George Bush shut the fuck up!

The BBQ Pit
141

You miss the point. Gallipoli taught us a lesson-“be careful when you entrust your troops to Generals from other nations.” Our choices regarding Iraq were partly governed by those lessons we learnt. Its clever to learn from our mistakes, is it not?

…why do insist on dancing away from the point you were making? You said this:

…I responded:

(Note the bolded part. )
…the United Nations has never been in the position to take control, even if they REALLY REALLY felt strongly about it. By default, the United States were the occupying power, and if they felt strongly enough that a multi-national force was needed (as you seem to insist is the only way to stop the insurgency), why wouldn’t they hand over control?

The UN is there for many things, stamping out abuse and torture is one of them.
Yet the United States has troops in Iraq at the moment, do they not? At the behest of the current elected government, are they not? We have documented statements from US Serviceman saying they found victims of torture, they tried to look after them, but were told to give them back to their torturers. What, in your opinion, should the UN’s stance be on the US and the Iraqi governments actions in this case?

No, everything after a war is not cured overnight. But if the country hadn’t been left to burn immediately after the invasion, if the reccomened amount of troops had been sent in the first place, if the carefully laid plans made by the State Department had been implemented and not ignored, if Garner hadn’t have been replaced as soon as he got there, if instead of selling off the countries assets in the opening months of the occupation the US had focused their attention on getting the country fixed and people working, wouldn’t you agree that things may have been better?

…I think that most of us understand the problems bringing democracy to Iraq. Maybe the “quick fix thinking United States Administration” should have thought about it before they decided to invade.

The United States IS in there. They CAN stop it. They CHOSE (in the cited situation) not to. They are standing by, while torture and abuse is happening, and hoping for the best. What do you suggest we do, invade the US?

…if they have bitten off more than they can chew, its up to them to admit it, and ask for help, is it not? If they can’t do that, why should we assume they need the help? Do you really think the problems in Iraq at the moment are caused because they can’t be everywhere at the same time?

While this may be true, does it matter? Did you read the incident I cited? The troops obviously didn’t want the people to be tortured, but that didn’t stop the torture. They were told by their bosses to stand down and hand the prisoners back to their abusers. They complied. They were complicit. Thats all that matters to the average Iraqi in the street, who’s trying to decide whether or not to join the insurgency.

Oh please. You were the one who bought up the subject of torture in the first place, remember this comment?
Sounds a lot like interveiws with former SS guards who worked in the death camps, doesn’t it?
…you keep moving the goal posts in your arguement, but I’m not falling for it. You state things like:

…yet when you are shown that the United States are clearly in the position to help out in situations like this, you shift the debate. What is your opinion on the situation where the US troops were told to stand down? The statement that we want to see the United States fail is repugnant-it’s as bad as the accuasation in another thread where somebody accused me of “glee” over the Iraqi death toll. Everybody looses if the US fail. Complaining about people pointing out that the US is failing is moronic.

142

Fuck off, the liberation of people from tyranny has no price tag attatched, its absoultely worth it regardless.

Oppressing yet more people, killing more thousands, and waiting until the time was right until he could get his hands on WMD yet again, yeah seems a real bargin.

I don’t fucking care, I’ve explained over five times how the Iraqi government will not become a theocracy solely for the fact that it needs consensus of the two large minorities the Kurds and Sunni Arabs do I have to put this point across a bazillion times to get it through? THE SHITES NEED CONSENSUS WITH A 40% MINORITY TO RULE IRAQ IN A FASHION THEY WANT. This proves a theocracy is impossible to implement, because it would mean the immediate detatchment of both groups from the state of Iraq.

Leaving Iraq to fester wouldn’t help anyone, it would only increase the volatility of the region moreso in the long run helping them towards democracy and good governance is the only way forward, saying SH regime would some sort of necessity because it was ‘secular’ is b.s, false secularism is never going to last, it can only be embraced when the population want it, not when its enforced.

