BF2S Forums Iraq

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

UNDIESRULES wrote:

Yes we should pull out, let them get on with it.

and why do you feel that way

I was of the opinion that we should not have gone in the first place, and Britain being Americas Lapdog, knew we would.  I am in the British Army and eventually my turn came and i went last year for 6 months.

To be brutally honest i am not surprised Saddam ruled with an iron fist, i think he needed to sometimes.  The softly, softly, cathy monkey approach taken by the West just doesnt hold enough water sometimes and we need to bare our teeth on occasion.

The Iraqis don't want us there, we don't  want to be there, and how would we feel if a foreign army(s) set up shop in our place?  Pretty cheesed off i bet.

You cant blame them for not liking us and despite numerous press releases etc saying the Iraqi people think were great etc.  Its all nonsense, they simply tolerate us.

I think we should pull out let these people get on with it, they are resiliant in the extreme and i think they will be fine.

I say: Bush is a stupid fuck. Look at all the deaths, It was a stupid thing to go in there if u ask me.

cpt.fass1 wrote:

atlvolunteer wrote:

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

No, the last election was pretty well split 49% to 51% for Bush, but that is electoral votes.  However, both of the last elections, when looking at popular vote (just straight vote count) Bush lost the first election, and I'm pretty sure the second as well.  This is one reason many want to remove the electoral college and use of electoral votes for presidential voting purposes.

The problem with removing the electoral college is that candidates could just concentrate their campaigning in urban areas and ignore the more rural.  Who would give a shit about some of the midwest states?  They don't have that high of a population, but they have just as much say as any other state.

That's why majority of the campaning is done in South Dakota and Kentucky. You never hear a candide going to New York, New Jersey, Georgia doing campaining. And it's alway on Ohio or a simaler state that doesn't have a huge population for the president to win. I don't vote because I would vote 3rd party and essentally throw my vote away, so I choice with our current stucture not to waste my time. As do many other people, if they got ride of the system that essentally says I'm an uninformened american I might acctually start taking more pride in my country and start using the systems set up for us. THis is the reason why we have things like "vote or die" from P diddy, rather then setting up a fair system where a good third party could win, the current powers that be need to push up the votes so they know the american people are still approving the system.  If only 1 percent of teh population voted they government would know that people are getting annoyed with their current antics.


Tusser I can't agree with you on that, if say we had a dictator(which most the world right now thinks of GWB as Hitler), and we didn't remove him ourself and needed an invading army we would not me happy about that. Not only that but for a while Hitler was a very well likes president in Germany, As was Saddum in Iraq. You cannot rule a country if more then half the country doesn't like you, because they would just kill you, epecally after the gulf war when Saddoms army was crippled.

Sorry man, you're off here.  They go to states like OH because they are traditionally swing states (can go either way).  You rarely see a republican in MI because the vast majority of the state is democratic. 

History predicts fairly well who will win each state w/ several swing states and that is why they spend the time there.  Florida is another one.

[n00b]Tyler wrote:

I say: Bush is a stupid fuck. Look at all the deaths, It was a stupid thing to go in there if u ask me.

Nobody did, Also we had more deaths due to unanswerd Terror attacks, WTC 93, Somolia, TWA Flt 800,
Kenya Embassy,Tanzania Embassy, Kandaharhar Towers Marine Barracks, USS Cole,

The The list was long and all little Bubba could do was masterbate.

Bush = No more Attacks on US  Simple & Clear Cut. Big improvement.

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

Horseman 77 wrote:

[n00b]Tyler wrote:

I say: Bush is a stupid fuck. Look at all the deaths, It was a stupid thing to go in there if u ask me.

Nobody did, Also we had more deaths due to unanswerd Terror attacks, WTC 93, Somolia, TWA Flt 800,
Kenya Embassy,Tanzania Embassy, Kandaharhar Towers Marine Barracks, USS Cole,

The The list was long and all little Bubba could do was masterbate.

Bush = No more Attacks on US  Simple & Clear Cut. Big improvement.

Prove it.  How do you know that attacks like the ones you mentioned are not happening because we have simply given them a target in their own back yard?

Proof:  al-Qaeda admitted to:  93 WTC, 09/11, USS Cole, Kenya, and Tanzania.  3
Don't remember who did the marine bombing and TWA 800 is up in the air.  WTC is in the US so not really in their back yard.

