• Repblicans Outraged At Obama's Decision To End Iraq War
    156 replies, posted
[QUOTE=CodeMonkey3;32899080]It wasn't an 'attack' so much as an observation. It's fine to disagree with someones opinions or views but when you outright call them 'blood thirsty savages' it's crossing a line that never needed to be crossed. You can voice your opinion in a civil manner and still get the point across you're upset with how they view the world. What you need to do is stop demonizing anyone who doesn't agree with your opinions. They title is worded harshly, it gives the impression that Republicans (by which we're talking about three or four individuals, not the unified political party as a whole) are completely disgusted we're ending the war. Which isn't true, they're upset because they believe the method we're doing it is destructive toward the Government of Iraq and irresponsible. [editline]21st October 2011[/editline] Wow, come on. You guys are always so aggressive for no reason. The article never said they supported the war, so much as disagreed with the manner they're going about withdrawing the troops. In addition aside from the single use of 'blasting' in the first sentence nothing in the article implies they're "Outraged" so much as strongly disagreeing with the decision. That hardly sounds 'outraged' to me.[/QUOTE] Just saying, you're cherry picking around the bachman quote.
[QUOTE=deathstarboot;32899208]Wow republicans are nuts. Am I nuts for thinking a civil war is possibly in America's future?[/QUOTE] Yes. Because that's assuming the civil war would be between Republicans and Democrats. It's pretty much a fact that rural areas are more conservative and cities are more liberal. You don't really have a clean border, and as it is both of those areas rely on one another.
[QUOTE=CodeMonkey3;32899050]It says in the article that they don't support the method they choose for withdrawing our troops. Namely, they think we should remove the bulk of our forces and leave a small group behind to advise Iraqi Security Forces and provide from Counter-Terrorism operations in the area. They're worried that removing our troop presence all at once will result in Iraq de-stabilizing again.[/QUOTE] It won't. None of the major terrorist groups cares about Iraq anymore. For the last year or so, Iraq has de facto been on their own, and they've been fine. Before we came, Iraq was one of the few stable areas in the Middle East, despite the odd Kurdish genocide. We came in during a whirlwind of confusion, replaced their government, and left. They were stable before, and they will be now. You're confusing Iraq with Afghanistan. Afghanistan needs education, training, infrastructure, a stable government, a real army, and above all peace. Iraq has all of these. [editline]21st October 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=CodeMonkey3;32899232]I wouldn't vote for any of the Republicans throwing their hat in so far either. They've got their heads pretty far up their asses. But the Iraqi military isn't the great at all. Neither is their police force. They still largely suffer from a lack of training, equipment and social intimidation. Basically, if you join either of those services and cooperate with the Americans you run the risk of you or your family being targeted. Certain areas are better than others, Iraq is almost there but not quite yet. Not enough manpower either, if we left tomorrow there is a good chance that the elements that be would come out of hiding and take the place over.[/QUOTE] These elements aren't in hiding, they're elsewhere. Nobody gives a shit about Iraq. There's nothing to gain there, and it is too hard to work there.
[QUOTE=ASmellyOgre;32899277]It won't. None of the major terrorist groups cares about Iraq anymore. For the last year or so, Iraq has de facto been on their own, and they've been fine. Before we came, Iraq was one of the few stable areas in the Middle East, despite the odd Kurdish genocide. We came in during a whirlwind of confusion, replaced their government, and left. They were stable before, and they will be now. You're confusing Iraq with Afghanistan. Afghanistan needs education, training, infrastructure, a stable government, a real army, and above all peace. Iraq has all of these.[/QUOTE] I'm not confusing them, I didn't mean to give the impression that Iraq still in shambles. It's not so much that terrorist groups don't care about Iraq, so much as they're not really able to do much between our troop presence and Iraqi Security Forces. Afghanistan is a mess, that'll take a lot longer to fix. Iraq is almost there, but we're not exactly ready to leave them alone in the dark. Turkey in comparison to Iraq for example, is in more disarray with their rebel problem and whatnot.
Because clearly the only way to make sure a region stays secure is to have thousands of combat troops sitting around in tents in rural areas.
