Originally posted by AlexAmoreAmericans are not responsible for Iraq's wellbeing, ESPECIALLY the children who would be drafted as you propose. Our government and military were created to protect America and it's freedom....not Iraq's. Right now our men and woman are dying for Iraq not America, our Constitution has no room for that.
Well, thats a pretty egocentric thing to think. Obviously, the USA should protect its own citizens, but without violating the rights of others. We should think more for the protection of all than that of just a few.
The USA has invaded Iraq without a valid reason, and now they want to get-out without a valid reason.
I'd think the primary difference in WW2 and Iraq is the fact that people were fighting to obtain real estate in WW2, while the current situation in Iraq is a fight to control said real estate.
I really can't see a strong parallel between the two wars, perhaps Vietnam may be a better comparison?
Originally posted by modjoe86I'd think the primary difference in WW2 and Iraq is the fact that people were fighting to obtain real estate in WW2, while the current situation in Iraq is a fight to control said real estate. I really can't see a strong parallel between the two wars, perhaps Vietnam may be a better comparison?
Vietnam would be a better comparison, but im gonna blame the WWII-Iraq comparison on Outfctrl
Originally posted by Slickinfinit Originally posted by Veiled_light UK USA RussiavsGermany Italy Japan
Hardly a world war.....
Go read your history and you will see you are very wrong, there was alot of nations involved in ww2, China,Canada,Denmark,Spain,North Africa, France and pretty much every country was on someones side even if not directly in combat.
Not hardly enough to mention though. As laughable as it is, 100 C'nucks didn't do much except represent Canada, thanks for showing up though.
Go read your history and you will see you are very wrong, there was alot of nations involved in ww2, China,Canada,Denmark,Spain,North Africa, France and pretty much every country was on someones side even if not directly in combat.
Not hardly enough to mention though. As laughable as it is, 100 C'nucks didn't do much except represent Canada, thanks for showing up though.
Originally posted by AlexAmore Originally posted by olddaddy Firstoff, we can reach a successful resolution to Iraq, but not with the President's plan. A troop surge is insufficient for long term control of Bagdad, and without that control we cannot establish the safe environment necessary to get both sides in the civil war to the bargaining table. Without establishing the groundwork for a diplomatic resolution, the entire country will just go back to civil war once the US leaves. I have serious doubts that the Iraqi governemnt is capable, or willing, to establish that groundwork. To provide security US forces must be present in sufficient number in both the countryside and Bagdad to prevent the insurgents from just relocating to where we are not. Last night I watched a story on NBC world news in which US troops responded to gunman storming a small grocery store in Bagdad and executing the Shiites that worked there. The US troops arrived after the gunman had left. Consider that the gunman know where the US patrols are, they will hit elsewhere. So, to provide security, more patrols are needed, and to provide more patrols, more troops are needed. 20,000 more in a surge just doesn't cut it, and America lacks the political will to do what has to be done and commit 750,000 troops to Iraq. This requires a draft, and rather than see their sons and daughters sent to Iraq, Americans tie the Presidents hands and say "git 'er done". Won't work. So, the American people believe we can have a successful resolution to Iraq, but are unwilling to accept the steps necessary to do so. Oh, and by the way, someone responded to one of my prior posts that this is sectarian violence, and that a political solution would not apply to religious issue. In response to that I would have to point out that it has been pretty successful with religious strife in Northern Ireland. How long were British military troops involved in Northern Ireland before the groundwork for a political resolution occurred? Do the American people have the will to make that sort of a commitment? It has been explained to them over, and over, and many still don't get it. If we will not commit 100% to a solution, rather than make a botched, half assed attempt, we should get out.
Americans are not responsible for Iraq's wellbeing, ESPECIALLY the children who would be drafted as you propose. Our government and military were created to protect America and it's freedom....not Iraq's. Right now our men and woman are dying for Iraq not America, our Constitution has no room for that.
Draft? lol. Don't worry kid. You'll be safe working a Wal-Mart. My buddies and I cringe at the thought of a draftee among us. Draftees won't be welcomed with open arms, I doubt the military want a draft, especially how society is today in America.
If they sent me draftees, I would send them VERY far from the fight. Like refueling trucks or something that wouldn't get us killed up front.
