http://news.msn.com/...special-forces-considered

Should have vaporized that country when we had the chance.
Free parking for everyone!

but no,
we go in half @ssed.
Lose too many good men and women
for what?

Dealing with an area of the world where people have fought each other for centuries and we think we can stop it?
Pull the h@ll out and let them fight themselves.

Sorry
and yes, I know this is so unlike me to get fired up on these forums.
but I just don't see the sense to keep doing this cr@p

a) you do realize that this is for the protection of our embassy over there right?

b) you really thought that OIF was 'going in half assed'?

c) you do realize you can say 'ass' on the internet, right?

d) that even goes for 'hell'

e) and also for 'crap'

hell ass crap

http://images.sodahead.com/...3/wonder_woman_xlarge.gif


i'm telling!

Yes trife I do know I just choose not to
So p@ss on it ;)

Yes I think we blew it on the first go around with Powell
we should have let him do his job and complete it.

And no I don't believe its just to protect our embassy.
Protect it for what?
We have a carrier out there, evacuate the d@mn embassy and let them have it.

Though National Security Council spokesperson Caitlin Hayden stressed that would not involve combat troops. "The president was very clear that we will not be sending U.S. troops back into combat in Iraq," she said.,
Oh but then why will they be equipped for combat.

but but but the UN says we have to attack with proportional force or else it violates INTERNATIONAL LAW!! (DUN-DUNNNN)

Allied forces were making a definite difference in Iraq. The only thing half-butted about anything was how we dropped the mic and walked out before the song had ended and the job had been completed. If the intent is to build a nation, you can't pour the foundation, set the frame, and call it good. That house needs a roof.

And at least Iraq has the capability of being a country in its own right. Does anyone really believe the Afghan government can sustain its position after coalition forces pull out?

Iraq's problem is that you don't have an Iraqi people. You have a Shiite populace that wants to lord it over the Sunni and Kurd populations. You have the Sunni populace that want's to lord it over the Shiite and Kurd population. You have the Kurd populace that would like nothing more than an excuse to take several parts of Iraq not recognized as being theirs and declare independence (ideally taking parts of Iran and Turkey with them, but they'll settle for Iraqi territory as a starting point). Then you have several other groups of varying degrees of size and strength that really just want to be free to live their own way and will support whomever let's them do that. Until these populations recognize each other as being fellow Iraqis, then it's hard to imagine how any government will effectively govern these territories and I'm not sure the Kurds will ever see themselves as being Iraqi. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's the way I see it.

Was the intent of the invasion of Iraq that of Nation Building? It was sold as a mission to overthrow a terrible dictator which possessed WMD's. I am not sure what song you speak of, but there was no end in sight for the violence we created in Iraq. Do you honestly think that all we had to do was occupy Iraq longer, kill more Muslims and they would just give up? Wake up.



Both of these countries were countries before we went in there and started blowing them up. Saddaam actually did a pretty good job of keeping Al-Qaida out of Iraq. What the hell is Afghanistan’s position now anyway? How is it better now than before? We cannot police the world indefinitely in order to exert our idea of what a society should be.

Sorry for the rant, it is past my bedtime so this may not make sense.

The weather in Iraq is so predictable. It's either Sunni or Shiite.

spchavel,

http://www.tonyblairoffice.org/...t-an-essay-by-tony-blair/

Why use my own words when Tony Blair brings up such good points. Saddam Hussein would not be a stabilizing force in today's Middle East and leaving him in power would not have stopped the uprisings.

Two years from now Iraq will be three countries
and 2 / 3 will be trying to research their own nukes

There was definitely an end in sight to the violence in Iraq. The conflict had shifted from a war waged by allied forces to a police action supported by allied forces, led by Iraqis. This was no occupation.

Do you really believe that removing Hussein from power by itself would solve anything? Of course we wanted to leave Iraq as a viable nation. If it ceased to be one, it would fester and become lawless - it would become Afghanistan all over again.

There is no hope for Afghanistan though. There never was.

I am far from saying Saddam was a good guy, I just don't think it's our place to pick and choose which bad guys we want to kill. If the uprisings were going to happen regardless, what justifies us going there and spending trillions of dollars based on, at best, bad intel?

