PDA

View Full Version : Well, the time has come to pack up and get the hell out


Bowser
07-14-2007, 11:11 AM
Iraq says they've got it, and we're no longer needed. More power to them.




http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070714/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

Bowser
07-14-2007, 11:12 AM
Article:



BAGHDAD - Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said Saturday that the Iraqi army and police are capable of keeping security in the country when American troops leave "any time they want," though he acknowledged the forces need further weapons and training.

ADVERTISEMENT

The embattled prime minister sought to show confidence at a time when congressional pressure is growing for a withdrawal and the Bush administration reported little progress had been made on the most vital of a series of political benchmarks it wants al-Maliki to carry out.

Al-Maliki said difficulty in enacting the measures was "natural" given Iraq's turmoil.

But one of his top aides, Hassan al-Suneid, rankled at the assessment, saying the U.S. was treating Iraq like "an experiment in an American laboratory." He sharply criticised the U.S. military, saying it was committing human rights violations, embarassing the Iraqi government with its tactics and cooperating with "gangs of killers" in its campaign against al-Qaida in Iraq.

Al-Suneid's comments were a rare show of frustration toward the Americans from within al-Maliki's inner circle as the prime minister struggles to overcome deep divisions between Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish members of his coalition and enact the American-drawn list of benchmarks.

In new violence in Baghdad on Saturday, a car bomb leveled a two-story apartment building, and a suicide bomber plowed his explosives-packed vehicle into a line of cars at a gas station. The two attacks killed at least eight people, police officials said on condition of anonymity because they were not authorize to release details of the attacks.

Thursday's White House assessment of progress on the benchmarks fueled calls among congressional critics of the Iraqi policy for a change in strategy, including a withdrawal of American forces.

Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari warned earlier this week of civil war and the government's collapse if the Americans leave. But al-Maliki told reporters Saturday, "We say in full confidence that we are able, God willing, to take the responsibility completely in running the security file if the international forces withdraw at any time they want."

But he added that Iraqi forces are "still in need of more weapons and rehabilitation" to be ready in the case of a withdrawal.

On Friday, the Pentagon conceded that the Iraqi army has become more reliant on the U.S. military. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Peter Pace, said the number of Iraqi batallions able to operate on their own without U.S. support has dropped in recent months from 10 to six, though he said the fall was in part due to attrition from stepped-up offensives.

Al-Maliki told a Baghdad press conference that his government needs "time and effort" to enact the political reforms that Washington seeks "particularly since the political process is facing security, economic and services pressures, as well as regional and international interference."

"These difficulties can be read as a big success, not negative points, when they are viewed under the shadow of the big challenges," he said.

In the White House strategy, beefed-up American forces have been waging intensified security crackdowns in Baghdad and areas to the north and south for nearly a month. The goal is to bring quiet to the capital while al-Maliki gives Sunni Arabs a greater role in the goverment and political process, lessening support for the insurgency.

But the benchmarks have been blocked by divisions among Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish leaders. In August, the parliament is taking a one month vacation a shorter break than the usual two months, but still enough to anger some in Congress who say lawmakers should push through the measures.

Al-Suneid, a Shiite lawmaker close to al-Maliki, bristled at the pressure. He called Thursday's report "objective," but added, "this bothers us a lot that the situation looks as if it is an experiment in an American laboratory (judging) whether we succeed or fail."

He also told The Associated Press that al-Maliki has problems with the top U.S. commander Gen. David Petraeus, who works along a "purely American vision."

He criticized U.S. overtures to Sunni groups in Anbar and Diyala, encouraging former insurgents to join the fight against al-Qaida in Iraq. "These are gangs of killers," he said.

"There are disagreements that the strategy that Petraeus is following might succeed in confronting al-Qaida in the early period but it will leave Iraq an armed nation, an armed society and militias," said al-Suneid.

He said that the U.S. authorities have embarrassed al-Maliki' government through acts such as constructing a wall around Baghdad's Sunni neighborhood of Azamiyah and repeated raids on suspected Shiite militiamen in the capital's eastern slum of Sadr City. He said the U.S. use of airstrikes to hit suspected insurgent positions also kills civilians.

"This embarrasses the government in front of its people," he said, calling the civilian deaths a "human rights violation."

BucEyedPea
07-14-2007, 11:13 AM
Hip! Hip! Hooray!

