why do some of you think pulling out troops is a good thing?

Heineken Helen

You fucking started the mess... you go in, destroy a country for absolutely no good reason (oil NOT being a good reason), take everything you want from it... and then just fuck off and leave THEM to clean up the mess? :mad: Your troops should be over there NOT intimidating, not fighting... but building at YOUR expense... and cleaning up... and trying to make things right. If you can't fucking do it, at least give the UN some support and let us go in and do it properly :cool:

You can't get out of it this easily.

upina2001

they have shown hardly any ambition to keep their new government and country stable and how long has it been? Our economy is awful and war is supposed to "help" the economy...so I dont know....obviously this has turned into another 'Nam, but at least, this time, the troops are being welcomed home.

Heineken Helen

upina2001 wrote:

they have shown hardly any ambition to keep their new government and country stable and how long has it been? Our economy is awful and war is supposed to "help" the economy...so I dont know....obviously this has turned into another 'Nam, but at least, this time, the troops are being welcomed home.

it's not up to them... they didn't make the bloody mess... and in fairness, a HUGE percentage of them are probably still grieving their loved ones. Sorry they didn't grab the wonderful opportunity you gave them with both hands :rolleyes:

upina2001

Heineken Helen wrote:

it's not up to them... they didn't make the bloody mess... and in fairness, a HUGE percentage of them are probably still grieving their loved ones. Sorry they didn't grab the wonderful opportunity you gave them with both hands :rolleyes:

totally agree with you...but also I also realize many of them were going to die if they disobeyed Saddam too. I agree it's fucked up, but what else do you want to do at this point? Unfortunately, we are there to stay. Forever. We have air bases all over the region now, I dont honestly see us moving out of the middle east in our lifetime or for 75 years for that matter.....do I agree, hell no....but we stepped into a big pile of shit and it seems that there is no good way to wipe shit from your shoes.

blackredyellow

Yep, 4,000 dead and 10's of thousands wounded is getting out easily...

And how do you have soldiers stop "intimidating" or fighting and start rebuilding? Is the other side just going to stop shooting or blowing things up because our people put down their guns and pick up hammers? There is no way that our troops can stay there without being targets. There is no way that the country can get rebuilt as long as there are US troops everywhere.

I wish the UN would step in... and a multi-national force would go there and work as a security force and oversee the rebuilding, but I don't see any countries stepping up and volunteering their people for it. That's how we got into this nasty mess with contractors.

It's a huge mess that we created, and unfortunately there are no good options to solve it, but I can't see how us staying there will do anything but prolong this for years and years to come.

Abuskedti

Heineken Helen wrote:

You fucking started the mess... you go in, destroy a country for absolutely no good reason (oil NOT being a good reason), take everything you want from it... and then just fuck off and leave THEM to clean up the mess? :mad: Your troops should be over there NOT intimidating, not fighting... but building at YOUR expense... and cleaning up... and trying to make things right. If you can't fucking do it, at least give the UN some support and let us go in and do it properly :cool:

You can't get out of it this easily.

because we have the same disrespect of Iraqis now

Heineken Helen

blackredyellow wrote:

I wish the UN would step in... and a multi-national force would go there and work as a security force and oversee the rebuilding, but I don't see any countries stepping up and volunteering their people for it. That's how we got into this nasty mess with contractors.

nasty mess with contractors? Aren't you set to benefit financially from that? And the UN certainly WOULD have stepped in long ago if Bush didn't kinda ignore them completely. This was his mess and is your mess... the rest of us will happily clear it up for ya like we usually do... but for now it's not our responsibility.

Hinny

The future of this place is that it's gonna fracture into pieces, with local powerbrokers, warlords if you will, fighting amongst themselves for more power and influence. This transitional period will become stable over time as those in charge realise the way to achieved power is to not fight, but to focus their energies on oil production as that's really the big geopolitical pair of dice they have up their sleeve. That troops are there is just delaying the inevitable chaos before the method in the madness is understood by all and sundry.

dangerboy

Heineken Helen wrote:

nasty mess with contractors? Aren't you set to benefit financially from that? And the UN certainly WOULD have stepped in long ago if Bush didn't kinda ignore them completely. This was his mess and is your mess... the rest of us will happily clear it up for ya like we usually do... but for now it's not our responsibility.

ahahahahaha what bizarro world do you live in? "the rest of us will clear it up like we usually do"? what a laugh. the rest of the world calls on US to clean up their messes with regularity. and who the hell do you think provides the most funding and troops for the UN? ireland? bwahahahahahaha

i am not posting to support the war, but your outrageous proclamations are just too much....

