Occupation death toll of U.S. troops equal to that of war - Page 7

chequita guevara · August 28, 2003, 19:28

Here's my opinion. I was absolutely opposed to the war. Now that it's over and we've destroyed their infrastructure and society, we have an obligation to fix it. That means we stay and die.

Bereta_Eder · August 28, 2003, 20:07

you cant! your deficit is skyrocketing. you're reduced to pleed for europe's assistance and accept the un in iraq.

of course are unifrom responce is **** the **** off!

not to you of coruse che. to the bush hurt my eye administration/.

MichaeltheGreat · August 28, 2003, 20:23

Quote:

Originally posted by MOBIUS
Another British soldier dead...

A couple of Americans died as well, but that's becoming so common now that it's almost not newsworthy.

The Americans also seem to be admitting defeat to such an extent that after previously refusing UN military help, they're actually begging for it!

What a humiliating climb down...

Well, that fantasy seems to get you off, so go for it. If we're "admitting defeat" that's kinda funny, since we still own the ****ing country.

And asking the UN is a no-lose proposition. If we get the help, it increases the density of forces in critical areas because we can concentrate there. If we don't get the help, then Bush can say "we asked, and those petty gutless bastards won't help rebuild Iraq, so we have to secure the peace ourselves."

Either way, like it or not, we still run Iraq and we ain't going anywhere.

Hoo-ah!

Spiffor · August 28, 2003, 21:46

Quote:

Originally posted by paiktis22
of course are unifrom responce is **** the **** off!

I don't know for greece, but quite a few UN countries (at least France and India) would be eager to help if the UN takes control. I suppose it means to give these countries their share of the loot as well.

Give some loot, restore the importance of the UN, and I'm sure you'll have plenty of French blue helmets smiling at USUK soldiers

Bereta_Eder · August 28, 2003, 21:49

EURO PUSSIES

**** USA!

Bereta_Eder · August 28, 2003, 21:51

but i suppose yeah. if un takes controil and shoves it up bush's ass we'll all help and make money

Verto · August 28, 2003, 22:05

What will change if the UN takes control? What kind of difference will there be? I don't understand why France is insisting the UN commander not be American, before they will go along with the plan.

Spiffor · August 28, 2003, 22:47

Quote:

Originally posted by Verto
What will change if the UN takes control? What kind of difference will there be? I don't understand why France is insisting the UN commander not be American, before they will go along with the plan.

There are two reasons for that:

1. The UN is the only tool for France to have worldwide diplomatic power. The EU could become one in the future, but isn't mature enough to be it today.
So, France wants to have an as much powerful UN as possible, because it makes France indirectly more powerful. Besides, the French public opinion widely holds the UN as the only bastion of international legitimacy. So, the French people will back any policy that empowers the UN.

2. If the UN takes control, you can bet it won't give all the reconstruction contracts to Halliburton et al. You can bet the UN sponsored Iraqi regime will give exploitation contracts to Exxon and other American companies, but also to British BP, French Elf, Russian I-forgot-the-name etc.
This is a very simple matter of realpolitik. OTOH, the French diplomats aren't playing snotty or being all "I told you so". They're really cooperating with American diplomats to find an agreement that'll fill our purse, and that'll cut some slack to Bush's popularity.

A win-win situation of sorts. Sure the Iraqi riches will continue to be raped by the west, but that'll be by the WHOLE west

Ted Striker · August 28, 2003, 23:03

Greece is like paiktis

Always thinking of putting something up another man's arse

Bereta_Eder · August 28, 2003, 23:13

Ted is like USA: always happy to take it up the ass when it screwed itself over

Spiffor true the whole west. what a shame. Freedom for Iraq!

Odin · August 28, 2003, 23:55

Sava has had the most sense in this whole thread.

Anyway, anybody can connect Cheney's connections with Haliburton to Bush giving Haliburton the cintracts. If you don't understand that example of CORRUPTION you are a moron or are in denial.

I know also why the Chickenhawks don't want the UN in, they would have to take out the Haliburton contractors, and they won't disobey thier corporate overlords. I was not against this war, I am just mad at the the neo-cons giving the UN the finger and lying about WMDs to appease thier Big Business masters. Bush changing the excuse from WMDs to liberation also ticks me off. I can't believe people follow him like lemmings walking off a cliff.