[QUOTE=CodeMonkey3;32899247]Yes. Because that's assuming the civil war would be between Republicans and Democrats. It's pretty much a fact that rural areas are more conservative and cities are more liberal. You don't really have a clean border, and as it is both of those areas rely on one another.[/QUOTE] I didn't say it would be between democrats and republicans. It would most likely be between the rich and the poor, and other factions would branch from that. Those with different visions for our country economically and with radically different core values. That's how civil war starts. America is more divided with every passing year, so I don't see it completely out of the question for our future.
can't wait until younger politicians start popping up to oust these dumbshits
[QUOTE]Bachmann said the U.S. has been "ejected" from Iraq and should have demanded "that Iraq repay the full cost of liberating them given their rich oil revenues. "[/QUOTE] im convulsing on the floor and frothing at the mouth omg i think im going to die
[QUOTE=CodeMonkey3;32899247] I think Bachman is a terrible politican but in this circumstance she's pretty much right.[/QUOTE] Really...? No.
Send the Republicans to Iraq. Republicans can't complain as it won't be a full withdrawal. Rest of us can be happy as it gets rid of the republicans. [b]It's a win-win deal[/b]
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;32899571]Really...? No.[/QUOTE] Wait, shit. Nevermind. I thought he was referring to the Huntsman quote, not the Bachman one. Not sure why I drew that connection. No, Bachman is kind of well, stupid. Disregard that post.
USA needs another country to invade, how about.. Iran on the same basis Iraq war was started.
[QUOTE=doonbugie2;32899769]USA needs another country to invade, how about.. Iran on the same basis Iraq war was started.[/QUOTE] How about Canada? You guys got oil too, right?
I feel like an awful human being. I was not even aware that Obama ended the war until this forum post, and Comcast was no help at all. [thumb]http://img713.imageshack.us/img713/7774/unledbby.jpg[/thumb] What the FUCK are our priorities in this country if this announcement is not on the front page in a big splash?
[QUOTE=Psychokitten;32899926]How about Canada? You guys got oil too, right?[/QUOTE] Nah, we need an invasion that's Big, Bold, Brassy and Sassy. Let's invade The British Isles! :v:
[QUOTE=deathstarboot;32899208]Wow republicans are nuts. Am I nuts for thinking a civil war is possibly in America's future?[/QUOTE] You're nuts for thinking one is possible in the future, but completely reasonable to think it's needed, let alone wanted.
[QUOTE=CodeMonkey3;32899080]It wasn't an 'attack' so much as an observation. It's fine to disagree with someones opinions or views but when you outright call them 'blood thirsty savages' it's crossing a line that never needed to be crossed. You can voice your opinion in a civil manner and still get the point across you're upset with how they view the world. What you need to do is stop demonizing anyone who doesn't agree with your opinions. [/QUOTE] I never called them bloodthirsty savages I don't think anyway, it doesn't sound like something I'd say sober but I'm not always sober
[QUOTE=Frisk;32896854]Republicans get outraged at everything.[/QUOTE] "republicans outraged" gets About 3,970,000 results on google "liberals outraged" gets About 48,200 results on google 3,970,000 Rep's 48,200 Lib's Jesus Christ... this proves one thing...
[QUOTE=Zeke129;32900075]I never called them bloodthirsty savages I don't think anyway, it doesn't sound like something I'd say sober but I'm not always sober[/QUOTE] I wasn't referring to you but to be honest I wasn't very clear. I was just kind of generalizing the tone of the comments in the thread by referring to that one post whilst I was replying to yours.
whats that? 82.3 times the number?
The republicans can get [I]FUCKED.[/I] I'm surprised the death toll hasn't been higher. Really. This is almost as bad as Vietnam.
[QUOTE=Drsalvador;32900118]The republicans can get [I]FUCKED.[/I] I'm surprised the death toll hasn't been higher. Really. This is almost as bad as Vietnam.[/QUOTE] Please don't talk about [I]that war[/I]. Please. What happened there was at least 1000x worse than this. Imagine shit hitting the fan, that is this war. Vietnam war? Imagine a continuous flow of mass explosive, spice taco diarrhea hitting a giant fan, with your face, right on the side its coming from. And best of all, you can't stop it.
How can Republicans believe they are the "grassroots" "working man's man" When they refuse to stop fucking them. More tax cuts for the rich [B]AND[/B] keep our sons and daughters in a horrible war, which was probably only created for greed.
[QUOTE=Mon;32899463]can't wait until younger politicians start popping up to oust these dumbshits[/QUOTE] You are calling two ivy league educated men dumbshits (Romney and Huntsman) Okay bud.
