To All That Think Immediate Troop Withdrawal Would Be A Good Idea...

RolandTD20Kdrummer

boxwine_in_hell wrote:

We can't occupy every fucking country that we think is unstable. Pakistan is teetering on the brink of anarchy so why aren't we occupying Pakistan? We've been in Iraq way too long, get the hell out of there. Obviously we are good at to quote the great Bill Hicks..."Blowing the fuck out of a nation of little brown people." However it's the occupation that is the tricky part isn't it? Our strategy for occupation and rebuilding never worked, is not working and won't work as long as they don't want us there. So unless you're prepared for a new U.S. colony in Iraq, cut your losses (or profits if you happen to be a Haliburton type greedy fuck) and leave.

The Pentagon has just reported it has troops ready and waiting to move into Pakistan btw...

upina2001

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

Actualy, you could NOT be MORE WRONG.

The government has known for TEN YEARS (at LEAST) how fucked up Iraq would be.
LISTEN TO CHEYNEY ...

you think he just got old and forgot all that?
FUCK NO!

PEOPLE NEED TO WAKE UP AND REALIZE THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT STUPID! IT IS JUST DISHONEST WITH YOU, AND HAS ITS OWN AGENDA ..and that agenda is usualy NOT in line with the one the average American is looking at.

This is EXACTLY what the neo-cons\NWO\Elitists want ... they have the quagmyre that they so acccurately predicted ... and now they get to say,"ooh ooh. we have to stay. we MUST stay!" ... so they get to stay ... and all their buddies at Halliburton et.al. get rich (not to MENTION the bankers who get all the "interest" on all the money we are printing to pay those fuckers!) ... and they get global oil supply "control" (though it is a sham) ... and they get all kinds of excuses to yank this country around ...

wake up for gods sake.
THEY ARENT DUMB!
THEY ARE FUCKING LIARS, THIEFS, AND TRAITORS!

I dont think anyone is saying the government doesnt follow their own agenda.
but that's the problem. It's THEIR agenda; doesnt matter what we say.
And I am all for "planning", but plan something that is beneficial, not damming to the world.

inmytree

slightofjeff wrote:

you're right. as soon as we leave, it's going to be shiny, happy people holding hands. Wow. I'd like some of whatever you are on.

Truth is, Iraq did not start to exhibit any signs of stabilization until we sent MORE troops, not less. All the post-invasion problems that happened in Iraq were the product of TOO FEW troops. It stands to reason that a too-rapid reduction in troops would cause an increase in violence to the pre-surge levels.

So, no, it's not a guess that the region would completely destabilize if we were to remove every single troop at one immediately. It is a fact, based on past history. It's like saying, "You don't know the sun is going to rise in the East in the morning. It might rise in the West this time. You're just guessing."

I'm unsure where I said Iraq would be shiny and/or happy...

your response is full of assumption...sadly you are unwilling to see that...

the bottom line is this: we will not truly know what will happen until it really happens...you can guess all day long, but you don't truly know...

and by the way, the truth is the violence slowed after Iran help broker deals...which happen to coincide with the surge...

RolandTD20Kdrummer

upina2001 wrote:

Which is why this entire war has been fucked up from day one. No one knows what the fuck to do.....especially the government. you think they are "educated" on what to do?? Obviously not.

in addition, how many times have you, not meaning "YOU", been in a situation where you werent sure what to do? But you made your decision, right or wrong, and it was understood once you made your decision, everything else will fall into place; Maybe not in 1 day, maybe not in 1 month, but eventually it all turns out the way it was supposed to.

it is obvious by the governments "research" that we are only good at guessing anyway. Hind-sight is 20-20.

Oh trust me, they knew EXACTLY what they were doing in Iraq. To the effing letter....loong long ago...years before 9/11

That place didn't stand a chance. It was all pre-meditated and calculated destruction, and chaos at every turn to encourage the worst possible case scenario and outcome.

One gigantic make work project. The MIC's big middle east debut.

This is all going to go on and continue to escalate until every last drop of oil has been sucked from the ground, and then some.

By then we'll all be gone and there will be 51'st 52'nd and 53'rd states over there...

This is the agenda.

boxwine_in_hell

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

The Pentagon has just reported it has troops ready and waiting to move into Pakistan btw...

Perfect. Let's just do everything ass backwards. We all know that we invaded the wrong country in the first place. If we weren't fucking around with Iraq and had just went ahead and occupied Afghanistan, this bullshit would be a lot less of a cluster fuck.

slightofjeff

inmytree wrote:

the bottom line is this: we will not truly know what will happen until it really happens...you can guess all day long, but you don't truly know...

So the answer to all of life's problems is to do ... nothing. Since you never know whether your actions will make the situation better or worse. It's all a big guess.

Hell, you're just guessing that bringing the troops home will make them safer. What if we bring them home, and then the United States is hit by a giant asteroid, and they all die? They would have been safer in Iraq.