Originally posted by tetsul Originally posted by nakedone
Originally posted by Slickinfinit
Originally posted by Veiled_light
UK USA Russia vs Germany Italy Japan
Hardly a world war.....
Go read your history and you will see you are very wrong, there was alot of nations involved in ww2, China,Canada,Denmark,Spain,North Africa, France and pretty much every country was on someones side even if not directly in combat.
Not hardly enough to mention though. As laughable as it is, 100 C'nucks didn't do much except represent Canada, thanks for showing up though.Ask the Netherlands what they did.
Nah, why don't you enlighten me. But if it doesn't envolve millions of troops and billions in supplies, don't bother.
OK...For all you war buffs out there, lets look at this. Am I wrong?.....Absolutely not. If the world treated WW2 the same way we treat the "War on Terrorism" and the "conflict in the Middle East" this is what it would have been like... *PONDERS*
Aug 17, 1942: First all-American air attack in Europe. (World outraged at American aggression! Suggests putting Roosevelt up for war crimes trial!) Oct 18, 1942: Hitler orders the execution of all captured British commandos. (World takes occasion to remind "Allies" that German prisoners should get extra bratwurst and beer for "Oktoberfest".)
I want to play too.
June 4 - June 7 1942: US victory in Midway leaves the Japanese scrambling. The US immediately pulls the majority of troops away from the Pacific to attack Mexico on information that a Japanese guy may have been there. Morons rally around FDR's new plan of "fighting them where ever they are" while writing off all opposition as allied with Japan. While US troops get further bogged down, Japan regroups...
Originally posted by tetsul Originally posted by nakedone
Originally posted by Slickinfinit
Originally posted by Veiled_light
UK USA Russia vs Germany Italy Japan
Hardly a world war.....
Go read your history and you will see you are very wrong, there was alot of nations involved in ww2, China,Canada,Denmark,Spain,North Africa, France and pretty much every country was on someones side even if not directly in combat.
Not hardly enough to mention though. As laughable as it is, 100 C'nucks didn't do much except represent Canada, thanks for showing up though.Ask the Netherlands what they did.
To tell the truth, Dutch contribution to the war effort was quite large, albeit not as large as canadian and french. unluckuly enough, the entire dutch east-indian fleet was sunk in The Battle of the Java Sea. The dutch had a small army in England, which participated in DDAY and the battle of arnhem.
To tell the truth, Dutch contribution to the war effort was quite large, albeit not as large as canadian and french. unluckuly enough, the entire dutch east-indian fleet was sunk in The Battle of the Java Sea. The dutch had a small army in England, which participated in DDAY and the battle of arnhem.
I ment ask the Netherlands what "Canada's token force" did.
Originally posted by tetsul Originally posted by Meon
To tell the truth, Dutch contribution to the war effort was quite large, albeit not as large as canadian and french. unluckuly enough, the entire dutch east-indian fleet was sunk in The Battle of the Java Sea. The dutch had a small army in England, which participated in DDAY and the battle of arnhem.
I ment ask the Netherlands what "Canada's token force" did.
oh i love this thread, it doesnt make any sense in any way. I post some random WWII comment, and it turns out to be absolutely useless
A group of 10 Republicans this afternoon spoke on the House floor against President's Bush's plan to send more U.S. troops to Iraq...The other Republicans who spoke were Rep. Howard Coble, North Carolina, Rep. Wayne Gilchrest, Maryland, Rep. Michael Castle, Delaware, Rep. Jim Ramstad, Minnesota, Rep. Ric Keller, Florida, Rep. Philip S. English, Pennsylvania, Rep. Ron E. Paul, Texas, Rep. Steven C. LaTourette, Ohio, and Rep. Fred Upton, Michigan.
Mr. Jones said he expects about 30 Republicans to vote in favor of the resolution.
Rep. Jim Marshall, Georgia Democrat, was one of the few Democrats to speak in opposition of the resolution, saying it might discourage U.S. soldiers... Mr. Paul, Texas Republican, protested what he said was unfair rhetoric against those who oppose the surge.
"The biggest red herring in this debate is the innuendo that those who don't support expanding the war somehow don't support the troops," Mr. Paul said.
Mr. Paul said that Iraq is not part of the U.S. war against terrorism, and said in fact that there is no war against terrorism.
"Terrorism is a tactic," Mr. Paul said. "You can't have a war against a tactic."