Now about that embassy we're building that's the size of the Vatican. :hmmm:

Bowser
07-14-2007, 11:15 AM
Hip! Hip! Hooray!

Now about that embassy we're building that's the size of the Vatican. :hmmm:

Our gift to them.

BucEyedPea
07-14-2007, 11:27 AM
Funny how some folks give gifts to others.
I try to see what the receiver likes and will value...not what I value or want them to have because I like it.

chiefforlife
07-14-2007, 11:44 AM
Strange to me that our government is saying they need us more then ever and yet their government is saying quite the opposite. We are embarrassing them? They dont need us?
Our government could claim victory and bring troops home if they ran with this story...

Bowser
07-14-2007, 11:47 AM
Funny how some folks give gifts to others.
I try to see what the receiver likes and will value...not what I value or want them to have because I like it.

You're new to this country, aren't you?


:D

BucEyedPea
07-14-2007, 11:54 AM
You're new to this country, aren't you?:D
Not at all. I believe in using that in my own life.

A Little story to share on this:
My former MiL who I still adore today. Very hard to buy for at Christmas and B'day. One day I just decided, instead of the typical cliche gift to examine her interests. She always talked about the weather. So I said to my then spouse, we should buy her a wind sock. Needless, to say I was laughed at by him and everybody else. Well I bought her that wind sock and she just went on raving about it. She loved watching that thing from her country club home in Iowa.
It was one of her favorite gifts. A wind sock! Go figure!

CHIEF4EVER
07-14-2007, 12:00 PM
I have an idea. Why don't we just tell those jackasses to f*ck themselves and take care of their own problems? How about 40 ounces of ultra high calorie GOOD BYE?

Ultra Peanut
07-14-2007, 12:04 PM
I have an idea. Why don't we just tell those jackasses to f*ck themselves and take care of their own problems? How about 40 ounces of ultra high calorie GOOD BYE?Their own problems... yeah. We didn't have anything to do with that at all.

Adept Havelock
07-14-2007, 12:14 PM
While this is good news, I'm sure Bush will continue to argue that Malki doesn't now what he's talking about and needs our nation to stay in Iraq for at least the next few eons.

bigfoot
07-14-2007, 01:16 PM
Bill Nelson with the Democrats response?


http://youtube.com/watch?v=hL7vU_8iwPA

Adept Havelock
07-14-2007, 01:22 PM
Bill Nelson with the Democrats response?


http://youtube.com/watch?v=hL7vU_8iwPA


ROFL

I'm pretty sure he is either using the word "intercourse" in it's other meaning (dealings with other folks), or confused it with the word Discourse.

Either way, if the Prime Minister of Iraq says they will be fine, I'll just take that as an endorsement that we can pack up and get out of that cesspool.

Ugly Duck
07-14-2007, 01:38 PM
So the Iraqi government invites us to leave any time we want - and then takes a months vacation. Should our guyz die on the roadside while the Iraqi leaders take a vacation after showing us the door? I vote "no." We should at least give our boyz a vacation during the time the Iraqi government is sipping iced tea by their swimming pools next month. Give our guyz a month off at home as well, and then debate whether they should go back to a place that sez its OK for us to leave.

CHIEF4EVER
07-14-2007, 02:13 PM
Their own problems... yeah. We didn't have anything to do with that at all.
Do you mean the problems they could have solved years ago if they had any balls whatsoever? Got it UP. Thanks for the inspirational post. :rolleyes:

CHIEF4EVER
07-14-2007, 02:18 PM
So the Iraqi government invites us to leave any time we want - and then takes a months vacation. Should our guyz die on the roadside while the Iraqi leaders take a vacation after showing us the door? I vote "no." We should at least give our boyz a vacation during the time the Iraqi government is sipping iced tea by their swimming pools next month. Give our guyz a month off at home as well, and then debate whether they should go back to a place that sez its OK for us to leave.

I'd be OK with that. Give em' 1 month of leave while the Iraqi clusterf*ck aka the Iraqi Parliament decides to go on siesta. I'm sure that will work great. LMAO

Pitt Gorilla
07-14-2007, 02:55 PM
So, what are we waiting for?

Taco John
07-14-2007, 03:05 PM
So, what are we waiting for?



Well I don't know about anyone else, but I'm waiting for another gem from patteau.

