do you support surrender in iraq?

[hitekredneck]

i think we all agree that iraq has been our biggest quagmire, but do you really think we should just surrender and leave the 2nd largest oil reserves in the world to the muslem extremists?...what are your thoughts? :confused:

[England Expects]

If the allies could at least come up with a timetable for withdrawal, maybe things would calm down.

Its clear that when we went in, we did so without consideration of what would happen after we got rid of Saddam. It was doomed to fail at the start because we had no plan. All we've managed to do is turn a dictatorship into a civil war, at the cost of millions of dollars, thousand of troops and many more thousands of civillian lives.

I've voted no opinion, because we shouldn't just leave, but its time to set out exactly when we will leave. We cant just stay there indefinatly.

[something]

Maybe we shouldn't abandone it, but also construct a working government and police. As bush is doing now and send troops and troops there, wont work. We could work to make it to a real country. That's my opinion.

[conspiracy]

The big reasons this is taking as long as it has been I believe is because 1) No one in our government can work together to resolve anything . All they do is fight and nothing gets done. 2) I wonder sometimes if the Iraqi people want to be free. From what the news and media says (NOT that we can trust the media) , the Iraqi's ,the real Iraqis , not the AL-shit network, do not want their freedom. If they are not willing to fight and die for it as our fore fathers did then we can't help them really and their new government will collapse even if we ever leave. Which I doubt the US will ever leave. We've never left anywhere we've conquered and that is BULLSHIT. I voted NO we should not abandon the country because I honestly think that the war is what is keeping America from being attacked , Hell all the terrorists are busy there. They don't have time to stop running and planning their little roadside bombs. Any thoughts to this theory?

[starry123nights]

I voted no. It seems we have been fighting so long. It doesn't seem like we are getting much done for the IRAQ PEOPLE. But, we should NEVER bow down to terrorist.

[Ausinus]

The answer is no. If we were to leave Iraq at this point it would collapse and quite possibly spark another war in the Middle East. It would probably also put some bright ideas into the heads of the more fanatical muslims.

[hitekredneck]

i'm not gonna flame anybody that voted yes, i just want to know why they voted thatway...personally, i feel if we'ld have taken saddam out in the first war, we would have been more able to control the situation...unfortunately, conspiracy's right...the democrat's current obsession to defund our troops is only going to make things worse, and the anti-war movement has no idea what their bullshit is going cause for our troops over there...does anybody remember what happened when we pulled out of viet nam?...afterwards it was a complete bloodbath, and records indicate as many as 2 million lives were lost, mostly takenby the kmer rouge through "re-education"...that's not counting the estimated 600 thousand "boat people" lost at sea trying to escape....i can see this happening if we pull out of iraq...

[MrJim]

I would have supported an immediate withdrawal (is that how you spell it?)years ago immediately following Saddam's capture, but we're in too deep now.

[England Expects]

Our continued indefinate prescence in Iraq gives millions of people who dislike the US/UK a reason to hate us. It's the best recruiting tool Al qaida could wish for. It puts us more at risk, not less.

Just to cut and run would undo the good things that we've done there. It would leave a civil war, probably ending up with Muqtada Al Sadr as a dictator, allied with Iran but we need to be able to convince the Iraqi's and the muslim world in general that we aren't just an occupying force.

We need a timetable for withdrawal. Even if its just something to aim for that's flexible.

[General Septem]

Bush can't leave. He's gotten us into it and has been dedicated (read: fanatical) to it ever since. Our next president should, however, pull us out immediately. If Bush pulled us out, we'd look like pussies, but if our next president did, preferably sooner rather than later, it would be different. The democratic thing to do is poll the country, but that would be rigged for sure.

Pull our asses out of the war and put the money into alternative fuel sources.

[hitekredneck]

not once have i seen anybody mention the fact that if we do pull out at this time, we leave the 2nd largest oil reserves in the world in the hands of terrorists...now, imagine you are wanting to convert the world to islam, and burn what you can't convert, and all of a sudden, you get a gift like that?
i also notice that nobody has tried to explain a yes vote...interesting

[Ape-Shit]

I casted a no vote.

