The killing and dismembering of four American civilian security contractors in Iraq

[The_One]

Just incase you did not see this on the news:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3587931.stm

 

You can argue until the cows come home the mentality behind the war, and whether or not it was the "right" thing to do; for whatever reasons.

 

Either way, this is an act of unforgivable barbarity, and it really makes you think about an awful lot of things. I think an event of this nature clearly highlights the massive cultural gap between the Middle Eastern world and the West. Also, it begs the question: is this just a minority, which undoubtedly reflects poorly on the majority? Or does this "act" reflect - in a very sadistic way - the true feelings of the people of Iraq - how bad are things in the country if it has come to this?

 

This sentence here just totally disturbs me, "Adults and children hacked the bodies to pieces, before lynching two of the charred remains from a bridge spanning the Euphrates River."

 

What are your thoughts on this?

[Kain]

*shaking head slowly*

...*sigh*...

I just wish that f'ing idiot Bush would get our people out of there.

 

Thats all I can say...

[swphreak]

I would do 1 of 2 things. 1) Make an example of the people that did it. or 2) Pack up and leave, let them kill themselves out.

 

Most likely 1 wouldn't work becasue of our American "principals" and we can "stoop down to their level." And it would probably make them even more angry.

 

I don't see why we're bothering to help. It costs money to help these people, and it appears they don't want it.

 

meh

[ET Warrior]

The White House said it deplored the "horrific attacks" but vowed the US would not be deflected from its mission to bring democracy to Iraq.

 

Sorta like we wouldn't be deflected from our mission of defending Vietnam from communism?

[rccar328]

Hey, now there's a great idea...let's pull out of Iraq!

 

Let's let every soldier's death be in vain.

Let's let a hard-line government take over, creating another Iran (or a country worse than Iran).

Let's let the muslim extremists form a new government that hates America even more than Sadam did.

Let's show the terrorists that we're weak so the'll be even more motivated to slaughter us.

 

Great idea.

 

 

 

 

 

-OR-

 

 

 

 

We could round up the animals that did this, kill them (or at the very least arrest & try them and then kill them), and see this through to the end.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Your short-sightedness makes me nauseous.

[Kain]

Originally posted by rccar328

Hey, now there's a great idea...let's pull out of Iraq!

 

Let's let every soldier's death be in vain.

Let's let a hard-line government take over, creating another Iran (or a country worse than Iran).

Let's let the muslim extremists form a new government that hates America even more than Sadam did.

Let's show the terrorists that we're weak so the'll be even more motivated to slaughter us.

 

Great idea.

-OR-

We could round up the animals that did this, kill them (or at the very least arrest & try them and then kill them), and see this through to the end.

 

Your short-sightedness makes me nauseous.

 

Your ignorance makes ME nauseous.

 

Haven't you read anyone else's post? Everyone and their damn mama knows that the US won't 'sink to their level', and kill the 'animals'. For a Christian, you sure do hate alot of people, don't you...not that its important...especially when your buddy Geedubyah is out of office, sets up his oil wells, and reveals to all the real meaning of that damned war, so all the soldier's death's will 'be in vain', as you so ELEGANTLY put it. Better to pull out now that to have more soldier's coming home in big black bags.

[ET Warrior]

Originally posted by rccar328

Hey, now there's a great idea...let's pull out of Iraq!

 

Let's let every soldier's death be in vain.

 

How many sodliers had to die in Vietnam before we realized we were fighting a war that we had no business in fighting?

 

 

Edit - And blind patriotism makes ME nauseous

[Tyrion]

Let's let every soldier's death be in vain.

 

I imagine that the dead soldiers would rather have thier deaths in vain, then to have more of thier brothers killed.

 

Let's let a hard-line government take over, creating another Iran (or a country worse than Iran).

 

We're already letting hard-line countries around the world survive, some even worse then Iran.

 

Let's let the muslim extremists form a new government that hates America even more than Sadam did.

 

Gee, I imagine a country wouldn't be much more dangerous then the terrorist cells around the world...besides, do you really think that the new Iraq will last long, until civil distress comes again?

 

Let's show the terrorists that we're weak so the'll be even more motivated to slaughter us.