I've got even money on the Democrats or the Liberal Media putting him up to this.

recxjake
07-14-2007, 03:08 PM
We have a 205 Billion dollar deficit.... 175 Billion this year was spent for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

205-175= 30 billion deficit.

If Iraq isn't getting any better, I'd rather save the money and make lives better for our troops.

The only other solution I see is bringing the UN in like Kosvo and Yugoslovia where we break the country up into regions. We can't do it by ourselves.

Ugly Duck
07-14-2007, 03:16 PM
We have a 205 Billion dollar deficit.... 175 Billion this year was spent for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

205-175= 30 billion deficit.

Are the neocons counting the war costs in the deficit? They kept them separate before so the deficit wouldn't look so bad - are they including it now?

Ugly Duck
07-14-2007, 03:18 PM
Give em' 1 month of leave while the Iraqi clusterf*ck aka the Iraqi Parliament decides to go on siesta.

I'm voting for CHIEF4EVER next November...

CHIEF4EVER
07-14-2007, 04:08 PM
So, what are we waiting for?

We are waiting for Congress to pull their heads out of their asses.

go bowe
07-14-2007, 04:43 PM
We are waiting for Congress to pull their heads out of their asses.hay, that's animal abuse!

you can't go around and sexually exploit don-keys like that...

peta will be along shortly to cyber-arrest you...

BigMeatballDave
07-14-2007, 05:24 PM
Bill Nelson with the Democrats response?


http://youtube.com/watch?v=hL7vU_8iwPALMAO

BigMeatballDave
07-14-2007, 05:29 PM
I have $1,000,000 that says Bush will act promptly on this and start withdrawing troops ASAP. Any takers?








LMAO

Bowser
07-14-2007, 05:29 PM
If Iraq isn't getting any better, I'd rather save the money and make lives better for our troops.

The only other solution I see is bringing the UN in like Kosvo and Yugoslovia where we break the country up into regions. We can't do it by ourselves.

Good Christ, even Jake is coming around!

Are we close to Armageddon (not the movie)?

CHIEF4EVER
07-14-2007, 05:32 PM
Good Christ, even Jake is coming around!

Are we close to Armageddon (not the movie)?

No, we are close to an absolute consensus on telling the Iraqi government to go **** themselves. America is tired of their foot dragging.

BigMeatballDave
07-14-2007, 05:45 PM
No, we are close to an absolute consensus on telling the Iraqi government to go **** themselves. America is tired of their foot dragging.No shit! You cannot help those who will not help themselves.

recxjake
07-14-2007, 05:46 PM
As much as I want our troops home, and have us stop wasting money.... the fact does remain that Iraq is going to be ****ed up with terrorists and in the long run this could really come back and get us.

Lets fight the terrorists.... finish Afghanistan, CIA/Speical ops forces in Pakistan... and hope that the "terrorists" in Iraq will become "normal" once we are out.

My prediction is that bye September the boys will begin coming home.

ChiefaRoo
07-14-2007, 07:34 PM
Guys we're going to have a significant amount of troops in Iraq for decades. No doubt their mission will change but to say "they're all coming home" is a pipe dream. I think 50k to 70k guarding the oil and keeping AQ from setting up bases.

BucEyedPea
07-14-2007, 07:51 PM
So long as we leave troops on their soil, even just a few...plan on more AQ plots to come here.

Logical
07-14-2007, 08:25 PM
As much as I want our troops home, and have us stop wasting money.... the fact does remain that Iraq is going to be ****ed up with terrorists and in the long run this could really come back and get us.

Lets fight the terrorists.... finish Afghanistan, CIA/Speical ops forces in Pakistan... and hope that the "terrorists" in Iraq will become "normal" once we are out.

My prediction is that bye September the boys will begin coming home.My guess is that this one the few accurate predictions you have ever made.

Logical
07-14-2007, 08:26 PM
I have $1,000,000 that says Bush will act promptly on this and start withdrawing troops ASAP. Any takers?








LMAONope I think I could make a million offen ya but I am agin takin blood money.

Ugly Duck
07-14-2007, 08:31 PM
I think 50k to 70k guarding the oil and keeping AQ from setting up bases.

Don't forget that we have handed the country over to the Iranian-style Islamic Revolution. They are going to kill the hell out of Sunnis soon as our troops aren't staring right at them. They only way AQ will be able to set up bases in Iraq is if the Sunni areas get huge support from Saudi & Friends. They sure as heck ain't gonna set up any bases in Shia or Kurd areas. Iran will be pouring in arms & aid to squish Sunnis - not too conducive to setting up AQ bases right then, I reckon...

