BF2S Forums Iraq PM: Country can manage without U.S.

Heijken wrote:

Cutting and running is exactly what the terrorists want us to do. . . .  it aint gonna happen dude!!

We have invested WAY TOO MUCH time and effort in Iraq to let it go to al-Qaeda and the Iranians. . . .

WTF has terrorist got to do with it??

Al-qaeda doesn't even exist in Iraq!

Did you just smoke a meth bowl??? Cause your high!!

Braddock wrote:

fadedsteve wrote:

Malaki is a Shiite stooge. . . . probly takes orders from Iran. . . .

Fuck him! He's almost as incompetent as George W. is!!!

If we left Iraq, that place would be even more fucked than it is now. . . . Trust me, we aint goin' anywhere.  That incompetent fuck can shut his mouth and do his job, namely getting an oil contract worked out between all rival factions!!

Just leave, they're even asking for it now. They need a civil war one way or another and it WILL happen, the US should cut and run seen as it's almost a no win scenario anyway.

Well then wouldn't it make the deaths of the soldiers even more pointless if you thought if it that way. Oh well we will leave before we have done what we have to, because some people with no idea of how it works said too. We have started so we may aswell finish it, otherwise the deaths of our soldiers would have been completely wasted. And don't say, 'well if we didn't go in there we wouldn't be in this mess' who cares? We are in there now may aswell see it through.

fadedsteve wrote:

Braddock wrote:

Heijken wrote:

WTF has terrorist got to do with it??

Al-qaeda doesn't even exist in Iraq!

They were non existent in Iraq before the US invasion because Saddam was an all powerful dictator who was paranoid of anyone threatening his authority (and that included Al Qaeda). When the US invaded they liberated the Iraqis of their dictator but sadly also of the regime that kept out the terrorists and in the ensuing chaos Al Qaeda swept in and set up camp. Now the US can't leave for fear of the country slipping into AQ control ...quite a mess isn't it?

It is a mess, but would be a humanitarian distaster if given on a silver platter to Iran and al-Qaeda. . . .anyone with any knowledge of the situation agree's with this point!

I know it would be a disaster, where we differ in our thinking is that I feel a disaster on some level in relation to the hand-over is inevitable and that prolonging the situation is detrimental to both the US and Iraq in the long run.

You can never control a country where most of the population do not want a foreign military there. But anyways, the US should either send in more troops like what the goddamn generals suggested in the first place, or just leave.

fadedsteve wrote:

Braddock wrote:

Heijken wrote:

WTF has terrorist got to do with it??

Al-qaeda doesn't even exist in Iraq!

They were non existent in Iraq before the US invasion because Saddam was an all powerful dictator who was paranoid of anyone threatening his authority (and that included Al Qaeda). When the US invaded they liberated the Iraqis of their dictator but sadly also of the regime that kept out the terrorists and in the ensuing chaos Al Qaeda swept in and set up camp. Now the US can't leave for fear of the country slipping into AQ control ...quite a mess isn't it?

It is a mess, but would be a humanitarian distaster if given on a silver platter to Iran and al-Qaeda. . . .anyone with any knowledge of the situation agree's with this point!

You should say Iran OR Al-Qaida because anyone with any knowledge of the situation knows that they are not working together.

Its a mess, you will never win this war.. you are losins soldiers for nothing, wasting money for nothing.. you will have to leave one day, and that day, a civil war will start, a bunch of iraqis will die. better leave now then later.. save you guys, save your money. Wake up its a lost cause.

AutralianChainsaw wrote:

Braddock wrote:

Heijken wrote:

WTF has terrorist got to do with it??

Al-qaeda doesn't even exist in Iraq!

They were non existent in Iraq before the US invasion because Saddam was an all powerful dictator who was paranoid of anyone threatening his authority (and that included Al Qaeda). When the US invaded they liberated the Iraqis of their dictator but sadly also of the regime that kept out the terrorists and in the ensuing chaos Al Qaeda swept in and set up camp. Now the US can't leave for fear of the country slipping into AQ control ...quite a mess isn't it?

Right on!!

Now the question is:

What is better?

1- A country run by a dictator who never attacked the USA and who manage to keep peace between the different religious branch of Islam and to keep the terrorists out

2- Or a country without a dictator where a civil war is inevitable and where a terrorist group is running free and recruiting a bunch of followers?

1a. Never attacked the USA?? Never attacked his neighbors?? Never chemically attacked his own citizens? Never killed an estimated 300,000+ innocent civilians during his reign. . . . are you kidding me?? He did all of those things en masse!!!

1b. Peace between different branches of islam?? lol!! The Sunni's dominated the Shiites under Saddam, if anything the Sunni's completely mistreated the Shiites!!! You realize that Iraq is about 40% Sunni and 60% Shia right?? There was mistrust and subjigation under Saddam, hardly any relgious harmony whatsoever!!

The average Iraqii wants to live in peace, they are not fond of al-Qaeda in the least bit at all!!!!

2a. Keep the terrorists out?? If Saddam and his regime wasnt a terrorist organization, then I dont know what one is then!!  What would happen when Saddam relinquishes power to his crazy sons?? You think they wouldnt band with a terrorist organization to undermine the US presence in the region?  Uday was quite fond of radical Islamics so his recovered writings say. . . .just food for thought!

