Are we winning the war? - Page 2

Trotskilicious · 11-04-2006, 05:39 AM

WOW A CRUSADE LOL

You are fucking crazy.

Kahlo · 11-04-2006, 06:16 AM

I don't know we took a bad beating in Berlin in 45' but you know, we are carrying on the resistance.

sleeper · 11-04-2006, 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kahlo

I don't know we took a bad beating in Berlin in 45' but you know, we are carrying on the resistance.

i dont get this

RenewRevive · 11-04-2006, 01:31 PM

This elongated ongoing police action is a waste of time; they should commence pulling out the targets, sorry troops with immediate effect. What are they trying to do - preserve the stability of the historic nation of Iraq? this state will fracture into its ethnic components eventually anyway. Nothing positive is being served other than trying to artificially control inevitible events by the imposition of (controlled) force. Idiotic.

The Omega Concern · 03:32 PM

strategically speaking from a military standpoint, its not bad we are in Iraq. but your right about the 'police action' Renew, it should have never turned into one. It's so obvious now the Al-Queda and other groups pulled back when we rolled in and lived to fight another day.

but back here Bush flies a plane onto a ship to watch his polls go up a bit. you know, this microwave society we live in is starting to crack under the Chess-mate like patience of the despots in this world.

we can't leave Iraq. period. and its not gonna happen even if a Dem wins the White House. so get over it.

the police action is largely there because our government needs to be sensitive the body politic in the U.S. and with the media's disdain for Repbublican's, Reagan, and the Bushy's much of the cultures conversation is framed largely by pacifist leftist who increasingly do not understand the needs of war for their education is based in elitist intelletualism.

the police action is a method of containment against Islamic insurgence. it is similar to the philo that carried the Cold War when the chief enemy to the U.S. was Russian Communism. Diplomatic options have a way of funneling towards containment methods as opposed to 'winningn the war' methods because those scenario's usually run the risk of wiping everyone off the planet, so you pull back from those and do what you can to survive and plan to win.

maybe its because there's so much media now, but Reagan handled the press with wit and framed debates for the culture and controlled the langauge to a great extent. Clinton got a free pass from the media that adored him and won him that election in '92 ('free pass' until Drudge changed the world) and Bush...no gravitas! shit, most conservatives dislike him now.

Kanan Road · 11-04-2006, 03:36 PM

If you want to call it a war, then I would say maybe
If you want to call it the 4th crusade, the last hurrah by the West before the devil spreads his religion of hate across the world, I would say yes

RenewRevive · 11-04-2006, 04:16 PM

TOC,

Do you really think the military prescence is putting a cap on the jihadist groups by keeping them in Iraq? Images of Coalition atrocities, human rights abuses and western hypocrisy - real or imagined - on TV or the web are all the recruitment tools required by such groups. Ironically, what we need there is a brutal Saddam-style hardman. Think Yugoslavia under Tito and his cronies - when they are removed, toppled whatever anarchy ensues. Admittedly this doesn't exactly sit well with liberal democracies, but is a truism nonetheless. Removing Saddam, one of many similar tyrants with no love of Islam, or any ideals - reprehensible or otherwise - other than retaining total power, did Al Quaeda et al a huge favour.

Western policy in Iraq is a classic case of misapplication of overwhelming force.

lohengrin · 11-04-2006, 07:55 PM

there's nothing to win in a shit country of american-hating towelheads, and im all for g'ing tfo and nuking the place, but at least

Quote:

Originally Posted by wolfo147

"You will kill 10 of our men, and we will kill 1 of yours, and in the end it will be you who tire of it."
Ho Chi Minh

Quote:

Originally Posted by Debaser

almost 3,000 U.S. troops dead

200,000 to 600,000 Iraqi dead.

we've improved our statistics a little

wolfo147 · 11-04-2006, 10:45 PM

We had a Marine Ball at my work today. I decided I would ask some of them if they thought we were winning the war. Of the 11 I asked, 5 said yes, 2 said they didn't know, and 4 said no. I thought that was an amazing statistic, especially because they're marines, and they're supposed to be pro-war because they're the ones fighting it. They had either just got home from Iraq or were just leaving for it, either way, I think that's a good indicator that things aren't going well in Iraq.

