You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. Remove these ads when you register. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
We will not be leaving Iraq anytime soon. So you folks may as well get used to it. If one of your stalinist presidential hopefuls wins the Presidency, I'm sure you will finally shut the fuck up about Iraq, because then the war will have a (D) attached next to it.
It's a shit situation at the moment. You've got one side saying bring everyone home, one side saying keep everyone there til the job's done. Now, some would suggest a compromise: "Keep some of them there, bring some back, everyone's happy". And it might work, in the sense that everyone will feel like their views have been reflected. But in terms of the actual war, all they'd be doing is leaving nowhere near enough people there to do the job properly, rendering any of their death a whole lot more pointless in the process.
I don't think it's impossible that we'll leave, but it would take a strong leader who would be prepared to alienate a hefty chunk of the electorate in one fell swoop. Having seen the crap you guys tend to have to vote for, I don't see that happening. They'll try to be diplomatic and you'll end up with some troops there purely tokenistically, unable to actually do what they were sent for and either ignoring orders or getting picked off.
Quote:
Anyway, to get to the point of this thread, during Bush's first 5 years I suspected history would show him to be a great President. I no longer believe that. As far as the war goes, he has allowed himself to be handcuffed by the New York Times and its marxist minions. That shows weakness, which is not what constitutes a leader.
He said at one point "I'm a war president". He was talking about Afghanistan rather than Iraq, but it kinda gives you an idea. Blair is equally obsessed with his "place in history", so it's hardly surprising that they've chosen to go to war (at the risk of quoting Bill Hicks "It was so pretty, and it took our minds off of domestic issues!"). History judges war leaders a lot less harshly, even if they lose. Talking about Churchill without mentioning the war is pretty much impossible, it becomes the elephant in the room, but really, Churchill's methods were every bit as ruthless as Thatcher's; it's just that, as a war leader, he is broadly praised, whereas as a (largely) peacetime leader, she is villified.
Quote:
As far as domestic social issues go, he is a leftist,
Ok...
So we went to war in Afghanistan.
Then it was suggested Iraq. All over the news and to think it was a bluff? I was thinking what have you all gone nuts? So, OK! Iraq it is, but NOOOOOOO.
So then Bush invaded Iraq and everyone's been complaining since.
So I'd say.
Who let the dogs out?
BUSH! Bush, bush. Bush bush.
The Greatest. Totalliez. Between graduating from Harvard and Yale, and reading Camus for fun, how can this man not be the great intellectual of our times? His ghost-written autobiography will be orgasmic.
__________________ Time is the distance that you can't return by miles.
I escaped somehow. Let's go
actualy [sic] I have quite a blessed life if I'm honest. I have many people to love, hate few and have few money problem's [sic].... What more does a person need? Oh yeah and I have some kind of humbleness unlike you of course ^_^ ~ CarefulCarpenter
I do this. Why did you include this in your sarcasm?
Because GW Bush isn't allowed to because he is a drooling imbecile who isn't well-read and well-qualified. Hadn't you heard? I learned everything I know about politics from bumper stickers. Oh, and internet message boardz.
__________________ Time is the distance that you can't return by miles.
I escaped somehow. Let's go
actualy [sic] I have quite a blessed life if I'm honest. I have many people to love, hate few and have few money problem's [sic].... What more does a person need? Oh yeah and I have some kind of humbleness unlike you of course ^_^ ~ CarefulCarpenter
It's a shit situation at the moment. You've got one side saying bring everyone home, one side saying keep everyone there til the job's done. Now, some would suggest a compromise: "Keep some of them there, bring some back, everyone's happy". And it might work, in the sense that everyone will feel like their views have been reflected. But in terms of the actual war, all they'd be doing is leaving nowhere near enough people there to do the job properly, rendering any of their death a whole lot more pointless in the process.
I don't think it's impossible that we'll leave, but it would take a strong leader who would be prepared to alienate a hefty chunk of the electorate in one fell swoop. Having seen the crap you guys tend to have to vote for, I don't see that happening. They'll try to be diplomatic and you'll end up with some troops there purely tokenistically, unable to actually do what they were sent for and either ignoring orders or getting picked off.
He said at one point "I'm a war president". He was talking about Afghanistan rather than Iraq, but it kinda gives you an idea. Blair is equally obsessed with his "place in history", so it's hardly surprising that they've chosen to go to war (at the risk of quoting Bill Hicks "It was so pretty, and it took our minds off of domestic issues!"). History judges war leaders a lot less harshly, even if they lose. Talking about Churchill without mentioning the war is pretty much impossible, it becomes the elephant in the room, but really, Churchill's methods were every bit as ruthless as Thatcher's; it's just that, as a war leader, he is broadly praised, whereas as a (largely) peacetime leader, she is villified.
Good to have you back, blud.
As far as being back goes, yeah, whatever. I'm bored with this place. I always feel like I have to go shower in battery acid to clean off the vile crud I see come out of the minds of the traitors that infest this dive.
Anyway, Iraq is not as bad as your marxist reporters would have you believe. They will not report anything good happening there, nor will they tell you why we must be there, and cannot leave. The thought of them actually reporting victory for Bush is so repulsive, they would rather help the enemy, which is exactly what they are doing.
The crime rate in Iraq is twice that of California. The stock market and economy of Iraq has been booming for years. But you will not hear any of that.
Iraq was the perfect place to invade strategically. Iran is the target. Taking Iraq and Afghanistan has virtually surrounded Iran. We have staging from Iraq, Afghanistan, and our carriers from the Persian Gulf. The noose has been placed around Iran's neck.
Their kidnapping of British soldiers was the perfect opportunity to finally smash Iran over an anvil. We balked.
We cannot leave Iraq. It is that simple. To leave there would have devastaing consequences.
This situation was not taken care of when the Brit soldiers were seized. For the life of me I cannot understand why we did not. But sooner or later it will happen. Mark these words: Before Bush leaves office, he will strike Iran. In fact, I think it is going to happen very soon.
What Blair should do is tell that little hitler in a headscarf that he has 72 hours to release those soldiers. If he refuses, such and such city will be vaporized, and another one will be vaporized 24 hours after that. And they will lose a city a day until the soldiers are released. To be sensitive, give them the list of cities that will die, and on what dates.
The only thing shits like that respect is iron will, and overwhelming firepower. Britain has the latter. Unfortunately, she no longer has the former. The Great Britain I knew is dead. Her soul is almost gutted. Living on a Thin Line.
My heart cries for your once proud and great nation.
As far as being back goes, yeah, whatever. I'm bored with this place. I always feel like I have to go shower in battery acid to clean off the vile crud I see come out of the minds of the traitors that infest this dive.
Please, please, please shower in battery acid. Please.
Quote:
Anyway, Iraq is not as bad as your marxist reporters would have you believe. They will not report anything good happening there, nor will they tell you why we must be there, and cannot leave. The thought of them actually reporting victory for Bush is so repulsive, they would rather help the enemy, which is exactly what they are doing.
Do you mean 'enemy' as in 'terrorists'? Or is the 'enemy' the innocent people getting their villages bombed? The only reason Bush won't pull out of Iraq is because he knows it's gone tits up there. He's fucked up spectacularly, putting the USA into trillions of dollars worth of debt and destroying any ounce of credibility America had on a global platform. Pulling out would be embarrassing.
