So, how would you stop the War?

[righthand]

Sonart Y'got me, Rick. I just think that since we broke it, we should at least try to fix it. And no, I have about zero faith that we'll be able to..

What's wrong with America. Are you punch drunk on LIES? By what factor of now did you need your loses to be to get things done.

At this moment there is a lady who lost her son camping close to george's ranch of ill-repute. It will not bring her son back but I'd bet she would get some comfort if she could save other mothers suffering like her. How many are down supporting her. How are you glorious media dealing with this. Is she a misguided demented female?

Why is America not on the move. If it is why is the media not reporting it. A few stones though glass front is a lot better value than lives. Where is American soul? Have you any bal*s left. Pass a law making it mandatory that the commander-in-chief attend every dead soldier's funeral, who died on duty. That would keep him out of harms way.

Where did this come from? The notion that you would consider for a moment starting another conflict with another state adjoining the one where you are getting your ar*e whipped is totally totally beyond belief to me. Are you all MAD!!! My fingers hurt, I feel so mad that would consider another war with no expectation of finishing the first.

This is not an academic exercise to debate and scratch your head. Think this. To save all the innocent lives in the Middle East and in anticipation of your inevitable future loses, do as the Romans did. Line up your new recruits, about turn, and a bullet in the brain to every tenth recruit. Barbaric! What's the difference. It's quicker and less painful than what they may expect in Iraq or Iran. Now have you still some blood in your veins. Now do you want to do something. Do you still want to score points off each in the 'I told you so' standards.

Good presidents have 'died' in the US. Bad ones should go, however. He needs to feel hunted every-time he moves. If he was a real team player, then he would resign. If not, then, however.

If I've offend with shock tactics, well I intend to shock but not offend. I hope this doesn't end up in Miscellaneous like my more shocking Expose anti-Semites in US Churches post.

[righthand]

Logjam The UN would do nothing. It hasn't done anything meaningful for years. If they fight a war they lose.?

On 08-04-2005 Vote 'No' on Bolton the question of evidence was asked and not answered. Have you any evidence now. Please be civil. I notice you have being visiting your 'hang 'em high' friends. I'd prefer argument to mantras and facts to rants, please. Just while you visiting. Thank you. Could you enlighten us on "If they fight a war they lose.?" I for one am intrigued.

righthand I don't know what I'm talking about. I know it but do you. Maybe it's some big secret but will you tell me what it is you're talking about. For months now I've being hearing a litany of negativity about the UN. I have seen nothing to indicate what it is that your talking about. Then it struck that this reminded me so much of so many other truths of this administration. Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes a 'truth'. By now anyone who accepts pronouncements of this administration should come under either brain dead or else religious believer. So if this anti-UN is anything more than an 'urban myth' would you kindly enlighten me, but I require evidence. I'm not interested in dishonest officials. The US has enough dishonest politicians to fill the ten floors that Bolton would eliminate. I was very clear. Maybe it's true about the UN, but it would be unique if the administration was telling the truth on this when everything else has been false. No matter how often you repeat a lie it is still a lie. liberal slayer Why not? The UN (Useless Nations) needs a swift kick in the pants. They are bigger crooks then the mob. righthand Yes, there certainly bigger crooks outside the UN building. Without libeling individuals will you please supply some facts to back up your notions or else keep your emotional claptrap to impress your friends. I don't know the answer but you are certainly not contributing anything with your one liners. See how there are facts in... Sonart We don't provide ANY share of UN armed forces, since we refuse to allow U.S. military assets to be commanded by anyone other than the U.S. military. We allow U.S. forces to cooperate with UN forces only when it suits us, not when it suits the UN. Whens the last time you saw Americans wearing Blue helmets? As to providing the largest amounts of funds, actually we fail to provide the largest amounts of funds, thus making the UN even more incapable.

Again on 08-04-2005 Vote 'No' on Bolton the question of evidence was asked and not answered. Have you any evidence now. Please be civil. I notice you have being visiting your 'hang 'em high' friends. I'd prefer argument to mantras and facts to rants, please. Just while you visiting. Thank you. Could you enlighten us on "If they fight a war they lose.?" I for one am intrigued.

Sonart We don't provide ANY share of UN armed forces, since we refuse to allow U.S. military assets to be commanded by anyone other than the U.S. military. We allow U.S. forces to cooperate with UN forces only when it suits us, not when it suits the UN. Whens the last time you saw Americans wearing Blue helmets?

