Gen Powell endorses Obama
#31
BanHammer™
iTrader: (8)
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 47,588
From: Wagonmafia Propaganda Lieutenant
Car Info: 2001 Forester RS2 SPEC-F
WHAT SURGE?!!?
Surge of forces from here to there? 20k people? an increase of 15% took us from getting our asses handed to us to fighting these guys? are you kidding me!?
The "surge" is really a strategy that worked better than what they had thought up earlier. They mobilized, and they figured out how to systematically work their way around Iraq to help control the insurgents. That's what was key, no simply throwing more bodies over there.
Surge of forces from here to there? 20k people? an increase of 15% took us from getting our asses handed to us to fighting these guys? are you kidding me!?
The "surge" is really a strategy that worked better than what they had thought up earlier. They mobilized, and they figured out how to systematically work their way around Iraq to help control the insurgents. That's what was key, no simply throwing more bodies over there.
here you go, happy reading.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_surge
#32
Thread Starter
Old School
iTrader: (6)
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 14,983
From: Union City
Car Info: '99 RBP GM6
Simply putting 20k more people over there does nothing...
It did nothing...
They changed the straegy... they went on the offensive. That's what did it, not putting more people over there.
I know what the "surge" is as McCain so awesomely champions it around the country. It's politics, to get votes.
What's helping Iraq is not so much the addtional troops it's the change in strategy employed. The strategy of going on a HUGE offensive, and nothing else.
It did nothing...
They changed the straegy... they went on the offensive. That's what did it, not putting more people over there.
I know what the "surge" is as McCain so awesomely champions it around the country. It's politics, to get votes.
What's helping Iraq is not so much the addtional troops it's the change in strategy employed. The strategy of going on a HUGE offensive, and nothing else.
#34
Thread Starter
Old School
iTrader: (6)
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 14,983
From: Union City
Car Info: '99 RBP GM6
an Offensive is not a surge in troop numbers. They aren't the same.
Besides, we ****ing lost this war anyways. We shouldn't have even gone there in the first place. The minute we leave Iraq goes to hell, and it's OUR fault for being there in the first place. We had no reason to be there... CIA mistake intel, are they serious?
I bet Cheney and Bush felt it was gonna be soooo easy, just like in 91, and it was easy, until the terrorists came.
Never should've gone there.
Besides, we ****ing lost this war anyways. We shouldn't have even gone there in the first place. The minute we leave Iraq goes to hell, and it's OUR fault for being there in the first place. We had no reason to be there... CIA mistake intel, are they serious?
I bet Cheney and Bush felt it was gonna be soooo easy, just like in 91, and it was easy, until the terrorists came.
Never should've gone there.
#35
BanHammer™
iTrader: (8)
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 47,588
From: Wagonmafia Propaganda Lieutenant
Car Info: 2001 Forester RS2 SPEC-F
an Offensive is not a surge in troop numbers. They aren't the same.
Besides, we ****ing lost this war anyways. We shouldn't have even gone there in the first place. The minute we leave Iraq goes to hell, and it's OUR fault for being there in the first place. We had no reason to be there... CIA mistake intel, are they serious?
I bet Cheney and Bush felt it was gonna be soooo easy, just like in 91, and it was easy, until the terrorists came.
Never should've gone there.
Besides, we ****ing lost this war anyways. We shouldn't have even gone there in the first place. The minute we leave Iraq goes to hell, and it's OUR fault for being there in the first place. We had no reason to be there... CIA mistake intel, are they serious?
I bet Cheney and Bush felt it was gonna be soooo easy, just like in 91, and it was easy, until the terrorists came.
Never should've gone there.
#36
Thread Starter
Old School
iTrader: (6)
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 14,983
From: Union City
Car Info: '99 RBP GM6
we have no reason to police this world.
Much more good would've come from us stepping in Rwanda, Myanmar or Sudan... You know how many people died from that hurricane in Myanmar!? It's disgusting that the country feels we have to make **** up to go attack Iraq, yet we can't find one good reason to overthrow a REAL awful govt like in Myanmar.
Must be cause Myanmar doesn't have vast oil supplies.
Cause that's the only reason we are there right now, try to get a pro US govt in and let big oil get over there.
