We invaded Iraq....

[MAS PRODUCTIONS]

And we didn't bring enough rifles for <a href="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... veryone</a>. What sucks, too, is that we're using rifles confiscated from Iraqi citizens, all in the name of "ousting Saddam Hussein". Fuck that. The Iraqi populace, if they were sick of Saddam, could've stockpiled food, water, gas, and their SKS and AK-47 rifles, AND OUSTED SADDAM THEMSELVES. It's partly why we in the US have the Second Amendment, for God's sake.

Now look - we've strained relations with the rest of the world, we're spreading our military thin, we're spreading our ECONOMY (the very backbone of the military) thin, we've destabilized the country and now we have to deal with various rebels and troublemakers who've looted Saddam's arsenal, AND WE DON'T EVEN HAVE ENOUGH (shitty, I might add) M-16 RIFLES FOR ALL OF OUR BOYS OVER THERE! Plus, our leadership had the gall to even contemplate a pay cut for the military!

Vote for anyone, ANYONE, besides Bush in 2004. Vote for the most open fascist, if you want. At least they're being honest.

From what I understand, the Iraqis did try to overthrough Saddam (not a very good attempt) after Bush Sr. urged them to after the first Gulf War. Then when they failed, they got their butts screwed over. And I do agree that our forces are spread way too thin across the world. We should recall like a whole bunch of them and put them in the National Guard. Then, we would have a pretty nice defence force against the supposed terrorists that run their planes into buildings and the such.

Oh, and no I wont vote for Bush next year if there is any one better than him, and that seems very likely.

If you mean hundreds upon hundreds of people being gased by their own government screwed over than yes they were screwed over. The iraqi government employed chemical weapons in order to keep down a rebellion started pretty much after Bush said he would back them up, instead the Army was pulled out, and the rebels were slaughtered.

As far as Bush goes, I dont know if he will be elected again or not. Right now Im not too confident in the other canidates, but I dont want Bush back so more than likely Im gonna vote for the top democrat canidate. Bush has made many mistakes in his run as president, the one that seems to get me is the fact that he went into Iraq to get Saddam out of control but didn't really have a plan on what to do afterwards. Placing Iraqi's in control of their own government is a great idea in theory but these are people who have been in constant war for a long time and aren't ready to stand on their own two feet yet. The vacuum left from Saddams government has left the current government pretty weak.

Also the spreading of our army probably isn't a great idea. Trying to get rid of terrorism is great for PR but to actually get rid of terrorism is next to impossible, and stretching our army out over many continents wont help too much. I think we need to narrow what we want to do then after accomplishing that we move on, I think we have a little more than we can handle right now.

[BrahRizor]

I know this will sound horrible but It is true, that if our troops remain in Iraq it will be much more likely that they will be attacked by terrorists well before the US itself again, Its like having a front line against terrorism

[El Banana]

A human shield....

I like the sound of that.....

[TaranT]

I know this will sound horrible but It is true, that if our troops remain in Iraq it will be much more likely that they will be attacked by terrorists well before the US itself again, Its like having a front line against terrorism

Perhaps this was one of the (unstated) goals of the occupation? It's tough on the soldiers, but in effect that's what they're hired for: to take the shots so the folks back home don't have to. (Which is one reason to show some gratitude for their efforts.) A nasty job, but least they get to shoot back and then some.

Reports are that al Qaeda has called for the removal of the American "regime" in Iraq. That's bringing hundreds of would-be terrorists into Iraq. The coalition forces have basically walked into the middle of the nest, poked the bad guys in the eyes, and dared them to a fight. It's a risky plan (if it was the plan), but given the force disparity, it will probably work. Once enough terrorists have gathered in one place, the hammer can be dropped.

It won't get them all, but it's better to have large numbers of them there in Iraq rather than in New York, London, etc.

[Mr Pilkington]

I say we just turn that whole region of the world into glass. To hell with playing "goodguy," that obviously isn't working. We need to start there and just cut a line strait from Iraq, through Iran down past Vietnam (retaliation’s a bitch) and onward up through the rest of that area (With a short break over Tibet, cuz lord knows they could redo China right!), all the way to North Korea. Fuck 'em all!
Of course we would have to calibrate our nukes, so I propose use France. It would be the first time in recent history that they have done anything worth while. And yes, when it comes to the french I consider melting worthwhile

[MAS PRODUCTIONS]

