I Can't Wait To Go To Iraq

[Uncle Sparky]

[singing]

Well its one. two, three
What are we fighting for ?
Don't tell me I'm high on crack
Were all of to Iraq !

Well its four, five, six
Dubbya'd never lie,
There is no cause to question why
Whippee ! We're going to die !!!

[/singing]

[Pekka]

MtG

We all knew this would come to this for sure. Now is the time to decide if the war was a good idea or bad idea. Leaving now makes it a bad idea and useless end of lives IMO. Staying in, trying the best to make something out of this mess and ultimately have Iraq establish their own democratic government that has REAL control over the area and helping with the infrastructure etc first, then get out and leave it to blue helmets.. if success, it was a hella good idea. In my opinion. Then it was 'humanitarian' or what ever. Leaving now means they will fall under Saddams supporters in no time.......

but I understand people in there are frustrated.. especialyl the ones in danger, patrolling there everyday with no real cover or knowledge how to identify enemies before they shoot is bad. But who expected any less?
Locals have difficulties of showing real support, or some of them, as they are in danger of being murdered by the rebel forces. For some of them I think it's more like damned if you do, damned if you don't. But the support is needed to make this a good thing.. difficult task. That's all I can say.

But I'm not criticising what Sprayber said, after all he's the one down there, and I'm the one up here. I wish you strength, safety and nothing but the best possible outcome.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by orange
Baghdad seems to be turning into Mogadishu.

The mutilation of these two soldiers took place in Mosul, not Baghdad. Mosul is quite a distance from Baghdad. In fact, isn't Mosul in Kurd territory?

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by Pekka
Leaving now means they will fall under Saddams supporters in no time.......

So the coalition would have to stay in Iraq until the Saddam supporters have been thoroughly beaten.

I don't know how many saddam supporters are killed or captured every day, but let us say maybe ten. So it would take three years to remove around 10000, half a division, from the threat spectrum. You probably could go over that limit, but it would then become difficult to present it as a war of liberation, and protests at home would surely mount. An escalation would of course be possible after the election.

[orange]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Depends who they are and what their motivations are.

Regardless of what their other motivations are, we are an occupying force and they are fighting our occupation. I think that's the primary reason for most any action by Iraqi civilians against US military personell.

You mean the way of life of jumping up and down chanting "WE OFFER OUR LIVES FOR YOU, SADDAM... WE OFFER OUR LIVES FOR YOU, SADDAM... WE OFFER OUR LIVES FOR YOU, SADDAM..." ad infinitum on command

Not all Iraqis are like this, and I still believe that most of these overzealous types have been brought to this kind of hysteria by war.

of being near starving so Saddam can work on his 48th palace or the X thousandth heroic mosaic, statue or other memorial to himself? Or the way of life of being a persecuted ethnic or religious minority?

What bothers me about this kind of logic is that we have our own problems in the US. While I would never assert that there are 'persecuted' minorities, I would argue that there are groups that are consistantly stiffed by our laws. Should someone use this as a valid reason to invade our country? If you want to change people's minds about how they govern their country, you don't do it by invading and forcing change on them. That's how you get reactionary movements and fundamentalism.

Good idea or not, it's the here and now baby.

Oh well isn't that insightful. Sorry, but I'd rather not forget what got us to this point so that, hopefully, we don't do it again.

[Pekka]

Tripledoc, nah, just long enough for Iraq to have their own leaders up and running the place, so that the Saddam supporters are not strong enough to beat them down.

[techumseh]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Not even close, but maybe we should give them a little more of what we gave the skinnies.

Or maybe you should just cut your losses, lest you get a little more of what the Viet Cong gave you.

[Saint Marcus]

MTG: you're a mod. please act like one. Some of your comments are overly rude, inapropriate and racist.

[SlowwHand]

Kick some radical ass, Sprayber.

[Drake Tungsten]

MTG: you're a mod. please act like one. Some of your comments are overly rude, inapropriate and racist.

Shut the **** up, Donny. You're out of your element.