2b. Umm. . . . civil war CAN be avoided if al-Qaeda is stopped from inciting sectarian violence. . . .notice its the SUNNI'S that continue to try and kill Shia!! al-Qaeda is a Sunni organization, and they desperately want civil war!!  If we leave, civil war will erupt cause al-Qaeda will incite the Shia to respond. 

BOTTOM LINE. . .yes the USA has gotten itself in a mess, no doubt about it! But we have to see through the hardship, and press on! We have to do what we say were going to do, and thats support a free Iraq.  We need to support an Iraq free of terror and Iranian propaganda.  Its a disservice to the men and women in uniform, and to the innocents we are currently protecting, to just get up and fucking leave!! You have no clue how serious the consquences would be if we were to leave Iraq at this point in time.

Last edited by fadedsteve (2007-07-15 08:27:55)

Mekstizzle wrote:

m3thod wrote:

The Iraqi puppets couldn't organise a pissup in a brewery.

That would be, i believe, because it's against their religion.

Fuck religion.

According to Gallup, there are more Americans who believe that going into Iraq was a mistake today than the number that held the belief that going into Vietnam was a mistake approaching the end of the Vietnam war. 6 months tops.

By the way - 8 million people took part in the 'democratic' election of the Iraqi government. The population of Iraq is 26 million. Legitimacy? Don't make me laugh!

Heh... Fine. If they think so. Watch there country be overthrown once again by terrorists and pressure from evil countries next door...

Then they'll be on the phone crying to big USA to save them...


Clowns

fadedsteve wrote:

AutralianChainsaw wrote:

Right on!!

Now the question is:

What is better?

1- A country run by a dictator who never attacked the USA and who manage to keep peace between the different religious branch of Islam and to keep the terrorists out

2- Or a country without a dictator where a civil war is inevitable and where a terrorist group is running free and recruiting a bunch of followers?

1a. Never attacked the USA?? Never attacked his neighbors?? Never chemically attacked his own citizens? Never killed an estimated 300,000+ innocent civilians during his reign. . . . are you kidding me?? He did all of those things en masse!!!

Attacked the USA?...  What, you mean attacked us when we fought them in the early 90s?  Or do you mean attempted to attack us when did air strikes on them for several years?

fadedsteve wrote:

2a. Keep the terrorists out?? If Saddam and his regime wasnt a terrorist organization, then I dont know what one is then!!  What would happen when Saddam relinquishes power to his crazy sons?? You think they wouldnt band with a terrorist organization to undermine the US presence in the region?  Uday was quite fond of radical Islamics so his recovered writings say. . . .just food for thought

That's a lot of speculation, don't ya think?...  Yes, Uday was even more of an asshole than Saddam, but is that really a strong reason to invade a country?  I mean, hell, Kim Jong Il is an asshole too, why not invade North Korea?

fadedsteve wrote:

2b. Umm. . . . civil war CAN be avoided if al-Qaeda is stopped from inciting sectarian violence. . . .notice its the SUNNI'S that continue to try and kill Shia!! al-Qaeda is a Sunni organization, and they desperately want civil war!!  If we leave, civil war will erupt cause al-Qaeda will incite the Shia to respond.

Agreed, but how do you propose doing that (before going bankrupt, that is)?

fadedsteve wrote:

BOTTOM LINE. . .yes the USA has gotten itself in a mess, no doubt about it! But we have to see through the hardship, and press on! We have to do what we say were going to do, and thats support a free Iraq.  We need to support an Iraq free of terror and Iranian propaganda.  Its a disservice to the men and women in uniform, and to the innocents we are currently protecting, to just get up and fucking leave!! You have no clue how serious the consquences would be if we were to leave Iraq at this point in time.

What's more serious, what you mentioned or America financially collapsing from unrestrained debt?  I'm sorry, but I put America first.

Turquoise wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

According to Gallup, there are more Americans who believe that going into Iraq was a mistake today than the number that held the belief that going into Vietnam was a mistake approaching the end of the Vietnam war. 6 months tops.

By the way - 8 million people took part in the 'democratic' election of the Iraqi government. The population of Iraq is 26 million. Legitimacy? Don't make me laugh!

Well, two things must be considered here.  Our population today is much larger than it was back during Vietnam.  So, what really matters is the percentage of people who now believe Iraq was a mistake.  If the percentage of the population that sees this war as a mistake is higher thna the percentage who were against Vietnam, then that's the most compelling note.

In addition, what percentage of Iraqi people are of voting age?  Iraq, like many other poor countries, has a high percentage of minors.  8 million people is considerably less than 26, but how many million are eligible to vote in the first place?  I would guess that number is considerably higher than 8 million, however.

Sorry, I meant percentage. 62% versus 61%.

Lai wrote:

fadedsteve wrote:

Leaving Iraq would essentially be the most disasterous move the US has ever made. . . .outside of getting involved in Vietnam.

Getting involved in Vietnam was disasterous?.. Leaving it was disasterous!

Didn't they end up getting rid of the Khymer Rouge, that's pretty good. Vietnam isn't doing bad today. The world didn't blow up and there was no domino effect of commies controlling Asia.