Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: Sitting on a bar stool. Guinness in hand.
4,428 posts, read 6,510,291 times
Reputation: 1721
Troll!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by AmericanTerrorist
The war on 'Islamic terrorism' should continue because we need to show that our own brand of American Terrorism is much more appealing and effective.
The world needs to see that we're determined to spread freedom and democracy to everyone whether they like it or not.
But when are we going to actually start fighting it?
Haven't you noticed that the Iraq war is over and has been for some time? We defeated the military of Saddam Hussein's administration some time ago. What is happening now is a police action to prop up an Iraqi administration with which we presently agree.
Haven't you noticed that the Iraq war is over and has been for some time? We defeated the military of Saddam Hussein's administration some time ago. What is happening now is a police action to prop up an Iraqi administration with which we presently agree.
Agree with you only in part. The war with Saddam's army is over and has been for some time, but the war for Iraq is not. There are battles with insurgents that rival and are often worse than the ones fought with the original Iraqi army and Republican Guards
Agree with you only in part. The war with Saddam's army is over and has been for some time, but the war for Iraq is not. There are battles with insurgents that rival and are often worse than the ones fought with the original Iraqi army and Republican Guards
Saddam's army was trained to oppress civilians not to defend the country.
Saddam's army was trained to oppress civilians not to defend the country.
Agreed. And arguably, without a ridiculous amount of help the US gave Saddam, he would've lost absolutely everything. If it was a one-on-one Iraq vs. Iran, Iran would have tore through them. It dragged on because we kept helping him
Agreed. And arguably, without a ridiculous amount of help the US gave Saddam, he would've lost absolutely everything. If it was a one-on-one Iraq vs. Iran, Iran would have tore through them. It dragged on because we kept helping him
why not let them fight their wars that will save us lives and $$$ ?
There are battles with insurgents that rival and are often worse than the ones fought with the original Iraqi army and Republican Guards
An 'insurgent' is a politically motivated militant. They are fighting someone else mostly to achieve a political goal. They have chosen not to participate in the civic (that is, non-military) political environment in Iraq. The present groups of insurgents are a small portion of the population of Iraq, but they have caused a great deal of social and economic upheaval. Some of the leaders of these groups are religious leaders, but not necessarily the most prominent religious leaders, in Iraq. This is especially distressing and should be protested against and loudly lamented around the world.
The American forces are presently assisting the Iraqi police and military to quash domestic insurgent activities. That's not a war; it's more like the activities required of a supplemented Iraq National Guard to maintain domestic order. And until the last couple of months it was an open question as to how well the activity of quashing those insurgents was doing.
If the U.S. were still at war in Iraq, then we would have commited at present far more resources than are there now, and there would be taking place a military offensive to gain de facto control on the ground of more or less (say, 90 percent) of the entire Iraq territory.
The U.S. military in Iraq is nowhere near prosecuting such a mission at the present time. Why? Are there any functioning military units from the Hussein administration still in existence in Iraq? No, there aren't. So the American forces there now are obviously constituted and deployed so as to perform a policing function against domestic political insurgents to assist the present Iraqi administration. Doing so involves military assets, as would the activities of a National Guard, but that doesn't mean it's a war.
Last edited by ParkTwain; 11-17-2007 at 05:44 PM..
why not let them fight their wars that will save us lives and $$$ ?
LOL agreed again. The US fought for it's own dependence and came to eventually establish a democracy as the best government to suit. They have to decide their own destiny
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Troll!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
