Military victory is no longer possible in Iraq

[Dr Grump]

You get pretty vocal when you think someone is telling others what to do based on their ideology if it doesn't agree with yours; yet, you are more than willing to tell others what to do based on yours.

I'm not telling Dillo NOT to voice his opinion either on a messageboard or to servicemen/women. He is.

 

[dilloduck]

I'm not telling Dillo NOT to voice his opinion either on a messageboard or to servicemen/women. He is.

oh please stop Gump---you are having a negative impact on me and stepping in my personal space etc etc.

 

[Dr Grump]

oh please stop Gump---you are having a negative impact on me and stepping in my personal space etc etc.

Oh, I forgot...it's all about you oh Non-Selfish One...:sleepy1:

 

[dilloduck]

Going by current trends, 700-odd service men and women will probably still be alive this time next year – that’s enough for me. As for what the best results are for America, well currently it’s getting nothing by staying…(shrug). The way I look at it, the only difference between staying and going is about 700 lives. Well worth leaving IMO. Just think, as you read this, there is an American serviceman or woman alive right now, that this time next week will be dead. What are they doing right now? Sharing a joke? Having a meal? Writing a letter? Having a sleep? On patrol? Irrelevent. This time next week, they are dead. For what? A country where over 70% of the country want the US out, and who do not appreciate what is being done for them.

You're in the wrong war,dude. That kind of crap might have worked in 'Nam but every troop over there is a volunteer. Your 70% figure is a lie and you can't back it up with even a tabloid site. Your logic is even seriously flawed. If we drug every troop in Iraq home could you guarantee they be all be alive and happy after a year in the US? Why are you so bent on telling them what they should do with thier lives? They're not hurting you Gump--you're just using them as a ploy to trash the administration.
And what will Americas' and the rest of the worlds' future be like if we leave as a defeated nation? Let's hear some of your predictions on how things would be in America and the mideast if we drag the troops home without a victory.

 

[red states rule]

You're in the wrong war,dude. That kind of crap might have worked in 'Nam but every troop over there is a volunteer. Your 70% figure is a lie and you can't back it up with even a tabloid site. Your logic is even seriously flawed. If we drug every troop in Iraq home could you guarantee they be all be alive and happy after a year in the US? Why are you so bent on telling them what they should do with thier lives? They're not hurting you Gump--you're just using them as a ploy to trash the administration.
And what will Americas' and the rest of the worlds' future be like if we leave as a defeated nation? Let's hear some of your predictions on how things would be in America and the mideast if we drag the troops home without a victory.

Take the handcuffs off the US military and lets finish off the terrorists....

 

[theHawk]

Your 70% figure is a lie and you can't back it up with even a tabloid site.

But it says so on Michael Moore's website!!

 

[dilloduck]

But it says so on Michael Moore's website!!

I rest my case------

 

[Dr Grump]

You're in the wrong war,dude. That kind of crap might have worked in 'Nam but every troop over there is a volunteer. Your 70% figure is a lie and you can't back it up with even a tabloid site. Your logic is even seriously flawed. If we drug every troop in Iraq home could you guarantee they be all be alive and happy after a year in the US? Why are you so bent on telling them what they should do with thier lives? They're not hurting you Gump--you're just using them as a ploy to trash the administration.
And what will Americas' and the rest of the worlds' future be like if we leave as a defeated nation? Let's hear some of your predictions on how things would be in America and the mideast if we drag the troops home without a victory.

You do realise my 70% figure was the Iraqis themselves? Go back and read the post. Just making sure we are on the same page here...

I am not bent on anything Shillo. I'm offering an opinion. They probably don't even read what you and I say.

If the US leaves, nobody will probably give a shit. It is an unwinnable war. There will be no victory. The enemy is porous...

THe ME is and always will be, a shithole due to the culture there. They are stuck in the middle ages with no sign of ever coming out of it..The west best leave them alone and let them wallow in their own shit...

 

[Dr Grump]

I rest my case------

You rest on your laurels too easily....

 

[dilloduck]

You do realise my 70% figure was the Iraqis themselves? Go back and read the post. Just making sure we are on the same page here...

The link Gump--produce the link

I am not bent on anything Shillo. I'm offering an opinion. They probably don't even read what you and I say.

