Whats wrong with this picture....

Demiurge

HTrookie wrote:

Right; our soldiers can freely move in the country with absolutely no risk.

You can't move freely in any city in the United States without risk....

Like was said above -- peace is maintained.

PolkThug

HTrookie,

I understand your point.

Regards

Demiurge

Then defend it.

PolkThug

Demiurge wrote:

Then defend it.

lol

Are you trying to win an e-argument on Club Polk?

Lets look at the facts. What have the last few years shown us? US soldiers get attacked constantly in Iraq. I see no indication that this is letting up.

My opinion based on this fact:
As long as we are occupying Iraq like we are now, our soldiers will continue to get attacked.

cheddar

PolkThug wrote:

lol

Are you trying to win an e-argument on Club Polk?

Lets look at the facts. What have the last few years shown us? US soldiers get attacked constantly in Iraq. I see no indication that this is letting up.

My opinion based on this fact:
As long as we are occupying Iraq like we are now, our soldiers will continue to get attacked.

Again, this assumes nothing will change. But look at the difference in security for the two Bush presidential visits:

1. Bush visits the troops in the dead of night, doesn't even let the press know until he has already left the country.

2. Bush flies in to the capital in broad daylight. Advertises to the world that he will be there for 5 hours meeting with the Iraqi government, practically daring the insurgents to prove they can do something about it. Then leaves unscathed.

Security is changing, troops are still deployed in dangerous positions, but they are increasingly deployed forward and into Sunni dominated areas they couldn't occupy before.

ohskigod

the insurgents keep attacking us because we got out and take it to them. No insurgency lasts forever, it a question of wills. who will quit first.

PolkThug

cheddar wrote:

Again, this assumes nothing will change. But look at the difference in security for the two Bush presidential visits:

That's great that Bush showed up in the daylight, but that doesn't change the fact that there hasn't bet a let up of attacks on our troops. You assume this will change, I assume it will not. I hope it does change. :cool:

Demiurge

PolkThug wrote:

lol

Are you trying to win an e-argument on Club Polk?

Lets look at the facts. What have the last few years shown us? US soldiers get attacked constantly in Iraq. I see no indication that this is letting up.

My opinion based on this fact:
As long as we are occupying Iraq like we are now, our soldiers will continue to get attacked.

Do you ever actually want to get involved in a discussion? You do a good job at baiting people, but I thought I'd see if you had any of your own thoughts on a subject. Sorry.

The last few years have shown that we've ousted a dictator and completely decapitated a tyranical government in 3 short weeks. The men and women in the armed forces are nothing short of amazing.

When you remove a government from power there is a rebuilding process to allow for a society to rise (Japan, which took 10 years). In your short sitcom length attention span I can understand how you might not be able to grasp the concept.

When you send the military to fight some aren't coming home. The MSM has celebrated the 2,500th U.S. casualty in Iraq not that long ago. To put things in perspective -- we lost about 1,000 people in about 3 hours at Omaha beach. Was that war not worth it because of the loss on just that one day alone? Should we cut and run in Iraq because we have had the misfortune of death there?

You've got absolutely no sense of scope or understanding if you believe that violence just ceases on a whim. It takes time, and the Iraqi government needs to start taking the reigns.

The violence in Iraq has already greatly subsided since Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was killed, and the U.S. Military and coalition troops have conducted 452 raids.

If we had things your way Abu Musab al-Zarqawi would still be alive murdering Iraqi civilians and we wouldn't have gained further insights into the al Qaeda terror network.

So, forgive me if I don't see your point.

Demiurge

ohskigod wrote:

the insurgents keep attacking us because we got out and take it to them. No insurgency lasts forever, it a question of wills. who will quit first.

Ding ding ding ding!!! It's the wusses here at home who are **** it up for the troops over seas, but wait -- they really support them because they want to bring them home. :rolleyes:

Some of the people there are friends and family, and the vast majority believe in their mission. Let them do their job so you can wax poetic here at home.

Ricardo

Great game so far; let's see what happens in the second half.

Demiurge

HTrookie wrote:

Great game so far; let's see what happens in the second half.

Team liberal loses in a blow-out and has their heads sawed off with a dull knife.

cheddar

PolkThug wrote:

That's great that Bush showed up in the daylight, but that doesn't change the fact that there hasn't bet a let up of attacks on our troops. You assume this will change, I assume it will not. I hope it does change. :cool:

There hasn't been a let up of attacks on our troops because our troops have not let up on their attacks on insurgents. They are now continually running patrols, sweeps, attacks, into the very heart of Sunni controlled territory. Yes, I expect them to fight back. But that doesn't change the fact no guy with a mortar was able to get anywhere near the green zone in the heart of bagdad to lob a shell in at least a gesture of defiance during the bush visit.

