Occupation death toll of U.S. troops equal to that of war - Page 8

Jac de Molay · August 30, 2003, 10:50

Quote:

Originally posted by MOBIUS

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?

Not an option. We are now operating under the "you break it, you buy it" doctrine.

MOBIUS · August 31, 2003, 20:54

Quote:

Originally posted by skywalker
lame troll

The standard refrain from one who has nothing better to say - people are dying because people with similar views to you put them in the line of fire...

You guys are really stumped aren't you? All going wrong?

Just more bodybags and billions of dollars down the drain for what looks like an ultimate compounding of a previously low level region nuisance into a potential clusterf*ck.

Nice one Bush - way to create problems when you haven't even finished dealing with the last one!

Ted Striker · August 31, 2003, 20:55

lame troll

MOBIUS · August 31, 2003, 20:57

Quote:

Originally posted by Ted Striker
lame troll

Hey, are you guys in some kind of cave?

There seems to be an echo!

Sikander · August 31, 2003, 21:11

Quote:

Originally posted by Jac de Molay

Not an option. We are now operating under the "you break it, you buy it" doctrine.

Good name for it. You should get a job working for new Colonels who haven't come up with their catch-phrase shorthand for their doctrines yet.

Ted Striker · August 31, 2003, 21:12

lame troll

Odin · August 31, 2003, 22:28

Quote:

Originally posted by Ted Striker
lame troll

WHERE IS THAT ECHO COMMING FROM?

Bush gave the UN the finger so he could give his superiors at Haliburton the oil. If the Conservatives can't admit to that that are delusional. I wasn't against the war, I was against the timing, the f*cking of the UN, and the alterior motives.

Ted Striker · September 1, 2003, 02:25

lame troll

MichaeltheGreat · September 1, 2003, 02:56

Quote:

Originally posted by MOBIUS
'own the country'

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

So who does own it now?

Quote:

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'.

Nice spin. Saying something along the lines of "if you want your share of the oil, pitch in and help out" isn't exactly admitting defeat. I think it's just a political move. We have to ask. Doesn't mean we expect the UN to get off it's dead ass and do anything, but we'll have gone through the motions and asked.

Quote:

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!)

And I suppose you Brits ought to take the blame for all the IRA bombings you failed to prevent - after all, security forces are supposed to be omniscient and have tinfoil hat penetrating mindreaders everywhere.

Quote:

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

Did they ask the US for protection? Did they attempt to provide their own? The US isn't obligated to protect every ****ing facility in the country. The good ol' UN types there, operating at the outer perimeter of a converted hotel with no physical security or perimeter barriers, thought they were immune from attack. Say what you want, but they left their asses hanging in the breeze under the mistaken notion that their diplomatic status would be respected by a bunch of terrorist *******s.

Quote:

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!!!

Good. I don't want the ****ing UN in our way anyway. And if they're the "bridge" I have to rely on, then I'm gonna damn well learn to swim, or start lookin' for a boat.

Quote:

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!

Not a problem. Just mount up, shut up, lock and load and prepare to go along for the ride.

Quote:

Not for another few hundred bodybags at least...

Soldiering can be hazardous to your health. Anybody who signed up and didn't realize that has some major problems.

Quote:

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

I would have called in B-52 strikes on the mother****ing skinnies from K4 to the corner of Armed Forces and Da-aud myself, but that's just me. I suppose you types would whine then about "civilian casualties."

Quote:

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...

We weren't obligated to the ****ing Somalis who used relief aid as a weapon of war, and a funding source for other weapons. In fact, we were there to bail out the UN's ass once again with UNITAF replacing UNISOM I, then after we stabilized the situation (with a shitload of Marines), and turned it back over to the UN again with UNISOM II, things went back to hell in a bucket. It wasn't our mess in the first place, and it wasn't our mess at the end. Even your buddies from the UN admit "there was no peace to keep."

So try another subject.

Alexander's Horse · September 1, 2003, 08:29

Okay, because Vietnam happened there doesn't need to be Vietnam level casualties to have Vietnam style political effects in The United States.

The Mad Monk · September 1, 2003, 08:41

Actually, there probably does.

Alexander's Horse · September 1, 2003, 08:49

no, if they kill one a week that will be enough.

The Mad Monk · September 1, 2003, 09:12

Doubtful.