 

You've got it backwards. We're turning more and more of them into martyrs, thier rage for the US is GROWING.

[swphreak]

Yeah, our "principals" would not allow us to do any rounding up and killing... although, I think some intelligence agency needs to send in some Black Ops team and assassinate terrorist leaders or something. The government needs to show them that we're not afraid to ****ing kick their asses back. Again... "principals" prevent that.

 

*kicks principals*

[The_One]

To be perfectly fair, the USA is usually the country that puts these "hard-line governments" into power.

 

Let's let every soldier's death be in vain.

 

What the hell are the coalition actually fighting for anyway? I've lost track...

 

Let's show the terrorists that we're weak so the'll be even more motivated to slaughter us.

 

Actually, I think they'd be less inclined to slaughter us if we pulled out. Not that I personally think we should pull out now we've got this far...

[Master_Keralys]

I find this outrageous... we should indeed apprehend and kill those responsible.

 

In response to those who just want us to leave because of our troops dying though, I say this: Thank God you weren't the dominant culture during WWII. We've lost 40 marines in a week. We lost thousands in the same span of time during the Battle of Midway. And every island we hopped to after that...

 

There would be no less inclination to slaughter us: we had done nothing to the Al-Quaida freaks who attacked us on September 11 - except offend them by our very existence and way of life. The same is true of the radical Shiite clerics in Iraq, and radical Muslims around the world.

 

While it is true that Muslims in the US and many other places are very peaceful, those in these extremist nations have a deep and abiding hatred for this nation, like it or not. Ignoring it won't make it go away, and if anyone thinks appeasing them is the way to go, read some history; they tried that with Hitler and look where it got them...

 

We must fight terrorism somehow. I agree that the focus has not been entirely where it should. But if we can successfully implement a functional democracy in Iraq, it could help stabilize the entire region. It could not, as well, but it's worth exploring the possibility.

 

In my opinion, we do/i] need to rededicate resources to our intelligence agencies and overhaul the current system - but convince the Democrats in Congress to approve the funding for it. Good luck. It's a double-edged sword.

[Tyrion]

In response to those who just want us to leave because of our troops dying though, I say this: Thank God you weren't the dominant culture during WWII. We've lost 40 marines in a week. We lost thousands in the same span of time during the Battle of Midway. And every island we hopped to after that...

 

There's a pretty large different between being attacked and then launching a counter-attack(9-11), and doing a pre-emptive strike against another country for superficial reasons(Iraq).

 

There would be no less inclination to slaughter us: we had done nothing to the Al-Quaida freaks who attacked us on September 11 - except offend them by our very existence and way of life. The same is true of the radical Shiite clerics in Iraq, and radical Muslims around the world.

 

I don't understand your point, we're talking about backing out of Iraq, not the pursuit of Al-queda.

 

While it is true that Muslims in the US and many other places are very peaceful, those in these extremist nations have a deep and abiding hatred for this nation, like it or not. Ignoring it won't make it go away, and if anyone thinks appeasing them is the way to go, read some history; they tried that with Hitler and look where it got them...

 

So they should be put in jail or even put to death because they hate our country? There's nothing inheriently wrong with that belief; it's when they conspire to attack us that we have to intervene. And no, invading a country isn't the way to do it, hell it caused them to get even more angry.

 

We must fight terrorism somehow. I agree that the focus has not been entirely where it should. But if we can successfully implement a functional democracy in Iraq, it could help stabilize the entire region. It could not, as well, but it's worth exploring the possibility.

 

If we can implement a permanent democracy, then I'll be amazed. I don't think, sadly, that this will last very long before other countries and extremists attack. Which would require for us to send even more men there, getting us deeper and deeper into the conflict.

 

In my opinion, we do/i] need to rededicate resources to our intelligence agencies and overhaul the current system - but convince the Democrats in Congress to approve the funding for it. Good luck. It's a double-edged sword.

 

That's the way we have to fight these terrorists, not by attacking countries that house them, but by both attacking the terrorist camps, and greatly improving the security and defense protocols of our system.