[righthand]

Righthand[center]So, how would you stop the War?[/center] Often asked with the addition of 'as*hole', with the expectation that you don't have an answer. Usually they are not really interested if you did. Where do you go to get the answer to any question? What keeps repeating itself. HISTORY. So what lesson are there from history. Well, it couldn't be simpler. We only have to go back to Gulf War One. Only a blip in historical terms. After the very successful Allied over running of Iraqi forces, it all came to a halt. The expected thing after the success was for the Allies to continue to Baghdad. righthand Logjam [center]And your source is? Do you remember the event? If not let me enlighten you. [/center] We fought in Kuwait to run Saddam's forces out of Kuwait. We had the support of most, or all (can't recall) of the Arab states. The agreement that we had with the Arabs was when the Iraqi forces were removed from Kuwait and were on the run, then the War would be over. When the Iraqi forces were on the road back to Iraq, we bombed them. We got about 100,000 thousand of them. Pres, Bush said that at the time no one, not a single person, not a general, or political adviser or a national leader suggest that we continue on to Baghdad. (Hindsight being what it is, it would probably have been a good idea.) Then we signed a treaty with the Iraqi regime. They made certain promises, which they immediately broke. There was no, absolutely NO pressure put on us at the time to continue on after the enemy was driven from Kuwait. That was the definition of victory. Bush was only acting in accordance with our agreement with the Arab powers in the region.

[center]And your source is?
Do you remember the event? If not let me enlighten you. [/center]

WHAT HAS WHAT I SAID GOT TO DO WITH YOUR D*******???
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for now. You seem too easy a target. All bluster with no intellectual gravitas. I believe in a fair fight between equals. But if need be - Splat!

Next you'll tell us you served and know more than us. Well those depleted uranium shells have got to you. Where is that log jam, must be sore!

Do something useful today and help your soldiers spilling their blood for an ungrateful cu* like you, log jam. They don't want your prayers. They want to return safely to their families.

If you need further direction, then I'll point you in the right direction. Do you notice that tall cliff, log jam.

[monty of ll]

Logjam, you said: "When the Iraqi forces were on the road back to Iraq, we bombed them. We got about 100,000 thousand of them."

I believe that your estimate is pretty close to correct on the number of Iraqis killed as they surrendered. What would be your explanation for the U.S. doing that other than to eliminate Iraq's military capabilities. I ask because in my opinion that is the reason for the entire war in the first place. As you may have read already, it's my opinion that Saddam was conned into believing that his invasion of Kuwait was not an issue to the U.S.

There is much to be talked about on the first Gulf War, including the U.S. lies of the Iraqis massing huge forces on the Saudi border in preparation for an attack. That of course was another false justification for the war against Iraq. In fact I think that if one looks at the whole question objectively, one begins to see that the pattern of lies meshes very nicely with the lies told to justify this latest war.

[PatrickHenry]

William Blum, critic of Washington's Empire says in his July 14, 2005 newsletter:
http://www.killinghope.org/