Mr. LaTourette, Ohio Republican, said that the president's plan to send more troops "is not a fresh approach but is more of the same."
"This surge is not in the best interest of our nation," Mr. La Tourette said.
KIRKUK, Iraq - While the world focuses on Baghdad's security, a series of bombings here may be the long-feared start of a second deadly war in Iraq — this one between Kurds and Arabs, both with claims on a territory atop one of the world's largest oil reserves.
Don't be terrorized! You're more likely to die of a car accident, drowning, fire, or murder! More people die every year from prescription drugs than terrorism LOL!
Go read your history and you will see you are very wrong, there was alot of nations involved in ww2, China,Canada,Denmark,Spain,North Africa, France and pretty much every country was on someones side even if not directly in combat.
Not hardly enough to mention though. As laughable as it is, 100 C'nucks didn't do much except represent Canada, thanks for showing up though.
Wow only 100 canucks so explain how 40000 Canadians died in WW2.
DOAC is still the MMO I judge other games by, My first and still my favorite.
Yeah. The Canadians actually fight pretty well when it comes down to it. They saw quite a bit of action in the later parts of WW2. Just recently, a major Canadian-led operation did very well in Afghanistan. While the Canadians don't maintain huge levels of operating hardware, their ground forces aren't bad.
50% of Americans are incredibly nieve. I'm a republican, and I'm extremely conservative...but this war is not something that can be "won"
Always nice to agree on something.
Best USA can hope for is that it doesnt become an Islamic state after they pull out and they WILL pull out.
Unfortunately an Islamic State is the most likely scenario.
So we have gone from a Dictatorship where admittedly tens of thousands of cilvillians died over many years. To a war zone where hundreds of thousands of civillians have died in a few years and continue to die at the rate of tens to hundreds per day. From a state that had almost no terrorist activity aimed at the west originating within it. To a state that once the "allies" leave will probably be the worst hotbed of terrorist insurection in the world and may even become thier own state or as near to it as is not worth debating.
So basically every single thing the US set out to achieve with the possible exception of getting rid of Saddam (big deal) has been achieved in the exact opposite.
Yet we stil have people who think its winnable......
Iraq won't be invading Kuwait or parking it's army on Saudi's border for a while.
Whoever takes over the country will sell their oil to us.
The next time we threaten them, they will massively back down and very fast too. (lol @ Ghadaffi).
We have airbases and military bases in striking distance of all our middle eastern intrests.
Our soldiers are battle hardened.
The 9/11 bloodlust has subsided.
The really important goals have all been achieved, it's only really the feel good factor that we aren't going to win.
You know, Iraq is a nicer place for our help. They love us. The world loves us. We saved everybody and the world. We turned those nasty moslems into caring loving human beings. Just as the countdown clocked down to 1 our daring marines found and disarmed Saddam's evil device to blow up the sun (broadcast live by satelitte on TV's everywhere) . Everyone wants to live like us now and even small animals have embraced Democracy.
Firstoff, we can reach a successful resolution to Iraq, but not with the President's plan. A troop surge is insufficient for long term control of Bagdad, and without that control we cannot establish the safe environment necessary to get both sides in the civil war to the bargaining table. Without establishing the groundwork for a diplomatic resolution, the entire country will just go back to civil war once the US leaves. I have serious doubts that the Iraqi governemnt is capable, or willing, to establish that groundwork.
To provide security US forces must be present in sufficient number in both the countryside and Bagdad to prevent the insurgents from just relocating to where we are not. Last night I watched a story on NBC world news in which US troops responded to gunman storming a small grocery store in Bagdad and executing the Shiites that worked there. The US troops arrived after the gunman had left. Consider that the gunman know where the US patrols are, they will hit elsewhere. So, to provide security, more patrols are needed, and to provide more patrols, more troops are needed. 20,000 more in a surge just doesn't cut it, and America lacks the political will to do what has to be done and commit 750,000 troops to Iraq. This requires a draft, and rather than see their sons and daughters sent to Iraq, Americans tie the Presidents hands and say "git 'er done". Won't work.
So, the American people believe we can have a successful resolution to Iraq, but are unwilling to accept the steps necessary to do so.