Of course you are "bent" as is everyone else with an opinion. Are you just posting to pass the time?

If the US leaves, nobody will probably give a shit. It is an unwinnable war. There will be no victory. The enemy is porous...

Probably ?? Now that doesn't sound real confident. Wars, battles conflicts, whatever you want to call them. There will be victories and defeats but Bush and others want to stay there until the next mission is completed. Will there be more battles in the WOT? I'm afraid so and much of how that goes will depend how THIS battle is resolved.

THe ME is and always will be, a shithole due to the culture there. They are stuck in the middle ages with no sign of ever coming out of it..The west best leave them alone and let them wallow in their own shit...

What shaped the "shithole" culture in the ME and now that this shithole culture is spreading across the world, destroying people and property, are you suggesting that we just let it happen or are you denying that it is even occuring? Maybe if you just went over there and diplomatically told them to stop being shitholes they would stop.

 

[Gunny]

The link Gump--produce the link


Of course you are "bent" as is everyone else with an opinion. Are you just posting to pass the time?



Probably ?? Now that doesn't sound real confident. Wars, battles conflicts, whatever you want to call them. There will be victories and defeats but Bush and others want to stay there until the next mission is completed. Will there be more battles in the WOT? I'm afraid so and much of how that goes will depend how THIS battle is resolved.




What shaped the "shithole" culture in the ME and now that this shithole culture is spreading across the world, destroying people and property, are you suggesting that we just let it happen or are you denying that it is even occuring? Maybe if you just went over there and diplomatically told them to stop being shitholes they would stop.

Grump is one of those unfortunate souls who doesn't recognize a threat until he walks out the door and half the block has turned into a bomb crater. Even then, it just depends on WHICH half of the block got blown up whether or not its a REAL threat.

Meaning: when he finally "gets it," it won't matter because he will have victimized himself for what he refused to see.

 

[Dr Grump]

The link Gump--produce the link.

Here you go Shill, although I couldn't find the source I originally quoted because it does not have an online edition of that story. Here's another one from a few days ago. It's more than 70%, it's 74% of Shi'ites and 91% of Sunnis. Also 60% of Americans want the US out too..Go Figure..

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003410658

Of course you are "bent" as is everyone else with an opinion. Are you just posting to pass the time?

Nope, not bent at all. I post because I like discussing politics. Why do you? Do you think you're gonna change the world?

Probably ?? Now that doesn't sound real confident. Wars, battles conflicts, whatever you want to call them. There will be victories and defeats but Bush and others want to stay there until the next mission is completed. Will there be more battles in the WOT? I'm afraid so and much of how that goes will depend how THIS battle is resolved.

And when will the next mission be completed? And the one after that? And the one after that? Yadda, yadda, yadda.....You are wrong of course about this battle having an affect on the WOT. It will have none. More insurgents will die etc, but more will replace them...thus is the story of the ME...

What shaped the "shithole" culture in the ME and now that this shithole culture is spreading across the world, destroying people and property, are you suggesting that we just let it happen or are you denying that it is even occuring? Maybe if you just went over there and diplomatically told them to stop being shitholes they would stop.

The shithole culture is not spreading across the world. There are little pockets here and there, but what the lieks you fail to see is that they are just that, little pockets. Some firebrand Iman in Brixton spouting off rhetoric doesn't represent Muslims in Britain. He's the Tim McVeigh of Muslims, yet the likes of you try and make them out to be the norm. They are not. 99% of Muslims in Britain I know - and I know a few - love the country and the freedoms it affrods and can't stand the Richard Reid's of this world. But that doesn't fit in with your myopic world view. Muslim = bad...makes it nice and simple for you to label them that way. I don't have a problem with them being shitholes in their own back yard. And if the US leaves the area they can just carry on wallowing for all I care.

When you say occuring, what do you mean? Give specifics? How often are these things you are talking about occuring? Who is causing these things? Who do they represent? Back up your rhetoric with facts and figures and instances.

 

[Dr Grump]

Grump is one of those unfortunate souls who doesn't recognize a threat until he walks out the door and half the block has turned into a bomb crater. Even then, it just depends on WHICH half of the block got blown up whether or not its a REAL threat.