I don’t care, the UK when at its height, was the most hated country in the world all solely due to its success as an economic and political leader on Earth, with power comes resentment in many forms, the US is used to this, terrorists chanting ‘death to America’ is nothing new, get used to it. Whatever the US does will never be acceptable to the terrorists.

that 100 billion is to ensure the country doesn’t destory itself becaus ethat punk fucked it up so much, its not the Iraqis fault that their in this situation. I can’t believe this, imagine if you were expressing your opinions about Hitler in WWII, how America could stay out of the war and save its money for new employment programs to help the poor, its the same kinda thing, only with a 21st century zeal, it doesn’t work, doesn’t help anyone, and is detremental to US economic security in the long run, the Iraq war is worth it.

Could of fooled me :frowning:

President Bush has freed more countries than Clinton? Thats my point dumbass.

Blowjobs and liberating countries are hardly a good comparison :slight_smile:

(now I’ll have someone with a reply making the case of how they are related :rolleyes: )

143

Of course liberating people from tyranny has a price tag. In the case of Iraq, it’s $400 billion. That’s the amount that buys X number of tanks, places, humvess, armor, bullets, bombs, the salaries of the personnel, the cost of chartering transport ships to ship all the crap over, etc, etc, etc. It would probably be very easy to itemize the whole war.

Anyway the point is there is a cost, that’s a fact. What’s really in debate here is at what cost does the effort become too expensive. Would you pay 1 trillion to liberate Iraq? 5 trillion? 10 trillion?

Oh yes, lucky they have some technicality on a piece of paper to avoide bloody civil war. :rolleyes:

No, just one. bye bye Kurds

See your problem is that you speak in generalities, never mentioning the specifics of an issue. Uttering things such as “once we bring democracy to Iraq” isn’t good enough. Of FUCKING COURSE we want democracy to take root there, that’s a no brainer. Will it actually happen? Are the proper conditions present, and in the right combination for democracy to emerge? If you’re going to talk to me fer christsakes , don’t talk in vague bullshit. When I ask how we should defeat the insurgency, don’t tell me we need to just “tough it out”. Details detail details. Our course of action is clear, how we procede on it isn’t.

As the old saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

As a poster in another thread so eloquently put it, Muslims hate us because we bomb them, not because we’re American.

Well it’s my pleasure to inform you that I thought WW2 was totally worth the sacrifice we made. I however do not feel the current cost (400 billion and counting) of invading Iraq is worth it. You see I can be for one situation and against another, mostly due to the fact that applying the same standards to two radically different situations is stupid. Please don’t assume because I’m against the Iraq war, that I’m against every war we’ve ever been involved in ok?

Pretty silly to say it was worth it when we don’t even know the final cost do we? Since I’ve already passed my threashold (100 billion, 1,000 dead) I can say that IMO from this point on, it wasn’t worth it.

144

But the whole premise of ‘oh there will be civil war between the ethnic groups’ hasn’t materialised and is detremental to any one group wanting to maintain power, thats why I find it so ridiculous.

I didn’t say we needed to just ‘tough it out’ but conditions where we just leave and let the insurgents and terrorists rip the security forces to shreds isn’t going to help anyone isn’t it?

Yes, and because of American economic power which backs it moron, otherwise those bombs would be harder to get to those places. :rolleyes:

145

The user name… the irony… I’m getting faint…

146

No I understood the point. Probably the same reason that the US doesn’t want to hand over control of its units to other countries, either. Yet, someone has to be in charge, don’t they?

I wonder why so many people say we should listen to this ineffective body then. If they aren’t there to change things for the better, why bother?

As they can’t do anything even if they REALLY, REALLY want to, who cares what their stance is? As that is the reality then only the US’s allies would have any affect upon their actions. Only those countries on the ground could make any changes that the US will listen to. If you aren’t there, I guess you aren’t in a position for your complaint to be registered.

Take a deep breath, let it out and calm yourself. Now that your snit is over about what might have been (and I don’t particularily disagree with your assesment of the past), WHAT THE HELL SHOULD BE DONE NOW!!! Jesus Christ, you people spend so much time in the past bleating over what should have been/not been/ done that I wonder if you have lives yourself. The correct question is what should be done now to guarantee that Iraq will not turn into a theocracy or another dictatorship? What will guarantee the freedom of the Iraqis for the foreseeable future?