[El Sitherino]

Originally posted by Master_Keralys

we had done nothing to the Al-Quaida freaks who attacked us on September 11 - except offend them by our very existence and way of life. The same is true of the radical Shiite clerics in Iraq, and radical Muslims around the world.

Wrong, 1970's america went into the middle east, we invaded small villages (where these "freaks" came from) we invaded jordan and palestine, We fund Israel's terror on Palestine. We have done alot to these people, 9/11 is nothing compared to what they've suffered due to us.

Originally posted by Master_Keralys

But if we can successfully implement a functional democracy in Iraq, it could help stabilize the entire region. It could not, as well, but it's worth exploring the possibility.

First I say we establish a stable democracy here.

 

 

You cannot compare Saddam to Hitler either, it's apples and peas, Saddam is so much smaller in scale to Hitler. Hitler posed a global threat, conquering the world. Saddam posed no threat at all, except to his people, true he was a horrible person, but Hitler was still much worse.

[rccar328]

There's a pretty large different between being attacked and then launching a counter-attack(9-11), and doing a pre-emptive strike against another country for superficial reasons(Iraq).

Here's your history lesson:

Japan attacked us, so we launched a counter-attack.

The Nazis never did anything to us, but we sent troops in anyway.

I don't understand your point, we're talking about backing out of Iraq, not the pursuit of Al-queda.

I don't understand people's willingness to blind themselves to the fact that they are part of one and the same struggle, which is the global war on terrorism. If the US abandons Iraq, it sends a message to terrorists and other hard-line Islamicists that as long as they keep killing Americans, America doesn't have the stomach to do anything about it. It's an image that we have, and, thankfully, one that the President is trying to change.

So they should be put in jail or even put to death because they hate our country? There's nothing inheriently wrong with that belief; it's when they conspire to attack us that we have to intervene. And no, invading a country isn't the way to do it, hell it caused them to get even more angry.

To put it as simply as I possible can, you don't seem to understand the goal of the war on terror. The goal is not simply to kill terrorists, but to turn nations away from harboring and supporting terrorists. In a way, we're fighting the same battle as the terrorists - they are killing our troops in an effort to convince us that it is not profitable to try to stop them, and we are killing them in an effort to convince them that terrorism is not profitable. And we are also fighting to convince nation-states that it is not profitable or wise to harbor and support terrorists. The battle in Iraq is not a battle that we can afford to lose, much less abandon.

If we can implement a permanent democracy, then I'll be amazed. I don't think, sadly, that this will last very long before other countries and extremists attack. Which would require for us to send even more men there, getting us deeper and deeper into the conflict.

This is why there will be a US/Coalition presence in Iraq even after authority is turned over to an Iraqi government. I believe that it is inevitable that hard-line Islamic powers will try to turn Iraq into an even bigger mess. That is what is going on right now in Iraq. They want this to become "another Vietnam" because they know as well as the rest of the world that the US pulled out of Vietnam. We have a duty, especially now, not to give them what they want.

That's the way we have to fight these terrorists, not by attacking countries that house them, but by both attacking the terrorist camps, and greatly improving the security and defense protocols of our system.

But how can we stop terrorism without stopping nation-states from supporting terrorism? Bill Clinton tried to handle terrorism as law-enforcement, and we see where that got us. The policy change that George W. Bush brought to the US on terrorism is the most effective way to defeat terrorism. Instead of taking out a few terrorist camps with missiles, we are attempting to show nation-states that it is not worth it to harbor and support terrorism.

Wrong, 1970's america went into the middle east, we invaded small villages (where these "freaks" came from) we invaded jordan and palestine, We fund Israel's terror on Palestine. We have done alot to these people, 9/11 is nothing compared to what they've suffered due to us.

We fund Israel's terror on Palestine? What kind of foolishness is this? I've never heard of Israeli suicide-bombers killing innocent Palestinian civilians. If anything, Israel's actions should be applauded by the United States, especially under our new anti-terror policy. I can understand the Palestinians being pissed off about being pushed out of the region now known as the nation of Israel, but that does not justify terrorism. I can't understand the world's condemnation of Israel every time they eliminate another Hamas leader...I mean, let's face it - Hamas is a terrorist organization.

