If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Politics & ReligionWell Since every damn forum has one. Might as well leave it out there. This place is loosely moderated and should not be entered if you're weak of heart.
another happy prayer....poor decision making and a continued blind eye to the actual problem. this hurts in oh so many ways....
the one good thing, i guess, will be that once this plan fails with the flying colors of past plans, the GOP will lose any credibility it clings to....people will lose the remaining faith they had in the conservative movement and search for alternatives.
the Libs should just and wait for this to blow up in the administrations face.
Question: if we are trying to unite Iraqi's, why are we supporting only 1 of 3 social classes in the country?
another happy prayer....poor decision making and a continued blind eye to the actual problem. this hurts in oh so many ways....
the one good thing, i guess, will be that once this plan fails with the flying colors of past plans, the GOP will lose any credibility it clings to....people will lose the remaining faith they had in the conservative movement and search for alternatives.
the Libs should just and wait for this to blow up in the administrations face.
What do you suggest we do? I would change the framework of your question in the context that this is an American and Iraqi problem, and perhaps even larger than that. It's not a GOP problem, it's not a Democrat problem, it's not a Sunni problem. It's much larger than how you captured it.
Quote:
Question: if we are trying to unite Iraqi's, why are we supporting only 1 of 3 social classes in the country?
You're being ignorant. There's many more than just three social classes within Iraq. And who are we only supporting? Just the Kurds?
What do you suggest we do? I would change the framework of your question in the context that this is an American and Iraqi problem, and perhaps even larger than that. It's not a GOP problem, it's not a Democrat problem, it's not a Sunni problem. It's much larger than how you captured it.
close, its an Iraqi problem that we injected ourselves into. These types of attacks have long been going on, but we blamed Saddam and put him to death. now that Saddam is dead someone has to fill the void. Maliki doesn't care if the govt we want lasts, Sadr has more clout than that fool. I mentioned the politics because its amazing to me that the administration ignores the reality of the violence. you think 20,000 more troops is gonna make the Shia decide "well, we better get over the fact that our Sunni brothers blew up our mosque because america means business now."
consider with these extra troops, the number of service men will not exceed the maximum that have occupied the region in the past. numbers had no impact, because there is 20 of them for every one of us.
fact is, the Iraqi's will stop fighting once someone has seized power thru the civil war. we cannot make them stop fighting each other. what we can do is provide humanitarian aide to civilians and help protect them during the violence.
Quote:
You're being ignorant. There's many more than just three social classes within Iraq. And who are we only supporting? Just the Kurds?
and this is far from ignorant. Kurds have oil in the north, Shia have oil in the east, and the Sunni have sand in the middle. They're fighting for the oil revenues they had under Saddam (maybe why they blew up the mosque). Thru the looking glass, we are supporting a Shia controlled govt that uses death squads to kill other innocents. Which means we have picked a side.....in a civil war. nothing good will come of it, but more death and more money wasted.
the only good thing this war has done is keep the battle on foreign soil.
close, its an Iraqi problem that we injected ourselves into.
No, it's not just an Iraqi problem. It's an Iran, Syrian, Pakistan, Russian, Chinese, North Korean problem.
Iraq is just where the first real battles are taking place. It has most of the resources, so everyone wants it to fund thier war. Including us, but we don't get any of the oil. We only (hopefully) get a country (Iraq) that will fight against terrorists. But if we pull out, we lose that.
It's all very simple, really. You just have to take off the 'Bush Lied' cloak the MSM has put on you for a minute or two and look at facts.
__________________
What's in your sippy cup?
___□ □ □ □_
[l_,[____],
l---L - OlllllllO-
( )_) ( )_)--)_)
We only (hopefully) get a country (Iraq) that will fight against terrorists. But if we pull out, we lose that.
oh, 350 billion for a hope, a hope that we may get a country that may help us. and it isn't even guaranteed that they will.
yet, with this great plan, no one seems to be able to even address the hostility between the factions of people. do you think they will quit fighting because they want them to? because we say so? or because we put more boots on the ground?
you talk about facts: what would ya like to talk about?