Our forces will eventually back the insurgents further and further from areas of consequence. And will some still die? Yes, because our troops will attack and hound the insurgents all the way to the borders of Iraq eventhough it will mean some of them will lose their lives.

PolkThug

Demiurge wrote:

If we had things your way Abu Musab al-Zarqawi would still be alive murdering Iraqi civilians and we wouldn't have gained further insights into the al Qaeda terror network.

So, forgive me if I don't see your point.

What is my way???

If you don't understand the point HTrookie was making by now, I don't think I can help you understand it. I'll try one more time with a simple example. If you put 100k US troops in country that is very unlike our own, for whatever reason, there will be some people in that country that will despise our presence.

polkatese

Netherlands is definitely fighting with all they got (literally) to keep its standing.

oops, are we still talking about soccer?

Ricardo

PolkThug wrote:

What is my way???

If you don't understand the point HTrookie was making by now, I don't think I can help you understand it. I'll try one more time with a simple example. If you put 100k US troops in country that is very unlike our own, for whatever reason, there will be some people in that country that will despise our presence.

Thanks...that's all I said and meant...but it seems that some people just like going on and on. Someone even doubts I think Saddam was bad. Good Lord.

PolkThug

Demiurge wrote:

In your short sitcom length attention span I can understand how you might not be able to grasp the concept.

You're the one having trouble grasping HTrookie's simple concept. You wouldn't talk to me like that in person, so don't do it here.

Skynut

I think the big key here is to NOT cut and run.
If we did it would not go well.
Some of the people there are counting on us but they are too afraid of the savage **** fighting us to say so.

I think we will maintain a military presence there for many years to come; I also think our military presence will be attacked for years to come.

Hell, before the war our military presence was attacked in other countries by these same shitheads.

They hate us and we need to keep killing them until they like us. (a little lighthearted humor)(maybe)

Demiurge

PolkThug wrote:

You're the one having trouble grasping HTrookie's simple concept. You wouldn't talk to me like that in person, so don't do it here.

Yes, actually I would.

Skynut

Lets don't be rude here people, we are having a good discussion right now.

Be good or you will get the Cowbell.

PolkThug

Demiurge wrote:

Yes, actually I would.

Then I guess our conversation wouldn't last very long.

Demiurge

PolkThug wrote:

What is my way???

If you don't understand the point HTrookie was making by now, I don't think I can help you understand it. I'll try one more time with a simple example. If you put 100k US troops in country that is very unlike our own, for whatever reason, there will be some people in that country that will despise our presence.

Which has what to do with whether or not we should be there? What was the point of saying it? What does it add to the discussion?

cheddar

HTrookie wrote:

Thanks...that's all I said and meant...but it seems that some people just like going on and on. Someone even doubts I think Saddam was bad. Good Lord.

HTrookie,
I hope you don't think I don't see your point. I agree if another country came here and tried to remove our democratically elected government, even if that government was full of nothing but Murtha's, I would be moved to resist and take up arms against the invaders. But if another country came here, removed adolf hitler from ruling us with an iron fist, and helped us to form a constitutional democracy, I might be willing to give them a chance the longer they stood by us, risking their young men and women, to give us a chance at a better life.

I think that eventually happened in Japan, eventhough some still despise us. That's my simple point.

Demiurge

cheddar wrote:

HTrookie,
I hope you don't think I don't see your point. I agree if another country came here and tried to remove our democratically elected government, even if that government was full of nothing but Murtha's, I would be moved to resist and take up arms against the invaders. But if another country came here, removed adolf hitler from ruling us with an iron fist, and helped us to form a constitutional democracy, I might be willing to give them a chance the longer they stood by us, risking their young men and women, to give us a chance at a better life.

I think that eventually happened in Japan, eventhough some still despise us. That's my simple point.

Bingo, which is why I asked why someone couldn't see the difference between the two....

Ricardo

cheddar wrote:

HTrookie,
I hope you don't think I don't see your point. I agree if another country came here and tried to remove our democratically elected government, even if that government was full of nothing but Murtha's, I would be moved to resist and take up arms against the invaders. But if another country came here, removed adolf hitler from ruling us with an iron fist, and helped us to form a constitutional democracy, I might be willing to give them a chance the longer they stood by us, risking their young men and women, to give us a chance at a better life.

