CaptainRAVE Posted January 22, 2005 Share Posted January 22, 2005 Military experts pointed out that even if the troops were ordered to pull out today that it would take considerable time to remove troops due to the logistics and scale of the operation. It's a pity the British and Americans didn't allow the Russians so much time to get out of Afghanistan , as at the time the Russians pointed out that if they left overnight that a power vacuum would be created and a radical religous government could take over . (That was Gorby... pity no one listened to him eh ? New York’s population would be up 2000 and all this **** could possibly have been avoided. The response from the US back then was “look your troops rolled in over night, get them out over night" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leper Messiah Posted January 22, 2005 Share Posted January 22, 2005 Whether they leave or not it will end badly its too late to avoid that, question is which circumstances do we want - pull out and see who takes over or stay and see how many more suicide bombs there will be (not that there wont be any if our troops are pulled out) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GothiX Posted January 22, 2005 Share Posted January 22, 2005 US military shouldn't have been there in the first place, especially since Republicans have based their policies on isolationism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CapNColostomy Posted January 23, 2005 Share Posted January 23, 2005 Originally posted by CaptainRAVE The response from the US back then was “look your troops rolled in over night, get them out over night" Got a source for that quote? I don't seem to remember anyone saying that. Originally posted by GothiX US military shouldn't have been there in the first place, especially since Republicans have based their policies on isolationism. Yes. Only troops from the bazillion other countries in the coalition should be there dying. Not our boys. Agreed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy_dog no.3 Posted January 23, 2005 Share Posted January 23, 2005 Well it's about bloody time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GothiX Posted January 23, 2005 Share Posted January 23, 2005 Originally posted by CapNColostomy Yes. Only troops from the bazillion other countries in the coalition should be there dying. Not our boys. Agreed. My country has military in there, too, and you know why? Because the USA was basically threatening every country that did not support them. They're not sent there because they wanted to, you know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lassev Posted January 23, 2005 Share Posted January 23, 2005 Originally posted by GothiX My country has military in there, too, and you know why? Because the USA was basically threatening every country that did not support them. They're not sent there because they wanted to, you know. Has Netherlands had a parliamentary election after the war started, Gothix? That will tell whether your fellow citizens really think it's necessary for you soldiers to be there, or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nerd_Annhilator Posted January 23, 2005 Share Posted January 23, 2005 What about those 18 robo things? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CapNColostomy Posted January 23, 2005 Share Posted January 23, 2005 Originally posted by GothiX My country has military in there, too, and you know why? Because the USA was basically threatening every country that did not support them. They're not sent there because they wanted to, you know. Basically threatened every country that did not support them? I don't suppose you have a source for that statement do you? I also don't recall that happening whatsoever. And even if it did, so? It must not have been to serious a "threat". Germany nor France nor countless other countries didn't support the war. Look what the United States did about it. Nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GothiX Posted January 23, 2005 Share Posted January 23, 2005 "You're either with us, or you're against us" -- George W. Bush There's for your threat. Also, France and Germany combined would make a force the USA has to reckon with, the Netherlands does not. And lassev: No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CapNColostomy Posted January 23, 2005 Share Posted January 23, 2005 "On the other hand the Arab League met last week in Syria and much to the displeasure of Washington, reiterated their conditional support for the "war on terrorism". In a thinly veiled threat to the Arab world President Bush this week again warned nations against impeding Washington's war efforts. "Over time, it's going to be important for nations to know they will be held accountable for inactivity," President Bush said, "You are either with us or you're against us in the war on terrorism." The Arab nations continue to insist that 1) the US recommit itself to settling the Palestinian question, and 2) that the war on terrorism would not target another Arab nation. As Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa made clear "Any attack against an Arab country means the international alliance [against terrorism] will break off." The Arab nation they are talking about is Iraq. Here we have the most pro-US regimes in the Middle East telling the Washington in polite diplomatic language: the US "war on terrorism" should not be used as a springboard for escalating the war on Iraq." According to that news article, the "threat" was directed more to the Arab world than the Netherlands. But ummm...I guess you probably don't want to be bothered with facts. At any rate, I just think it'll be nice to get Americans out of there. If other countries want to stay over there, or not, whatever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astrotoy7 Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 yes, its not worth us nice fellows arguing when at the end of the day our concerns would be generally the same.... get troops out before more lives are needlessly lost fighting for godknowswhat and/or oil.... The insurgents in Iraq are, albeit abhorrently, fighting in/for their own country/homelands....leave them to it (and to the UN ) The presence of an external force, especially one with a signifcant american contingent would *always* be viewed as an intrusion, even despite the 'good intentions'[/arguable] of operation Iraqi Freedom... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toms Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 i don't want to get into this argument, but it is a well known fact that the US used political threats, threats of withrawing aid, threats of blocking trade and so on to get all the countries to sign the first UN resolution. WHen the same tricks failed to secure them a majority on the second resolution they bottled it and decided to not even go for a vote... i think that was what gothix was refering to. Anyway, loads of countries are contributing troops or support to fix up the mess these days, so it isn't a current argument anymore. Being there = sucks. Leaving Quickly = cowardly, and setting up for way more trouble in the future. Where i come from, you try to avoid making trouble... but when you do you at least have the courage to stick around and fix it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astrotoy7 Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 Originally posted by toms ....Where i come from, you try to avoid making trouble... but when you do you at least have the courage to stick around and fix it... neither of us are in office, it is difficult to grasp how hard it is to maintain integrity when so much money and so much power are at your fingertips, it is inevitably corrupting mtfbwya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swphreak Posted January 26, 2005 Share Posted January 26, 2005 I bet all of those countries combined could stand up to the US, and probably should have. Give Georgie the finger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toms Posted January 26, 2005 Share Posted January 26, 2005 I'm pretty sure that is what he'll get if he goes after iran (as rumsfeld seems to be hinting). Not sure even blair would support him on that one... (but then again, he is easily lead astray...) PS/ I'll have you know that I am entirely in-corruptable. And despite what you may have read InsaneSith's donation of a gmail account to me had no bearing on the quothe that is in his sig... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astrotoy7 Posted January 26, 2005 Share Posted January 26, 2005 Originally posted by toms I'm pretty sure that is what he'll get if he goes after iran (as rumsfeld seems to be hinting). Not sure even blair would support him on that one... (but then again, he is easily lead astray...) PS/ I'll have you know that I am entirely in-corruptable. And despite what you may have read InsaneSith's donation of a gmail account to me had no bearing on the quothe that is in his sig... i spent *2 minutes* on MSN with sithy earlier today....within that 2 minutes he managed to cover every form of perversion known to man and goat The boy is a worry, plain and simple. mtfbwya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Groovy Posted January 27, 2005 Share Posted January 27, 2005 Welcome to Vietnam, 2005! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted January 27, 2005 Share Posted January 27, 2005 Originally posted by Astrotoy7 i spent *2 minutes* on MSN with sithy earlier today....within that 2 minutes he managed to cover every form of perversion known to man and goat The boy is a worry, plain and simple. mtfbwya I have disorders. Cut me some slack. And everything you saw was not my doing, but the doing of 4chan and villians of another dimension. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toms Posted January 27, 2005 Share Posted January 27, 2005 Originally posted by Darth Groovy Welcome to Vietnam, 2005! Is that another sequel to Battlefield, 1942? I'm soooo behind on my games... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
razorace Posted January 28, 2005 Share Posted January 28, 2005 Originally posted by StarWarsPhreak I bet all of those countries combined could stand up to the US, and probably should have. Give Georgie the finger. Stand up and what? Complain? Go to war to prevent the US from battling terrorism and tyrant? Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toms Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 gosh. you know you are right... i can't think of any reason anyone would criticise the US's recent actions, and I certainly haven't heard anyone doing so. What were we thinking.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leper Messiah Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 meh, like all withdrawal methods, this will be messy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swphreak Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Originally posted by razorace Stand up and what? Complain? Go to war to prevent the US from battling terrorism and tyrant? Why? Then other countries should quit complaining if they're not going to do anything about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
razorace Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Originally posted by toms gosh. you know you are right... i can't think of any reason anyone would criticise the US's recent actions, and I certainly haven't heard anyone doing so. What were we thinking.... My point was that they're already complaining....a lot. They're perfectly entitled to do so, but talk is cheap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.