Actually, , that's what saddam was, pro US govt. That turned out great.
Osama Bin Laden, gave him tons of trainging and weapons to fight the russian invasion... that turned out well too...
what about Noriega, and Pinochet. What about the **** we are doing in Columbia right now.
War on terror is going to be as successful as the war on drugs.
Osama Bin Laden, that's who we needed to find, not go into iraq.
Now look at what we've done, we've got pro Iran people in there. Awesome, just ****ing awesome.
#40
Thread Starter
Old School
iTrader: (6)
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 14,983
From: Union City
Car Info: '99 RBP GM6
I just gave you 3 examples above where there are massively more deaths on the civilian level at the hands of their govt, why did we choose to go to Iraq in 2003? I'm sorry but there was no genocide happening in 2003 in iraq, we did not need to go there.
#42
plays well with others
iTrader: (1)
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 9,923
From: Sac
Car Info: your mother crazy
Sorry scott, your question is STUPID, it's horribly stupid... OF COURSE NOT. But for your reply to be then how could I possibly not want to help Iraqis, well, cause I don't beleive they were in such a situation in '03, cause I know Iraqis here in the US and they say it's not that bad there, it sucks, but it's not like they were worried about being killed like they were in the past 5 years. So **** what our POS govt spews to us... We could've done some real good elsewhere in the world, instead we went to Iraq.
I just gave you 3 examples above where there are massively more deaths on the civilian level at the hands of their govt, why did we choose to go to Iraq in 2003? I'm sorry but there was no genocide happening in 2003 in iraq, we did not need to go there.
I just gave you 3 examples above where there are massively more deaths on the civilian level at the hands of their govt, why did we choose to go to Iraq in 2003? I'm sorry but there was no genocide happening in 2003 in iraq, we did not need to go there.
and since they are on skype... that means they have nothing to do. They walk around an pass out water and medical supplies in Baghdad.
seems allot better than the pre-surge militia rule for Baghdad doesnt it?
same deal for my friend in Al Najaf and the other 2 in Kirkuk.
#43
BanHammer™
iTrader: (8)
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 47,588
From: Wagonmafia Propaganda Lieutenant
Car Info: 2001 Forester RS2 SPEC-F
Sorry scott, your question is STUPID, it's horribly stupid... OF COURSE NOT. But for your reply to be then how could I possibly not want to help Iraqis, well, cause I don't beleive they were in such a situation in '03, cause I know Iraqis here in the US and they say it's not that bad there, it sucks, but it's not like they were worried about being killed like they were in the past 5 years. So **** what our POS govt spews to us... We could've done some real good elsewhere in the world, instead we went to Iraq.
I just gave you 3 examples above where there are massively more deaths on the civilian level at the hands of their govt, why did we choose to go to Iraq in 2003? I'm sorry but there was no genocide happening in 2003 in iraq, we did not need to go there.
I just gave you 3 examples above where there are massively more deaths on the civilian level at the hands of their govt, why did we choose to go to Iraq in 2003? I'm sorry but there was no genocide happening in 2003 in iraq, we did not need to go there.
#45
Thread Starter
Old School
iTrader: (6)
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 14,983
From: Union City
Car Info: '99 RBP GM6
i just want to know how many times you've visited iraq? I just hit up 4 of my friends on skype. they're actually deployed all over iraq right now.
and since they are on skype... that means they have nothing to do. They walk around an pass out water and medical supplies in Baghdad.
seems allot better than the pre-surge militia rule for Baghdad doesnt it?
same deal for my friend in Al Najaf and the other 2 in Kirkuk.
and since they are on skype... that means they have nothing to do. They walk around an pass out water and medical supplies in Baghdad.
seems allot better than the pre-surge militia rule for Baghdad doesnt it?
same deal for my friend in Al Najaf and the other 2 in Kirkuk.
They told me things in Iraq sucked, but nothing to be fearing you're life over when saddam was the dictator. You couldn't do ****, but at least they didn't have to worry about dieing in a missile attack or gunfire, etc.
You could be hanging out with your friends instead talking to them on skype if we hadn't even gone there. Or maybe they'd be in Afghanistan/Pakistan instead, focusing on finding Bin Laden.