[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Seems to me Iraq having an independent but government that is not a puppet of the US would be considered good news by most.[/quote]
It is.
lixy, doesn’t qualify as “most.”
Guaranteed, if Maliki was a puppet, lixy would be continually bringing that up.
As I’ve said many times, if lixy wasn’t so tranparent and clumsy, he’d be dangerous.
JeffR
[quote]lixy wrote:
Bill O’Reilly, on June 20, talking about the war in Iraq:
"I�??m gonna tell you that the big picture is, the Iraqis have two more months. They�??ve got two more months. And if they don�??t step up and help more than they�??re helping �?? and by help, I mean, they have to pass oil legislation so everybody gets a piece of the oil pie.�?? He added, �??Their armed forces have to fight more aggressively and bravely alongside us, and if they don�??t do it in two months, it�??s over."
Two months later…[/quote]
FOX NEWS RULES!!!
Even lixy watches it.
SEAN HANNITY, BILL O’REILLY, FOX NEWS, and RUSH LIMBAUGH love you.
They send greetings to lixy/bradley/pookie.
JeffR
[quote]orion wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Now the question becomes: Can Muslims have a government that is a liberal democracy, where people basically leave each other in peace, to worship as they see fit, to live as they see fit, to do what you want as long as no one else is harmed?
Don’t see it.
Well I do not see that for the US or the EU in the near future either.
What about a semi-authoritarian but not totalitarian oligarchy that disguises itself as a Democracy and bribes its people with oil earnings?
They could even have a free press and all, once they learn to buy journalists instead of killing them.
[/quote]
Sad but true: we’ve got a lot of problems. I’d still rather live in the USA or even in Austria (the mountains are more beautiful).
The trend of the world is definitely toward authoritarianism. That reflects the philosophy promulgated in the 19th and 2oth centuries, most of which were authoritarian.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
Let’s cut the crap. We both know that between rodham (democrat) and anyone else, you’ll pull the democrat bar.
[/quote]
I ask you to do the same, but I know that you aren’t capable of doing so.
I have no reason to vote for Democrat anymore than I do a Republican. I’ve also never said anything to contrary. I despise both parties equally. Why you insist that I’m going to vote for Hillary is beyond me.
You’re correct for once.
You’re assertions, much like your posts, are ridiculous. Why should I take the time to refute all of your claims?
Dustin
[/quote]
[quote]Dustin wrote:
I have no reason to vote for Democrat anymore than I do a Republican. I’ve also never said anything to contrary. I despise both parties equally. Why you insist that I’m going to vote for Hillary is beyond me.
…you won’t vote.
You’re correct for once.
Dustin
[/quote]
Hey why don’t you do us all a favor and stay off the political forums then? You’re not even willing to exercise your most basic right/duty. You’ve spent years on here bitching about everything political and yet you can’t be bothered to vote.
I’m quite certain that the other political junkies, like Thunderbolt, cartilage skeleton vroom, JeffR, Hedo, bipolar pookie, bicycler of the anschluss, black helicopter man, etc. vote.
Hell, I bet even lixy attempts to blow up a day care center to express his feelings on key issues on election day. That’s almost like voting, right?
[quote]lixy wrote:
Bill O’Reilly, on June 20, talking about the war in Iraq:
"I�??m gonna tell you that the big picture is, the Iraqis have two more months. They�??ve got two more months. And if they don�??t step up and help more than they�??re helping �?? and by help, I mean, they have to pass oil legislation so everybody gets a piece of the oil pie.�?? He added, �??Their armed forces have to fight more aggressively and bravely alongside us, and if they don�??t do it in two months, it�??s over."
Two months later…[/quote]
Maybe if Rumsfeld hadn’t completely dismantled the Iraqi military and cancelled pensions to the senior officers this would be a realistic scenario. Instead he sent them home unemployed to find other ways to feed their families and gave them a reason to fight against US troops.
Now we have a bunch of men off the streets of Iraq with sub par training and we want them to step up and do a job that our military is not able to do? I’m really surprised how Bill O’Reilly found a way to turn the tables on the Iraqis and make this all seem like it is their fault.
[quote]mstott25 wrote:
lixy wrote:
Bill O’Reilly, on June 20, talking about the war in Iraq:
"I�??m gonna tell you that the big picture is, the Iraqis have two more months. They�??ve got two more months. And if they don�??t step up and help more than they�??re helping �?? and by help, I mean, they have to pass oil legislation so everybody gets a piece of the oil pie.�?? He added, �??Their armed forces have to fight more aggressively and bravely alongside us, and if they don�??t do it in two months, it�??s over."