[Walter Weiss]

Iraq must be conquered immediately, for it has offended the USA, and USA allies, and it has proved to be a violent non-cooperative element in matters of world peace. A rising tide of girliemen are being produced in the USA by the demorat party supporters. You cannot protect USA world interests with a bunch of girliemen. We need to draft the girliemen and throw them into the conflict so that they will contaminate the Iraqi people with their liberalism and make armed conquest of Iraq a turkey shoot. It will also reduce the number of girliemen. In decades past, girliemen occupied no place in our society, and the world trembled at the sound of the approaching American combat boot. The finest stock of the American man hood is the American Combat Soldier, for those soldiers fly the flag of, and guarantee the existance of the greatest nation and greatest freedoms on this earth. Let not the girlieman element in demorat politics be allowed to inflict defeatism on the USA. Let us remove the girlieman element from our society, and once again lift high the ideals of the American Soldier and what that Soldier represents to us all.

GIVE THE WAR TO THE JOINT CHIEFS....TELL THEM TO WIN IT....TELL THEM THEY HAVE OUR SUPPORT....GIVE THEM WHAT THEY NEED. THEY ARE OUR MILITARY EXPERTS. THIS IS A MILITARY SITUATION. YOU CANT FUNCTION BY PLACING GIRLIEMEN IN KEY POSITIONS TO DICTATE TO OUR JOINT CHIEFS. THE JOINT CHIEFS ARE OUR WARRIORS. LET THEM FIGHT THIS WAR, AND TO HELL WITH DEMORAT GIRLIEMANISM.

[England Expects]

I think Walter, your either very drunk or an absolute lunatic.

Hitekredneck, they maybe the 2nd largest reserves but during Sadam's reign we weren't benefitting from it apart from the oil for aid initiatives. We've got the supplies no but that hasnt brought the price of oil down. What is the point? Oil is no good to the terrorists because they've no-one to sell it to.

The biggest gift the terrorists have is our "occupation" of their land. Imagine you're an islamic extremeist looking to recruit against the west, and then the US invades Iraq and occupies it indefinately. You'd thank Allah!!!

We cant win the war on terror with military hardware. We need to convince ordinary, moderate muslims that this isnt a war on Islam. If we don't, we will lose.

[Walter Weiss]

So you cant win the war on terror with military hardware? What is your suggestion for winning the war....planting daisies? The destruction of the terrorist elements is achieved by strong military occupation of their lands, and ever increasing that occupation and control into their lands, bringing with it a civilized and American way of life. The masses begin the rejection of the terrorism upon settling into the most comfortable and satisfying lifestyle on the face of this Earth. You dont win war by allowing terrorists to form governments. You destroy them. Then you destroy their ideas. You raise the standard of living in the areas that you conquer until there are those that scream to be conquered. When you conquer, you give them the power to self govern, to vote, and you guarantee that power with a swift sharp sword. Those who self govern are soon very quick to pursue prosperity. A terrorist is nothing more than a bandit. We do not negotiate with bandits. When Rome alowed themselves to become a bunch of girliemen, they were destroyed by more aggressive elements. You espouse girliemanism, when you should be ready to pick up a sword to defend the idea of self governing by an unoppressed mass seeking prosperity. Instead, you plant daisies, and call yourself civilized, but an enemy waits in the wings to rip your daisies from the garden. The daisy cannot flourish until the garden is secure.

[England Expects]

You've barely got enough troops to occupy Iraq. Have you raised the standard of living in Iraq since the invasion? NO!

The Roman Empire ultimately failed because it was too big to maintain. Same goes for the British Empire. The American Empire will be no different.

There are 1.8 billion Muslims in the world and you wont win friends with bombs. You'll make 1.8 billion enemies who are prepared to kill themselves to hurt you and alienate Europe, China and the rest of the world in the process.

You cant win a war without the support of the local population. Look at Cuba. When Castro and Guevarra landed on the island they had less than 200 men. Batista had 40,000 men. The 2nd July movement won because they had the support of the populace.