Viceroy,

I doubt the violence will ever stop as long as there is any semblance of a pro American form of government in Iraq. It's kind of part of the Muslim culture, what with the whole jihad and all. They seem to take that stuff serious over there.

I contend that you are misrepresenting Arabic, Muslim, and most importantly Iraqi culture, the latter of which has always been distinct and far more secular than much of the rest of the Islamic and Arabic worlds.

The violence was in decline, even while American forces were still present.

The US needs to leave them people be, if they want a bloodthirsty dictatorship, let them have it. If they want a repressive theocratic regime, let them have it. If they want to run around their desert and cut each other's heads off, let them.

Slap a huge fence around the Islamic countries, label one side 7th Century, and the other 21st Century and don't allow crossing of the border.

If they don't like that, nuke 'em till they glow, we can still get the oil. We have the technology to drill through that glass to get it.

After a while, they'll be content running around in their desert having Jihadi good times killing each other, and stoning the victims of rape, etc.

Put up that fence, implement a weapons blockade, and let them do their own thing the way they want to.

There is no reason for the US to be in there. There was no reason to go in there in the first place, imo.

There is no provision in the US Constitution that allows for the exportation of freedom, liberty, or democracy. So, we should not be in that business.

Islam is a dangerous religion, much like the Catholic Church was during the dark ages, I'm sure you all remember the Inquisition, right? Islam needs to be bumped off, or we will have continuous warfare until either they rule the world, or we bump them off. That's it, plain and simple.

I wonder what kind of tech we'll get when we GS them.

fluff, I hate it when I agree with you Cerb.

100% agree with cerb...the only way the Middle East will be peaceful is after enough nukes are dropped to irradiate the place bad enough that nothing will ever live there ever

Alternatively a dome over the place would work too. Hook up some cameras, and you've got a modern-day gladiator stadium.

We should do the same for Christians!

If we went into Iraq with nation-building in mind in the first place, how come there was no plan in place for after major military actions were finished?

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/no_end_in_sight/

And Cerb, you're right, we don't have to go into Iraq, etc etc etc. But we also don't need our comfortable lifestyles and mass consumption either...

The vast majority of Arabs, to include Iraqis, identify as Muslim today. When you have an ideology that demands that nonbelievers be subjugated, converted, or killed, there will inevitably be problems. Especially if over the past hundreds of years said ideology has been spread throughout the world. There will only be peace when all people are either dead, Muslim, or living as indentured servants for the Muslims.

It is entirely possible that the people perpetrating the violence kept things quite just so the Americans would leave sooner also. This proves nothing.

I am pretty sure that is genocide. Generally frowned upon... The dome idea though, that might work.

You get what you put out to the world.. Kill them all. Should we give them a chance to change first? Lmao.

um...what

The thing about that bad intelligence is that we didn't know it was bad until after the fact. I don't know how you make a decision based upon information that you only obtain after you've made that decision.

sorry trying to figure this editing thing out

I am pretty sure that was just an excuse. There are some sick motherfluffers out there right now that we know have WMD's, some of them we work and trade with, some we ignore, and others we launch pre-emptive wars with and have them hung. Saddam was never a treat to the US. The first Gulf War should have proved that to everyone.

pretty sure people would pay good cash for the gladiator dome :P

They should just ship over 100 million m-16s and 1 billion rounds of ammo and arm everyone down to ten year olds with automatic weapons and then they can sort everything out them selves NO PROBLEM.

pottery barn rule is in effect; if you break it you buy it.

I find it funny how some people define threats. It is not merely those with the ability and the will to do physical harm to a country or its citizens that are threats. History has shown in fact that it is people who the rest of the world think incapable of bringing physical harm to the interests of a country that can in fact do the most damage. Countries put checks on those powers capable and willing to do them or their citizens physical harm, and so those countries that could/would do so just don't. They don't do harm until they receive a signal that the country they want to harm is not capable of defending themselves or is a paper tiger. How do they get those signals? When countries/strongmen that are several tiers below the abilities of their enemy continue to get away with poking their enemy, with ignoring their enemy, and with being a general nuisance (for lack of a better term) to their mutual enemy. What I'm talking about is prestige. For nations, prestige is an intangible asset of supreme importance.

Prestige is the combination of a nation's diplomatic record, military prowess, economic prowess, and fundamental resolve all rolled into one.