Posts: 51
Casino Cash: $250
Sportbike: YOUR MOTHER
Quote:
Originally Posted by coronadozx
i think i understand what you are saying, but, just so i know what you mean, state it in a more clear manner. if you are saying what i think you are saying, we seriously have a disagreement . . .
Bush should be held acountable for every death in Iraq. Period. We had no buissness going there. The way i look at it kill a few thousand troops for no reason while purposeful ignoring info(this man is a coward among cowards) the least you can do is take a bullet to the head. I have no problem if terrorist realized just who to kill and did it instead of these bs attacks making all muslims seem bad.
oh, 350 billion for a hope, a hope that we may get a country that may help us. and it isn't even guaranteed that they will.
yet, with this great plan, no one seems to be able to even address the hostility between the factions of people. do you think they will quit fighting because they want them to? because we say so? or because we put more boots on the ground?
you talk about facts: what would ya like to talk about?
Wow. Just wow.
I see comprehension is not your strong point, so I'll make this as basic and easy to understand as I can so as not to confuse you more. (I didn't have too much trouble getting my 4 year old to understand it, so hopefully you'll be able to pick it up fairly easily...)
We're in Iraq to
1)remove the dictator. Mission accomplished.
2) (try to) bring stability and rebuild the infrastructure. Getting much better but not done yet. having to fight the MSM's lies makes it harder.
3) have a foothold (militarily) next to Iran and other hostile countries that sponsor terrorists.
How on earth you came up with the notion that nobody can (or has) address(ed) the factional fighting is completely mind boggling.
They'll never stop fighting each other, but with enough force, (the only thing they seem to understand), they will reduce attacks to a more acceptable level. Iran is a very large supporter of the terrorists in Iraq, so we're fighting them via proxy.
__________________
What's in your sippy cup?
___□ □ □ □_
[l_,[____],
l---L - OlllllllO-
( )_) ( )_)--)_)
Posts: 9,283
Casino Cash: $18495
Sportbike: Katana - Sold 8/08
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rekd
Wow. Just wow.
I see comprehension is not your strong point, so I'll make this as basic and easy to understand as I can so as not to confuse you more. (I didn't have too much trouble getting my 4 year old to understand it, so hopefully you'll be able to pick it up fairly easily...)
We're in Iraq to
1)remove the dictator. Mission accomplished.
This was never the intended reason for going into Iraq. You know this as well as the rest of the US populace. It was an afterthought used to save face when the American people started realizing that WMDs weren't very... existent.
Quote:
2) (try to) bring stability and rebuild the infrastructure. Getting much better but not done yet. having to fight the MSM's lies makes it harder.
Or so we're told. What nobody mentioned before going in is that there was never a plan for this. But since the administration wants this to happen, it automatically will. Right? We still don't have a plan. Bush effectively wants to go against the advice of Congress and his military leaders, and is doing so by throwing money and troops at the problem, hoping it will 1) resolve itself or 2) continue until 2008 when he can leave office and let the next guy worry about it.
16,000 more troops in Baghdad and 4,000 scattered throughout Iraq are not going to make as much of a difference as those in the Bush camp would like to envision. My predition: Attacks will increase, military and civilian deaths will continue to climb, and in 6 months we'll be talking about how stupid a move it was to send more troops.
Quote:
3) have a foothold (militarily) next to Iran and other hostile countries that sponsor terrorists.
Here's where it gets tricky. How are we supposed to keep ourselves safe from terrorists, when our government has this nasty little habit of funding terrorist organizations? Refer to the Iran-Contra affair, Saddam Hussein in the 80s, etc. You really think the people in power of our government are genuinely concerned for the safety of the American people?
Ignorance is bliss.
Quote:
How on earth you came up with the notion that nobody can (or has) address(ed) the factional fighting is completely mind boggling.
They'll never stop fighting each other, but with enough force, (the only thing they seem to understand), they will reduce attacks to a more acceptable level. Iran is a very large supporter of the terrorists in Iran, so we're fighting them via proxy.
So what exactly is an additional 20,000 troops going to accomplish that the previous 150,000 couldn't?
As long as our troops are doing the majority of the work, there is no such thing as an "acceptable level" of attacks.
and wait for this to blow up in the administrations face. 