I say we just turn that whole region of the world into glass. To hell with playing "goodguy," that obviously isn't working. We need to start there and just cut a line strait from Iraq, through Iran down past Vietnam (retaliation’s a bitch) and onward up through the rest of that area (With a short break over Tibet, cuz lord knows they could redo China right!), all the way to North Korea. Fuck 'em all!
Of course we would have to calibrate our nukes, so I propose use France. It would be the first time in recent history that they have done anything worth while. And yes, when it comes to the french I consider melting worthwhile

I hope your joking. That strategy would lead to the end of the world. If we fire even one nuclear weapon at anybody, they and their allies can fire at us (which by the way is stupid, DAMN M.A.D.). This is why we dont use nuclear weapons, plus why shoot France? Where would we vacation to? Hawaii can get old and Japan is too expensive. Then again there is Jamaca but damn its dangerous down there, I would take my chances with nukes than go down to Jamaca

[Mr Pilkington]

I say we just turn that whole region of the world into glass. To hell with playing "goodguy," that obviously isn't working. We need to start there and just cut a line strait from Iraq, through Iran down past Vietnam (retaliation’s a bitch) and onward up through the rest of that area (With a short break over Tibet, cuz lord knows they could redo China right!), all the way to North Korea. Fuck 'em all!
Of course we would have to calibrate our nukes, so I propose use France. It would be the first time in recent history that they have done anything worth while. And yes, when it comes to the french I consider melting worthwhile

I hope your joking. That strategy would lead to the end of the world. If we fire even one nuclear weapon at anybody, they and their allies can fire at us (which by the way is stupid, DAMN M.A.D.). This is why we dont use nuclear weapons, plus why shoot France? Where would we vacation to? Hawaii can get old and Japan is too expensive. Then again there is Jamaca but damn its dangerous down there, I would take my chances with nukes than go down to Jamaca

That is just the short version of said plan. In the full version it covers a decade plus plan covering functional "star wars" technology and outfitting every major building with either CIWS, Metalstorm or SAMs. But to be totally honest I do think that many a conflict could be prevented by simply taking out one or more of the counties in question. Not putting known psychos like Saddam in power to create a "buffer" state. That's like giving Manuel Noriega mustard gas and the entire country of Panama and telling him to keep the drug-lords out of ours. It just doesn't work that way. As much as I am truly opposed to war I do understand that it is a necessity. I do like the ideas like take out yon small country with extreme prejudice, but it just doesn’t' work that way in practice.

[BrahRizor]

I say we just turn that whole region of the world into glass. To hell with playing "goodguy," that obviously isn't working. We need to start there and just cut a line strait from Iraq, through Iran down past Vietnam (retaliation’s a bitch) and onward up through the rest of that area (With a short break over Tibet, cuz lord knows they could redo China right!), all the way to North Korea. Fuck 'em all!
Of course we would have to calibrate our nukes, so I propose use France. It would be the first time in recent history that they have done anything worth while. And yes, when it comes to the french I consider melting worthwhile

A little bit of Denis Leary humor.....


Oh well we should just Neutron bomb the middle east, no damage to the oil, or the land (hehe that land is ruined already) and just wipe out anything living, it would be a great excuse to send those greenpeace hippies out to do some good of reestablishing life in the desert.

[Simpi]

I know this will sound horrible but It is true, that if our troops remain in Iraq it will be much more likely that they will be attacked by terrorists well before the US itself again, Its like having a front line against terrorism

Terrorists/resistance fighters, it just depends who defines it. According to US state department, I could be classified as terrorist since I belong to an organisation (Attac) which can be a threat to american economic interests*.

I'm quite proud of it actually.....

*One of the definitions how an organisation can earn a title of 'terrorist organisation'.

[kthulhu]

Terrorists/resistance fighters, it just depends who defines it. According to US state department, I could be classified as terrorist since I belong to an organisation (Attac) which can be a threat to american economic interests*.

I'm quite proud of it actually.....

*One of the definitions how an organisation can earn a title of 'terrorist organisation'.

It's really rather easy to classify, in my opinion. The people shooting at our troops could be classified as resistance fighters. Their ideology, correct or not, doesn't matter. They are fighting against recognized military forces occupying and controlling their country. I'd do the same thing if a military force invaded the US - or if our military was turned against the US populace.

Some of them are terrorists, in that their actions are designed to create terror and discord (witness the UN bombing), some are saboteurs (such as the ones who mess with the phone, water, and powerlines), but most could be classified as resistance groups.

As for Attac, whatever makes you feel significant and good, I guess . Doesn't look like anything special beyond a standard anti-globalism wah wah group, though.