Iraq can thank George Bush

#76
#76
gorockytop101 said:
Shame on those liberal bastards for focusing on negative things... like consequences and such...
Click to expand...
America won. :cray:

The liberals should have thought about negative consequences before they voted for a racist, socialistic, terrorist sympathizing POS like Lil' Hussein for POTUS.
 
#78
#78
SavageOrangeJug said:
America won. :cray:

The liberals should have thought about negative consequences before they voted for a racist, socialistic, terrorist sympathizing POS like Lil' Hussein for POTUS.
Click to expand...

I think that it's crazy that you automatically assume that because people don't support the war, they don't want an American victory, which would bring the troops home sooner (or straight to Afghanistan). However please forgive those of us who are skeptical of the phrase "American victory" after the whole Mission Accomplished fiasco.
 
#79
#79
BigPapaVol said:
Which consequences? The cost, I understand. I don't know the others.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

I just have a hard time believing that the benefits outweighed the costs (both in human life and economically) in this war. I think there were much wiser ways to use that money to help our country.
 
#80
#80
gorockytop101 said:
I think that it's crazy that you automatically assume that because people don't support the war, they don't want an American victory, which would bring the troops home sooner (or straight to Afghanistan). However please forgive those of us who are skeptical of the phrase "American victory" after the whole Mission Accomplished fiasco.
Click to expand...
Right!

Free elections on a scale never seen before in a Middle Eastern nation. Probably some elaborate fraud by The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. :eek:k:
 
#81
#81
gorockytop101 said:
I just have a hard time believing that the benefits outweighed the costs (both in human life and economically) in this war. I think there were much wiser ways to use that money to help our country.
Click to expand...
then you have no conception of the strategic implications of having an operating forward base in the Middle East.

We might not eradicate all of the theocracies there, but we will certainly make it difficult for them going forward.
 
#82
#82
gorockytop101 said:
I just have a hard time believing that the benefits outweighed the costs (both in human life and economically) in this war. I think there were much wiser ways to use that money to help our country.
Click to expand...

Perhaps but very few understand all the reasons for the campaign in Iraq anyway. Take for example having a strong presence at Iran's front and back door. It is extremely valuable to our interests.

We as common citizens do not know the full scope of things that are being done and the reasons behind it. This is as it should be IMO.
 
#83
#83
SavageOrangeJug said:
Right!

Free elections on a scale never seen before in a Middle Eastern nation. Probably some elaborate fraud by The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. :eek:k:
Click to expand...

The last time free elections were held the Palenstinians elected a Hamas government.
 
#86
#86
rjd970 said:
The last time free elections were held the Palenstinians elected a Hamas government.
Click to expand...

the Gaza strip isn't a nation, it's an interdependent territory. And if you think those elections were free, then you'll probably agree with Jimmy Carter that the Venezuelan and Zimbabwean elections were free.
 
#87
#87
MG1968 said:
the Gaza strip isn't a nation, it's an interdependent territory. And if you think those elections were free, then you'll probably agree with Jimmy Carter that the Venezuelan and Zimbabwean elections were free.
Click to expand...

They were U.S. backed elections, plain and simple, and Bush even pushed for them. The State Department even funneled $2million in the final weeks of the elections to defeat a Hamas majority. If organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah are the only ones offering security, schools, orphanages, and social programs, they become attractive to the people there. I think it is disgusting the ideology they teach, and it is a shame they were elected. We backed out of recognizing the government only after they elected the Hamas majority.

Religion and socio-politics are a funny thing in the middle east. Given the way the two mix, we have every reason to believe that given the chance, the will freely elect a fanatical theocrats to rule them. This proves it.

And why bring Carter in this for no reason? I don't give a rats arse what he thinks.
 
#88
#88
Yep, the Iraqi people are planning a ticker tape parade for Georgey-boy, as we speak.
 
#90
#90
MG1968 said:
as a veteran of the 1st Gulf War, I don't need some left wing pinhead lecturing me on how I justify support for a conflict I believed in from the beginning. There are plenty of legitimate criticisms, chief among them the failure to account for an insurgent campaign and the slow reaction to it. I've never blindly followed anybody in my life and I don't ever intend to. If you want to think otherwise, then perhaps you're the one grasping at straws to justify an existence predicated on weakness and appeasement.

I'm thankful that you and people like you didn't get their wish of an immediate and unconditional withdrawal.
Click to expand...

X2
 
#91
#91
f1ip said:
When did this happen?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...
Over the course of the war.

1. We crushed their military forces.
2. We hung the bad guy.
3. Fewer Americans suffered violent deaths last week in Iraq, than on the streets of most major cities.
4. Large scale free elections last Saturday in Iraq.

It must suck to be a liberal, and have to suffer through an American victory.
 
#92
#92
lawgator1 said:
Yep, the Iraqi people are planning a ticker tape parade for Georgey-boy, as we speak.
Click to expand...
While I agree that the Iraqi people will not be throwing any parades in honor of GWB any time soon, I will say that barring a major reversal of the progress made in Iraq over the past 18 months, then the Iraqi people will eventually look back upon GWB with great admiration.

I am not going to jump to the conclusion that Iraq is stable and secure. I think these elections were forced and were conducted too rapidly, which, could possibly lead to a massive deterioration in the present situation.

Iraq is balancing on a very profound precipice. Either, the provisional election provide some semblance of balanced representation in the government, or they cause mass disenfranchisement among the Sunni and lead to despair and civil strife.

The American military, not the State Department, has proverbially brought this horse to water. Whether or not the horse drinks is the discretion of the Iraqi people.
 