I just don't understand your point. We can't know 100 percent what will happen to Iraq without U.S. troops there, so we just should withdraw them all immediately and see? Yay. Fun. I don't understand your rationale. Sorry.

upina2001

So what you are saying is since my wife and I havent got along for 5 years, I should just stick it out because leaving, spur of the moment, wont make my happy in the long run?

"Since you never know whether your actions will make the situation better or worse. It's all a big guess."
So I might as well just continue to do what is miserable and wrong because "leaving" may not work out.

What a bullshit way of running a life/world......if it's fucked up; change it or leave it. If you cant change it; leave it. We obviously cant change Iraq.

jeffbr

slightofjeff wrote:

So the answer to all of life's problems is to do ... nothing. Since you never know whether your actions will make the situation better or worse. It's all a big guess.

Hell, you're just guessing that bringing the troops home will make them safer. What if we bring them home, and then the United States is hit by a giant asteroid, and they all die? They would have been safer in Iraq.

I just don't understand your point. We can't know 100 percent what will happen to Iraq without U.S. troops there, so we just should withdraw them all immediately and see? Yay. Fun. I don't understand your rationale. Sorry.

We know with 100% certainty that if we pull our troops from Iraq we will have no more US Troop casualties in Iraq caused by insurgents. That's good enough for me.

boxwine_in_hell

slightofjeff wrote:

So the answer to all of life's problems is to do ... nothing. Since you never know whether your actions will make the situation better or worse. It's all a big guess.

Hell, you're just guessing that bringing the troops home will make them safer. What if we bring them home, and then the United States is hit by a giant asteroid, and they all die? They would have been safer in Iraq.

I just don't understand your point. We can't know 100 percent what will happen to Iraq without U.S. troops there, so we just should withdraw them all immediately and see? Yay. Fun. I don't understand your rationale. Sorry.

You just contradicted yourself. We don't know 100 percent what will happen to Iraq with U.S. troops there either. So by your logic, it doesn't really matter one way or another. And by the way the probability is infinately higher that some Iraq asshole is going to kill them over an asteroid. I'm willing to bet that any military personel will take their chances with the asteroid.

polaris

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

Actualy, you could NOT be MORE WRONG.

The government has known for TEN YEARS (at LEAST) how fucked up Iraq would be.
LISTEN TO CHEYNEY ...

you think he just got old and forgot all that?
FUCK NO!

PEOPLE NEED TO WAKE UP AND REALIZE THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT STUPID! IT IS JUST DISHONEST WITH YOU, AND HAS ITS OWN AGENDA ..and that agenda is usualy NOT in line with the one the average American is looking at.

This is EXACTLY what the neo-cons\NWO\Elitists want ... they have the quagmyre that they so acccurately predicted ... and now they get to say,"ooh ooh. we have to stay. we MUST stay!" ... so they get to stay ... and all their buddies at Halliburton et.al. get rich (not to MENTION the bankers who get all the "interest" on all the money we are printing to pay those fuckers!) ... and they get global oil supply "control" (though it is a sham) ... and they get all kinds of excuses to yank this country around ...

wake up for gods sake.
THEY ARENT DUMB!
THEY ARE FUCKING LIARS, THIEFS, AND TRAITORS!

this is it right here ... there is a reason why they are building huge bases in iraq ... america plans to be there for a looooooong time ...

RolandTD20Kdrummer

upina2001 wrote:

So what you are saying is since my wife and I havent got along for 5 years, I should just stick it out because leaving, spur of the moment, wont make my happy in the long run?

"Since you never know whether your actions will make the situation better or worse. It's all a big guess."
So I might as well just continue to do what is miserable and wrong because "leaving" may not work out.

What a bullshit way of running a life/world......if it's fucked up; change it or leave it. If you cant change it; leave it. We obviously cant change Iraq.

I totally hear what you're saying, but what if you were getting paid a few million a year (or more) to stay with your wife and just pretend to be working it all out?

See what I'm saying? Some people are getting that kind of money to pretend to be working things out over there.

upina2001

boxwine_in_hell wrote:

You just contradicted yourself. We don't know 100 percent what will happen to Iraq with U.S. troops there either. So by your logic, it doesn't really matter one way or another. And by the way the probability is infinately higher that some Iraq asshole is going to kill them over an asteroid. I'm willing to bet that any military personel will take their chances with the asteroid.

I think you missed the sarcasim.

upina2001

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

I totally hear what you're saying, but what if you were getting paid a few million a year (or more) to stay with your wife and just pretend to be working it all out?

See what I'm saying? Some people are getting that kind of money to pretend to be working things out over there.