Compare that to the American Invasion (bay of pigs) in 1961, where you guys got your asses kicked.

[freakazoid]

You've barely got enough troops to occupy Iraq. Have you raised the standard of living in Iraq since the invasion? NO!

The Roman Empire ultimately failed because it was too big to maintain. Same goes for the British Empire. The American Empire will be no different.

There are 1.8 billion Muslims in the world and you wont win friends with bombs. You'll make 1.8 billion enemies who are prepared to kill themselves to hurt you and alienate Europe, China and the rest of the world in the process.

You cant win a war without the support of the local population. Look at Cuba. When Castro and Guevarra landed on the island they had less than 200 men. Batista had 40,000 men. The 2nd July movement won because they had the support of the populace.

Compare that to the American Invasion (bay of pigs) in 1961, where you guys got your asses kicked.

http://forum.bullshit.com/images/icons/icon13.gif Very childish and ignorant words coming from a nation that the United States has had to save two times...mark that TWO TIMES (WWI and WWII). Without this nation, that you feel free to attack on a regular basis, your worthless little pip squeak of a country would be speaking German, junior. I suggest you get your British head out of your ass, Euro-trash, and learn few things. Instead of using every opportunity to pour your mindless puke on the U.S., our people and our Constitution, try educating yourself as to how a REAL free country is run. In short, go fuck yourself, SUBJECT. I for one, have had enough of your smart ass mouth, you mindless piece of maggot shit.

[England Expects]

If you hadn't intervened in WW2, we'd all be speaking Russian, not German. If it wasn't for our "pip squeak of a nation" what language would you be speaking? English??? errr, no, you'd be another nation of Mexicans.

If you have stood up to the Nazi's in 39 when we did, Hitler wouldn't have killed 3 million Jews and the whole debacle in the middle east would have been avoided. Remember the USA NEVER declared war on Germany. Germany declared war on you guys. I'm not sure how many times I'm gonna have to tell you this.

And Freak, I dont hate the US. I dont like everything it does abroad and I think its foreign policy for the past 50 years has been nothing short of disasterous (and the UK's hasn't been much better). You see freak, in a free country, with free speech, I'm allowed to say when I see things that I dont like. Debate is encouraged, where you seem to think that the debate should be stifled or curtailed because you dont like it. Thats not what the US stands for is it??

I could come on here and just post about the things I agree with, but how fucking dull would that be?

Now, since I've been posting on here I've spoken with people that I wholeheartedly disagree with on certain issues; Septem, Mr Jim, hitekredneck etc but we still manage to be civil and I'd love to have a proper debate with them over a beer (I'm buying guys if your ever in the UK) but you cant seem to have a conversation without throwing insults (which are so amusing its hard to be offended by).

So in short Freak, you've "had enough of my smart ass mouth" basically because you know I'm right, but your not smart enough to think of a reply. That says more about you than it does me.

Calm down before you have a heart attack. I'm worried about you mate, I really am:D

[freakazoid]

If you hadn't intervened in WW2, we'd all be speaking Russian, not German. If it wasn't for our "pip squeak of a nation" what language would you be speaking? English??? errr, no, you'd be another nation of Mexicans.

If you have stood up to the Nazi's in 39 when we did, Hitler wouldn't have killed 3 million Jews and the whole debacle in the middle east would have been avoided. Remember the USA NEVER declared war on Germany. Germany declared war on you guys. I'm not sure how many times I'm gonna have to tell you this.

And Freak, I dont hate the US. I dont like everything it does abroad and I think its foreign policy for the past 50 years has been nothing short of disasterous (and the UK's hasn't been much better). You see freak, in a free country, with free speech, I'm allowed to say when I see things that I dont like. Debate is encouraged, where you seem to think that the debate should be stifled or curtailed because you dont like it. Thats not what the US stands for is it??

I could come on here and just post about the things I agree with, but how fucking dull would that be?