Prestige is how the United States got the United Kingdom to submit to arbitration in the territory dispute between British Guiana and Venezuela. The US told Britain that we were prepared to fight them if they chose war with Venezuela over arbitration. The UK knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that the US would declare on them if they declared on Venezuela. The UK also knew that America's record as a new power meant that they would likely be more ally than opponent in international affairs, provided that no war came between the two powers. Prestige, both America's and Britain's, led to arbitration and spared both a war that neither really wanted. They knew where the lines were drawn.

As a nation's prestige weakens, the lines are not so clear anymore. Strong nations won't risk it when the lines still appear clearly drawn. Egotistical dictators, however, sometimes find strength in annoying stronger powers and making then the scape goat to national problems. They poke the enemy and say they're weak and that they have achieved a victory so that their people believe it. The problem is that when a long history of these pokes is presented to the world, that larger country's resolve seems weaker. Suspicions arise that they're not the military power they once were and that they are not as capable of asserting their positions as they say they are. Afterall, an annoying little gnat is getting away with it.

Annoying gnat proves it's possible and a real threat takes advantage.

So, taking Saddam Hussein out was the right thing to do. Leaving weapons depots behind unguarded and undestroyed as you invaded was a strategic blunder. Believing that Iraq could be one country with anything short of a 25 year (read: long) commitment to military presence was unrealistic. Allowing Iraqi leaders to be elected and letting them write the constitution was just plain stupid. Constitution first, the people's approval (by super majority or by majority in each of the major areas) second, and the leaders last. (For the record, this is how any new democracy should do it.)

What people fail to realize is that rebuilding takes time, when American forces pulled out of Vietnam, south vietnam fell to the north 2 years later. The only reason why south Korea is still around is because there has been an American presence their for over 60 years. Before that we have had American forces in Germany, Japan, and Italy after WW2 and those countries have grown and changed. If you completely pull out of a country before it is ready to take the reigns it will fall and everyone who died and spent time there would have been all for nothing. 275 men is one company of men. In one of the articles it said that special forces groups would be deployed there. The image of the troops there are wearing regular army patches "The Big Red One" unit. So who the heck knows how many are really out there. The media only knows what they are told and only go places the military let's them go. I think it is a smart move to send out some forces and I think there should be an American Military presence there for many more years, to ensure that Iraq isn't another Vietnam catastrophe.

TWO YEARS? two days. and then millions, MILLIONS, of vietnamese camdobians, laotians, etc, etc, etc, pick a country, they were fluffing murdered, the lesser or none ruling "class"

at a certain time we need to understand that uncivilized people CAN NOT live in peace unless a ruling power oppresses them with tyranny dictatorship or, by god a wild idea i know, but rule of law? but then isis fluffs it all. lets not, you know, attack them, though.

Islam is no more dangerous than Christianity. Any religion is dangerous because people can take that religion and twist it for their own personal use and make people believe that it is the will of god.

If Islam needs to be bumped off so does all religion. You can not claim one is worse than the other, that is a falsehood. all religion is as bad or as good as YOU choose to make them. You can ether take the evil out of them or the good in them.

The reason there is evil is they were created in a time where what we consider evil, was common place and accepted, so all though the original 'prophets' (for want of a better word) preached peace and harmony for there respective religions, people manipulated that and introduced evil into them which is being manipulated again by some religious leaders in this day and age.

The main problem is people take what religious leaders say as the final word of that religion and dont actually investigate the religion and its origins for itself, just like all types of education, to actually learn anything about the subject, you need to study and research the subject yourself rather than just taking what your teacher tells you as the final word.

haha reading that reminded me of MD and there evil.

THANKS AGAIN OBAMA!!!!!

I like where this thought process is going.

Iraq officially asked for US air support today.

and ain't nobody will give them none.

incorrect

they broke it and now need to fix it. not even obama, i think, argues this. maybe a few nutjob libertarians, actually.

how to fix it, however, is a different story. i have no idea. is it too late to bring back saddam?

i think he died from a neck injury

gravity kills. way to go, newton.

If you're right I'll saw off my own left arm and eat it on live video.

Do you want hot sauce with that or ketchup?

LOOKS LIKE I AM WINNING http://www.cnbc.com/id/101769505

CUM ON STEP IT UP OSAMA

Gravity is only a mere theory. Everyone knows God is responsible for people staying on the ground.