Oh, dude, dont mistaken me. And i totally understand what you are saying....they've got a freakin gold mine over there, and they are taking full-advantage of it. We all understand that.
Problem is, the janitor wants to go home and "you're" still shooting hoops demanding to stay.

jeffbr

How predictable. Every thread has to be overrun by team tin hat. It doesn't matter if we're talking about the economy, troop withdrawal, elections, irritable bowel syndrome, etc... it always has to come back to the NWO and the shadow government. As Bill Mahr would say, what a bunch of fucking looneys.

DriftingByTheStorm

jeffbr wrote:

How predictable. Every thread has to be overrun by team tin hat. It doesn't matter if we're talking about the economy, troop withdrawal, elections, irritable bowel syndrome, etc... it always has to come back to the NWO and the shadow government. As Bill Mahr would say, what a bunch of fucking looneys.

Did you watch the Cheyney clip i posted up there?

DO YOU THINK HE SUDDENLY WENT RETARDED?

He KNEW EXACTLY what was gonna happen?

How can you not fathom that it was 100% calculated to get us in to this bullshit mess?

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Iraq was legit...

no lies...all tinhat

gmafb...

slightofjeff

boxwine_in_hell wrote:

You just contradicted yourself.

Of course I contradicted myself, I was repeating an argument that is contradictory.

My point is: "You can't know for sure what's going to happen if you do X, Y, Z" is no way to make a decision. It leaves you paralyzed in one place. Should I cross the street or stay here? If I cross the street, I might get hit by car. If I stay here, I might get mugged. What to do? What to do?"

Back to my original point: There is plenty of evidence to suggest that Iraq is more stable with us there than with us not. I'm not saying we need to stay there forever. I'm not saying we can't begin a gradual pullout, and soon. I'm saying pulling every single troop out right his very second sounds like a very, very bad idea -- for Iraq, and eventually, for us.

If you people can't see how an Iraq overrun by Al Qaeda and eventually ruled by its sympathizers is bad news for the region and the world, then I can't help you. We can't pull out all the troops until we can be relatively sure Iraq can defend itself on its own. If nothing else, it's just good manners.

inmytree

slightofjeff wrote:

So the answer to all of life's problems is to do ... nothing. Since you never know whether your actions will make the situation better or worse. It's all a big guess.

Hell, you're just guessing that bringing the troops home will make them safer. What if we bring them home, and then the United States is hit by a giant asteroid, and they all die? They would have been safer in Iraq.

I just don't understand your point. We can't know 100 percent what will happen to Iraq without U.S. troops there, so we just should withdraw them all immediately and see? Yay. Fun. I don't understand your rationale. Sorry.

umm...by leaving, the US will be doing something...leaving...

asteroid...

let me expand on my point, this occupation has been going on since 2003...it's now 2008...as Jlew pointed out, it's time...it's time to make a change in course and strategy...by leaving, the Iraqi's can take back their country and run it as they see fit...

will bombs explode and lives be lost...? I don't know, what I know is lives will be lost as long as we stay...

boxwine_in_hell

slightofjeff wrote:

Of course I contradicted myself, I was repeating an argument that is contradictory.

My point is: "You can't know for sure what's going to happen if you do X, Y, Z" is no way to make a decision. It leaves you paralyzed in one place. Should I cross the street or stay here? If I cross the street, I might get hit by car. If I stay here, I might get mugged. What to do? What to do?"

Back to my original point: There is plenty of evidence to suggest that Iraq is more stable with us there than with us not. I'm not saying we need to stay there forever. I'm not saying we can't begin a gradual pullout, and soon. I'm saying pulling every single troop out right his very second sounds like a very, very bad idea -- for Iraq, and eventually, for us.

If you people can't see how an Iraq overrun by Al Qaeda and eventually ruled by its sympathizers is bad news for the region and the world, then I can't help you. We can't pull out all the troops until we can be relatively sure Iraq can defend itself on its own. If nothing else, it's just good manners.

It was pretty damn stable when it was ruled by a dictator and the secret police was jailing or killing any dissidents. So instead of the populace being afraid of the state, they are now afraid of the insurgents. I don't see how Iraq is any more stable or better off than it was before we arrived.

jeffbr

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

Did you watch the Cheyney clip i posted up there?

Your link was hosed up, so I didn't view your clip this time, but yes. That has been posted before. The first time it was posted I was so pissed I wrote an email to Cheney that probably has me on some watch list.

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

DO YOU THINK HE SUDDENLY WENT RETARDED?

Possibly. Or maybe he felt conditions had sufficiently changed. Either way, I am opposed to what he did, and recognize the contradiction.

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

He KNEW EXACTLY what was gonna happen?

He was right on the money. Everything he thought would happen, did.

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

How can you not fathom that it was 100% calculated to get us in to this bullshit mess?

This is where we part. You see this as a progression in some NWO master plan. I see it as opportunism. If this was calculated to create the mess, why did he give that initial speech, and why didn't he just go for it then? Why would he have shown his hand if he was going to play it a decade later?