Now, since I've been posting on here I've spoken with people that I wholeheartedly disagree with on certain issues; Septem, Mr Jim, hitekredneck etc but we still manage to be civil and I'd love to have a proper debate with them over a beer (I'm buying guys if your ever in the UK) but you cant seem to have a conversation without throwing insults (which are so amusing its hard to be offended by).

So in short Freak, you've "had enough of my smart ass mouth" basically because you know I'm right, but your not smart enough to think of a reply. That says more about you than it does me.

Calm down before you have a heart attack. I'm worried about you mate, I really am:D

LMAO!!! ha ha ha!! You are, in fact, "right" about very little, except that you live in England. Piss off, "mate." Enjoy your "subjectness." As a man once said... "we shall kiss the Queen's arse and have tea!" :D

[England Expects]

Which man?

I've never heard a man say that?

Tell me who he is???:D :D :D

[freakazoid]

Which man?

I've never heard a man say that?

Tell me who he is???:D :D :D

Look it up, subject of the Queen. :D

[England Expects]

Freak, If i'm wrong about things, tell me and explain why. If I'm wrong about anything and you can prove it, I'll admit I'm wrong and apologise.

By the looks of things, you can't debate your way out of a brown paper bag; thats why you resort to name calling and the perpetuation of dumb national stereotypes.

Ladies and gentlemen I've done the impossible; I've found an American who's dumber and less articulate that "Dubbya"!!!

Piss off mate.

:D :D :D :D

[freakazoid]

Freak, If i'm wrong about things, tell me and explain why. If I'm wrong about anything and you can prove it, I'll admit I'm wrong and apologise.

By the looks of things, you can't debate your way out of a brown paper bag; thats why you resort to name calling and the perpetuation of dumb national stereotypes.

Ladies and gentlemen I've done the impossible; I've found an American who's dumber and less articulate that "Dubbya"!!!

Piss off mate.

:D :D :D :D

RE: "If i'm wrong about things, tell me and explain why. "

Example...

You claim that gun control = crime control. Sorry, WRONG. It does not and never has. I provided an example of Switzerland being a nation where weapons (guns) are everywhere and their crime rate is lower then that in Britain. That does not totally prove that the presence of such weapons provide an environment of less crime always (note: always), but it DOES prove that the presence of weapons in the public sector does not necessarily increase crime which it is obvious that you are claiming. You know very little concerning the relationship between weapons and crime in society. You sound to me like a brain washed anti-gun parrot, and nothing more.

[England Expects]

I accept that crime may be lower in Switzerland than the UK. I also accept that the Swiss have the right to be armed. There are many socio-economic reasons that cause there to be low crime in Switzerland. Its one of the most affluent countries in the world with the highest standards of living in the world being in Geneva and Zurich. It leaves both the US and UK way behind.

http://www.mercerhr.com/referencecontent.jhtml?idContent=1173105
http://internationaltrade.suite101.com/article.cfm/world_s_richest_countries

You implied in your post that, because there are many guns over there that the situation is comparable with the US; it's not. Its like comparing Compton to Fairyland.

In Switzerland guns are HEAVILY CONTROLLED.

"the presence of weapons in the public sector does not necessarily increase crime which it is obvious that you are claiming"

No Freak, you're making assumptions about what I believe again. Stop it!.

Switzerland shows that making guns available to people who are trained, vetted, licenced and retested regularly doesn't necessarily increase crime.

I'll ask again. Do you have these measures in the US, and if not, would you support them?

[freakazoid]

I accept that crime may be lower in Switzerland than the UK. I also accept that the Swiss have the right to be armed. There are many socio-economic reasons that cause there to be low crime in Switzerland. Its one of the most affluent countries in the world with the highest standards of living in the world being in Geneva and Zurich. It leaves both the US and UK way behind.

http://www.mercerhr.com/referencecontent.jhtml?idContent=1173105
http://internationaltrade.suite101.com/article.cfm/world_s_richest_countries

You implied in your post that, because there are many guns over there that the situation is comparable with the US; it's not. Its like comparing Compton to Fairyland.