All Clinton would do was lob a few Tomahawk's into the desert.  I don't agree w/ everything Bush does but I feel much safer than if Al Gore or John Kerry was pres.

kkolodsick wrote:

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

Horseman 77 wrote:

Nobody did, Also we had more deaths due to unanswerd Terror attacks, WTC 93, Somolia, TWA Flt 800,
Kenya Embassy,Tanzania Embassy, Kandaharhar Towers Marine Barracks, USS Cole,

The The list was long and all little Bubba could do was masterbate.

Bush = No more Attacks on US  Simple & Clear Cut. Big improvement.

Prove it.  How do you know that attacks like the ones you mentioned are not happening because we have simply given them a target in their own back yard?

Proof:  al-Qaeda admitted to:  93 WTC, 09/11, USS Cole, Kenya, and Tanzania.  3
Don't remember who did the marine bombing and TWA 800 is up in the air.  WTC is in the US so not really in their back yard.

All Clinton would do was lob a few Tomahawk's into the desert.  I don't agree w/ everything Bush does but I feel much safer than if Al Gore or John Kerry was pres.

That's not my point.  My point is that they don't have to plan targets like those you mentioned.  They have US targets right in their backyard.

kkolodsick wrote:

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

Horseman 77 wrote:

Nobody did, Also we had more deaths due to unanswerd Terror attacks, WTC 93, Somolia, TWA Flt 800,
Kenya Embassy,Tanzania Embassy, Kandaharhar Towers Marine Barracks, USS Cole,

The The list was long and all little Bubba could do was masterbate.

Bush = No more Attacks on US  Simple & Clear Cut. Big improvement.

Prove it.  How do you know that attacks like the ones you mentioned are not happening because we have simply given them a target in their own back yard?

Proof:  al-Qaeda admitted to:  93 WTC, 09/11, USS Cole, Kenya, and Tanzania.  3
Don't remember who did the marine bombing and TWA 800 is up in the air.  WTC is in the US so not really in their back yard.

All Clinton would do was lob a few Tomahawk's into the desert.  I don't agree w/ everything Bush does but I feel much safer than if Al Gore or John Kerry was pres.

*sigh* again with the fascination of masturbation and not looking at all the facts.  Is that all you rely on, Horseman?  More interested in Clinton's penis than what he actually did for the country when we were attacked?  You probably have a few copies of Starr's report in your closet, right?

Once again:
93 WTC, less than a Month after Clinton was inaugurated.  Clinton responds by hunting down, capturing, and imprisoning the 3 people responsible.  Go visit them and say Hi if you want to.

Sudan - Clinton responds with tomahawk airstrikes in retaliation.

USS Cole - Clinton assigns Richard Clarke to the case, who figured out a perfect way of taking down al Qaeda...stopping their cash flow, taking out the fake charities that sponsored them, and diplomatically called for the harboring countries' aid to find them and take them out with US assistance.  Bush comes into office and gets busy putting his own plans into place and ignores Clarke's research and papers until September 4th, 2001.  Guess what happens next.

Clinton had a diplomatic plan that Gore would've continued to carry out.  Bush was seething to go to war in any way possible (See the PNAC).  The chief difference is that Clinton focused on the rest of America's issues even while running a proper counter-terrorism unit, and the whole Bush administration just wanted to drive us straight into war to advance their own agenda.  One man decided to get a hummer in the Oval Office which resulted in no deaths but a huge pop-culture outcry, and anothers insistence on not listening to reason got 3000 American citizens killed on 9/11, and many more now with the push of his war plus is obviously splitting the culture of this nation with Nationalistic ideologies.  Priorities, people?

Marconius wrote:

kkolodsick wrote:

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

Prove it.  How do you know that attacks like the ones you mentioned are not happening because we have simply given them a target in their own back yard?

Proof:  al-Qaeda admitted to:  93 WTC, 09/11, USS Cole, Kenya, and Tanzania.  3
Don't remember who did the marine bombing and TWA 800 is up in the air.  WTC is in the US so not really in their back yard.

All Clinton would do was lob a few Tomahawk's into the desert.  I don't agree w/ everything Bush does but I feel much safer than if Al Gore or John Kerry was pres.

*sigh* again with the fascination of masturbation and not looking at all the facts.  Is that all you rely on, Horseman?  More interested in Clinton's penis than what he actually did for the country when we were attacked?  You probably have a few copies of Starr's report in your closet, right?

Once again:
93 WTC, less than a Month after Clinton was inaugurated.  Clinton responds by hunting down, capturing, and imprisoning the 3 people responsible.  Go visit them and say Hi if you want to.