Heineken Helen

dangerboy wrote:

ahahahahaha what bizarro world do you live in? "the rest of us will clear it up like we usually do"? what a laugh. the rest of the world calls on US to clean up their messes with regularity. and who the hell do you think provides the most funding and troops for the UN? ireland? bwahahahahahaha

i am not posting to support the war, but your outrageous proclamations are just too much....

Huh? My brother has served in Kosovo, Liberia and Lebanon with the IRISH army... he will go to Afghanistan when that becomes available and said he'd go to Iraq.

Ireland has the second highest (to the French) number of troops going to sort out Chad at the moment.

Sorry you only live inside your little American bubble.

dangerboy

Heineken Helen wrote:

Huh? My brother has served in Kosovo, Liberia and Lebanon with the IRISH army... he will go to Afghanistan when that becomes available and said he'd go to Iraq.

Ireland has the second highest (to the French) number of troops going to sort out Chad at the moment.

Sorry you only live inside your little American bubble.

i didn't say ireland didn't contribute, i said the US ALONE contributes 25% of the UN's budget. and where exactly in the world have "the rest of us" "clear(ed) up" our "messes"?

dangerboy

Heineken Helen wrote:

Huh? My brother has served in Kosovo, Liberia and Lebanon with the IRISH army... he will go to Afghanistan when that becomes available and said he'd go to Iraq.

Ireland has the second highest (to the French) number of troops going to sort out Chad at the moment.

Sorry you only live inside your little American bubble.

first of all, chad is a former french colony, so it seems they're going there to help clean up their own mess, not the US's mess. second, it's not even a UN mission, it's an EU peacekeeping mission. and third, the total number of troops is only 3700, only 500 of which have even gone there yet. yeah, that's comparable to iraq or afghanistan....

Heineken Helen

dangerboy wrote:

i didn't say ireland didn't contribute, i said the US ALONE contributes 25% of the UN's budget. and where exactly in the world have "the rest of us" "clear(ed) up" our "messes"?

of course you do... cos if ya look back alot of them actually ARE US messes... Liberia being an excellent example.

I don't recall Ireland starting any conflicts in other countries and yet we contribute money and soldiers all the time. It's not a question of who fucking contributes more... it's a question of you going in, starting this shit and then the right want the troops to stay in and keep fighting, the left want the troops to come home and leave them in peace... neither of these are the answers. It's your mess, the Iraqi people didn't ask for this destruction... clean it up!

Heineken Helen

dangerboy wrote:

first of all, chad is a former french colony, so it seems they're going there to help clean up their own mess, not the US's mess. second, it's not even a UN mission, it's an EU peacekeeping mission. and third, the total number of troops is only 3700, only 500 of which have even gone there yet. yeah, that's comparable to iraq or afghanistan....

I'm not comparing... you're the one asking for examples... and there are major problems in Chad at the moment. I didn't say Chad were your fault. You were implying that Ireland does nothing, and I was telling you what we do... but this isn't an Ireland Vs US thing cos it's obvious who'd win that one and why. Now get back to the original point.

even flow?

Heineken Helen wrote:

You fucking started the mess... you go in, destroy a country for absolutely no good reason

I've got a nice piece of early man from ebay that was looted from the museum in Iraq at the beginning of the war. I may just use it as my Secret Santa gift next year. Thank you US army and the looters who help a fellow North American make more money on relics.

dangerboy

Heineken Helen wrote:

of course you do... cos if ya look back alot of them actually ARE US messes... Liberia being an excellent example.

I don't recall Ireland starting any conflicts in other countries and yet we contribute money and soldiers all the time. It's not a question of who fucking contributes more... it's a question of you going in, starting this shit and then the right want the troops to stay in and keep fighting, the left want the troops to come home and leave them in peace... neither of these are the answers. It's your mess, the Iraqi people didn't ask for this destruction... clean it up!

you called for the UN to step in and "clean up" like they always do. think about that for a second.

1) the US is the UN in many respects, given that we provide more funds than any other single entity in the entire organization.