Two months later…
Maybe if Rumsfeld hadn’t completely dismantled the Iraqi military and cancelled pensions to the senior officers this would be a realistic scenario. Instead he sent them home unemployed to find other ways to feed their families and gave them a reason to fight against US troops.
Now we have a bunch of men off the streets of Iraq with sub par training and we want them to step up and do a job that our military is not able to do? I’m really surprised how Bill O’Reilly found a way to turn the tables on the Iraqis and make this all seem like it is their fault.
[/quote]
Perhaps if he would have kept the senior officers (Sunni) employed by the Iraqi military the Shia majority of the country would have had a huge problem with it and there would be even more trouble.
[quote]mstott25 wrote:
…
Now we have a bunch of men off the streets of Iraq with sub par training and we want them to step up and do a job that our military is not able to do? I’m really surprised how Bill O’Reilly found a way to turn the tables on the Iraqis and make this all seem like it is their fault.
[/quote]
Are you actually claiming that the current Iraqi Army is more poorly trained than the old one? You are deluded.
[quote]ChuckyT wrote:
Hell, I bet even lixy attempts to blow up a day care center to express his feelings on key issues on election day. That’s almost like voting, right?[/quote]
Fuck off!
[quote]
Lixy wrote: “Don’t be fooled and turn this into “Muslims against Jews”. It’s got nothing to do with it. It’s a people with no perpective for the future, jailed in an open-air prison that want to make their voices heard. I agree that it’s not the best possible way, but what else can they do?” [/quote]
This in response to someone condemning deliberate mass casualty attacks on unarmed civilians.
I just figured that if you didn’t like the candidates – for instance, if you were forced to choose between Ehud Olmert and Benyamin Netanyahu on your ballot – what else could you do? Where did I go wrong?
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
mstott25 wrote:
…
Now we have a bunch of men off the streets of Iraq with sub par training and we want them to step up and do a job that our military is not able to do? I’m really surprised how Bill O’Reilly found a way to turn the tables on the Iraqis and make this all seem like it is their fault.
Are you actually claiming that the current Iraqi Army is more poorly trained than the old one? You are deluded.[/quote]
What I am claiming is that under Saddam Hussein Iraq enjoyed a larger military that was seasoned in warfare and united in their efforts. I am claiming that the former Republican Guard had no problem keeping the people of Iraq under control. I am claiming that the New Iraqi Army is not able to perform these feats and it is an unfair expectation to hold them to such a task.
The New Iraqi Army has been intentionally created as a smaller force with a different focus. They have had their complete infrastructure, as well as the scope and capacity of their mission changed at least twice. There have been entire brigades refuse to participate in operations and there remains to this day high levels of suspicion of mass infiltration and misplaced loyalties.
I’m not sure if this qualifies me as delusional but I have a sneaking suspicion that when we place the mess we created on the shoulders of the new Iraqi Army we are setting them up for failure.
[quote]mstott25 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
mstott25 wrote:
…
Now we have a bunch of men off the streets of Iraq with sub par training and we want them to step up and do a job that our military is not able to do? I’m really surprised how Bill O’Reilly found a way to turn the tables on the Iraqis and make this all seem like it is their fault.
Are you actually claiming that the current Iraqi Army is more poorly trained than the old one? You are deluded.
What I am claiming is that under Saddam Hussein Iraq enjoyed a larger military that was seasoned in warfare and united in their efforts. I am claiming that the former Republican Guard had no problem keeping the people of Iraq under control. I am claiming that the New Iraqi Army is not able to perform these feats and it is an unfair expectation to hold them to such a task.
The New Iraqi Army has been intentionally created as a smaller force with a different focus. They have had their complete infrastructure, as well as the scope and capacity of their mission changed at least twice. There have been entire brigades refuse to participate in operations and there remains to this day high levels of suspicion of mass infiltration and misplaced loyalties.
I’m not sure if this qualifies me as delusional but I have a sneaking suspicion that when we place the mess we created on the shoulders of the new Iraqi Army we are setting them up for failure. [/quote]
The only reason he was able to keep his people down is because he regularly engaged in wholesale murder of various groups. The current Iraqi Army is trying to stop violence against the people while the old Iraqi Army promoted it.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
The article simply confirms what we knew all along: No one can defeat the United States of America EXCEPT ourselves.
Let’s hear it for the United States: the most noble, most moral country in the history of our planet!
“Only a fool bets against the United States.”