Sudan - Clinton responds with tomahawk airstrikes in retaliation.

USS Cole - Clinton assigns Richard Clarke to the case, who figured out a perfect way of taking down al Qaeda...stopping their cash flow, taking out the fake charities that sponsored them, and diplomatically called for the harboring countries' aid to find them and take them out with US assistance.  Bush comes into office and gets busy putting his own plans into place and ignores Clarke's research and papers until September 4th, 2001.  Guess what happens next.

Clinton had a diplomatic plan that Gore would've continued to carry out.  Bush was seething to go to war in any way possible (See the PNAC).  The chief difference is that Clinton focused on the rest of America's issues even while running a proper counter-terrorism unit, and the whole Bush administration just wanted to drive us straight into war to advance their own agenda.  One man decided to get a hummer in the Oval Office which resulted in no deaths but a huge pop-culture outcry, and anothers insistence on not listening to reason got 3000 American citizens killed on 9/11, and many more now with the push of his war plus is obviously splitting the culture of this nation with Nationalistic ideologies.  Priorities, people?

Sigh! Fart, Burp. Takes long Wiz... Etc.

I will just reply to what wasn't knocked flat by other posters.

The masturbation reference is to the only thing his Legacy left.
He is " The forgotten President ", So It was meant to provide humor.
In this case. When we say " that jerk off" or " he's jerkin off in there ! " we are speaking literally for probably the first time in our lives.
We don't know you personally. I didn't realize you were about, Sorry.

clinton had 8 years to act and he didn't,

We didn't get Free health care " If you have this card Your covered "

He didn't address global Warming. " In ten years the Rivers will Boil "

The FBI caught three people involved in the bombing Not clinton.

clinton slashed the military and for "political correctness" reasons Forced the Intelligence agencies to put Women in important positions in Islamic countries were they are second class citizens and can be of no effect at all. We paid the price.

The Tomahawks you spout off about had no Value targets, it was purely symbolic at best and "for show" at the worst for. Just keep harping on it tho.

He didn't take Osama out when the CIA had him in Their sights ( FACT ) and begged him to because he was just plain afraid to act. He was weak willed, Sorry.

Going after bin Ladens money (which is believed to be vast) sounds good but does very little in reality.
Alas during a WAR it is best to deal in Reality. Only reality.
He is not the Only person funding terrorists and How much does a box cutter really cost?

Let me boil it down a lot.

Lets say you are right and their just oh so happy to be blowing up their own people in their own back yard.
You would rather have them bomb your Art classes in LA ? Really.?  I mean Really ? you really would ?

You wouldn't rather they went toe to toe with Armed, trained soldiers? REALLY? You want the fight back over here in American Cities where it was ?

If The Iraqis really wanted us out, the Terrorists would stand down.
Let us declare victory and leave.Then with The with the vast majority of the people behind them (Like you say) Take over post occupation Iraq and breed some real terrorist there.
They fight as hard and as best they can. Because they know this is the last stop for them. Once the get out they are never going to get back in.
First it was all out war.
Then guerilla war.
Then Suicide bombers.
and now they are reduced to placing a bomb on the side of the road and hoping they hurt someone (anyone)
So you and your friends can crow about it as a Major victory against the USA.
Yep they are doing well. Much better than the Japanese or Germans in the Last days of W.W.II

Bush = No more Attacks on US  Simple & Clear Cut. Big improvement. Jump on the Team.

Last edited by Horseman 77 (2006-05-01 13:19:14)

kkolodsick wrote:

Marconius wrote:

kkolodsick wrote:

Proof:  al-Qaeda admitted to:  93 WTC, 09/11, USS Cole, Kenya, and Tanzania.  3
Don't remember who did the marine bombing and TWA 800 is up in the air.  WTC is in the US so not really in their back yard.

All Clinton would do was lob a few Tomahawk's into the desert.  I don't agree w/ everything Bush does but I feel much safer than if Al Gore or John Kerry was pres.

*sigh* again with the fascination of masturbation and not looking at all the facts.  Is that all you rely on, Horseman?  More interested in Clinton's penis than what he actually did for the country when we were attacked?  You probably have a few copies of Starr's report in your closet, right?

Once again:
93 WTC, less than a Month after Clinton was inaugurated.  Clinton responds by hunting down, capturing, and imprisoning the 3 people responsible.  Go visit them and say Hi if you want to.

