PDA

View Full Version : The News Is Acting Like The War Is Over



MP
06-08-2006, 02:09 PM
Ali turban head is dead, like this will change a thing, we just made another 10k extremists by killing him.

Still cool that he is dead :naughty:

KRM
06-08-2006, 02:11 PM
It's great this fucker is dead(see pic) but this will not be over til we kill all the leaders and then bring our boys home so they can fight it out amongst themselves.

AbulletAway
06-08-2006, 02:14 PM
True, glad he's dead. I hope maybe this will at least make some kinda difference. Personally I think we should dress him up like a woman and drag his dead body around by a dog leash with military women holding the leash. Or at the very least cut his head off, piss on it and video tape it. But that's just me, I'm the type a guy that holds a grudge.

XxXotic
06-08-2006, 02:14 PM
this war will never be over unless we just wipe out the entire country and every iraqi on the planet. Every day we're still there breeds more and more hate for americans and our soldiers. NOBODY likes an occupying force on their land, regardless of whether or not it's a "liberating" force or invading force. And with the slow ass rate of knocking off their head dudes, it'll be 3-4 years before we get another figurehead in our sights. no one wanted to hear it when I said this war would be our generations vietnam... now look at it :(

dizmo
06-08-2006, 02:26 PM
I dont agree with you X. I believe alot of Iraqis are glad the US is there, glad that the US invaded in the first place, but ofcourse not happy this shit wont end.
If no one wanted you there, im sure ALL Iraq population would have no trouble taking all your soldiers out.
Keep in mind that its the minority that wants to wipe you off the planet, the majority is most likely, and hopefully glad to be free.

dizmo
06-08-2006, 02:27 PM
...but you are probably right about the never ending war, and the solution..... :(

XxXotic
06-08-2006, 02:35 PM
I dont agree with you X. I believe alot of Iraqis are glad the US is there, glad that the US invaded in the first place, but ofcourse not happy this shit wont end.
If no one wanted you there, im sure ALL Iraq population would have no trouble taking all your soldiers out.
Keep in mind that its the minority that wants to wipe you off the planet, the majority is most likely, and hopefully glad to be free.sure they may like us now, but a lot less like us then did when we first arrived. Every day we're there people still keep dying, both civilians and militia, so with each passing day more resentment builds. I'm not saying everyone there hates us, but every day we're there the number of people who dislike us rises. Civilians don't get to see everything thats going on, all they know is habib al mustaffa al bengali the friendly neighbor boy was blown up by US smart bombs and they don't see it as collateral damage, they see it as americans killing civilians.

If 10,000 iraqi's hate us today, 10,100 will hate us tomorrow, 10,200 hate us the next day. Eventually our presence there is going to be seen as nothing more then an invading/occupying force and they will eventually revolt against that. History has taught us that, insurgencies ALWAYS out last the occupants

ivo68
06-08-2006, 02:50 PM
There are hundreds or even thousands to replace him ... unfortunatelly.

pimpin4life
06-08-2006, 04:33 PM
The war ain't over yet i still think there going to be more.

Seraph
06-09-2006, 01:02 AM
Hot pic!

Baxter
06-09-2006, 01:34 AM
killing one leader over there is like stopping one nasty spammer from spamming the board....in a few days there is one or two diffrent ones in a couple days

if we would have just went over there and just killed them all in the first place....and ask if they were our friends after...this wouldnt be such a pain in the ass

rockhard8
06-09-2006, 05:20 AM
killing one leader over there is like stopping one nasty spammer from spamming the board....in a few days there is one or two diffrent ones in a couple days

if we would have just went over there and just killed them all in the first place....and ask if they were our friends after...this wouldnt be such a pain in the ass
true enough, but still it's so rewarding seeing those guys dead pics when they kill them. I remember the Hussien sons corpse shots, really brought a smile to my face.

Mr. Blue
06-09-2006, 07:57 AM
Eventually our presence there is going to be seen as nothing more then an invading/occupying force and they will eventually revolt against that. History has taught us that, insurgencies ALWAYS out last the occupants

Does history teach that? The U.S. has occupied a few countries in its time and has engaged in nation building fairly successfully.

WWII and The Marshall Plan...most of the european countries that got assistance via the Marshall plan ended up better off financially then they started before the war. We've pretty much maintained a military force in the region since.

Germany - West / East...when you look at the economic prosperity in west germany as compared to east Germany you can see the effect of U.S. economic aid. Germany has had some tough economic times since the reunification, but we still maintain a rather large military in Europe mostly in Germany.

Japan - the U.S. rebuilt Japan after WWII

South Korea - Economically thriving while North Korea can't feed its population. We still have thousands of troops in the DMZ

Panama - democracy has taken hold after U.S. removed Noriega

Grenada - democracy is doing fairly well over there.