Logical
07-14-2007, 08:45 PM
Don't forget that we have handed the country over to the Iranian-style Islamic Revolution. They are going to kill the hell out of Sunnis soon as our troops aren't staring right at them. They only way AQ will be able to set up bases in Iraq is if the Sunni areas get huge support from Saudi & Friends. They sure as heck ain't gonna set up any bases in Shia or Kurd areas. Iran will be pouring in arms & aid to squish Sunnis - not too conducive to setting up AQ bases right then, I reckon...

I sort of disagree, I think this is the reason there will be major civil war for primacy in Iraq once we leave. Unfortunate but right now we are are in the middle of that war and acting as a buffer that is slowing its progression to a natural conclusion. In the end I believe you are correct that he Kurds and Shia will dominate Iraq or what is left of it.

StcChief
07-14-2007, 08:51 PM
Malki and Co. haven't proved they can control anything.

First step, take a month off during the formidable being of your country.... pretty stupid.
For all we have invested in them to succeed they bold enough to think they have.

Start pulling out. Force them to step up. or fail.

BigMeatballDave
07-15-2007, 12:25 AM
Guys we're going to have a significant amount of troops in Iraq for decades. No doubt their mission will change but to say "they're all coming home" is a pipe dream. I think 50k to 70k guarding the oil and keeping AQ from setting up bases.They could use UN PeaceKeepers.

CHIEF4EVER
07-15-2007, 12:36 AM
They could use UN PeaceKeepers.

Like those spineless and corrupt dickheads would actually grab their nutsacks and do something useful for a change. :shake:

Ultra Peanut
07-15-2007, 01:35 AM
No shit! You cannot help those who will not help themselves.Seriously. The time has come to stop propping up those dipshits.

Who decided it would be a good idea to support the retards who destroyed their country's infrastructure, economy, and social order in the first place, anyways? We shouldn't have ever stepped into that mess, but humanitarians that we are, we did. Bad decision, and we're paying for our generosity.

Logical
07-15-2007, 02:10 AM
Seriously. The time has come to stop propping up those dipshits.

Who decided it would be a good idea to support the retards who destroyed their country's infrastructure, economy, and social order in the first place, anyways? We shouldn't have ever stepped into that mess, but humanitarians that we are, we did. Bad decision, and we're paying for our generosity.

I find your irony meter is pegged, but you have a choice to make, stay in the middle of a Civil War or let them fight it out on their own terms.

Ultra Peanut
07-15-2007, 02:40 AM
I have no problem getting the hell out of Dodge, but couching our exit in "Damn Hajis, ****in' everything up!" terms is ludicrous and indefensible.

We stirred up a hornets' nest, and now everyone's getting stung while we keep swatting at it. It's time to say, "Okay, that was a bad idea. Um... good luck," and back off. But don't blame them for a mess that was foisted upon them, because it's intellectually dishonest and, frankly, disgusting.

Logical
07-15-2007, 02:44 AM
I have no problem getting the hell out of Dodge, but couching our exit in "Damn Hajis, ****in' everything up!" terms is ludicrous and indefensible.

We stirred up a hornets' nest, and now everyone's getting stung while we keep swatting at it. It's time to say, "Okay, that was a bad idea. Um... good luck," and back off. But don't blame them for a mess that was foisted upon them, because it's intellectually dishonest and, frankly, disgusting.

Not sure we are blaming them, but expecting them to take responsibility for their own governments future seems reasonable to me.

CHIEF4EVER
07-15-2007, 02:50 AM
Not sure we are blaming them, but expecting them to take responsibility for their own governments future seems reasonable to me.

Bingo Jim, what a GREAT post.

Ultra Peanut
07-15-2007, 02:54 AM
I was referring to brilliant stuff like this:

I have an idea. Why don't we just tell those jackasses to f*ck themselves and take care of their own problems? How about 40 ounces of ultra high calorie GOOD BYE?Yeah, **** THEM, dude! Why did they drag us into this mess in the first place?