If everyone agrees that in this case torture is wrong, and the troops themselves don’t want to turn the prisoners over to the local authorities, then why are they doing it? Could it be that the Iraqi police/troops haven’t received enough of the proper training? Could more troops from the US and other countries give the Iraqis enough time to train correctly and also demonstrate by their actions the proper way of doing things?
This is why I say any occupation of this sort not only has to throw out the previous dictator, but has to change the underlying nature of the society in question. That takes many years. It would take the resources of more than one nation to pull it off.

It is reprehensible. So now what? If the UN can’t do anything, and other countries won’t get involved to try and stop it, what now? Realistically, the only way things can change for the better is if other countries get involved on the ground. That will gain them influence because their support is conditional upon changes being made. And while smaller countries like NZ and Canada, can’t individually make much of a difference, collectively they may.

No, what is moronic is sitting around bitching about things and not doing what is the only way to make a difference - putting troops on the ground. At least I’ve heard no other solution in this discusssion, or many others I’ve read. If you’re not willing to do what is necessary then you are willing to see the US fail. And while my statement may seem repugnant to you, I am only stating what is the perception I’ve gained from reading threads like this and talking to people. They may all say they don’t want the US to fail but there is quite a bit of schadenfraude mixed in there, too.

147

You say that as if George should care what you think.

Hint: He doesn’t, and more power to him for that.

148

Shit, forget everything else I’ve said to this point. What milroyj said pretty much says it all.

149

A) Hasn’t yet materialized. I’ll hint to you that it won’t materialize until US forces leave the country. Do you think those wrestling for power are stupid or something? They’re going to pay us lip service until the day we leave, and once we’re gone, and can’t do much about it, they’ll make their moves. Do you need a map or something?

B) A civil war is “detrimental” to any one group wanting to maintain power? What are you smoking man? A civil war is a MEANS for one group to kill their opponents and TAKE power. Right now the Kurds are supporting the Shites because they’re under some impression the favor will be returned. Boy will they be surprised when that doesn’t happen. How many times in history has someone said, "ok we’ll help you get into power, and don’t forget about us when you get there. The Shites will be like, um, yeah dudes, ok.

Well the logical solution to this is stay there until the Iraqi security forces can maintain control of the country. The PROBLEM is that the Iraqi forces may NEVER be able to maintain control of the country. Remember, the most advance military in the history of the world can barely maintain control of the country, how do we realistically expect a bunch of guys in pickup trucks to do it. Do you ever consider this issues?

If Bill Gates kills one of your family members, do you hate him because he killed your flesh and blood, or because he has billions in the bank?

I find saying these people hate us because of our “freedom” or because we’re wealthy to be highly ignorant. Like we’re the center of the world and everyone wants to be like us.

:rolleyes:

150

Yes, not caring for whate people think is a great way to conduct yourself in office.

This country could be so much more then it is, yet it never will be with moronic attitudes like yours.

You guys are the traitors.

151

Err, ya, because he should be striving to placate those who didn’t vote for him. Of course. :confused:

152

Even better, he should be striving to placate New Zealanders! who didn’t vote for him.

153

If his actions affect only those who voted for him, then let him continue what he’s doing. Since his actions have global ramifications, of which affect the entire US, a man of better character would attempt to act with the best interests of his country and its allies in mind.

Bush is no such man.

154

Yes, the big 'ol mighty US could never learn anything from our allies. :rolleyes:

And before you morons hit me back with boilerplate response #7, we’re not going to please our allies all the time, but we shouldn’t scold them if they don’t want to join our fight.

155

Yes, “George Bush shut the fuck up!” is a reasonable sentiment that we should take into consideration and “learn” from.

Or not.

156

Last time I checked Calm Kiwi didn’t equal all NZers

157

Of course not, and I never claimed she did. Only that her opinion as expressed in the OP was not something that merited consideration by reasonable people on a message board, let alone by the POTUS.

158

Fuck that, as usual you derail the argument away from the facts. The itimation was that he should only serve those who voted for him.

159

Fuck that, yourself. Are you seriously stating that Bush should serve Kiwis, too?

160

Serve the kiwis? When did I state that?

Don’t change the subject. Do you believe that Bush has an obligation to only take care of those who voted for him?