Failures with our "Nation Building" is usually focused on Vietnam, but since the war never ended, I'm not sure we could declare that we even began the process of nation building. Other failures, Haiti and Somalia, both came during Clinton's administration and more or less in Haiti he pulled troops too fast. Somalia the UN and U.S. basically cocked up that operation.

While the track record is not perfect...The U.S. has had considerable success in the area of nation building even if we have an occupying military presence in a country. So I don't think you can say History automatically dictates that occupying a country will lead to failure.

ivo68
06-09-2006, 08:13 AM
Does history teach that? The U.S. has occupied a few countries in its time and has engaged in nation building fairly successfully.

WWII and The Marshall Plan...most of the european countries that got assistance via the Marshall plan ended up better off financially then they started before the war. We've pretty much maintained a military force in the region since.

Germany - West / East...when you look at the economic prosperity in west germany as compared to east Germany you can see the effect of U.S. economic aid. Germany has had some tough economic times since the reunification, but we still maintain a rather large military in Europe mostly in Germany.

Japan - the U.S. rebuilt Japan after WWII

South Korea - Economically thriving while North Korea can't feed its population. We still have thousands of troops in the DMZ

Panama - democracy has taken hold after U.S. removed Noriega

Grenada - democracy is doing fairly well over there.

Failures with our "Nation Building" is usually focused on Vietnam, but since the war never ended, I'm not sure we could declare that we even began the process of nation building. Other failures, Haiti and Somalia, both came during Clinton's administration and more or less in Haiti he pulled troops too fast. Somalia the UN and U.S. basically cocked up that operation.

While the track record is not perfect...The U.S. has had considerable success in the area of nation building even if we have an occupying military presence in a country. So I don't think you can say History automatically dictates that occupying a country will lead to failure.
Don't forget Iraq is an islamic country. For most religious people in the islamic world America is the satan. A land where satan rules with his satanic laws. Even for most muslims living in Europe America is the enemy No #1. Economic arguments and positive examples don't help here. I don't see the end of bloodshed in Iraq any time soon. I don't know how it's going to end but I don't think it will end good.

dizmo
06-09-2006, 11:52 AM
Don't forget Iraq is an islamic country. For most religious people in the islamic world America is the satan. A land where satan rules with his satanic laws. Even for most muslims living in Europe America is the enemy No #1. Economic arguments and positive examples don't help here. I don't see the end of bloodshed in Iraq any time soon. I don't know how it's going to end but I don't think it will end good.
ya, u gotta hate freeedom! :P

XxXotic
06-09-2006, 12:33 PM
Does history teach that? The U.S. has occupied a few countries in its time and has engaged in nation building fairly successfully.

WWII and The Marshall Plan...most of the european countries that got assistance via the Marshall plan ended up better off financially then they started before the war. We've pretty much maintained a military force in the region since.

Germany - West / East...when you look at the economic prosperity in west germany as compared to east Germany you can see the effect of U.S. economic aid. Germany has had some tough economic times since the reunification, but we still maintain a rather large military in Europe mostly in Germany.

Japan - the U.S. rebuilt Japan after WWII

South Korea - Economically thriving while North Korea can't feed its population. We still have thousands of troops in the DMZ

Panama - democracy has taken hold after U.S. removed Noriega

Grenada - democracy is doing fairly well over there.

Failures with our "Nation Building" is usually focused on Vietnam, but since the war never ended, I'm not sure we could declare that we even began the process of nation building. Other failures, Haiti and Somalia, both came during Clinton's administration and more or less in Haiti he pulled troops too fast. Somalia the UN and U.S. basically cocked up that operation.

While the track record is not perfect...The U.S. has had considerable success in the area of nation building even if we have an occupying military presence in a country. So I don't think you can say History automatically dictates that occupying a country will lead to failure.
we pulled out of all of the above except really for south korea and we dont really occupy that, just have a shitload of troops in the buffer zone, we're not walking the streets of S. Korea firearms in hand. In extended periods of occupation (years) I should say rather, not quick strike police actions.

None of the above "occupations" (if you can even call them that) lasted very long at all. Rebuilding a nation isn't occupation nor is helping them set up new forms of government. Thats a quick military op designed to remove a government, set up a new one and get out. Occupation involves an invading force on the ground for extended periods of time. In most if not all of these cases we came in, did what was asked of us and got out. We weren't there to take over the country, we were asked to help out, we did, we got out.

We have troops all over the world, that's not considered an occupation. If that were the case the US "occupies" probably 2/3rds of the world. Do we have troops on the ground all over? yes, but they pretty much stay on base and aren't walking the streets policing everything. As well we're there with approval from the government of that nation. We dont just put bases in any country we want, without permission from the government, we wouldn't be there. There's a difference between occupying a nation and just having ready troops there.

dizmo
06-09-2006, 01:48 PM
damn you americans, stop occupying sweden, get out!!!!!