[QUOTE=Drsalvador;32900118]The republicans can get [I]FUCKED.[/I] I'm surprised the death toll hasn't been higher. Really. This is almost as bad as Vietnam.[/QUOTE] Not nearly as bad as Vietnam. Advancements in technology and medical procedures along with the fat military budget for this war basically cut the number of causalities we sustained down by a ridiculous amount. The combat missions in Fallujah are considered some of the deadliest battles of the war and the number of casualties compared to Vietnam, Korea or World War 2 standards are so low that if you were to tell a general of the time period that they could launch a full scale offensive on an occupied city and sustain only 23 dead they'd call you nuts. The First Battle of Fallujah resulted in 23. The Second Battle of Fallujah is the bloodiest battle of the Iraq War and only resulted in 95 deaths for the US and something like 107 total for Iraqi and UK forces. That's INSANE. Medical technology has advance so far that most combat injuries are not life-threatening and are treated immediately. We've also used these methods countless times to save civilian lives. Medical treatment in a combat zone has advanced so far that the UN briefly considered if it was still viable for medics to be considered non-combatants when they can now be seen as a combat multiplier. Right now we've been able to equip most of our forces with IED resistant vehicles and in the cases where these vehicles are hit with an IED they result in only minor injuries. Anymore the IED's are more of a threat to civilian vehicles than military ones. The Iraq War resulted in 4,794 US Servicemen dead. The Vietnam War resulted 58,220 dead. The Vietnam war lasted about 19 years though, and the Iraq War only 8. They're comparable to one another, but more so economically and politically rather than a military view point.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;32896961][b]As a true patriot I DEMAND more of our soldiers die in battle Obama is un-American for not allowing the deaths of Americans to continue[/b][/QUOTE] The war in Iraq needs to come to an end, and soon, but publicly announcing a date and doing it all in one go will terribly destabilize the country.
[QUOTE=CodeMonkey3;32900255]Not nearly as bad as Vietnam. Advancements in technology and medical procedures along with the fat military budget for this war basically cut the number of causalities we sustained down by a ridiculous amount. The combat missions in Fallujah are considered some of the deadliest battles of the war and the number of casualties compared to Vietnam, Korea or World War 2 standards are so low that if you were to tell a general of the time period that they could launch a full scale offensive on an occupied city and sustain only 23 dead they'd call you nuts. The First Battle of Fallujah resulted in 23. The Second Battle of Fallujah is the bloodiest battle of the Iraq War and only resulted in 95 deaths for the US and something like 107 total for Iraqi and UK forces. That's INSANE. Medical technology has advance so far that most combat injuries are not life-threatening and are treated immediately. We've also used these methods countless times to save civilian lives. Medical treatment in a combat zone has advanced so far that the UN briefly considered if it was still viable for medics to be considered non-combatants when they can now be seen as a combat multiplier. Right now we've been able to equip most of our forces with IED resistant vehicles and in the cases where these vehicles are hit with an IED they result in only minor injuries. Anymore the IED's are more of a threat to civilian vehicles than military ones. The Iraq War resulted in 4,794 US Servicemen dead. The Vietnam War resulted 58,220 dead. The Vietnam war lasted about 19 years though, and the Iraq War only 8. They're comparable to one another, but more so economically and politically rather than a military view point.[/QUOTE] Let me add this. One of the really strong reasons I dislike anyone comparing Vietnam with anything is because of the impact you see even to this day. Agent Orange, soldiers being held captive, torture, being attacked by the ones you are ordered to protect, including children. That alone is very heavily something that makes Vietnam much worse. Do I even need to mention the after-war effects of Agent orange today? Your never going to see something that extreme when this war ends, if it even ends good that is. The medicine and regulation today just simply won't allow it. I believe any Soldier today should be very grateful they never had to deal with Vietnam, and no one has to hear the same people the families of the soldiers heard during that time. Of course, without a doubt, I agree, this war is definitely very bad, and [B][I][U]needs to end[/U][/I][/B]. Its pointless and silly, peoples lives are getting screwed over really badly. It's a mistake like Vietnam, but couldn't possibly be nearly as big of a mistake.
[QUOTE=Sector 7;32900306]The war in Iraq needs to come to an end, and soon, but publicly announcing a date and doing it all in one go will terribly destabilize the country.[/QUOTE] Iraq hasn't been stable since the invasion begun
They've wanted non stop to stop the war, but now that a Democrat wants to do it they get outraged? The Fuck? Oh wait, I forgot, It's American Politics, you do what the other party isn't doing, even if it contradicts you
[QUOTE=Sector 7;32900306]The war in Iraq needs to come to an end, and soon, but publicly announcing a date and doing it all in one go will terribly destabilize the country.[/QUOTE] Americans are asleep, everyone plant bombs.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.