In Switzerland guns are HEAVILY CONTROLLED.

"the presence of weapons in the public sector does not necessarily increase crime which it is obvious that you are claiming"

No Freak, you're making assumptions about what I believe again. Stop it!.

Switzerland shows that making guns available to people who are trained, vetted, licenced and retested regularly doesn't necessarily increase crime.

I'll ask again. Do you have these measures in the US, and if not, would you support them?

RE: " In Switzerland guns are HEAVILY CONTROLLED. "

LOL, they sure are! You're damn right...just about EVERY household is REQUIRED to have an "assault rifle" and hand gun at the ready. THAT is my kind of "Heavily Controlled."

England Expects, you are a gun control nut, and a gun grabber. Ask the Australian's how they feel about it...their government took away their guns and their crime rate WENT UP. NOT DOWN.

RE: " No Freak, you're making assumptions about what I believe again. "

Bullshit, I am very well aware of what you believe by what you post. Trust me, England Expects, you're not that complicated.


:: Fote note...If I was living in Australia and if any asshole from that government came to my house to pickup my weapons, my policy would, without hesitation, be to shoot to kill. Period, end of story. That is how a free person does things.

[General Septem]

:: Fote note...If I was living in Australia and if any asshole from that government came to my house to pickup my weapons, my policy would, without hesitation, be to shoot to kill. Period, end of story. That is how a free person does things.

Right on. Give me a call and I'll help you hold off the SWAT team. :D

[MrJim]

I’ll be there too, just give me a chance to stop at Cabela’s!

[England Expects]

Its simply not true that every household is required to have firearms.

If I'm a gun control nut, then you're a liar.

All males are conscripted to their army and are trained to use their weapons; which they can keep in their homes. There is absolutely no requirement to keep it "at the ready". Thats just more lies.

To have a permit to have a gun in a public place you have to be licensed and tested to prove you're capable and responsible enough to have one.

I repeat, do you have these measures in the US, and if not, would you support them? Answer the question, dipshit.


":: Fote note...If I was living in Australia and if any asshole from that government came to my house to pickup my weapons, my policy would, without hesitation, be to shoot to kill. Period, end of story. That is how a free person does things."

No, thats how a violent criminal on some kind of power-trip does things.

[Ausinus]

:: Fote note...If I was living in Australia and if any asshole from that government came to my house to pickup my weapons, my policy would, without hesitation, be to shoot to kill. Period, end of story. That is how a free person does things.

Here's some advice: dont drop the soap. Fucking gun nuts.

[conspiracy]

Here's some advice: dont drop the soap. Fucking gun nuts.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Guns don't kill people. Unmoral , hateful people with no regard for right and wrong kill people. The countries that have bans actually do have more crime. Banning guns does NOT work. Having the death penalty for murder. Now that WOULD work.

[England Expects]

I'm not against the death penalty in certain circumstances but its not a deterrent.

Most of the US has the death penalty, the UK doesn't but the US's homicide rate is 5 times higher, again in certain states its much more.

Maybe the US is just 5 times more hateful and immoral?

[conspiracy]

I'm not against the death penalty in certain circumstances but its not a deterrent.

Most of the US has the death penalty, the UK doesn't but the US's homicide rate is 5 times higher, again in certain states its much more.

Maybe the US is just 5 times more hateful and immoral?

Actually alot of the States do NOT implement the death penalty. It isn't used and in most cases has been repealed. I don't know where you get the stat about the homocide rating but if our country like the U.K. was the size of our largest state we could spew out low percentages too. Statistics mean nothing if they aren't comparable.

[something]

Actually alot of the States do NOT implement the death penalty. It isn't used and in most cases has been repealed. I don't know where you get the stat about the homocide rating but if our country like the U.K. was the size of our largest state we could spew out low percentages too. Statistics mean nothing if they aren't comparable.

Of course you compare theese statistics. If you count the BNP it would be an incredible missleading number if you didn't compare statistics.

Even thou, the size of america might infect the criminlity, even if it's compared, but still.