Sudan - Clinton responds with tomahawk airstrikes in retaliation.

USS Cole - Clinton assigns Richard Clarke to the case, who figured out a perfect way of taking down al Qaeda...stopping their cash flow, taking out the fake charities that sponsored them, and diplomatically called for the harboring countries' aid to find them and take them out with US assistance.  Bush comes into office and gets busy putting his own plans into place and ignores Clarke's research and papers until September 4th, 2001.  Guess what happens next.

Clinton had a diplomatic plan that Gore would've continued to carry out.  Bush was seething to go to war in any way possible (See the PNAC).  The chief difference is that Clinton focused on the rest of America's issues even while running a proper counter-terrorism unit, and the whole Bush administration just wanted to drive us straight into war to advance their own agenda.  One man decided to get a hummer in the Oval Office which resulted in no deaths but a huge pop-culture outcry, and anothers insistence on not listening to reason got 3000 American citizens killed on 9/11, and many more now with the push of his war plus is obviously splitting the culture of this nation with Nationalistic ideologies.  Priorities, people?

How about the time when we had Bin Laden in our sites but Clinton wouldn't make the decision until it was too late.  You can talk about how serious he was about stopping the situation but I stand on the factoid that he sat on his hands when he had the chance to take the man out.

Diplomacy hasn't and never will work with these people.

Yeah and how about now? Why haven't we caught him yet?

Horseman 77 wrote:

Marconius wrote:

kkolodsick wrote:

Proof:  al-Qaeda admitted to:  93 WTC, 09/11, USS Cole, Kenya, and Tanzania.  3
Don't remember who did the marine bombing and TWA 800 is up in the air.  WTC is in the US so not really in their back yard.

All Clinton would do was lob a few Tomahawk's into the desert.  I don't agree w/ everything Bush does but I feel much safer than if Al Gore or John Kerry was pres.

*sigh* again with the fascination of masturbation and not looking at all the facts.  Is that all you rely on, Horseman?  More interested in Clinton's penis than what he actually did for the country when we were attacked?  You probably have a few copies of Starr's report in your closet, right?

Once again:
93 WTC, less than a Month after Clinton was inaugurated.  Clinton responds by hunting down, capturing, and imprisoning the 3 people responsible.  Go visit them and say Hi if you want to.

Sudan - Clinton responds with tomahawk airstrikes in retaliation.

USS Cole - Clinton assigns Richard Clarke to the case, who figured out a perfect way of taking down al Qaeda...stopping their cash flow, taking out the fake charities that sponsored them, and diplomatically called for the harboring countries' aid to find them and take them out with US assistance.  Bush comes into office and gets busy putting his own plans into place and ignores Clarke's research and papers until September 4th, 2001.  Guess what happens next.

Clinton had a diplomatic plan that Gore would've continued to carry out.  Bush was seething to go to war in any way possible (See the PNAC).  The chief difference is that Clinton focused on the rest of America's issues even while running a proper counter-terrorism unit, and the whole Bush administration just wanted to drive us straight into war to advance their own agenda.  One man decided to get a hummer in the Oval Office which resulted in no deaths but a huge pop-culture outcry, and anothers insistence on not listening to reason got 3000 American citizens killed on 9/11, and many more now with the push of his war plus is obviously splitting the culture of this nation with Nationalistic ideologies.  Priorities, people?

Sigh! Fart, Burp. Takes long Wiz... Etc.

I will just reply to what wasn't knocked flat by other posters.

The masturbation reference is to the only thing his Legacy left.
He is " The forgotten President ", So It was meant to provide humor.
In this case. When we say " that jerk off" or " he's jerkin off in there ! " we are speaking literally for probably the first time in our lives.
We don't know you personally. I didn't realize you were about, Sorry.

clinton had 8 years to act and he didn't,

We didn't get Free health care " If you have this card Your covered "

He didn't address global Warming. " In ten years the Rivers will Boil "

The FBI caught three people involved in the bombing Not clinton.

clinton slashed the military and for "political correctness" reasons Forced the Intelligence agencies to put Women in important positions in Islamic countries were they are second class citizens and can be of no effect at all. We paid the price.

The Tomahawks you spout off about had no Value targets, it was purely symbolic at best and "for show" at the worst for. Just keep harping on it tho.

He didn't take Osama out when the CIA had him in Their sights ( FACT ) and begged him to because he was just plain afraid to act. He was weak willed, Sorry.