You cannot compare Saddam to Hitler either, it's apples and peas, Saddam is so much smaller in scale to Hitler. Hitler posed a global threat, conquering the world. Saddam posed no threat at all, except to his people, true he was a horrible person, but Hitler was still much worse.

But you can compare Saddam to Hitler. The difference is that we didn't allow Saddam to take Kuwait, his Poland. Saddam is much smaller in scale to Hitler because we didn't allow him to become as big of a problem. And there were similar arguments from within the US against US involvement in Europe as are being used against US involvement in Iraq - people said that it wasn't our problem because Hitler hadn't done anything to the US. They said that our only concern should be the Japanese, and we should leave Europe to deal with its own problems.

Thank God that President Roosevelt didn't listen to them.

 

The goal of our present conflict in Iraq is to attempt to stabilize the Middle East region and to reduce, if not eliminate, the threat of terrorism originating in the Middle East. If we establish a democracy in Iraq, we have a fighting chance of success, but if we pull out, our chances of stabilizing the region or of stopping terrorism are exactly nill. Is it dangerous? Yeah. Are American soldiers going to be killed? Yeah. Do our actions in the Middle East piss the terrorists off? Well, yeah, they do. But I'd rather see this battle fought in my time than to leave it for future generations to deal with. And when it gets right down to it, that's why every war is fought - to try to secure the safety of future generations. Some people say we should pull out. They say that we should give the terrorists what they want and just leave them alone. That will never work. Pulling out will encourage them to set up hard-line, anti-American terrorist Islamicist regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan (rember, the terrorists don't just want us out of Iraq!), and they will pose even more of a threat to America then they do now, or they did prior to 9/11, because it will empower them with the idea that they can win, and all they have to do is kill enough Americans to drive us away. We cannot afford to leave. We cannot afford to lose our resolve to fight this war to the end. Because if we do, and we pull out, we run the risk of seeing the same kind of terrorism in America that Palestinian terrorists perpetrate against Israel.

[Tyrion]

Here's your history lesson:

Japan attacked us, so we launched a counter-attack.

The Nazis never did anything to us, but we sent troops in anyway.

 

Except Japan and the Nazis were directly allied.

 

I don't understand people's willingness to blind themselves to the fact that they are part of one and the same struggle, which is the global war on terrorism. If the US abandons Iraq, it sends a message to terrorists and other hard-line Islamicists that as long as they keep killing Americans, America doesn't have the stomach to do anything about it. It's an image that we have, and, thankfully, one that the President is trying to change.

 

And the terrorists will still get us. Showing them that we have the stomach to fight them won't do much more than make them even more angry, as we're invading on thier land and well, they don't excactly fear death in the first place.

 

To put it as simply as I possible can, you don't seem to understand the goal of the war on terror. The goal is not simply to kill terrorists, but to turn nations away from harboring and supporting terrorists. In a way, we're fighting the same battle as the terrorists - they are killing our troops in an effort to convince us that it is not profitable to try to stop them, and we are killing them in an effort to convince them that terrorism is not profitable. And we are also fighting to convince nation-states that it is not profitable or wise to harbor and support terrorists. The battle in Iraq is not a battle that we can afford to lose, much less abandon.

 

I -do- agree with you on that we have to take out terrorist supporting countries(diplomacy, as it has proven in history, rarely works and even if it does, peace doesn't last long), but surely Iraq isn't the biggest terrorist supporting country. Why did we take out Iraq, and not Columbia or other terrorist supporting countries? We'll spend all our resources on this fight, and lots of other countries will know we're weakend, and so still won't be in much fear.

 

This is why there will be a US/Coalition presence in Iraq even after authority is turned over to an Iraqi government. I believe that it is inevitable that hard-line Islamic powers will try to turn Iraq into an even bigger mess. That is what is going on right now in Iraq. They want this to become "another Vietnam" because they know as well as the rest of the world that the US pulled out of Vietnam. We have a duty, especially now, not to give them what they want.

 

There's a reason why we pulled out from Vietnam, there would simply be a huge casuality rate from not just the invasion of it, but from the occupation of it. Iraq is somewhat the same, except we're making most of the Middle East angry. The losses we're going to take is huge considering we're taking a gamble that this will actually qualm most of the terrorist threat. Which of course could make the extremists loath us even more, and we'll be drained to boot.