Alexander's Horse · September 1, 2003, 09:16

They are doing better than one a day - that's more than good enough.

The Mad Monk · September 1, 2003, 09:17

Nope.

Alexander's Horse · September 1, 2003, 09:23

There's powerful voices in Washington now calling it a quagmire, the morale of US forces is poor, public support for Bush is plumetting. There is no end in sight and every day a few more body bags are coming home.

I'm sorry but you are losing that war.

Kropotkin · September 1, 2003, 09:24

On the bright side: At the pace it's going at the moment, it'll take about 140 years until has turned into another Vietnam...

Alexander's Horse · September 1, 2003, 09:27

In the early days of Vietnam US casualties were very light. Just like Iraq now.

The Mad Monk · September 1, 2003, 09:43

Nah.

Kuciwalker · September 1, 2003, 10:13

Quote:

Originally posted by MOBIUS

The standard refrain from one who has nothing better to say - people are dying because people with similar views to you put them in the line of fire...

The standard refrain of someone tired of proving the same thing over and over again to a nutcase.

Alexander's Horse · September 1, 2003, 18:12

The American right is in denial over this.

MOBIUS · September 3, 2003, 09:32

Quote:

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
So who does own it now?

Fine.

Prove my point whydoncha?

Quote:

Nice spin. Saying something along the lines of "if you want your share of the oil, pitch in and help out" isn't exactly admitting defeat. I think it's just a political move. We have to ask. Doesn't mean we expect the UN to get off it's dead ass and do anything, but we'll have gone through the motions and asked.

So what you're saying is that this was a blatant oil raid after all and you're just inviting the UN to share in the spoils of your conquest...

No. The US said words to the effect: "Don't tell us what to do, we'll have this over in a few weeks and all the Iraqis will love us for it - go f*ck yourself!". Now everything has gone to sh*t cos US troops and US allies are being blown up left, right and centre - the US is crawling on its knees, cap in hand, saying "we need you after all"

Talk about a blatant Volte Face...!

Quote:

And I suppose you Brits ought to take the blame for all the IRA bombings you failed to prevent - after all, security forces are supposed to be omniscient and have tinfoil hat penetrating mindreaders everywhere.

The US is well known for its arrogant faith in its all powerful military and intel services - if you believe what your govt says, it is omniscient...

And yes, every time an IRA bomb went off, a certain amount of blame would rightfully land at the doorstep of the British govt and security forces. They have a job to do preventing those attacks, when they fail they should be held accountable.

By the Geneva Convention (I know you and the US chickenhawks do their level best to pretend that this document doesn't exist...

), the US as an occupying power is responsible for the security of Iraq - any failure in this regard is the fault of the US forces...

Quote:

Did they ask the US for protection? Did they attempt to provide their own?

No, but they were protected by their own security (who could have been in part responsible for the blast!), as well as US soldiers - US troops were actually protecting the compound contrary to your faulty assumptions!

Quote:

The US isn't obligated to protect every ****ing facility in the country.

Actually, according to the Geneva Convention...

Quote:

The good ol' UN types there, operating at the outer perimeter of a converted hotel with no physical security or perimeter barriers, thought they were immune from attack.

Actually there was a 'physical security or perimeter barrier' in the form of a wall 50ft away from the building, which is where the truck exploded - so again you are wrong. They didn't so much as think they were immune from attack as hope that they wouldn't be such a target...

Quote:

Say what you want, but they left their asses hanging in the breeze under the mistaken notion that their diplomatic status would be respected by a bunch of terrorist *******s.

If your f*cking country had done a decent job about what to do after the war, instead of hoping the Iraqis would rejoice and everyone would live happily ever after - this kind of sh*t wouldn't be happening.

Also, the irony is that this was probably a foreign terrorist attack by Al-Qaeda on a busman's holiday, attracted to the anarchic chaos and rich western picking so kindly provided by the US creation of a lawless power vacuum - Bin Laden must be laughing in his Turban at the incompetent handling of the 'peace' by the US forces...

Quote:

Good. I don't want the ****ing UN in our way anyway. And if they're the "bridge" I have to rely on, then I'm gonna damn well learn to swim, or start lookin' for a boat.