Or this gem, which I just discovered:

Do you mean the problems they could have solved years ago if they had any balls whatsoever? Got it UP. Thanks for the inspirational post. :rolleyes:So if they, the aforementioned jackasses, could have solved the problems years ago if they'd "had any balls whatsoever," what does that say about us if we can't make any progress over the course of four years? You'd think someone would be all over the whole "slaughter of our country's civilians due to warfare betweens fanatical factions" thing if it were such an easy nut to crack, but hey, I guess they're just not as smart as good ol' CHIEF4EVER.

CHIEF4EVER
07-15-2007, 03:01 AM
I was referring to brilliant stuff like this:

Yeah, **** THEM, dude! Why did they drag us into this mess in the first place?

Or this gem, which I just discovered:

So if they, the aforementioned jackasses, could have solved the problems years ago if they'd "had any balls whatsoever," what does that say about us if we can't make any progress over the course of four years? You'd think someone would be all over the whole, "slaughter of our country's civilians due to warfare betweens fanatical factions" if it were such an easy nut to crack, but hey, I guess they're just not as smart as good ol' CHIEF4EVER. That means I, like many other of your countrymen, supported the premise of the action we initiated but have become disillusioned with the resolve on the part of those who supposedly want to be free.

Ultra Peanut
07-15-2007, 03:16 AM
That means I, like many other of your countrymen, supported the premise of the action we initiated but have become disillusioned with the resolve on the part of those who supposedly want to be free.So again, you're passing the buck. It wasn't a bad idea in the beginning, or anything, it was just the fault of those other guys for not trying hard enough.

You're acting as if they begged us to bomb the shit out of their country and give an incredible number of fanatics the chance to move in and throw everything into complete disarray. And then they had the gall to fail to fix the problems we haven't been able to solve for half a decade.

Ugly Duck
07-15-2007, 04:33 AM
I have no problem getting the hell out of Dodge, but couching our exit in "Damn Hajis, ****in' everything up!" terms is ludicrous and indefensible.

We stirred up a hornets' nest, and now everyone's getting stung while we keep swatting at it. It's time to say, "Okay, that was a bad idea. Um... good luck," and back off. But don't blame them for a mess that was foisted upon them, because it's intellectually dishonest and, frankly, disgusting.

I dunno, Nut.... This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. Bush Sr's crew knew it, which is why they didn't roll into Baghdad and take Sodom out in the Gulf War. Sodom was a monster, but his brutal secular regime kept Iran from supporting Iraqi Shia & kept AQ out of the Sunni region. It was a stupid idea that went as Bush's predecessors expected.

CHIEF4EVER
07-15-2007, 08:55 AM
So again, you're passing the buck. It wasn't a bad idea in the beginning, or anything, it was just the fault of those other guys for not trying hard enough.

You're acting as if they begged us to bomb the shit out of their country and give an incredible number of fanatics the chance to move in and throw everything into complete disarray. And then they had the gall to fail to fix the problems we haven't been able to solve for half a decade.

I'm not passing anything UP. YOU on the other hand are trying (unsuccessfully I might add) to take the easy way out and just blame America. Some chaos is to be expected after a war. But it doesn't require FOUR EFFING YEARS to pass laws that bring peace to your own country. The gall to fail to fix problems WE should have fixed? LMAO Since when are we the Iraqi Parliament? LMAO

Nice try at blaming America for the Iraqis failures. When you come up with something logical and original let me know please.

patteeu
07-15-2007, 10:18 AM
Don't forget that we have handed the country over to the Iranian-style Islamic Revolution. They are going to kill the hell out of Sunnis soon as our troops aren't staring right at them. They only way AQ will be able to set up bases in Iraq is if the Sunni areas get huge support from Saudi & Friends. They sure as heck ain't gonna set up any bases in Shia or Kurd areas. Iran will be pouring in arms & aid to squish Sunnis - not too conducive to setting up AQ bases right then, I reckon...

Iranian terrorist bases are no more appealing than AQ terrorist bases. Our GWoT is a fight against all radical islamists, not just the Sunni variants. But I agree with you on one thing. You and the rest who have been applying political pressure to get us out of Iraq ASAP have been pushing the Iraqi Shia into the arms of a more reliable ally, Iran.

patteeu
07-15-2007, 10:25 AM
I dunno, Nut.... This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. Bush Sr's crew knew it, which is why they didn't roll into Baghdad and take Sodom out in the Gulf War. Sodom was a monster, but his brutal secular regime kept Iran from supporting Iraqi Shia & kept AQ out of the Sunni region. It was a stupid idea that went as Bush's predecessors expected.