 

In case you're wondering why it'd be worth it to go after Columbia, it's because thier terrorists are largely different from the Middle Eastern. The terrorists in Columbia will be more prone to terrorize for personal gain, and thusly will probably back down once they know they're hunted. The Middle Eastern terrorists are prone to be religious extremists, and won't fear death.

 

But how can we stop terrorism without stopping nation-states from supporting terrorism? Bill Clinton tried to handle terrorism as law-enforcement, and we see where that got us. The policy change that George W. Bush brought to the US on terrorism is the most effective way to defeat terrorism. Instead of taking out a few terrorist camps with missiles, we are attempting to show nation-states that it is not worth it to harbor and support terrorism.

 

I'm extremely disapointed that I have to say this, and it really makes me hold a digust for humanity, but we cannot defeat terrorism. Unless we all take cyanide pills, terrorism is going to exist. The best we can do is try to make those that value thier own lives to live in fear with that if they terrorize, they're going to, excuse my french, get thier assess kicked. With that and increasing national security while taking out individual camps will we weaken terrorism.

[toms]

Originally posted by rccar328

To put it as simply as I possible can, you don't seem to understand the goal of the war on terror. The goal is not simply to kill terrorists, but to turn nations away from harboring and supporting terrorists. In a way, we're fighting the same battle as the terrorists - they are killing our troops in an effort to convince us that it is not profitable to try to stop them, and we are killing them in an effort to convince them that terrorism is not profitable. And we are also fighting to convince nation-states that it is not profitable or wise to harbor and support terrorists.

 

But there is a difference between nation states, and the citizens of those states. By attacking nation states the US may well scare governments into not supporting terrorist groups, but the US is also stirring up even more anti-US feeling among the ordinary citizens of those countries. Why do think that ordinary citizens (not terrorists) hated US citizens so much that they would hack them up and burn them?

 

however, this is all irrelevant as far as iraq is concerned as Iraq WASN'T a nation state supporting terrorists, the terrorists have only come to iraq since the US attacked and created a power vacuum, much as people warned they would.

 

Originally posted by rccar328

The battle in Iraq is not a battle that we can afford to lose, much less abandon.

 

The battle in iraq isn't one that can be won, as the US no longer even knows who it is fighting, it is fighting terrorists, pro-saddam people, warlords, sunnis, shias. It has basically managed to alienate EVERY SINGLE group in iraq and unite them against it. nice work.

However I do agree that the US can't just go in and mess everything up and then abandon it, you have to accept the consequences of your actions and at least attempt to prevent the country and the region decending into chaos.

 

Originally posted by rccar328

This is why there will be a US/Coalition presence in Iraq even after authority is turned over to an Iraqi government. I believe that it is inevitable that hard-line Islamic powers will try to turn Iraq into an even bigger mess.

 

You seem to be mixing up religious groups, islamic governments, local populations and terrorist groups all into one "evil islamists" pot. It is inevitable (as everyone told the US at the time) that if the people of iraq (islamic) get a chance to vote then they will vote for an islamic government. There is no concept of the seperation of church and state in the islamic world. It is also likely that the more the US and the terrorists battle it out in iraq the more hard line a government the population will elect, in the same way that the US population became more hard-line when it felt threatened.

However, there is no reason for a hard line islamic government to want to make iraq into a bigger mess once they are elected, however the terrorists might.

 

Originally posted by rccar328

That is what is going on right now in Iraq. They want this to become "another Vietnam" because they know as well as the rest of the world that the US pulled out of Vietnam. We have a duty, especially now, not to give them what they want.

 

Agreed, but then what else would you expect them to do? They know the US has a habit of jumping into things with both feet without thinking and then having to back out later. This is what any outgunned force would do in a war. (it is a war, isn't it?)