Good. If those bodybags keep mounting, I would far rather they were filling by the nations responsible for this war, than those not. Unfortunately the UK is in a unique position where the nation itself didn't want the war, but was hoodwinked by its government on the basis of Iraq's WMD!

Quote:

Not a problem. Just mount up, shut up, lock and load and prepare to go along for the ride.

Yeah, that's the worst part being dragged in like this! Our troops having to weather a storm not of their creating...

Quote:

Soldiering can be hazardous to your health. Anybody who signed up and didn't realize that has some major problems.

Hey nothing wrong with that - but the reason I would never be a soldier is having to do things that I am ideologically opposed to. I'm all for good causes, but to be used like this is criminal.

Quote:

I would have called in B-52 strikes on the mother****ing skinnies from K4 to the corner of Armed Forces and Da-aud myself, but that's just me. I suppose you types would whine then about "civilian casualties."

Just when I believe you when you say you're different from the chickenhawks, you say stuff like this...

Quote:

We weren't obligated to the ****ing Somalis who used relief aid as a weapon of war, and a funding source for other weapons. In fact, we were there to bail out the UN's ass once again with UNITAF replacing UNISOM I, then after we stabilized the situation (with a shitload of Marines), and turned it back over to the UN again with UNISOM II, things went back to hell in a bucket. It wasn't our mess in the first place, and it wasn't our mess at the end. Even your buddies from the UN admit "there was no peace to keep."

The US shat its pants, it went in overconfident and arrogant and then got pussywhipped by a bunch of militia with guns. There might have been a peace to keep if the US hadn't stirred up a hornet's nest and then run away...

They should rename that movie to 'Chickenhawk Down' instead...

MOBIUS · September 3, 2003, 09:40

Quote:

Originally posted by skywalker
The standard refrain of someone tired of proving the same thing over and over again to a nutcase.

If all else fails, those with arguments whose holes a so large a terrorist truck bomb could be driven through them with equally devastating results, resort to personal insults...

If I could be bothered, I would paste all your posts on this thread together so that people could see just how woefully lacking in substance your posts have been up until now...

Come back when you have something to say - at least with Ted's 'lame troll' posts we can laugh with him at his lame sense of humour...

Ted Striker · September 3, 2003, 09:53

lame troll

MOBIUS · September 3, 2003, 09:57

Barley · September 3, 2003, 10:46

Well I think the US need to come out from hiding in their tanks. They need to step up the fight for law and order but above all they need to give the people of Iraq something to hope for i.e. terms of withdrawl.

MOBIUS · September 3, 2003, 13:10

Maybe they should throw some more money at the situation - that always helps...

Sprayber · September 3, 2003, 13:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Ted Striker
lame troll

At least he confines himself to one thread. That's something at least.

The Mad Viking · September 4, 2003, 13:12

People who have no water or electricity and have been living under a dicatorship all their lives don't give a sh** about "freedom". To an American "freedom" is synonymous with all that is good. In most other languages, there is no single word with the same meaning. This is how different culture is, and how ignorant Americans are about other cultures.

Democracy is government of the people, by the people, for the people. It must come FROM THE PEOPLE. By definition, YOU CANNOT INSTALL A DEMOCRACY.

The American Military did a masterful job in the war, and are doing a remarkable job in the occupation. Its not their fault that they have no justification to be there, and that they will never be welcome there. They simply have to stick around for as long as possible while Haliburton et al sucks out oil money. Unfortunately, this will not be very long. The American public does not see much purpose in being there anymore, not in the sense of purpose worth my son or daughter's life.

Bush and co. simply have no clue as to foreign policy. Whatever regime they install in Iraq will collapse within days or weeks of the military's departure. Civil war is likely, or balkanization, and the situation will end up worse for the Iraqis than it was under Saddam, and much worse than under Saddam pre sanctions.

MOBIUS · September 5, 2003, 10:27

Quote:

Originally posted by The Mad Viking Bush and co. simply have no clue as to foreign policy. Whatever regime they install in Iraq will collapse within days or weeks of the military's departure. Civil war is likely, or balkanization, and the situation will end up worse for the Iraqis than it was under Saddam, and much worse than under Saddam pre sanctions.

Also, whoever does end up in power will probably be far more of a threat to the US than Saddam ever was...!

Wow TMV! A blast from the past, haven't seen you round in ages!