2) the UN allowed Saddam to give the world the finger for decades. they passed resolution after resolution regarding iraq, but they never enforced any of them. he was a bad guy. he did alot of nasty shit. the world is a better place without him. he may not have been a direct threat to attack the united states, but he was certainly a threat to attack his neighbors. he was assisting terrorrists, whether specifically al-qaeda or not. i would argue that given the chance, he would have readily joined forces with them...

3) oil for food. more than 2 billion dollars worth of corruption and collusion between the UN and saddam. why aren't you bitching about that? because the people suffering the effects of it were just random brown people from half way across the world, not anyone in your precious irish bubble?


i will say that i agree that the war has not been well executed. i will agree that bush/cheney may have bitten off more than they can chew. i don't think slamming the US and calling for the UN to fix it are productive in any fashion.

Kann

dangerboy wrote:

first of all, chad is a former french colony, so it seems they're going there to help clean up their own mess, not the US's mess.

Actually, what fucked colonies up (aside from the looting of natural ressources) was the stupidity with which the boundaries were drawn. In Chad's case it's both the french and the english

On topic I mainly agree with Helen though I understand Americans feel that the army is wasting lives in Iraq since people are dying and the situation isn't getting better. Right now it doesn't seem that the army will be going anywhere anyways. I think most of the world's governments are fed up with Bush and are just waiting for him to leave. Once this is done diplomatic relations will start with the next president and I suppose some kind of european-un coalition will come in and give a hand. On a side note this will help the democrat candidates keep their promise to reduce the number of marines over there.

soulsinging

blackredyellow wrote:

Is the other side just going to stop shooting or blowing things up because our people put down their guns and pick up hammers? There is no way that our troops can stay there without being targets. There is no way that the country can get rebuilt as long as there are US troops everywhere.

i would rally like to see her answer this. you can't have it both ways. either we are there and fighting or we're not there. as long as us soldiers are there, people are going to be getting killed.

dangerboy

soulsinging wrote:

i would rally like to see her answer this. you can't have it both ways. either we are there and fighting or we're not there. as long as us soldiers are there, people are going to be getting killed.

why? do the regular iraqis hate us so much that they wouldn't accept help from us? that just seems stupid if that's the case. but then again, i don't think it's the regular iraqis who keep attacking the us soldiers. we can be there just to help. our military has gone other places not to conduct war, but to help and that's it. why couldn't this mission be converted? who, exactly, is preventing that?

tybird

Heineken Helen wrote:

You fucking started the mess... you go in, destroy a country for absolutely no good reason (oil NOT being a good reason), take everything you want from it... and then just fuck off and leave THEM to clean up the mess? :mad: Your troops should be over there NOT intimidating, not fighting... but building at YOUR expense... and cleaning up... and trying to make things right. If you can't fucking do it, at least give the UN some support and let us go in and do it properly :cool:

You can't get out of it this easily.

Well said. Always interesting to hear from an uninvolved party (neutral party?).

I think at some point, the West is going to have to abandon this dream of a United (and stable) Iraq. I envision three new countries (at least) being formed out of this mess.

soulsinging

dangerboy wrote:

why? do the regular iraqis hate us so much that they wouldn't accept help from us? that just seems stupid if that's the case. but then again, i don't think it's the regular iraqis who keep attacking the us soldiers. we can be there just to help. our military has gone other places not to conduct war, but to help and that's it. why couldn't this mission be converted? who, exactly, is preventing that?

do you live in reality? we spent how long bombing their country? how many iraqi civilians died in "shock and awe" and subsequent actions? how many people over there lost friends, family, and loved ones thanks to american bombs? and now we say "it's ok guys, we dont wanna hurt anyone, we just wanna help" while we sit and raid their oilfields and allow our companies to essentially loot the country and they're supposed to just forget about all that and say ok and welcome us with open arms? not a month goes by we don't hear about millions of dollars in aid money disappearing from the rebuilders' hands or some private firm's security force guns down a family.

let me guess... you're still crestfallen and confused that we werent hailed as liberators when we get there arent you? they don't trust us. we betrayed them in 92, we betrayed afghanistan in the 70s, and we've done it many other times in many other countries. why SHOULD they trust us? you dont just get handed trust and respect, you ahve to earn it. and we havent. that is what is preventing it and that is why the mission cannot be converted. nobody trusts or believes us. we're not liberators, we're an imperial occupying army.