Getting out of Iraq Exit strategy ... that's the buzz word on the Sunday morning talk shows and from members of Congress, conservatives and liberals alike, calling upon the White House to announce a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. For many it serves as their criticism of the administration's Iraq policy; it's about as tough as their criticism gets (along with demands for more troops, more armored vehicles, and more body armor). But even if we were to take such talk seriously, what does it actually mean? I suggest that to evaluate these demands we have to know what the speaker believes is the real reason for the US presence in Iraq. If one believes that the basic motivation behind Washington's invasion and occupation was altruistic -- overthrowing a dictatorship and establishing a truly free, independent, democratic, secular, and prosperous society -- then, of course, one could argue that the US should not leave inasmuch as the present situation is light years removed from such a noble goal. However, if one is not actually suffering from this advanced stage of dementia and knows, or at least seriously suspects, that things like oil, Israel, the dollar vs. the euro, the empire, and US corporations were, and remain, the raison d'etre of the American presence, then what would be the purpose of calling for a timetable for withdrawal? The oil, et al. are continuing considerations for the White House. There was no exit strategy because there was no strategy to exit. Thus the only demand to be made must be to get out now, start packing up tomorrow. If not tonight. Every day the occupation continues adds to the terrible suffering of the Iraqi people. The daily bombings and murders may well end as soon as the US leaves; the end of the occupation has certainly received more than passing attention in the communiques from insurgents. The fact that the US is creating more anti-American "jihadists" each day -- which the CIA has recently confirmed{2} -- is reason enough all by itself for leaving. A question someone should ask Bush or Rumsfeld: "If you knew for certain that the bombings, kidnappings, and assassinations in Iraq would cease immediately upon the US leaving, would you leave immediately?" Those who warn of a civil war in Iraq if the US pulls out are reminiscent of those who warned of a communist bloodbath in Vietnam if American forces left. This warning was repeated in the media to the point of cliché. However, there was never any kind of bloodbath. All that happened was that some of the collaborators with Vietnam's enemies were sent to "re-education" camps, a lot more civilized treatment than in post-World War Two Europe where many of those who had collaborated with the Germans were publicly paraded, shaven bald, humiliated in other ways, and/or hung from the nearest tree. The United States will eventually have to leave Iraq, at least partially. But when that happens, watch carefully. Observe who has retained control of the oil and other economic entities; and who has retained various privileges. In the early days of the occupation, the Coalition Provisional Authority under American official Paul Bremer passed a number of laws which guaranteed American corporations all kinds of benefits with minimal risk. Those laws are still on the books and, as written, will be very difficult to change. And what Iraqi governing body will be able to make the US close its bases, including the new ones currently being built?

[Logjam]

Quote by: RickSp As we seem to be creating terrorists faster than we are killing them, we may be the biggest problem.

We are only creating terrorists because people who think as you do are giving them a hope for success.

If you guys would just join the throng who want victory, we'd be closer to victory.

[Logjam]

Quote by: belverron I think setting a deadline for when we're leaving is necessary. If this new government is actually going to be able to sustain itself, it should be able to do it soon. If it can't, we're just wasting time and lives.

We are wasting lives only of we lose.

We cannot give the enemy a deadline for our pullout. If we do, they'd just hunker down and wait for us to leave; then they'd attack.

That's what happened in Vietnam......

[Logjam]

Quote by: belverron And Heaven forbid we respect other countries's wishes.

But we did then. And we do now. Sometimes countries wishes aren't in our best interest, such as in the case of the French.

But when we can, we adhere to treaties, we don't lie to our allies, and we try to do the right thing.

In Iraq we have freed a people from a tyranical leader, and we are trying to bring freedom and wealth to the populas.

[Sonart]

Quote by: righthand This is not an academic exercise to debate and scratch your head. Think this. To save all the innocent lives in the Middle East and in anticipation of your inevitable future loses, do as the Romans did. Line up your new recruits, about turn, and a bullet in the brain to every tenth recruit. Barbaric! What's the difference. It's quicker and less painful than what they may expect in Iraq or Iran. Now have you still some blood in your veins.

No, righthand, it's not an academic excercise and it sure as hell isn't an academic excercise to the citizens of Iraq. So.. what you're suggesting is the best way to save American lives and to let our sweet, dear American mothers stop crying. Well, if they didn't want tears, the majority of them shouldn't have voted for LBDubya.

[CENTER][/CENTER]

As it stands, I submit that if we pull out of Iraq right now it's a guaranteed civil war and you're going to be seeing crying mothers by the tens of thousands. We did that, we Americans, by supporting Dear Leader and his idiot war. So we have to take some responsibility and at least try to put that country back together again, at least to the point where they have some sort of government in place.

As I've always said, from the day we marched in there, we're screwed if we do and we're screwed if we don't. But anyone who thinks the factions in Iraq are simply going to pack up their weapons and stop fighting the moment we leave are deluded. So we may as well act like the courageous people we claim to be, tighten our chin straps and screw ourselves by trying to make right what LBDubya and Rumsnamara made so wrong.

And as I've also said, impeaching Dear Leader for Gross Criminal Negligence in starting and mishandling this war would be another way of showing the world we take full responsibility for our actions.
.

.

[righthand]

THERE IS A SOLUTION TO THE WAR IN IRAQ!!!

Now I'll not score points about in or out of the UN or explain my reason. I know most of you will dig it right away. No US general or White House official would have considered it until you loses sky rocketed. It was always the solution from the beginning

ALL WHITE CHRISTAN TROOPS OUT. ALL MUSLIN TROOPS IN.

