[quote]rainjack wrote:
Why would we bring people back when the mission is not completed?
[/quote]
???
[quote]lixy wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Why would we bring people back when the mission is not completed?
???[/quote]
That’s right after we took control of Iraq, i.e. kicked hussein’s ass.
That particular mission was accomplished faster than ever before in the history of warfare.
Why is that fact so hard for idiots like you to understand?
[quote]Molotov_Coktease wrote:
I think you need to add into that scenario…that what progress is being made, is constantly being blown back to bits. Square one is every day. [/quote]
Excellent point. If the insurgents were not murdering utility workers and hanging their bodies from bridges, maybe the people of Iraq would have utilities years ago.
The isurgents are causing the most problems because they want Iraq to fail. The people took a long time to realize this, but at least some finally have.
I think what needs to be done is the tribal leaders and their armies should be taken out of Iraq and set up in other countries, much like good old al-Sadr is doing when he heads to Iran. That way, they can meet and plan, build their forces and then help us drive out the elements who would have Iraq remain a failed state.
[quote]pookie wrote:
JeffR wrote:
I hope you’ll forgive me if I’ll point out that I’m disappointed you didn’t just say, “You are right, that is real progress.”
Since there’s been, according to you, real progress, and Iraq is thus closer to being self-sustainable; tell us Jeff, how many troops do you think you could bring back?
[/quote]
pookie,
You and I are aware that, in order to have a quid pro quo, in our dialogue, it is sometimes necessary to establish ground rules.
These ground rules are necessary to ensure that I haven’t wasted my time and effort only to have you disappear or fail to digest the information I provide.
I think this is one of those times.
If you would like me to give you a number of troops that I would like to come home in 2008, 2009 and beyond, I think it’s necessary for you to acknowledge that the recent political compromise is “real” progress.
I thought of pointing out the many reasons why this breakthrough is unique and has the opportunity to be long-standing. However, I have some faith in your abilities. I think you can re-read the article I linked. Further, I think that you are capable of searching other sources if my article doesn’t make the situation clear.
Therefore, if you acknowledge that your statement implying no political progress has been negated by recent events, I’d be happy to propose a troop withdrawal timetable.
Ok?
JeffR
[quote]Molotov_Coktease wrote:
rainjack wrote:
pookie wrote:
JeffR wrote:
I hope you’ll forgive me if I’ll point out that I’m disappointed you didn’t just say, “You are right, that is real progress.”
Since there’s been, according to you, real progress, and Iraq is thus closer to being self-sustainable; tell us Jeff, how many troops do you think you could bring back?
Is the job finished? Do you call off the carpenters because it’s finally starting to look like a house instead of a concrete slab?
Why would we bring people back when the mission is not completed?
DO you quit training and eating when you start seeing real progress in the mirror?
C’mon pookster. At least pretend you can come in out of the rain.
I think you need to add into that scenario…that what progress is being made, is constantly being blown back to bits. Square one is every day. You can eat right, you can lift, you can live by the rules and expect the best, and only come out with the worst…everytime. No matter how hard you work and lift, the result will be an obese explosion. Because its not your body. [/quote]
Forgive me, I have no idea what you are trying to say. Could you translate this paragraph?
Thanks,
JeffR
[quote]rainjack wrote:
lixy wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Why would we bring people back when the mission is not completed?
???
That’s right after we took control of Iraq, i.e. kicked hussein’s ass.
That particular mission was accomplished faster than ever before in the history of warfare.
Why is that fact so hard for idiots like you to understand?
[/quote]
Well, first of all you are not in control of Iraq and also were not in control at that particular point.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
lixy wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Why would we bring people back when the mission is not completed?
???
That’s right after we took control of Iraq, i.e. kicked hussein’s ass.
That particular mission was accomplished faster than ever before in the history of warfare.
Why is that fact so hard for idiots like you to understand? [/quote]
That’s pretty convenient. Making up “missions” as you go along. Best choice to remain there indefinitely.
Now tell me, since “that particular mission was accomplished”, what is the new “particular mission” you are pursuing there? Have you sorted that out yet, or will you just make a new one up when the time is right?
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Molotov_Coktease wrote:
I think you need to add into that scenario…that what progress is being made, is constantly being blown back to bits. Square one is every day.
Excellent point. If the insurgents were not murdering utility workers and hanging their bodies from bridges, maybe the people of Iraq would have utilities years ago.
The isurgents are causing the most problems because they want Iraq to fail. The people took a long time to realize this, but at least some finally have.
I think what needs to be done is the tribal leaders and their armies should be taken out of Iraq and set up in other countries, much like good old al-Sadr is doing when he heads to Iran. That way, they can meet and plan, build their forces and then help us drive out the elements who would have Iraq remain a failed state.
[/quote]
The “utility workers” that were hanged from bridges after being killed belonged to a certain operation named “Blackwater”.
You know, a mercenary outfit that is not subject to Iraqi, US or US military law while acting in Iraq and responsible for the death of quite a few Iraqis for one reason only, to make a buck.
Since you can hardly sue them, burning them and hanging them from a bridge is one way of dealing with them that ensures that a certain message is understood even by their above the law being trigger happy asses.
[quote]orion wrote:
rainjack wrote:
lixy wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Why would we bring people back when the mission is not completed?
???
That’s right after we took control of Iraq, i.e. kicked hussein’s ass.
That particular mission was accomplished faster than ever before in the history of warfare.
Why is that fact so hard for idiots like you to understand?
Well, first of all you are not in control of Iraq and also were not in control at that particular point.