This is revisionist history, I'm afraid. Bush 41 didn't roll into Baghdad because it would have shattered the impressive coalition he had built to drive Saddam out of Kuwait. The calculation at the time was that the good relations with the broad array of allies he'd assembled along with strong sanctions to contain Saddam were more valuable than toppling Saddam. As it turns out, it was a bad decision. The coalition eventually broke up anyway (without resolving the big issues of the middle east) and if we had gone on to Baghdad with 500,000 troops at the time, we would have had plenty of manpower to enforce a traditional occupation and the Iraqis wouldn't have had any time to prepare a guerrilla insurgency as they did this time around.

StcChief
07-15-2007, 10:37 AM
This is revisionist history, I'm afraid. Bush 41 didn't roll into Baghdad because it would have shattered the impressive coalition he had built to drive Saddam out of Kuwait. The calculation at the time was that the good relations with the broad array of allies he'd assembled along with strong sanctions to contain Saddam were more valuable than toppling Saddam. As it turns out, it was a bad decision. The coalition eventually broke up anyway (without resolving the big issues of the middle east) and if we had gone on to Baghdad with 500,000 troops at the time, we would have had plenty of manpower to enforce a traditional occupation and the Iraqis wouldn't have had any time to prepare a guerrilla insurgency as they did this time around.

Agreed. Said it then too. History keeps repeating itself.

We did the same thing at the end of WWII.

Should have taken out Stalin and ruskies then avoid Cold WAR.

banyon
07-15-2007, 10:47 AM
Agreed. Said it then too. History keeps repeating itself.

We did the same thing at the end of WWII.

Should have taken out Stalin and ruskies then avoid Cold WAR.

Good Lord.
I guess you wanted us to repeat Napoleon and Hitler's mistake of trying to drive to Moscow through the Russian Winter as well?

Killing all of your enemies is not the only strategy available, although its the only one I've ever heard you advocate.

Adept Havelock
07-15-2007, 11:13 AM
I guess you wanted us to repeat Napoleon and Hitler's mistake of trying to drive to Moscow through the Russian Winter as well?



It's not the first time I've heard this brilliant "if only" stated here.

They tend to ignore the fact that between VJ Day and the end of 1945 the US had exactly 1 Atomic Weapon after the use of Fat Man and Little Boy. Less than half a dozen a full year after that. A total of 70 by late 1949. Can you really pretend those would have been plenty to knock out Stalins massive advantage in manpower, and his 25-1 advantage in Heavy Armor? While at the same time trying to destroy a manufacturing capability we didn't have a bomber with enough range to reach? :spock:

Sure, Moscow would have gone up in a big mushroom cloud, and probably Kubyshev as well. Which would have done jack/squat to help us deal with the massive Soviet land armies in Europe. IMO, considering the correlation of forces, If Truman and Marshall had been dumb enough to listen to what Patton called for after the war the Red Army would have owned Europe as far as the English Channel. We might well have driven them back in the years to come as our nuclear capacity developed. If so, we would have liberated a Europe covered with plenty of glassy craters. (Yeah yeah...I know...."It's Europe, who cares". :rolleyes: )

StcChief
07-15-2007, 11:21 AM
Good Lord.
I guess you wanted us to repeat Napoleon and Hitler's mistake of trying to drive to Moscow through the Russian Winter as well?

,Killing all of your enemies is not the only strategy available although its the only one I've ever heard you advocate.

True it isn't. But we have been paying for this for 60+ years.

No we didn't need to drive to Moscow in the Russian winter.

You might want to look at when V-E occurred.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victory_in_Europe_Day

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victory_over_Japan_Day

http://www.pattonhq.com/speech.html

Patton was right. Who ended WWII we did. Making deals with Stalin was very bad idea.

Liberating Russia 60+ years earlier would have been bad how?


Continue believing you can make deals with your enemy.... The don't believe the same as you about human rights. Good luck with that.

Putin and Co. are as big a threat as AlQueda.

Adept Havelock
07-15-2007, 11:39 AM
True it isn't. But we have been paying for this for 60+ years.

No we didn't need to drive to Moscow in the Russian winter.

You might want to look at when V-E occurred.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victory_in_Europe_Day

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victory_over_Japan_Day

http://www.pattonhq.com/speech.html

Patton was right. Who ended WWII we did. Making deals with Stalin was very bad idea.