Pay them to do the job, Pay them WELL to the job, you'll still be getting off dirt cheap. They wear any uniform they want but are lead by their own officers. Big bonuses for achieving goals. Guarantee no US troops go back in. Not only would it solve Iraq but it will dissipate terrorist threats in the US.

My biggest fear of this idea is that george might use the freed up troops to invade Venezuela, Iran wherever. Also I'm not certain this administration has not invested too much credibility in not staying to protect the pipe line and of course it would be admitting defeat. Another reason why it would not be tried is that no figure of US loses seem to affect this administration.

[Sonart]

Righthand, the Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds are all Muslims, and it's they who will be waging the coming civil war. All we're doing by leaving is getting out of their way.



.

[RVonse]

Our exit stategy can only take place after the proper "puppet government" is in place. The puppet government has to make sure the oil is flowing good and at cheap prices. Believe or not, this will actually end up to be good even for you folks living in Dublin. And its all gonna be on America's dime.

There will have to be a lot of killing first but thats the only way for things to get done when your from Texas.

[righthand]

Quote by: Sonart Righthand, the Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds are all Muslims, and it's they who will be waging the coming civil war. All we're doing by leaving is getting out of their way..

I'm not thinking of Iraqi or Iranians, who may have their hand full anyway.

Its Indians, Pakistani, Indonesia, Central Asians Stans, UK Muslims, North African, Central African, anywhere that is NOT white nor Christan.

The US fights the wrong fight ALWAYS to gain peace. Peace cannot be gained by brute force or terror tactics. You have never learnt that and while your army is trained as it is, you never will. You only train shock tactic troops. You've watch and observed too many Hollywood violent film. The cowboy films destroyed whole generations of American youth. You have an endemic gun culture that is destroying you from within.

Learn the lessons that the UK learnt in the North of Ireland. Bloody Sunday, Internment, Diplock courts, Supergrasses, Shoot to Kill, Dirty Blanket, and on and on. Repressive measures only strengthened the resolve and gained recruits for the IRA.

Your experiences in Latin America thought you nothing. As an Irishman I resent it but UK troops are at least twice as good as yours at winning the peace!

Show me where your methods worked and I withdraw my points.

If not on this thread or another, I asked had you understood the thing of 'blood'. No one replied. That means you all then understand what is that you are up against every-time you kill/maim an Iraqi. If you dont understand what it is that I'm talking about, then why not ask. I've no problem asking about something that I dont know. Is that why Americans dont know?

[monty of ll]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucgg/2005081...wstobuildpower

Well whattaya know!

"Iran, if things continue to go its way, finds itself on the threshold of controlling vast oil resources that stretch from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean ... Iran is well on its way to achieving de facto control of significant portions of Iraq. Teheran is backing Shia cleric the Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani (a Persian, not an Arab) and the radical Muqtada al-Sadr. The Iranians are funneling money and training to supporters inside Iraq. The Iraqi Shia control the political process and comprise the majority of the security forces ... Iran is in a dominant position in Lebanon. The murder earlier this year of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri has left Lebanon under the de facto military guard of Hezbollah. Iran remains the main benefactor, supporter and adviser to Hezbollah ..."

"Thus, the Iranians were able to simply stand back while their archenemy, Saddam, fell at the Americans' hands and at no cost to themselves. Should it be any surprise that they should move, as ruthlessly as always, to achieve their goals? And now, with their exalted idea of themselves as the holiest of Shia, their goals have been perfectly complemented by the "Great Satan." (That's us.)"

Yep, the U.S. definitely needs to let Saddam out of jail so he can get things back to normal. A little wisely directed brutality can go a long way and obviously it would be less costly to Iraqis than the current U.S. idea of fixing Iraq.

[Sonart]

Quote by: righthand The US fights the wrong fight ALWAYS to gain peace. Peace cannot be gained by brute force or terror tactics. You have never learnt that and while your army is trained as it is, you never will. You only train shock tactic troops. You've watch and observed too many Hollywood violent film. The cowboy films destroyed whole generations of American youth. You have an endemic gun culture that is destroying you from within.

You're definitely lecturing the wrong person here, righthand. Since the summer of 2002 when they first started whispering about invading Iraq, I've been telling anyone who'd listen that invading, overthrowing and occupying a hostile nation the size of Texas, surrounded on three sides by even more hostile populations, smack in the heart of Jihad central, was a really BAD IDEA, an invitation to quagmire. We'd surely win the invasion, only to be pinned down in an never ending insurgency and lose the occupation.