[/quote]
No - first of all, we had removed Sadaam from power. We were in charge. We still are in charge. We set up bases, governments, held elections, built schools.
Revise it all you want. The facts are the facts. You can’t change reality by refusing to admit it.
Now - unless you can actually keep your drug fucked mind out of the damn spirit world, there is really no reason for you o be posting any more in this thread.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
orion wrote:
rainjack wrote:
lixy wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Why would we bring people back when the mission is not completed?
???
That’s right after we took control of Iraq, i.e. kicked hussein’s ass.
That particular mission was accomplished faster than ever before in the history of warfare.
Why is that fact so hard for idiots like you to understand?
Well, first of all you are not in control of Iraq and also were not in control at that particular point.
No - first of all, we had removed Sadaam from power. We were in charge. We still are in charge. We set up bases, governments, held elections, built schools.
Revise it all you want. The facts are the facts. You can’t change reality by refusing to admit it.
Now - unless you can actually keep your drug fucked mind out of the damn spirit world, there is really no reason for you o be posting any more in this thread.
[/quote]
I agree with you.
You cannot change reality by refusing to admit it.
Not even by hanging giant posters from aircraft carriers.
[quote]lixy wrote:
rainjack wrote:
lixy wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Why would we bring people back when the mission is not completed?
???
That’s right after we took control of Iraq, i.e. kicked hussein’s ass.
That particular mission was accomplished faster than ever before in the history of warfare.
Why is that fact so hard for idiots like you to understand?
That’s pretty convenient. Making up “missions” as you go along. Best choice to remain there indefinitely.
Now tell me, since “that particular mission was accomplished”, what is the new “particular mission” you are pursuing there? Have you sorted that out yet, or will you just make a new one up when the time is right?[/quote]
Stabilizing Iraq, and training the Iraqis to police their own nation would be the second mission. Drawing your brothers in cowardice into the Middle East Roach Trap has proven to add time to the completion of the second mission, but it is proving to be more successful than I could have hoped for.
Unlike you, lixy, I don’t have to rely on making shit up, or flat misinterpreting polling data. Facts are facts.
[quote]orion wrote:
I agree with you.
You cannot change reality by refusing to admit it.
Not even by hanging giant posters from aircraft carriers.
[/quote]
The posters are the truth. Why is it so hard for you to admit we kicked the shit out of Sadaam in record time? You can’t create enough propaganda to change the facts.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Stabilizing Iraq [/quote]
Well, that’s kinda vague, isn’t it? I mean, surely you must have noticed that some regions in the United States are not exactly stable compared to, say some parts of Europe.
Iraq is now a terrorist breeding ground and a terrain for the Saudis to quash Shi’ites. The Kurds in the North are longing for independence, while the Iranian backed bloc (the largest demographic) will not compromise as long as foreign troops are on their soil. Short of killing every last one of them, I don’t see how you can stabilize the place.
[quote]orion wrote:
The “utility workers” that were hanged from bridges after being killed belonged to a certain operation named “Blackwater”.
[/quote]
Not everyone who was kidnapped and murdered by the insurgency was in Blackwater. Most of them weren’t even from the US.
Just because they belonged to whatever group does not give you the right to justify their deaths. Are you are now a terrorist sympathizer? What would it matter to you if the US does not succeed in Iraq?
I guess Europe’s pissed because their oil firms were in control of Iraq prior to the war.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Iraq is now a terrorist breeding ground and a terrain for the Saudis to quash Shi’ites. The Kurds in the North are longing for independence, while the Iranian backed bloc (the largest demographic) will not compromise as long as foreign troops are on their soil. [/quote]
Wow, great. It’s like 1550 all over again. Have at it.
The Shia realize that the US brings them opportunity. The only one who does not is al-Sadr. Sistani backs the US, and so did Mohammed Baqir al-Hakim and that is why he was murdered. Plus, with the US there, the Shia have the majority in their government and are likewise supporting the US presence.
Interesting how you put your support behind al-Sadr.
Wait a minute, what the hell does any of this have to do with “Berkeley Pisses Me Off?”
Can someone explain this to me?
How many posts did it take to turn this into another Iraq thread?
This is friggin’ T-Nation, not al-needa.com.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Not everyone who was kidnapped and murdered by the insurgency was in Blackwater. [/quote]
But you referred to “hanging their bodies from bridges”. Those were Blackwater.
Let me see…isn’t that what your military does when shooting or bombing Ba’athists or Sadrists? How about the Vietcong? The Sandinistas?
Again, what does “succeed” mean? If you’re going to throw intangible crap like “stabilize”, don’t bother.
Huh? Did Spain, Turkey, Canada, Sweden, Japan, Egypt, Pakistan, Japan, Belgium, the Netherlands, Argentina, Canada, Germany and countless others all have oil firms “in control of Iraq prior to the war”?
Last I checked, millions of people from those places were pissed even before you attacked Iraq.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Wait a minute, what the hell does any of this have to do with “Berkeley Pisses Me Off?”
Can someone explain this to me?
How many posts did it take to turn this into another Iraq thread?
This is friggin’ T-Nation, not al-needa.com.[/quote]
Did lixy post in this thread? She has only one tract in her feeble little child molesting mind. Anytime she posts it is in favor of cowards like her, or against the US.
I wish she would find honor in suicide, and do us a favor. The only thing worse than a coward is a selfish coward.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Let me see…isn’t that what your military does when shooting or bombing Ba’athists or Sadrists? How about the Vietcong? The Sandinistas?
[/quote]
Wow, now you’re a Ba’athist backer? You will take any side against the USA.