Going after bin Ladens money (which is believed to be vast) sounds good but does very little in reality.
Alas during a WAR it is best to deal in Reality. Only reality.
He is not the Only person funding terrorists and How much does a box cutter really cost?

Let me boil it down a lot.

Lets say you are right and their just oh so happy to be blowing up their own people in their own back yard.
You would rather have them bomb your Art classes in LA ? Really.?  I mean Really ? you really would ?

You wouldn't rather they went toe to toe with Armed, trained soldiers? REALLY? You want the fight back over here in American Cities where it was ?

If The Iraqis really wanted us out, they would stand down.
Let us declare victory and leave.Then with The with the vast majority of the people behind them (Like you say) Take over post occupation Iraq and breed some real terrorist there.
They fight as hard and as best they can. Because they know this is the last stop for them. Once the get out they are never going to get back in.
First it was all out war.
Then guerilla war.
Then Suicide bombers.
and now they are reduced to placing a bomb on the side of the road and hoping they hurt someone (anyone)
So you and your friends can crow about it as a Major victory against the USA.
Yep they are doing well. Much better than the Japanese or Germans in the Last days of W.W.II

Bush = No more Attacks on US  Simple & Clear Cut. Big improvement. Jump on the Team.

So nothing has happened since 9/11.  Are you prepared to say that all terrorists cells within the US have been foiled, and that there are no plans for future attacks?

Okay, so they are attacking US soldiers.  Are we going to stay there indefinitely so that they always have US soldiers to attack?  When/if we leave, who is to say that they won't start attacking US interests again?  Whether they are using IEDs or not is not the point.  The point is that they have from the beginning and continue to hit US and Iraqi targets, causing death and destruction.  They have slowed down any efforts to get the Iraqi government up and running, and killing Iraqi soldiers and police at will, before we can get them trained enough to stand on their own.

Your theory that GWB and the Iraq invasion being the reason that no other terrorist bombings have occurred in the US has no more proof or validity than my theory that the terrorists simply have easier targets of opportunity.

Marconius wrote:

Hindsight is always 20/20.  There was a possibility of gnabbing him in '96 from the Sudanese, but there was nothing to hold him on yet.  Sure, it's easy now to pass that type of blame downwards post-9/11, but by the time the information that the US coud properly use to incriminate bin Laden arrived, Clinton was heading out of office.  Rather than assuming and just striking everywhere attempting to kill him and his group, I'd say Clinton was being cautious at best with the intelligence he had, plus was trying to play it without pissing off the entire Middle East.

The whole "we had bin laden in our sights" argument is just another "B...B..B..But Clinton!!!" argument in an effort to shed the blame of Bush not being able to find him.  Clinton found the 3 responsible for the WTC 93 attacks...why is it so hard to find a 6' tall old man on dialysis?

You have side steped the argument again, why ?


We don't need to catch Bin Laden to Win the War.

By hiding in a Cave communicating once a year his is of little account.

If he was cuaght it would do little for our cause and a Real " Military " Leader might step into his Role.

If he gets killed he becomes a Martyr for his Cause . Something he dosen't seem interested in doing himself,

despite what he asks of others.

We could have " prevented " a WAR if we Killed him when we had the opportunity.

When your own operatives contact you and Beg you for action,

it Doesn't require any Foresight or 20/20 Hindsight.

It requires is a decision. That's all.

If you cant make a decision in a Crisis you are not fit to lead.

He wasn't fit to lead. We all paid the price.

When the information was available, Horseman, the decision couldn't be made by Clinton, as he was stepping out of office.  Bush kept Richard Clark on his Counter-terrorism team, but chose to ignore him, as he probably felt the same way that you do about Clinton and his entire administration.  It was entirely in Bush's hands, another man not fit to lead even a small oil company in Texas.  Having no terrorists attack your nation, especially after a carefully well-planned and successful attack as 9/11, is not a sole signifier of a good leader.  That just means they are all back at the drawing board, happy in the fact that they have been successful in changing America for the worst, or are just lounging away with the money given to them by the various groups associated with the PNAC.

The WHOLE point of our initial military actions was to hunt down bin Laden, and that was just a well-designed catalyst to propel ourselves into Iraq unjustly.  Now we've sparked a Civil War, the three major enclaves in Iraq are fighting since their 2000 year old traditions cannot just be rewritten and overtaken by a political ideology only 200 years in the making, and the Insurgents are doing everything they can muster to get the US occupational forces out of their country.