[Patroklos]

Hey,

What gets me is that all the activists out there that constantly talk about freedom and humanity and what not should be happy Saddam is gone. So we didn't go in for the ideological reason you wanted, the end will be the same; The removal of an oppressive, racist, genecidal war criminal and his followers. How can you be against that? Alot of you are getting lost in sematics. Did you think it would be easy?

And another thing, people are complaining about casualties (this has been the one least costly military campaigns in history, given scale) but it is their idealogical sensativities that restrict the military from conducting operations to end them. It is a never ending circle, stemming from the fact that most activists live in the world they want to, rather than the world that is, and then wonder why things don't work.

This isn't another Somalia, Vietnam, or whatever. Imagine what would have happened if the newspapers ran a story for EVERY soldier that died in WWI or WWII. Civilians lack the capacity for perspective in military operations, they are not used to people dieing (because the military allows their fantacy world to exist at home) nor understand that sometimes it is nessecary to kill and die. That is fine, they are not supposed to because they are in fact civilians and that is why we have militaries, to make sure they don't have to know these horrors. Vietnam and Somalia all stem at their root civilian intervention as the cause for failure. It is like letting the military run the treasury department. If Iraq is going to turn into one of those conflicts it is because of activists, just as before. It is really very ironic.

So when I am over there next deployment, I will "happy" (as much as one can going to war and all) as I like oil, dropping hammer on mass murderers, and helping people that have been brutalized for decades.

-Pat

[techumseh]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Hey,

What gets me is that all the activists out there that constantly talk about freedom and humanity and what not should be happy Saddam is gone. So we didn't go in for the ideological reason you wanted, the end will be the same; The removal of an oppressive, racist, genecidal war criminal and his followers. How can you be against that? Alot of you are getting lost in sematics. Did you think it would be easy?

And another thing, people are complaining about casualties (this has been the one least costly military campaigns in history, given scale) but it is their idealogical sensativities that restrict the military from conducting operations to end them. It is a never ending circle, stemming from the fact that most activists live in the world they want to, rather than the world that is, and then wonder why things don't work.

This isn't another Somalia, Vietnam, or whatever. Imagine what would have happened if the newspapers ran a story for EVERY soldier that died in WWI or WWII. Civilians lack the capacity for perspective in military operations, they are not used to people dieing (because the military allows their fantacy world to exist at home) nor understand that sometimes it is nessecary to kill and die. That is fine, they are not supposed to because they are in fact civilians and that is why we have militaries, to make sure they don't have to know these horrors. Vietnam and Somalia all stem at their root civilian intervention as the cause for failure. It is like letting the military run the treasury department. If Iraq is going to turn into one of those conflicts it is because of activists, just as before. It is really very ironic.

So when I am over there next deployment, I will "happy" (as much as one can going to war and all) as I like oil, dropping hammer on mass murderers, and helping people that have been brutalized for decades.

-Pat

Hey,

What gets me about all those illegal war apologists out there is that they really think they're doing the Iraqi people a favour. They're lost in a patriotic haze, not seeing the real world. Saddam ISN'T gone. Neither is Bin Laden. And they've awakened a dragon which will terrorize and destablize the world for a generation. It can't be beaten with all the Abrahms tanks and all the stealth bombers in the US arsenal.

It will consume their precious freedom, too. Basic civil liberties will be under constant pressure from those in authority trying to "root out terrorism". And many people will go along, hoping to trade freedoms for "security". They'll end up with neither.

It's ironic isn't it, that a war to find weapons of mass destruction, found none. A war to liberate the Iraqi people resulted in a popular insurrection against the "liberators". A war against terrorism multiplied it tenfold. A war for freedom eroded freedom.

And what's left? Just the oil.

But not for long.

[orange]

Originally posted by Patroklos
So when I am over there next deployment, I will "happy" (as much as one can going to war and all) as I like oil, dropping hammer on mass murderers, and helping people that have been brutalized for decades.

Whatever helps you sleep at night...

[Drake Tungsten]

Well, helping people that have been brutalized for decades would certainly help me sleep at night.

[Urban Ranger]

You should be assigned to liberate Congo.