Oh, and by the way, someone responded to one of my prior posts that this is sectarian violence, and that a political solution would not apply to religious issue. In response to that I would have to point out that it has been pretty successful with religious strife in Northern Ireland. How long were British military troops involved in Northern Ireland before the groundwork for a political resolution occurred? Do the American people have the will to make that sort of a commitment? It has been explained to them over, and over, and many still don't get it. If we will not commit 100% to a solution, rather than make a botched, half assed attempt, we should get out.
Americans are not responsible for Iraq's wellbeing, ESPECIALLY the children who would be drafted as you propose. Our government and military were created to protect America and it's freedom....not Iraq's. Right now our men and woman are dying for Iraq not America, our Constitution has no room for that.
Draft? lol. Don't worry kid. You'll be safe working a Wal-Mart. My buddies and I cringe at the thought of a draftee among us. Draftees won't be welcomed with open arms, I doubt the military want a draft, especially how society is today in America.
If they sent me draftees, I would send them VERY far from the fight. Like refueling trucks or something that wouldn't get us killed up front.
Glad to know how you guys think of us. If you have that many issues with American citizen soldiers who go when called, then it seems to me you are fighting for a lost society, and a lost cause.
__________________________ "Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it." --Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints." --Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls." --Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
Comments
Well, thats a pretty egocentric thing to think. Obviously, the USA should protect its own citizens, but without violating the rights of others. We should think more for the protection of all than that of just a few.
The USA has invaded Iraq without a valid reason, and now they want to get-out without a valid reason.
I really can't see a strong parallel between the two wars, perhaps Vietnam may be a better comparison?
https://easynulled.com/
Free porn videos, xxx porn videos
Onlyfans nudes
Onlyfans leaked
Not hardly enough to mention though. As laughable as it is, 100 C'nucks didn't do much except represent Canada, thanks for showing up though.
Not hardly enough to mention though. As laughable as it is, 100 C'nucks didn't do much except represent Canada, thanks for showing up though.
Ask the Netherlands what they did.Draft? lol. Don't worry kid. You'll be safe working a Wal-Mart. My buddies and I cringe at the thought of a draftee among us. Draftees won't be welcomed with open arms, I doubt the military want a draft, especially how society is today in America.
If they sent me draftees, I would send them VERY far from the fight. Like refueling trucks or something that wouldn't get us killed up front.
Not hardly enough to mention though. As laughable as it is, 100 C'nucks didn't do much except represent Canada, thanks for showing up though.
Ask the Netherlands what they did.
Nah, why don't you enlighten me. But if it doesn't envolve millions of troops and billions in supplies, don't bother.
I want to play too.
June 4 - June 7 1942: US victory in Midway leaves the Japanese scrambling. The US immediately pulls the majority of troops away from the Pacific to attack Mexico on information that a Japanese guy may have been there. Morons rally around FDR's new plan of "fighting them where ever they are" while writing off all opposition as allied with Japan. While US troops get further bogged down, Japan regroups...
Not hardly enough to mention though. As laughable as it is, 100 C'nucks didn't do much except represent Canada, thanks for showing up though.
Ask the Netherlands what they did.
To tell the truth, Dutch contribution to the war effort was quite large, albeit not as large as canadian and french. unluckuly enough, the entire dutch east-indian fleet was sunk in The Battle of the Java Sea. The dutch had a small army in England, which participated in DDAY and the battle of arnhem.
oh i love this thread, it doesnt make any sense in any way. I post some random WWII comment, and it turns out to be absolutely useless
Anti-surge Republicans speak out
By Jon Ward
February 14, 2007
A group of 10 Republicans this afternoon spoke on the House floor against President's Bush's plan to send more U.S. troops to Iraq...The other Republicans who spoke were Rep. Howard Coble, North Carolina, Rep. Wayne Gilchrest, Maryland, Rep. Michael Castle, Delaware, Rep. Jim Ramstad, Minnesota, Rep. Ric Keller, Florida, Rep. Philip S. English, Pennsylvania, Rep. Ron E. Paul, Texas, Rep. Steven C. LaTourette, Ohio, and Rep. Fred Upton, Michigan.
Mr. Jones said he expects about 30 Republicans to vote in favor of the resolution.
Rep. Jim Marshall, Georgia Democrat, was one of the few Democrats to speak in opposition of the resolution, saying it might discourage U.S. soldiers... Mr. Paul, Texas Republican, protested what he said was unfair rhetoric against those who oppose the surge.
