Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Films, TV, Music, Books, Etc.' started by BIGNDfan22, Sep 11, 2007.
I just want to say that 9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq....so there, the poll is pointless.
stay until our mission is accomplished?
i thought that happened already?
Can anyone tell me what our goal at this point is?!
I did a very quick browse through the topic, but I never saw this brought up.
When was the United States of America appointed world police? I mean, yes, Saddam was a bad man. He did a lot of bad things and shouldn't of been power. But I don't remember us being the ones told we were in charge of regulating the planet.
Kind of like in high school and you are sitting in class having a great game of paper football and the jerk from across the room comes over and tells you that you are playing wrong and that this is how you play. Then proceeds to move you aside and take your spot in the game.
That's hardly new, whether it's Kosovan hospitals or Vietnamese jungle. Didn't Petraeus answer this question yesterday?
I don't support an immediate pull out from Iraq, as the damage done by the American occupation would leave the country in a (worse than it is now) state of civil war. It's essential imo to formulate a schedule for retreat, though.
I think the "until our goal is reached" is pretty pretentious. I think the Iraqi civilians' goals are a tad more of the issue now.
Somewhere between the start of World War 2 and the Suez Crisis.
A LOT OF PEOPLE STILL THINK IT DOES THOUGH!!!!!
As far as Saddam goes - regardless of his crimes while in office [ no matter how serious] we invaded a sovereign country! And had that countries leader EXECUTED! WTF.
LOL when NES man has to call you off me you know it is awful.
Hi New kid, I'm Mike. This topic is a good one and so was my response. You asked if we should "Stick it out untill(sic) our goal is reached" in Iraq and simply and concisely stated that "we have no goal in Iraq" because we don't. I apologize if my brevity didn't satisfy your desire for a drawn out conversation in which you would question my patriotism or personal political beliefs because your daddy made a mistake and voted for the wrong guy.
It is awesome that he is in the service and being a child of somebody in the service must be tough and confusing. I know that I have friends in the service who have had their lives ruined by this war, but they choose to serve and I respect that.
Anyhow, enjoy your time at Game-Revolution.com. Please read some of the reviews- I hear they are awesome!
i support the idea of having the UN take care of things, seeing as they are the world police, not a war hungry nation thats going on its 3rd straight loss in the last set of pointless wars
Bush didn't like UN's findings (which were nothing) and did it on his own. The natural reaction for the UN was to put troops on the ground to counter-act the United States but... well, that's a whole new can of worms on its own.
Only another year folks. Only another fucking year.
Persian Gulf War = Loss ? :?
Anyways back on topic, I think we made a big mistake going in Iraq (obviously), but to pull out would be an even bigger mistake and would completely ruin the country. You think if Iraq was left alone they would sort things out on their own? Maybe after a decade of civil war. But still if we truly didn't care about Iraq, we would have pulled our troops from there and said screw them a long time ago.
ha! the best wars won never made the news.
that's the way we roll, pimpin
i almost dont even wanna argue with you just cause i dont feel like goin back and forth but ive stated several times that the current goal in Iraq is to stablize thier government which WE "unstabalized". if we left now we would have made a country worse than it is and then just run away.....that would be not nice
You do realize by stating that the United States destabilized the Iraqi government you're essentially implying that it was in fact originally stable, right? A government that killed its civilians if they deviated from their beliefs is hardly a stable government in my book. I do, however, agree that the United States shouldn't just immediately get up and walk away. If they're going to leave, they have to do it over a pretty big interval of time.
Well for a country with 15 different groups of people that all pretty much hate each other, I'd say Saddam did a pretty good job keeping them together. How he did it might not have been pretty, but it was effective.
DUde --- im sooo glad you said it, cuz i didnt want to.
The region was defiantly MORE stable. Iraq was a sovereign gov't.
Iraq balanced the power in that region so as to not shift towards Iran.
Maybe it took a leader of that caliber to control a region that volatile.
What kind of odd definition of "stable" do you have? It needn't be "good" to be stable. It simply has to have enduring characteristics like small probabilities of revolutionary groups rising up and overthrowing the government. Russia under Stalin was also pretty stable, but no one's going to argue it was good. The Weimar Republic, on the other hand, embodied a lot of laudable characteristics, but it certainly wasn't stable.
And for everyone who says that we fucked it up and should stick around to fix it back: Do tell me how exactly we can fix it? All Bush's claims of "turning corners" and "progress" notwithstanding, it seems to me like Iraq is going into disarray sooner or later regardless of what Americans do over the next couple years; as my Political Science professor often commented, we're simply training the soldiers for the upcoming civil war. The only difference between pulling out now or later is the amount of American soldiers that will die needlessly.
This is all part of the plan to chip us....
Did no one even read Petraeus's report?