Liberating Russia 60+ years earlier would have been bad how?


Continue believing you can make deals with your enemy.... The don't believe the same as you about human rights. Good luck with that.

Putin and Co. are as big a threat as AlQueda.

:spock:

OK, so you now suggest we should have taken on a force 15-20 times the size of the Western Allies in Europe shortly after V-E day, before we even know if we actually had a working nuclear deterrent?

.

banyon
07-15-2007, 11:42 AM
True it isn't. But we have been paying for this for 60+ years.

No we didn't need to drive to Moscow in the Russian winter.

You might want to look at when V-E occurred.

I know when V-E Day occurred. I guess I'm not overconfident to the point of thinking that we could do in four months what the Germans couldn't do in four years.

Liberating Russia 60+ years earlier would have been bad how?

Right, I'm sure the Russians would've welcomed us as liberators too. Probably the same red carpet and roses that was rolled out for us in Baghdad.

Continue believing you can make deals with your enemy.... The don't believe the same as you about human rights. Good luck with that.

Putin and Co. are as big a threat as AlQueda.

Gee, your way probably results in 1-2 million American causalties fighting their way to Moscow. The historical way didn't. Let me guess, since we are in Moscow already, it shouldn't be any big deal to just roll into Beijing a few years later and "liberate" them too, right?

patteeu
07-15-2007, 11:46 AM
Agreed. Said it then too. History keeps repeating itself.

We did the same thing at the end of WWII.

Should have taken out Stalin and ruskies then avoid Cold WAR.

I have to admit that I thought it made sense at the time. So I don't have any room to criticize Bush 41 on this count (although I'm plenty critical of him for other reasons).

Ultra Peanut
07-15-2007, 12:18 PM
I'm not passing anything UP. YOU on the other hand are trying (unsuccessfully I might add) to take the easy way out and just blame America. Some chaos is to be expected after a war. But it doesn't require FOUR EFFING YEARS to pass laws that bring peace to your own country. The gall to fail to fix problems WE should have fixed? LMAO Since when are we the Iraqi Parliament? LMAO

Nice try at blaming America for the Iraqis failures. When you come up with something logical and original let me know please.Yeah... the "hard answer" is absolving yourself of all responsibility and pointing the finger at the poor sap who got stuck holding the bag.

All it would have taken to end "some chaos" was for the undermanned, unprepared, fledgling Iraqi government to pass a law saying, "Hey guys, you're not allowed to kill each other anymore."

That's "logical and original."

If I go into your house carrying meat and bust the doors and windows so a pack of wild dogs can run in and start tearing shit up, am I responsible, even a little bit, for the problem and its cleanup? Or do I get to say, "Hurr, it ain't MY house," and walk off while calling you a bunch of names?

Logical
07-15-2007, 03:32 PM
I know when V-E Day occurred. I guess I'm not overconfident to the point of thinking that we could do in four months what the Germans couldn't do in four years.



Right, I'm sure the Russians would've welcomed us as liberators too. Probably the same red carpet and roses that was rolled out for us in Baghdad.



Gee, your way probably results in 1-2 million American causalties fighting their way to Moscow. The historical way didn't. Let me guess, since we are in Moscow already, it shouldn't be any big deal to just roll into Beijing a few years later and "liberate" them too, right?

I doubt we could have conquered Russia, Patton was overconfident given the rollover of the Germans. But the Germans were facing both the Russians from the East and the American/English forces from the West. Russia had built up quite a force by the end of WWII.

ChiefaRoo
07-15-2007, 03:41 PM
I doubt we could have conquered Russia, Patton was overconfident given the rollover of the Germans. But the Germans were facing both the Russians from the East and the American/English forces from the West. Russia had built up quite a force by the end of WWII.

Democracies don't conquer.

Logical
07-15-2007, 03:53 PM
Democracies don't conquer.Lets not quibble over terminology.

ChiefaRoo
07-15-2007, 04:57 PM
Lets not quibble over terminology.

Ok, just use the right words.