 

Originally posted by rccar328

We fund Israel's terror on Palestine? What kind of foolishness is this? I've never heard of Israeli suicide-bombers killing innocent Palestinian civilians. If anything, Israel's actions should be applauded by the United States, especially under our new anti-terror policy. I can understand the Palestinians being pissed off about being pushed out of the region now known as the nation of Israel, but that does not justify terrorism. I can't understand the world's condemnation of Israel every time they eliminate another Hamas leader...I mean, let's face it - Hamas is a terrorist organization.

 

Like most things, it all depends on your point of view. One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter. By that definition the american war of independence was actually a lot of american terrorist attacking the rightful british government, Le Resistance in france in WW2 was a terrorist organisation and so on.

 

Did you ever see a movie called Red Dawn in which the soviet union invaded the US and the heroic americans (inc patric swayze) used guerilla tactics to beat them? If you were in that situation i'm sure you wouldn't consider the fact that your fight against an overwhelmingly powerful enemies could be seen as terrorism from the other side.

 

There is almost no conflict on earth that is as black and white as you seem to believe. Both sides often believe themselves to be the good guys and the others to be the evil aggressors.

 

For every 1 israeli killed by suicide bombers 100s of palestinians are killed by the israeli army's overwhelming, untargeted attacks on targets in populated areas. Every one of these attacks leaves more berieved and angry relatives who want to fight back in whatever way they can. Palestinians have they jobs, homes and land taken. What would you do? How would you recommend they fight back? They don't get millions a year in US military aid.

If the two sides were equal then it would be a "war", as the palestinians are the underdogs they become "terrorists".

 

The US supports israel. The islamic world supports the palestinians. People don't like the US.

 

Originally posted by rccar328

The goal of our present conflict in Iraq is to attempt to stabilize the Middle East region and to reduce, if not eliminate, the threat of terrorism originating in the Middle East. If we establish a democracy in Iraq, we have a fighting chance of success, but if we pull out, our chances of stabilizing the region or of stopping terrorism are exactly nill.

 

You should indeed make sure a democracy is put in place. But the thing about democracies is that you can't complain if you don't like the result.

 

Your chances of stopping terrorism are already exactly nil, if you kill every single member of Al Quaida and all associated groups tomorrow, what happens? The same political, economic, social reasons that caused people to become terrorists still exist. There are even more berieved and pissed off people willing to become or support terrorists. In 2 years time you have a new set of organisations to fight.

 

Originally posted by rccar328

Is it dangerous? Yeah. Are American soldiers going to be killed? Yeah. Do our actions in the Middle East piss the terrorists off? Well, yeah, they do.

 

No, they please the terrorists immensely. The people they piss off are the ordinary citizens of these countries, who are then much more willing to support or become terrorists.

 

-----

 

On a happier note, terrorism is a smaller threat to all of us than cookers, kettles or crossing the road. The only way terrorism thrives is by us making it important.

 

it isn't. Certainly the money spent on fighting terror would make us all much safer is if was spent on buying everyone smoke alarms or something.

[MennoniteHobbit]

Wrong, 1970's america went into the middle east, we invaded small villages (where these "freaks" came from) we invaded jordan and palestine, We fund Israel's terror on Palestine. We have done alot to these people, 9/11 is nothing compared to what they've suffered due to us.

 

I thought a part of what bin Laden said before was "the US stepped onto their holy ground." In a way, we could say the same thing about them going into our country couldn't we? True, they may have suffered, but aren't most terrorists self-proclaimed martyrs? Not all, but most of the terrorists, not the general public of the Middle East.

 

I also wish the soldiers in Iraq could go home and relax after all the hard work they have done, but we have to finish our job in Iraq shouldn't we? If people claim that Iraq is like Vietnam, and that we really had no business in it, we could just abandon them and get our soldiers out of Iraq, but I don't think it would be fair to the Iraqis (at least the ones who still thank us for saving them from Hussein).

 

As for what happened to those four poor American contractors, I just think that we should just let aside the facts for a while, about why we are in Iraq, just so that we can punish those who killed them. Then we can figure about this debate later.

[Datheus]

Originally posted by rccar328

Here's your history lesson:

Japan attacked us, so we launched a counter-attack.

The Nazis never did anything to us, but we sent troops in anyway.