— JP Morgan
You are a crazy bastard. Delusion isn’t even the word for you.[/quote]
Of course I’m crazy. Who wants to be ‘normal’? Normal is boring.
C’mon Irish, catch up. This is a GREAT thread!! Vroom, RJ, and Thunder have been asked to take photos of their dicks and post here. Craziness rocks!!!
[quote]ChuckyT wrote:
Hey why don’t you do us all a favor and stay off the political forums then? You’re not even willing to exercise your most basic right/duty. You’ve spent years on here bitching about everything political and yet you can’t be bothered to vote.
[/quote]
I voted in 2000 and 2004 actually.
Maybe if I thought there was a difference between the Democrats and Republicans, I’d vote this time around.
Dustin
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
The only reason he was able to keep his people down is because he regularly engaged in wholesale murder of various groups. The current Iraqi Army is trying to stop violence against the people while the old Iraqi Army promoted it.[/quote]
I never said Saddam was an angel and I think we’re digressing here. I firmly believe, as does the current Bush administration, that the new Iraqi Army is not capable of keeping Iraq under control. I thought it was unfair of Bill O’Reilly to put such a burden on their shoulders especially because we are responsible for dismantling the military that was keeping peace in Iraq. Wherein lies your argument?
[quote]mstott25 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
The only reason he was able to keep his people down is because he regularly engaged in wholesale murder of various groups. The current Iraqi Army is trying to stop violence against the people while the old Iraqi Army promoted it.
I never said Saddam was an angel and I think we’re digressing here. I firmly believe, as does the current Bush administration, that the new Iraqi Army is not capable of keeping Iraq under control. I thought it was unfair of Bill O’Reilly to put such a burden on their shoulders especially because we are responsible for dismantling the military that was keeping peace in Iraq. Wherein lies your argument? [/quote]
My argument is that we dismantled a brutal army run by the Sunni minority that only kept contol by brutalizing the Shia majority.
If we would have left that army in place things would likely be worse than they are now.
Did we leave the SS in charge of Nazi Germany? Should we have?
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
My argument is that we dismantled a brutal army run by the Sunni minority that only kept contol by brutalizing the Shia majority.
If we would have left that army in place things would likely be worse than they are now.
[/quote]
The Sunnis and Shiites lived in peace in Iraq before this war. What conditions are you contending would have worsened had we not intervened and saved Iraq from herself? What is worse than an all out civil war? This war was labeled as many things but a humanitarian mission to save Iraqis was not one.
[quote]
Did we leave the SS in charge of Nazi Germany? Should we have?[/quote]
If what you are implying is true and the United States has some sort of obligation to dismantle cruel armies throughout the world then we are way behind the power curve.
A more suitable question would be: Have we left the militaries of Sudan, North Korea, Burma, Zimbabwe, Uzbekistan, China, Saudi Arabia, Turkmenistan, Libya, Somalia, Iran, and Equatorial Guinea in charge? Should we?
[quote]mstott25 wrote:
If what you are implying is true and the United States has some sort of obligation to dismantle cruel armies throughout the world then we are way behind the power curve.
A more suitable question would be: Have we left the militaries of Sudan, North Korea, Burma, Zimbabwe, Uzbekistan, China, Saudi Arabia, Turkmenistan, Libya, Somalia, Iran, and Equatorial Guinea in charge? Should we? [/quote]
Why do you assume some sort of general obligation to rid the world of “cruel armies” merely because in the specific case of Iraq we wanted to rid Iraq of its “cruel army”?
This fallacy pops up over and over and over - we must bury it.
[quote]mstott25 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Did we leave the SS in charge of Nazi Germany? Should we have?
If what you are implying is true and the United States has some sort of obligation to dismantle cruel armies throughout the world then we are way behind the power curve.
A more suitable question would be: Have we left the militaries of Sudan, North Korea, Burma, Zimbabwe, Uzbekistan, China, Saudi Arabia, Turkmenistan, Libya, Somalia, Iran, and Equatorial Guinea in charge? Should we? [/quote]
Are you talking about Iraq, or are you talking about the whole world? To leave Saddam’s Baathist army intact would have been a bad idea. They sent a brigade into Falusia and all they did was bolster the insurgency there until the Marines moved in and leveled the place. Saddam’s Baathist army was and is an enemy of the US.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Why do you assume some sort of general obligation to rid the world of “cruel armies” merely because in the specific case of Iraq we wanted to rid Iraq of its “cruel army”?
This fallacy pops up over and over and over - we must bury it.[/quote]
Yeah, we get it, the US don’t do consistency.