I think that eventually happened in Japan, eventhough some still despise us. That's my simple point.

Right; but the people that were in favour of that adolf hitler, would fight. Simple, isn't it?

brettw22

Demiurge wrote:

It's nice to have Wolfgang Schüssel of Austria finally talking some sense over there in Europe. The things he said today about America we almost never hear.

I'd like to see a link about this. I'm always interested in hearing someone speak positively about us.

(not directed towards anyone specifically)
There is no way to gauge the reactionary response of US citizens if we were being taken over (you know what i mean) like Iraq. First of all, we have a military that would be first second and third line of defense. There's a huge disconnect that we have in this country with regard to relating to what those people are dealing with over there. While the insurgency is going to cause deaths to all involved, that's part of the price being paid on top of the billions upon billions that we are spending. The merits of us being there will be debated long into the future, and I have no doubt that there will be as much contention over this war then as there is now.

Removing the 'slant' rhetoric from the equation, the bottom line is that on a human level, it's our nature to care what happens to other people. When you bring political stances/slants into the mix, you end up with so much toxicity that the point is lost. I don't care what your affiliation is, our primary purpose should be instilling peace on a people that have otherwise had torture/death/**** way of life as the norm because of a very select few people mandating that's how the whole country should be run. I don't recall seeing anywhere documented (deed or whatever) that Saddam was primary owner of the land called Iraq and therefore welcome to claim all the riches he could; therefore keeping the entire country at a less than poverty level while he reaped all of the rewards of the country's assets.

More Americans will die, as will more Middle Easterners. We put ourselves into the middle of that fire, and it's going to be primarily up to us to get us out. It's not any other country's responsibility to get us out of this one, as it's our leaders that have us there in the situation we're in. We'll see it through because it's the right thing to do for the people of that country, but I think you'd have to be pretty ignorant to blindly follow/believe in a group of people that lied/deceived their own country to create something they can't control.

The bottom line is we don't have a clue what the citizens are thinking/feeling over there.

cheddar

HTrookie wrote:

Right; but the people that were in favour of that adolf hitler, would fight. Simple, isn't it?

**** in Germany subsided. Tojo fanatics in Japan subsided. Are there still ****? Sure. Is a unifomed US trooper in germany as afraid of getting killed by one as in the years after WWII? Hell no. I'm just saying that given enough time, a people can change and adopt less militant, fanatical ways.

brettw22

cheddar wrote:

But if another country came here, removed adolf hitler from ruling us with an iron fist, and helped us to form a constitutional democracy, I might be willing to give them a chance the longer they stood by us, risking their young men and women, to give us a chance at a better life.

I think that eventually happened in Japan, eventhough some still despise us. That's my simple point.

The difference is we have the luxury of experiencing freedom like this for hundreds of years. They've had (maybe) 3. There's absolutely no way for us to mandate to them how they should respond to us riding in there acting like their savior and us looking befuddled when they look at us like "who the **** are you?"

An accurate comparison would be a police force trying to mandate peace/acceptance/way of life to somewhere like.......Gang Central, USA. I don't care how much daylight is left.......I'm sure the hell not going to be riding into Compton anytime in the forseeable future.

cheddar

brettw22 wrote:

The difference is we have the luxury of experiencing freedom like this for hundreds of years. They've had (maybe) 3. There's absolutely no way for us to mandate to them how they should respond to us riding in there acting like their savior and us looking befuddled when they look at us like "who the **** are you?"

An accurate comparison would be a police force trying to mandate peace/acceptance/way of life to somewhere like.......Gang Central, USA. I don't care how much daylight is left.......I'm sure the hell not going to be riding into Compton anytime in the forseeable future.

I'm not sure if you've read the whole thread, but I've already used Japan as an example, suicide bombers, martial society, communists in China and the USSR more than willing to destabilize the country, etc.

But for Japan, the fanatical militants were gone and the country was a modern, democractic, capitalist society within 20 years of a much tighter, more imposed military occupation than in Iraq.

jdhdiggs

What about a MAD approach to dealing with the ****'s? You attack our cities with WMD, Meca and all capitals of non-friendly nations in the ME get nuked within hours. No if's, and's, or but's. Complete and utter anhilation of their way of life. Think that might get their attention?


(disclaimer: just adding this to the discussion to get everyone riled up)

brettw22

I don't have a personal frame of reference, but I think the middle east is a much more bleak living environment than that of Japan. Even with them being capatalist, militant, communist, etc........