (2/07; deployed 6/05)
Macedonia: 33 troops (2/07)(deployed 7/03)
Kazakhstan: 29 troops (2/07)(deployed 9/03)
Moldova: 24 peak--12 current (2/07)(deployed 9/03)
Bulgaria : 485 peak--155 current (2/07)(deployed 5/03)

not forgetting those who helped you out and have now withdrawn.


Withdrawn
Italy: 3,200 peak (deployed 7/03 - withdrawn 11/06)
Ukraine: 1,650 troops (deployed 8/03 - withdrawn 12/05)
Netherlands: 1,345 troops (deployed 7/03 - withdrawn 3/05)
Spain : 1,300 troops (deployed 4/03 - withdrawn 4/04)
Japan: 600 troops (deployed 1/04 - withdrawn 7/06)
Thailand: 423 troops (deployed 8/03 - withdrawn 8/04)
Honduras: 368 troops (deployed 08/03 - withdrawn 5/04)
Dominican Republic: 302 troops (withdrawn 5/04)
Hungary: 300 troops (deployed 08/03 - withdrawn 3/05)
Nicaragua: 230 troops (deployed 09/03 - withdrawn 2/04)
Singapore: 192 troops (deployed 12/03 - withdrawn 3/05)
Norway: 150 troops (withdrawn 8/06)
Portugal: 128 troops (deployed 11/03 - withdrawn 2/05)
New Zealand: 61 troops (deployed 9/03 - withdrawn 9/04)
Philippines: 51 troops (deployed 7/03 - withdrawn 7/04)
Tonga: 45 troops (deployed 7/04 - withdrawn 12/04)
Iceland: 2 troops (deployed 5/03 - withdrawn date unknown)

So the US is hardly alone.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

Ooh, a citation from a conspiracy site -- that settles it! I yield before an onslaught of superior "facts."

But I'm still waiting to read that we have all Iraq's oil, and are the owners of that country, and are going to colonize and settle it, and are not trying to set up their government to be self-sufficient with its own military and security forces.

I mean, if we're taking their oil for our own, why are we paying $3.05 a gallon?

P.S. I think it's pretty pathetic that a discussion that started about the movie Red Dawn ended up drifting this far into Iraq and oil. Who is responsible for this? I want answers! I want the TRUTH!

"YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!"

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

And this making-them-fight-with-one-hand-tied-behind-them bullshit is just an atrocity. Either yank them back home, or let them kick the shit out of the enemy, win, and then come home.

Sounds like you're prepping the ground for a Vietnam style 'We didn't loose it was a tie!' argument.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Sounds like you're prepping the ground for a Vietnam style 'We didn't loose it was a tie!' argument.

Perhaps we should just go with RIPLEYS idea...take off from the area and NUKE them all from space...its the only way to be sure.

[Skyrad 0]

You may have something there

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[normiss 880]

where's the "enemy combatant funded by a terrorist financing country" option?