Meaning: when he finally "gets it," it won't matter because he will have victimized himself for what he refused to see.

Naw, I recognise a threat when I see it. I saw Iraq as no threat to the US or any other Western nation pre 2003. Nothing over the past three years has done anything to dissuade me from that opinion.

You and Dillo are the kinda guys who'd see a blind man walking down the street and blow him away because you think his cane was a shotgun.

 

[red states rule]

Naw, I recognise a threat when I see it. I saw Iraq as no threat to the US or any other Western nation pre 2003. Nothing over the past three years has done anything to dissuade me from that opinion.

You and Dillo are the kinda guys who'd see a blind man walking down the street and blow him away because you think his cane was a shotgun.

You are the kinda guy who thinks Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann are objective and unbiased journalists

No wonder you do not get it

 

[dilloduck]

Naw, I recognise a threat when I see it. I saw Iraq as no threat to the US or any other Western nation pre 2003. Nothing over the past three years has done anything to dissuade me from that opinion.

You and Dillo are the kinda guys who'd see a blind man walking down the street and blow him away because you think his cane was a shotgun.

That's odd considering a majority of the Democrats in Congess saw them as a threat and the Clinton administration proposed a regime change. Just because the WMDs that were described pre-invasion were not found does not mean that Iraq was not a threat--they were shooting at our planes for Gods' sake. You think al qaeda is a threat? Well Iraq is FULL OF EM and now that they are there en masse you think it's just peachy for the US to turn tail and run?
The Iraq government says its gonna pull it together and the US can leave next year. I believe that has been this adminstratinos plan all along. In the mean time there are a lot of islamic bastards who are in too many pieces to ever kill again and the people of Iraq can pull together IF THEY WISH and eradicate the rest of the radicals that showed up there to kill.

BTW--funny you should mention blind men---he's a real intersting story about a blind man----his goal was to kill us.

http://www.newswithviews.com/NWO/newworld15.htm

 

[Gunny]

Naw, I recognise a threat when I see it. I saw Iraq as no threat to the US or any other Western nation pre 2003. Nothing over the past three years has done anything to dissuade me from that opinion.

You and Dillo are the kinda guys who'd see a blind man walking down the street and blow him away because you think his cane was a shotgun.

By your own admission then, you do NOT recognize a threat. Saddam Hussein WAS a threat to any and everyone around him that he thought he could bully, and whether or not you liberals will admit it, he pursued programs for WMDs, and used WMDs on at leat two occasions that are documented.

The other side of the coin is just how long did we have to spend our tax dollars babysitting the asshole? Until he died and one of his whelps assumed control in the image of his father?

Saddam should have been removed from power for repeated violations of the terms of the ceasefire agreement while Bill Clinton was President. It should not have dragged out as long as it did.

And let's place some blame where it truly belongs .... on Saddam himself. Had he just played low-key and complied with terms of the ceasefire and UN resolutions, he'd have been back to business as usual without interference late-90's at the latest. His continual defiance, acting as if he was hiding something and playing a shell game with weapons inspectors, continual attacks against political refugees in no-fly zones, and documented financial support of at least one terrorist organization collectively begged for action against him.

Your little analogy is a bit far-fetched. Having a shotgun disguised as a cane is not a cost-effective weapon for the little to no reward it would bring. Not to mention a single-shot shotgun is hardly the weapon of choice of most criminals. Presnting oneself as handicapped therefore no threat however, is a common tactic.

I assume nothing and am wary of everyone. The difference between the way you and I think is you'd wake up with a knot on your head and your wallet gone while I'd go about my busniess after shoving said cane up the supposed blind man's ass.

 

[Dr Grump]

You are the kinda guy who thinks Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann are objective and unbiased journalists

No wonder you do not get it

I've never listened to them...

 

[Dr Grump]

By your own admission then, you do NOT recognize a threat. Saddam Hussein WAS a threat to any and everyone around him that he thought he could bully, and whether or not you liberals will admit it, he pursued programs for WMDs, and used WMDs on at leat two occasions that are documented.

The other side of the coin is just how long did we have to spend our tax dollars babysitting the asshole? Until he died and one of his whelps assumed control in the image of his father?