Neo-cons deserve to be beaten to death because of thier lying caused the death of 100's of US and British troops.

MrFun · August 28, 2003, 23:57

Quote:

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

And asking the UN is a no-lose proposition. If we get the help, it increases the density of forces in critical areas because we can concentrate there. If we don't get the help, then Bush can say "we asked, and those petty gutless bastards won't help rebuild Iraq, so we have to secure the peace ourselves."

Maybe once the United States pays the United Nations what it owes them, the United Nations might be more willing.

Odin · August 29, 2003, 00:09

Quote:

Originally posted by MrFun

Maybe once the United States pays the United Nations what it owes them, the United Nations might be more willing.

The US should be banned from the UNSC untill it pays it's dues.

MichaeltheGreat · August 29, 2003, 01:06

Then we just kick their ass out of New York and redevelop the real estate.

Spiffor · August 29, 2003, 01:18

Quote:

Originally posted by Odin
Neo-cons deserve to be beaten to death because of thier lying caused the death of 100's of US and British troops.

Don't forget the thousands of Iraqis killed. Does anybody know the precise bodycount of the war, both sides, civilians and miltaries added ?

The Mad Monk · August 29, 2003, 02:53

Quote:

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Then we just kick their ass out of New York and redevelop the real estate.

Considering the way they take care of that building, we may just have to, anyway.

Sikander · August 29, 2003, 06:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
You do realize most of the Muslim world KNOWS that the US was the one who supplied him with weapons and money for a decade, right? Without US support in the 80's (weapons, and components for WMD programs) Saddam most likely would have been toast. Who do you think the Muslim world blames for Saddam's rise to power?

Of course they "know" this the same way they "know" that Jews eat biscuits made with human blood, and that dust storms and sand fleas were created by by the West to torture them for following the one true faith.

Saddam rose to power on his own, he stayed there throughout the decade of war with Iran due to the efforts of his own regime and people, support from Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, and support from the Soviet Union, the U.S. and other Western Countries in roughly that order.

Sikander · August 29, 2003, 06:17

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
Do you realize what we are trying to do? We are trying to take a nation state (created by the British) that is comprised of distinctly different ethnic and extremely secular peoples that don't like each other...

You are describing a State, not a Nation State. A nation is a single people (ethnicity), a state is singular government entity. France is a nation and a state. Iraq is a state containing several nations.

Sikander · August 29, 2003, 06:22

Quote:

Originally posted by Odin
Sava has had the most sense in this whole thread.

Everyone take note at how a patently false statement (above) can be padded greatly by including other inane statements (below) which in comparison make the initial bogus statement appear to be the acme of reason.

Quote:

Originally posted by Odin
Anyway, anybody can connect Cheney's connections with Haliburton to Bush giving Haliburton the cintracts. If you don't understand that example of CORRUPTION you are a moron or are in denial.

I know also why the Chickenhawks don't want the UN in, they would have to take out the Haliburton contractors, and they won't disobey thier corporate overlords. I was not against this war, I am just mad at the the neo-cons giving the UN the finger and lying about WMDs to appease thier Big Business masters. Bush changing the excuse from WMDs to liberation also ticks me off. I can't believe people follow him like lemmings walking off a cliff.

Neo-cons deserve to be beaten to death because of thier lying caused the death of 100's of US and British troops.

Spiffor · August 29, 2003, 06:27

There is at least one valid point in Odin's post:

Quote:

I can't believe people follow him like lemmings walking off a cliff.

Indeed, me too can't understand why so many people are eager to buy and to back Bush's position. Including educated people who'd have no trouble understanding Bush does what any politician does : he merely uses phrases to make his decisions look good. That people believe in him really makes me wonder...

Sikander · August 29, 2003, 07:05

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor
There is at least one valid point in Odin's post:

Quote:

I can't believe people follow him like lemmings walking off a cliff.

Indeed, me too can't understand why so many people are eager to buy and to back Bush's position. Including educated people who'd have no trouble understanding Bush does what any politician does : he merely uses phrases to make his decisions look good. That people believe in him really makes me wonder...