Mr. Blue
06-09-2006, 04:12 PM
we pulled out of all of the above except really for south korea and we dont really occupy that, just have a shitload of troops in the buffer zone, we're not walking the streets of S. Korea firearms in hand. In extended periods of occupation (years) I should say rather, not quick strike police actions.

None of the above "occupations" (if you can even call them that) lasted very long at all. Rebuilding a nation isn't occupation nor is helping them set up new forms of government. Thats a quick military op designed to remove a government, set up a new one and get out. Occupation involves an invading force on the ground for extended periods of time. In most if not all of these cases we came in, did what was asked of us and got out. We weren't there to take over the country, we were asked to help out, we did, we got out.

We have troops all over the world, that's not considered an occupation. If that were the case the US "occupies" probably 2/3rds of the world. Do we have troops on the ground all over? yes, but they pretty much stay on base and aren't walking the streets policing everything. As well we're there with approval from the government of that nation. We dont just put bases in any country we want, without permission from the government, we wouldn't be there. There's a difference between occupying a nation and just having ready troops there.

Actually you're completely wrong and these facts are pretty easily googled if you doubt them :)

In Germany we occupied it for nearly 10 years after the war. The war ended in 1945 in Germany and we occupied it until around 1955. Also, I don't know if you're familiar with an organization called Werewolf, but they were the German resistance force during the occupation. They had some successes after the war, but it wasn't like the U.S. media back then reported every little thing like it does now.

In Japan we had an occupying army present for 7 years after the close of the war.

In South Korea we had an occupation force 3 years after the war concluded and still have a nice sized force in the DMZ.

Panama - I didn't give the complete picture regarding Panama, we had an occupying force in panama for 80 years. We left, they fucked it up, we came back and removed Noriega...now they're back on track.

Grenada - we had an occupying force for 4 years...again a small country so it wasn't really difficult.

One last thing...the majority of the "insurgents" in Iraq aren't Iraqi's. So you really can't say that the Iraqi people are resisting against the occupation. More or less the majority of the combatants are pouring in from countries like Syria and the other surrounding countries that have a beef with the U.S.

Now I'm not saying Iraq will compare to Germany, Japan, etc, but I am saying that history doesn't automatically say that a U.S. occupying force is a bad thing.

But anyway, my personal beliefs is the U.S. should have always maintained a policy of Isolationism, but we haven't and its created all sorts of interesting history because of it.

SirMoby
06-11-2006, 01:22 AM
Don't forget Iraq is an islamic country. For most religious people in the islamic world America is the satan. A land where satan rules with his satanic laws. Even for most muslims living in Europe America is the enemy No #1. Economic arguments and positive examples don't help here. I don't see the end of bloodshed in Iraq any time soon. I don't know how it's going to end but I don't think it will end good.
I don't know about "Most". I think most extremist but the extremist are really very few. They're just the ones making head lines.

ivo68
06-11-2006, 03:03 PM
I don't know about "Most". I think most extremist but the extremist are really very few. They're just the ones making head lines.
Most people in Iran will tell you America is evil. Ordinary people. The same is in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Palestine, etc. I know some young muslim people who were born and grew up in Europe. When Saddam attacked Kuwait and when America started the first war against Iraq thew were all against America. Ordinary young people, listen to the western music, eat pork, drink bear. They all hoped Saddam would pull out some secret weapon and defeat America. I couldn't believe my ears. Saddam was killing the muslims in Kuwait, he also killed dozens of thousands of muslims (Shia) in Iraq, but they hated America not Saddam.

joeslim
06-12-2006, 11:42 PM
i dont know about the rest of you, but i cant tell them apart. that may be his second cousin's nephew's sister's son, who knows!? we do know the guy cant cock and fire a gun on TV...
this is all some more government shit to make us feel good about killing hundreds of thousands innocent iraqi's and afghani's and to push our agenda further.

dizmo
06-13-2006, 02:38 AM
Most people in Iran will tell you America is evil. Ordinary people. The same is in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Palestine, etc. I know some young muslim people who were born and grew up in Europe. When Saddam attacked Kuwait and when America started the first war against Iraq thew were all against America. Ordinary young people, listen to the western music, eat pork, drink bear. They all hoped Saddam would pull out some secret weapon and defeat America. I couldn't believe my ears. Saddam was killing the muslims in Kuwait, he also killed dozens of thousands of muslims (Shia) in Iraq, but they hated America not Saddam.
once again, as sirmoby said, they are the ones making the "headlines"/ getting your attention. I still gotta believe the majority of ppl, regardless of religion gotta have some sense.