Saddam should have been removed from power for repeated violations of the terms of the ceasefire agreement while Bill Clinton was President. It should not have dragged out as long as it did.

And let's place some blame where it truly belongs .... on Saddam himself. Had he just played low-key and complied with terms of the ceasefire and UN resolutions, he'd have been back to business as usual without interference late-90's at the latest. His continual defiance, acting as if he was hiding something and playing a shell game with weapons inspectors, continual attacks against political refugees in no-fly zones, and documented financial support of at least one terrorist organization collectively begged for action against him.

Your little analogy is a bit far-fetched. Having a shotgun disguised as a cane is not a cost-effective weapon for the little to no reward it would bring. Not to mention a single-shot shotgun is hardly the weapon of choice of most criminals. Presnting oneself as handicapped therefore no threat however, is a common tactic.

I assume nothing and am wary of everyone. The difference between the way you and I think is you'd wake up with a knot on your head and your wallet gone while I'd go about my busniess after shoving said cane up the supposed blind man's ass.

I'd say that Sadman shoulda been removed from power during the first Gulf War and last time I looked Clinton wasn't in charge then.

Believe it or not, you and I are similar in that I also assume nothing and amwary of everyone. I'm 40 years old and have NEVER been taken advantage of in any way, shape or form.

I agree that Sadman deserves the blame. Absolutely. However, where you and I (and Dillo it seems) beg to differ is whta type of threat he was. Was he a threat to the ME? Maybe, maybe not. Definitely not a threat to Iran - as mentioned he couldn't even beat them when they were down at out. Israel? No, they bombed his attempt at building a nuke facility and he did nothing in retaliation. Turkey and he had nothing going, and in fact were in a agreement re the kurds, and if he did have a go at Turkey for whatever reason, he vicariously invited Europe into the mix, which I doubt he would want. SA is rotten from the inside and would have been an easy target and as they are friends of the US (well, overtly on their part anyhow), I can see why the US would want to protect them. And yes, he could bully the little guys like Kuwait, Qatar and Bahrain. However, was he ever, and would he ever, be a threat to the US. IMO, doesn't even pass the giggle test.

 

[MissileMan]

I'd say that Sadman shoulda been removed from power during the first Gulf War and last time I looked Clinton wasn't in charge then.

Believe it or not, you and I are similar in that I also assume nothing and amwary of everyone. I'm 40 years old and have NEVER been taken advantage of in any way, shape or form.

I agree that Sadman deserves the blame. Absolutely. However, where you and I (and Dillo it seems) beg to differ is whta type of threat he was. Was he a threat to the ME? Maybe, maybe not. Definitely not a threat to Iran - as mentioned he couldn't even beat them when they were down at out. Israel? No, they bombed his attempt at building a nuke facility and he did nothing in retaliation. Turkey and he had nothing going, and in fact were in a agreement re the kurds, and if he did have a go at Turkey for whatever reason, he vicariously invited Europe into the mix, which I doubt he would want. SA is rotten from the inside and would have been an easy target and as they are friends of the US (well, overtly on their part anyhow), I can see why the US would want to protect them. And yes, he could bully the little guys like Kuwait, Qatar and Bahrain. However, was he ever, and would he ever, be a threat to the US. IMO, doesn't even pass the giggle test.

I don't think anyone believes that we were in danger from an invasion by the Iraqi Army. It is IMO, short-sighted to think that Iraq wasn't a threat to equip terrorists with WMD for an attack against either U.S. citizens abroad or against the U.S. itself. We were already engaged in hostilities with Iraq when the war on terror started...removing Saddam from power was "an ounce of prevention".

 

[Dr Grump]

I don't think anyone believes that we were in danger from an invasion by the Iraqi Army. It is IMO, short-sighted to think that Iraq wasn't a threat to equip terrorists with WMD for an attack against either U.S. citizens abroad or against the U.S. itself. We were already engaged in hostilities with Iraq when the war on terror started...removing Saddam from power was "an ounce of prevention".

As far as I'm aware he had 12 years between 1991-2003 and he didn't give any WMDs to anybody. And if you are talking about equipping terrorists, then SA funds maddrasses which are hotbeds for fundie Muslims. When does that invasion begin?