I agree to some extent. I didn't vote for him, but I hoped that his foreign policy would have been better than it has turned out to be. I think 9/11 really screwed things up. Bush seemed to be quite willing to leave foreign policy in the hands of the people who formulated his foreign policy positions during the campaign, Condi Rice in particular. The terrorist attacks either changed Bush, or brought out something in him that wasn't apparant to me during the campaign. He seems to be much less concerned with grand strategy (the area where only he can really be in charge) and much more interested in following the emotional and often reactive policies of Wolfowitz and company.

As for why people support him, there are a lot of reasons. Some people like / trust him as a person. Some people fear whoever might be elected to replace him and would rather have the devil they know. Some people actually support a lot of his policies. Many people have several reasons for their support, while many others have moved from slightly supporting him to neutrality, or beginning to be critical of him.

Defiant · August 29, 2003, 09:01

Quote:

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Then we just kick their ass out of New York and redevelop the real estate.

MOBIUS · August 29, 2003, 18:38

Quote:

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat Well, that fantasy seems to get you off, so go for it. If we're "admitting defeat" that's kinda funny, since we still own the ****ing country.

'own the country'

It is that very arrogant attitude that is why the US is so unpopular in the World...

The US gave the UN the finger at the beginning because it was so confident that it could pacify Iraq all on it's own because it thought it would be a cake walk...

Now it's crying about needing UN troops and support - that sounds like admitting the US can't handle the situation... In other words 'admitting defeat'.

The coalition troops are presiding over anarchy - there is no order whatsoever and things are getting worse, not better. They can't even prevent their political supporters from being assassinated (Notice how everyone is blaming the US for failing in its security duties YET AGAIN!)

Quote:

And asking the UN is a no-lose proposition. If we get the help, it increases the density of forces in critical areas because we can concentrate there. If we don't get the help, then Bush can say "we asked, and those petty gutless bastards won't help rebuild Iraq, so we have to secure the peace ourselves."

Those 'gutless bastards' just lost a couple of dozen people because the US couldn't protect them!

Also, the US shoved such a huge middle finger up their asses that the UN could quite happily tell the US to get f*cked without anyone blaming them - talk about burning your bridges!!!

Nah, the US has to relinquish power to the UN, or keep on sucking it up! My biggest concern is that the UK forces got sucked into this sorry mess by our stupid government and they have to pay the price too - because they seem to be far more stretched than the US forces...

Our country didn't want this war, yet we're still there - your country did, now reap the consequences!

Quote:

Either way, like it or not, we still run Iraq and we ain't going anywhere.

Not for another few hundred bodybags at least...

Wasn't that long ago that the US chickened out of Somalia for basically the same reason - no stomach for a long haul fight...

Worst thing is that at least with Somalia, the US had a justification to be there which makes their betrayal of the Somali people even harder to take...

Chemical Ollie · August 29, 2003, 19:05

The Yanks created this mess - it's their job to clean it up...

The Andy-Man · August 29, 2003, 19:37

Quote:

Originally posted by Chemical Ollie
The Yanks created this mess - it's their job to clean it up...

damn right!

MOBIUS · August 30, 2003, 08:53

Where's all the conservatives on this forum???

Maybe even they realise they've bitten off more than they can chew in Iraq and are reluctant to defend a losing cause?

So the support for Bush in Iraq has rolled over and died on this forum already, how much longer before the public starts demanding that its troops return home?

The Mad Monk · August 30, 2003, 09:30

We're still all hungover from Friday night partying.

Kuciwalker · August 30, 2003, 09:33

Quote:

Originally posted by MOBIUS
Where's all the conservatives on this forum???

Maybe even they realise they've bitten off more than they can chew in Iraq and are reluctant to defend a losing cause?

So the support for Bush in Iraq has rolled over and died on this forum already, how much longer before the public starts demanding that its troops return home?

lame troll

Oerdin · August 30, 2003, 09:43

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor

Don't forget the thousands of Iraqis killed. Does anybody know the precise bodycount of the war, both sides, civilians and miltaries added ?

There is that Iraqi body count wed site but you have to take their numbers with a grain of salt because they're militantly anti-American plus they used Saddam's press figures (and we all know how reliable Saddam's press agents were).

Kuciwalker · August 30, 2003, 10:03

Plus, how many would Saddam have killed?