#93
#93
therealUT said:
While I agree that the Iraqi people will not be throwing any parades in honor of GWB any time soon, I will say that barring a major reversal of the progress made in Iraq over the past 18 months, then the Iraqi people will eventually look back upon GWB with great admiration.

I am not going to jump to the conclusion that Iraq is stable and secure. I think these elections were forced and were conducted too rapidly, which, could possibly lead to a massive deterioration in the present situation.

Iraq is balancing on a very profound precipice. Either, the provisional election provide some semblance of balanced representation in the government, or they cause mass disenfranchisement among the Sunni and lead to despair and civil strife.

The American military, not the State Department, has proverbially brought this horse to water. Whether or not the horse drinks is the discretion of the Iraqi people.
Click to expand...


There-in lies the rub. The neocons who want to pat themselves on the back because they have arranged for free elections convinently ignore the fact that the elections are going to be seen by the CERTAIN LOSERS as persecution.
 
#94
#94
lawgator1 said:
The fact that the elections are going to be seen by the CERTAIN LOSERS as persecution.
Click to expand...
Far from a fact. The power brokers in the Sunni communities understand that they constitute a minority in Iraq. They are simply pushing for a proportionate number of Sunni officials elected for the number of majority Sunni regions.

If that does not come to fruition, then obviously some foul play will have been involved. The problem is, that with the new Status of Forces Agreement, the US is impotent to curb such fraud. The hope is that the Shia governing body which currently rules Iraq, has not in any way played with the elections in order to maintain absolute power.

There is no doubt the Shia will maintain power in Iraq. The Sunni are willing to concede and live with this fact. The Sunni do want a strong enough voice, even in the minority, to receive consideration on policy, though.
 
#95
#95
therealUT said:
Far from a fact. The power brokers in the Sunni communities understand that they constitute a minority in Iraq. They are simply pushing for a proportionate number of Sunni officials elected for the number of majority Sunni regions.

If that does not come to fruition, then obviously some foul play will have been involved. The problem is, that with the new Status of Forces Agreement, the US is impotent to curb such fraud. The hope is that the Shia governing body which currently rules Iraq, has not in any way played with the elections in order to maintain absolute power.

There is no doubt the Shia will maintain power in Iraq. The Sunni are willing to concede and live with this fact. The Sunni do want a strong enough voice, even in the minority, to receive consideration on policy, though.
Click to expand...

Just curious where the Kurds come into play here?
 
#96
#96
KB5252 said:
Just curious where the Kurds come into play here?
Click to expand...
I could not speak much to that issue, as I have not spent much time in Northern Iraq.

From my experience, I believe the Shia gov't has no inclination to interfere with the elections in the north. While a Sunni-Shia civil war would undoubtedly lead to a genocide, if left unchecked by outside forces, and the extermination of Iraqi Sunnis, a Kurd-Shia civil war would lead to a schism. The Shia dominated territories in Iraq would lose the oil rich north.

As far as I understand it (which, again, my knowledge of the Kurd-Iraq relations is scant, at best), the Kurds are now content with proportionate representation in the government and basic autonomy in the north (think States' Rights / antebellum period in the US).

I could be utterly wrong on this, though. If someone with a better grasp of the situation wants to chime in and correct me, please do.
 
#97
#97
therealUT said:
I could not speak much to that issue, as I have not spent much time in Northern Iraq.

From my experience, I believe the Shia gov't has no inclination to interfere with the elections in the north. While a Sunni-Shia civil war would undoubtedly lead to a genocide, if left unchecked by outside forces, and the extermination of Iraqi Sunnis, a Kurd-Shia civil war would lead to a schism. The Shia dominated territories in Iraq would lose the oil rich north.

As far as I understand it (which, again, my knowledge of the Kurd-Iraq relations is scant, at best), the Kurds are now content with proportionate representation in the government and basic autonomy in the north (think States' Rights / antebellum period in the US).

I could be utterly wrong on this, though. If someone with a better grasp of the situation wants to chime in and correct me, please do.
Click to expand...


What do you think the odds are of civil war in the next five years? And if you think its likely, do you think it starts after we leave, or before?
 
#98
#98
lawgator1 said:
What do you think the odds are of civil war in the next five years? And if you think its likely, do you think it starts after we leave, or before?
Click to expand...
35-45% in the next year. After that, I would say the odds drop to less than 10%.

We are still in the country, however, we no longer have authority. In June and July, all US troops must leave the cities. This causes the most concern. The idea behind the surge was in providing security by actually having infantry companies live in Iraqi neighborhoods. Now, we will be moving all forces to the outskirts.

For all intents and purposes, the Iraqi Security Forces will be on their own. Our response and intervention, if needed, will be too slow to act as a deterrance to those who wish to undermine the stability in Iraq.
 
#99
#99
SavageOrangeJug said:
We hung a dictator who tortured and gassed innocent men, women, and children. We established a Democracy. We freed a nation from tyranny.

I know it must suck, to be a liberal and see America victorious. Liberals were a bit hasty in rejoicing America's defeat.
Click to expand...

So this is the new U.S. policy? POlice the world? I can think of a few countries that are in far greater need of a government/dictator removal than Iraq -- particularly if we are using the reasoning described above.

For the record -- Iraq is and was a nobody with regards to world power or real threat.
 
#100
#100
VolByBirth said:
So this is the new U.S. policy? POlice the world? I can think of a few countries that are in far greater need of a government/dictator removal than Iraq -- particularly if we are using the reasoning described above.

For the record -- Iraq is and was a nobody with regards to world power or real threat.
Click to expand...

You need to be more specific instead of just saying was no threat. Before the first gulf war they boasted the third or fourth largest army in the world IIRC.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top