"The biggest red herring in this debate is the innuendo that those who don't support expanding the war somehow don't support the troops," Mr. Paul said.
Mr. Paul said that Iraq is not part of the U.S. war against terrorism, and said in fact that there is no war against terrorism.
"Terrorism is a tactic," Mr. Paul said. "You can't have a war against a tactic."
Mr. LaTourette, Ohio Republican, said that the president's plan to send more troops "is not a fresh approach but is more of the same."
"This surge is not in the best interest of our nation," Mr. La Tourette said.
{/cheer} Wow... intellectually honest Republicans...
Source: The Washington Times, http://www.washtimes.com/national/20070214-032139-6031r.htm
www.draftgore.com
Gore '08
news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070213/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_another_war;_ylt=AlC9EGdko2_9EXFkX7oQ0c5vaA8F
KIRKUK, Iraq - While the world focuses on Baghdad's security, a series of bombings here may be the long-feared start of a second deadly war in Iraq — this one between Kurds and Arabs, both with claims on a territory atop one of the world's largest oil reserves.
Don't be terrorized! You're more likely to die of a car accident, drowning, fire, or murder! More people die every year from prescription drugs than terrorism LOL!
Kurdistan is relatively safe though, as it has its own, well trained police.
Go read your history and you will see you are very wrong, there was alot of nations involved in ww2, China,Canada,Denmark,Spain,North Africa, France and pretty much every country was on someones side even if not directly in combat.
Not hardly enough to mention though. As laughable as it is, 100 C'nucks didn't do much except represent Canada, thanks for showing up though.
Wow only 100 canucks so explain how 40000 Canadians died in WW2.
Yeah. The Canadians actually fight pretty well when it comes down to it. They saw quite a bit of action in the later parts of WW2. Just recently, a major Canadian-led operation did very well in Afghanistan. While the Canadians don't maintain huge levels of operating hardware, their ground forces aren't bad.
50% of Americans are incredibly nieve.
I'm a republican, and I'm extremely conservative...but this war is not something that can be "won"
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
They saw quite a bit of action in the earlier parts of WW2 also.
Always nice to agree on something.
Best USA can hope for is that it doesnt become an Islamic state after they pull out and they WILL pull out.
Unfortunately an Islamic State is the most likely scenario.
So we have gone from a Dictatorship where admittedly tens of thousands of cilvillians died over many years. To a war zone where hundreds of thousands of civillians have died in a few years and continue to die at the rate of tens to hundreds per day. From a state that had almost no terrorist activity aimed at the west originating within it. To a state that once the "allies" leave will probably be the worst hotbed of terrorist insurection in the world and may even become thier own state or as near to it as is not worth debating.
So basically every single thing the US set out to achieve with the possible exception of getting rid of Saddam (big deal) has been achieved in the exact opposite.
Yet we stil have people who think its winnable......
You have to laugh..... to stop from crying....
On the plus side.........
Iraq won't be invading Kuwait or parking it's army on Saudi's border for a while.
Whoever takes over the country will sell their oil to us.
The next time we threaten them, they will massively back down and very fast too. (lol @ Ghadaffi).
We have airbases and military bases in striking distance of all our middle eastern intrests.
Our soldiers are battle hardened.
The 9/11 bloodlust has subsided.
The really important goals have all been achieved, it's only really the feel good factor that we aren't going to win.
You know, Iraq is a nicer place for our help. They love us. The world loves us. We saved everybody and the world. We turned those nasty moslems into caring loving human beings. Just as the countdown clocked down to 1 our daring marines found and disarmed Saddam's evil device to blow up the sun (broadcast live by satelitte on TV's everywhere) . Everyone wants to live like us now and even small animals have embraced Democracy.
Draft? lol. Don't worry kid. You'll be safe working a Wal-Mart. My buddies and I cringe at the thought of a draftee among us. Draftees won't be welcomed with open arms, I doubt the military want a draft, especially how society is today in America.
If they sent me draftees, I would send them VERY far from the fight. Like refueling trucks or something that wouldn't get us killed up front.
Glad to know how you guys think of us. If you have that many issues with American citizen soldiers who go when called, then it seems to me you are fighting for a lost society, and a lost cause.
__________________________
"Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it."
--Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints."
--Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls."
--Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE