Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Sadam has no trouble for over 30 years
Saddam had the assistance of the indiginous ba'ath party. Who will support Iran and AQ's joint rule over Iraq?
And why, again, are radical arab wahabbists who seek to end the existence of different nation states going to join with their natural enemies, the persian shiiites to get into the business of managing a nation state?
Iran will have the backup as well
If the US surrenders like the Dems want, Iraq will be handed over to Iran and the terrorists on a silver platter
who will provide the "backup" for Iran?
and are you again suggesting that this impending Iran-Al Qaeda alliance is a FACT?
Without the US, Iran will be free to cross into the country and do as they wish
Your claim Maineman that if we leave there will be no chaos, no terrorists controlling oil, no control of Iraq by Iran are patently ridiculous. Your insistance that since Iran wont just possibly walk in and take over means no danger, your insistance that leaving won't result in areas controlled by terrorists is also ridiculous.
It doesn't have to be an all or nothing thing, BUT you know that and would rather play your disengenous word games and hope you fool enough people.
thank god your concern seems to be CHAOS (whatever that means for you in America), CONTROLLING OIL and what you think Iran is doing...
nice to know that the humanity of your rationalized "deaths happen during wars" didnt make your top three..
Are you an idiot? This war has cost less lives then any other war EVER in American history that lasted as long, this INCLUDES civilians. A reason to leave should not be " damn a couple soldiers died".
You are aware that the deaths in Iraq are on par with the deaths suffered across the entire military every year due to accidents?
Are you suggesting we should disband our military and simply surrender to the next country that blinks at us?
Further are you aware that when our elected officials and Press tell our enemies " if you kill enough Americans, we will cut and run" that ENCOURAGES attacks on Americans?
*yawn*
rationalize however much death you think makes a good quota, dude.. If the CAUSE for the violence is not justified (like Iraq is not) then even one death, or shrugged off dead muslim civilian, is too many. Im sure it is hard for a keyboard trooper such as yourself to swallow such a concept but I dont really give a damn about how you ease your concious every night knowing that your ability to accept civilian death is dependant upon who it is that gets to die.
did I even REMOTELY say anything about DISBANDING THE MILITARY? for fucks sake why dont you jump ANOTHER shark?
you bitches crying about "cut and running" might take a second to figure out how your very stubborn BLIND attitude towards social conflict is, in fact, ENABLING the very type of violence you think you are solving. I would remind you how YOU would feel if you cared to walk a mile in an muslims shoes but..
youve got that oil to be all concerned about so..
Ok, tell me , what service are you in or been in? How long have you or did you serve? Just curious how many years you spent serving and available at a moments notice to fight for your country?
I spent a year and a half in the army/National Guard and 16 years in the Marine Corps. You want to denigrate my service, belly up and let us know your's.
Are you an idiot? This war has cost less lives then any other war EVER in American history that lasted as long, this INCLUDES civilians. A reason to leave should not be " damn a couple soldiers died".
Im sure there would be more civilian casualties if we carpet bombed the areas like we have in wars past. "the US has carried out one of the most sustained bombing campaigns in history against essentially civilian targets in northeastern Laos"
Yes a couple soldiers died, you obviously think they matter very little.
You can say its not that bad of a war compared to others, you could also say more people die every year from Aids, Alcohol, Driving, Smoking, and on and on and on and on.
But then id be doing the very same thing you are, StrawMan.
You are aware that the deaths in Iraq are on par with the deaths suffered across the entire military every year due to accidents?
So, we would lose those soldiers any way? they are expendable?
Are you suggesting we should disband our military and simply surrender to the next country that blinks at us?
Maybe we should follow a more diplomatic approach next time, or else were going to war with Iran and Russia next.
Further are you aware that when our elected officials and Press tell our enemies " if you kill enough Americans, we will cut and run" that ENCOURAGES attacks on Americans?
For someone who throws around the term enough, i would figure you knew the definition.
"A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. A straw-man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact a misleading fallacy, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted."
Who gives a shit how long the war has gone on?
If the war was 2 weeks and that many people died, would that make a difference?
They're still dead.
Any death during an unwarranted occupation is an unnecessary death.
Are you expecting a cookie or is this where im supposed to feed your ego as if your military history validates you idiot rantings on this messageboard?
Please answer.. does your previous service give you a blank check to act as if, somehow, your retired rhetoric means anything more than the diarrhea of the keyboard that it is?
Sorry to burst that bubble, dude. Last I read this isnt a fucking Robert Heinlein book where only ex-military gets to be critical of opinons..
notice, no where in my post did you see the word babykiller so you can spare me that label too while you sit there trying to have a pissing contest with military service that doesnt validate your stupid ass opinions then just like it doesnt today in 2007.
now, did you find where I even REMOTELY said anything about disbanding the military or is that what your lame fucking red herring was all about?
when the going gets tough scream "he spit in my face", right buddy?
does that work on every other thread where you cant seem to follow through with the topic of the thread?
If 3000 deaths over 4 years is to high a price to pay for our security, and our allies, for meeting our commitments and fighting terrorism, you have indeed stated we should disband our military. You just aren't brave enough to use those words.
I would venture any prior service has more knowledge on whats a reasonable sacrifice then a whining crying liberal civilian that probably thinks anyone joining the military is stupid. To continue trying to smear me.
Further are you aware that when our elected officials and Press tell our enemies " if you kill enough Americans, we will cut and run" that ENCOURAGES attacks on Americans?
Which of the bolded countries do you think we should send our troops to? In what capacity? Egypt could collapse at any time. Jordan seems to be keeping a lid on stuff, for now. Pakistan, a tinderbox. Iraq seems easier than 2 out of 3.I would further suggest that our presence in Iraq severely limits the depth of assistance that can be provided to us by countries such as Pakistan, Jordan and Egypt (to name a few) in the war on islamic extremism. Our presence has so alienated their citizenry, that the leaders of those nations -who may themselves see an enlightened self interest to be furthered by helping us defeat our enemies - are constrained from doing so too vigorously for fear of enflaming their populations against them.
"if you kill enough Americans, we will cut and run" that ENCOURAGES attacks on Americans?" is something we, of course, would NEVER tell our enemies. And if we follow a departure from Iraq with a focused, effective offensive against islamic extremists worldwide, instead of fighting them - and everyone else - in Iraq with an occupying army, our enemies would never have time to consider our actions as "cutting and running" or as retreating, but rather they would see us actually coming to get them. We would be taking the battle to them instead of sitting static in Iraq and letting them pin down a large force with a relatively small force.