View Poll Results: Are we winning the war?
Yes.	7	22.58%
No.	29	93.55%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 31. You may not vote on this poll

11-04-2006, 03:25 PM	#35
The Omega Concern Banned Location: stay, far, away Posts: 8,997	strategically speaking from a military standpoint, its not bad we are in Iraq. but your right about the 'police action' Renew, it should have never turned into one. It's so obvious now the Al-Queda and other groups pulled back when we rolled in and lived to fight another day. but back here Bush flies a plane onto a ship to watch his polls go up a bit. you know, this microwave society we live in is starting to crack under the Chess-mate like patience of the despots in this world. we can't leave Iraq. period. and its not gonna happen even if a Dem wins the White House. so get over it. the police action is largely there because our government needs to be sensitive the body politic in the U.S. and with the media's disdain for Repbublican's, Reagan, and the Bushy's much of the cultures conversation is framed largely by pacifist leftist who increasingly do not understand the needs of war for their education is based in elitist intelletualism. the police action is a method of containment against Islamic insurgence. it is similar to the philo that carried the Cold War when the chief enemy to the U.S. was Russian Communism. Diplomatic options have a way of funneling towards containment methods as opposed to 'winningn the war' methods because those scenario's usually run the risk of wiping everyone off the planet, so you pull back from those and do what you can to survive and plan to win. maybe its because there's so much media now, but Reagan handled the press with wit and framed debates for the culture and controlled the langauge to a great extent. Clinton got a free pass from the media that adored him and won him that election in '92 ('free pass' until Drudge changed the world) and Bush...no gravitas! shit, most conservatives dislike him now. Last edited by The Omega Concern : 11-04-2006 at 03:32 PM.

11-04-2006, 05:39 AM	#31
Trotskilicious Banned Location: I believe in the transcendental qualities of friendship. Posts: 39,602	WOW A CRUSADE LOL You are fucking crazy.

11-04-2006, 06:16 AM	#32
Kahlo Registered User Posts: 17,562	I don't know we took a bad beating in Berlin in 45' but you know, we are carrying on the resistance.

11-04-2006, 01:31 PM	#34
RenewRevive Apocalyptic Poster Location: Welcome to the real world jackass Posts: 4,973	This elongated ongoing police action is a waste of time; they should commence pulling out the targets, sorry troops with immediate effect. What are they trying to do - preserve the stability of the historic nation of Iraq? this state will fracture into its ethnic components eventually anyway. Nothing positive is being served other than trying to artificially control inevitible events by the imposition of (controlled) force. Idiotic.

11-04-2006, 03:36 PM	#36
Kanan Road Apocalyptic Poster Location: Cloud Number Nine Posts: 1,569	If you want to call it a war, then I would say maybe If you want to call it the 4th crusade, the last hurrah by the West before the devil spreads his religion of hate across the world, I would say yes

11-04-2006, 04:16 PM	#37
RenewRevive Apocalyptic Poster Location: Welcome to the real world jackass Posts: 4,973	TOC, Do you really think the military prescence is putting a cap on the jihadist groups by keeping them in Iraq? Images of Coalition atrocities, human rights abuses and western hypocrisy - real or imagined - on TV or the web are all the recruitment tools required by such groups. Ironically, what we need there is a brutal Saddam-style hardman. Think Yugoslavia under Tito and his cronies - when they are removed, toppled whatever anarchy ensues. Admittedly this doesn't exactly sit well with liberal democracies, but is a truism nonetheless. Removing Saddam, one of many similar tyrants with no love of Islam, or any ideals - reprehensible or otherwise - other than retaining total power, did Al Quaeda et al a huge favour. Western policy in Iraq is a classic case of misapplication of overwhelming force.

11-04-2006, 10:45 PM	#39
wolfo147 Pledge Location: NH Posts: 60	We had a Marine Ball at my work today. I decided I would ask some of them if they thought we were winning the war. Of the 11 I asked, 5 said yes, 2 said they didn't know, and 4 said no. I thought that was an amazing statistic, especially because they're marines, and they're supposed to be pro-war because they're the ones fighting it. They had either just got home from Iraq or were just leaving for it, either way, I think that's a good indicator that things aren't going well in Iraq.