And that was before my arguements about whether it was the right thing to do legally and morally, or whether or not it was justified. I've also stated from day one that the way to fight international terrorism was through civil POLICE action.

.

[righthand]

Quote by: Sonart You're definitely lecturing the wrong person here, righthand. Since the summer of 2002 when they first started whispering about invading Iraq, I've been telling anyone who'd listen that invading, overthrowing and occupying a hostile nation the size of Texas, surrounded on three sides by even more hostile populations, smack in the heart of Jihad central, was a really BAD IDEA, an invitation to quagmire. We'd surely win the invasion, only to be pinned down in an never ending insurgency and lose the occupation.

And you put it so well. They didn't listen then. Will they listen now . It's reported that only dozens are showing support with

Sheehan in her standoff. She declaring she would stay for the entire month that Bush plans to stay in Texas if he won't meet with her. Since then, dozens of other activists have traveled from across the country to join her, including at least three other parents who have lost children in the war.

[center] Bush: Leaving Iraq Would Be a Bad Signal
Washington Post ...Thursday, August 11, 2005; 6:14 PM[/center]

It maybe deliberate bad reporting but if true America doesn't seemed concerned to save future deaths. Why isn't hundreds of thousand and not dozen that are supporting her. Bush uses the occasion to lecture again on his failed policy.

BUSH said he had "heard the voices of those saying, `Pull out now.'" And he said, "I've thought about their cry and their sincere desire to reduce the loss of life by pulling our troops out. I just strongly disagree." "Pulling the troops out would send a terrible signal to the enemy,"

The message should be simple . Troops Out Now or Bush Out Now.

[RickSp]

Quote by: righthand It maybe deliberate bad reporting but if true America doesn't seemed concerned to save future deaths. Why isn't hundreds of thousand and not dozen that are supporting her. Bush uses the occasion to lecture again on his failed policy. The message should be simple . Troops Out Now or Bush Out Now.

I reminds me exactly of Nixon during the later days of Vietnam. That didn't end so well either.

[FIFI]

I will stop the war when the reasoning behind it is resolved.
Pray that all troops come home safe!


Thanks,
FIFI

[righthand]

Quote by: FIFI I will stop the war when the reasoning behind it is resolved. Pray that all troops come home safe! Thanks, FIFI

I'm totally at a loss as to your first sentence. Did bush say that or something. Rumsfeld?

"Pray that all troops come home safe!" I don't think prayer alone is going to do it. The other side pray a LOT LOT harder. If I was going on a suicide mission then I'd be bloody sure that I'd have got all my prayers done first.

Now don't turn it into a praying contest. One sides prayers have to be false, maybe both. If you were seriously interested in the lives of US soldiers, well I'd drop the platitudes for a start. Send them body armour, give blood, and more than anything - GET REAL., GET BUSH. Talking and praying just wont cut it. Whether true or false, their god is ahead in their eyes. This idea guarantees that they'll believe they'll win the best war too. Gives you some idea as to how unsafe georgie has made the WHOLE WORLD.

Did you read my "ALL WHITE CHRISTAN TROOPS OUT. ALL MUSLIN TROOPS IN" idea further back. "I'm not thinking of Iraqi or Iranians, who may have their hand full anyway. Its Indians, Pakistani, Indonesia, Central Asians Stans, UK Muslims, North African, Central African, anywhere that is NOT white nor Christan."

At worse at least innocent American white boys wont be dying. Just putting Iraq back to pre-invasion would be a hugh achievement at this point, hence Putting Saddam back as nominal leader {wont happen}. My major fear of this idea is that loony georgie would use the saved soldiers on another escapade.

Last, know how bad it is now, if you attack Iran then multiply your problems by at least a factor of five and maybe ten. It could be the end of the US as we know it.

{Sorry, not by best, but its late/early. I didn't want god grabbing this excellent thread}

[SteveA]

I saw an article recommending we apologize to the Iraqies, and pull out. Then it recommended we apologize to most the other nations in the world that we have troops stationed, and pull out of them also. Then we dismantle half the military, remove most all the new intellegence agencies that have been created, dismantle the new war prisons we've created, apologize to them as well and let everyone go home.