Yes, nothing except declaring war upon America. :/

[Kain]

Originally posted by Datheus

Yes, nothing except declaring war upon America. :/

 

Which, as we all know, isn't a direct threat to America, whereas fake intellegence(lack-there-of in Bush's case), foney reasons, and greed are direct threats to America. GO U.S.A.!!

 

Sheesh...

 

(I could say whats REALLY on my mind, but it'd be edited out and I'd probably be ban for it)

[toms]

punish who exactly? the fighters who shot them, or the ordinary iraqi citizens (including kids) who hated the US so much that they then did all that terrible stuff to their bodies?

 

If it is the guys who killed them, then these deaths were no different than any of the other 100s of people killed each month in iraq. If you want to go and capture/kill the civilians who disfigured the bodies then you are just going to upset more of the population.

---

anyone know what the status of the US and british forces will be once the iraqi government is "theoretically" in power in a month or so? Will they answer to this new government, or just ignore them and do their own thing?

In that case they really WILL be an occupying force.

-----

interestingly, the main reason al quaida exists is in response to the US troops that were (are?) stationed in saudi arabia proping up the non-democratically elected rulers (widely seen as US puppets). anyone seeing anything start to look familiar?

[ShadowTemplar]

Originally posted by The_One

What are your thoughts on this?

 

We'll probably just have to resign to the fact that any Westerner in Iraq is going to be a live exercise target for years to come. That said, the world would be a better place if all the clergies of all religions would have the common decency to just drop dead.

 

But for once I actually agree with rccar on a point: The US is in too far to pull out now.

 

Leaving completely will basically be handing the place over to a bunch of Fascists (read: Religious groups). But I'll venture a guess that dubya pulls out before the job is done, leaving Iraq to the Fascists and hoping for the half-life of public memory to kick in before the election.

 

On a different note: Menno, I really cannot stand the message in your sig. It is abused abhorrently by those who want to remove the idea of 'practice' from the school system. Mainly because they don't understand that there is an implicit statement attatched to it: 'Because skills can always be aquired by working your butt off'. Success is 10% talent, 10% luck and 80% hard work.

[The_One]

Has the whole world gone mad?

 

The stuff some of you are coming out with in here is unbelievable! It seems there are even more blind, narrow-minded people on the planet than I originally thought. Oh well, don't complain when in a few years time the stupidity of the Western world has destroyed the globe.

[MennoniteHobbit]

On a different note: Menno, I really cannot stand the message in your sig. It is abused abhorrently by those who want to remove the idea of 'practice' from the school system. Mainly because they don't understand that there is an implicit statement attatched to it: 'Because skills can always be aquired by working your butt off'. Success is 10% talent, 10% luck and 80% hard work.

 

Me? Oh you mean the "Genius is 10% inspiration..." quote? That's a Thomas Edison quote... can't believe you are offended by it. It is a single freakin quote. I never said that practice wasn't included in genius... don't assume things. I am somewhat right now because I don't know what you're talking about. And... the perspiration part basically does mean hard work.

 

p.s. Please call me Mennonite or MennoniteHobbit... "Menno" just sounds weird.

 

p.s.s. Or... do you mean the Einstein quote that I removed a while ago... that had nothing to do with anything.

 

p.s.s.s. Tell me what you're talking about...

[rccar328]

But I'll venture a guess that dubya pulls out before the job is done, leaving Iraq to the Fascists and hoping for the half-life of public memory to kick in before the election.

But if that happens, it'll be because of political pressure by the Democratic Party.

 

Personally, I think the June "deadline" is much too soon. I don't remember offhand how long American forces were in Japan & Germany after WW2, but it was definitely a LOT longer than they're saying we'll be in Iraq. It takes time to create a stable government...more time, aparently, than liberals are willing to wait...

[ShadowTemplar]

Originally posted by MennoniteHobbit

Me? Oh you mean the "Genius is 10% inspiration..." quote?

 

No, it's the Einstien quote. And it's really just because I'm freaking tired of the Danish education debate being hijacked by 'progressive' pedagouges, who don't know squat about education.

 

Sorry for the confusion.

 

But if that happens, it'll be because of political pressure by the Democratic Party.

 

Nope, it'll be because body bags look bad during election campaigns.