Ugly Duck
07-15-2007, 05:35 PM
This is revisionist history, I'm afraid. Bush 41 didn't roll into Baghdad because it would have shattered the impressive coalition he had built to drive Saddam out of Kuwait. The calculation at the time was that the good relations with the broad array of allies he'd assembled along with strong sanctions to contain Saddam were more valuable than toppling Saddam. As it turns out, it was a bad decision. The coalition eventually broke up anyway

Sorry, but the US used Sodom as a hedge against Iranian power for a very long time. It was the underlying, major reason for not toppling him in the Gulf War. US desire to keep Sodom in place existed long before the Gulf War - it was Reagan who removed Iraq from the State Department terrorism list in 1982 and supplied him with chemical weapons. We supported Sodom keeping the Shia majority down & keeping Iran at bay. He was very useful to us in that regard, and our support lasted right up to his invasion of Kuwait. Even after the Gulf War, Sodom was still usefull to us as a wall against the spread of the Iranian Revolution.

The reason Reagan found it so very important to keep Sodom in power was that his brutality kept both Iran and the Iraqi Shia contained. Now what Ronald Reagan worked so hard to achieve has been unraveled by punky neocon Bush Jr, and we can see the results. Reagan kept Iran & the Iraqi Shia under control, MonkeyBoy undid everything Reagan worked for in the region & handed the Iranian Revolution the whole shebang on a silver platter. Thank goodness its a very small minority that believes Chimpy's foreign policy is more of a success than Ronald Reagan's. You are a rare bird, me bucko....

Logical
07-15-2007, 09:38 PM
Ok, just use the right words.If we had went on to take Russia that would have been conquering as they were at the time considered not an enemy.

ChiefaRoo
07-16-2007, 03:49 AM
If we had went on to take Russia that would have been conquering as they were at the time considered not an enemy.

Only if we would of invaded their homeland. Kicking them out of Germany and Eastern Europe would not have been anything more than re-establishing the pre-ww2 nations governments. The Russians had no business owning half of Germany, Poland, etal. That being said the US and UK were tired of fighting and it ended just about the way it had to. Point is we never considered "conquering" Russia. As I've said before Democracies don't conquer they liberate. If the Iraqis are too stupid and backward to take advantage and build a new country in the end that's their problem. We gave them a chance.

ChiefaRoo
07-16-2007, 04:26 AM
Sorry, but the US used Sodom as a hedge against Iranian power for a very long time. It was the underlying, major reason for not toppling him in the Gulf War. US desire to keep Sodom in place existed long before the Gulf War - it was Reagan who removed Iraq from the State Department terrorism list in 1982 and supplied him with chemical weapons. We supported Sodom keeping the Shia majority down & keeping Iran at bay. He was very useful to us in that regard, and our support lasted right up to his invasion of Kuwait. Even after the Gulf War, Sodom was still usefull to us as a wall against the spread of the Iranian Revolution.

The reason Reagan found it so very important to keep Sodom in power was that his brutality kept both Iran and the Iraqi Shia contained. Now what Ronald Reagan worked so hard to achieve has been unraveled by punky neocon Bush Jr, and we can see the results. Reagan kept Iran & the Iraqi Shia under control, MonkeyBoy undid everything Reagan worked for in the region & handed the Iranian Revolution the whole shebang on a silver platter. Thank goodness its a very small minority that believes Chimpy's foreign policy is more of a success than Ronald Reagan's. You are a rare bird, me bucko....


Your leaving out the overriding issue of the time and that was the Cold War. We used those states Iraq, Iran etal in any way we could to keep the USSR from getting anywhere near the oil fields as they were and are a strategic location for us. Bottom line it was a different time and now that the communist threat has by and large ended it seems odd when you consider these alliances until you put them into proper context of the Cold War.

CHIEF4EVER
07-16-2007, 05:14 PM
Yeah... the "hard answer" is absolving yourself of all responsibility and pointing the finger at the poor sap who got stuck holding the bag.

All it would have taken to end "some chaos" was for the undermanned, unprepared, fledgling Iraqi government to pass a law saying, "Hey guys, you're not allowed to kill each other anymore."

C'mon UP, that is just silly. Of course it takes time to change things but they have had FOUR YEARS to make the changes. Meanwhile, we have been doing our damndest to provide enough security so that they can pass laws like..oh...Oil Revenue redistribution, de-Baathication, disarming the militias, etc etc etc ad nauseum. What have they accomplished? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. Now blame THAT on America UP. Blame America for their heel dragging. Blame America for the inability of the Iraqi Parliament to compromise in the interest of peace and prosperity in their own land. Do I need to continue or are you getting the point? :shake: