Bush is not bringing troops home.

We may earn a small commission from affiliate links and paid advertisements. Terms

I'm not surprised at all were not going to be able to stop the fighting over there hell its programmed in there fucking DNA the only way we would be able to stop the fighting in the middle east is to turn the whole god damn thing into a glass crater but then we would be the terrorists
 
It doesn't really matter, either way we lose. If we stay, the world will hate us for continuing our occupation, if we leave we get blamed for not doing the job right. It's lose - lose, and I'm not really sure which way we'll lose hardest, all I know is that we shouldn't have been there in the first place, and that I've spoken against Bush since his first election in 2000. I'm going to have a very interesting world to grow old (hopefully) in....
 
i dunno if i have posted this on another forum or if it was here, but think about where the four trillion dollars bush has used (meaning raising the federal debt limit to 4 trillion) could have been used if it had been earmarked for homeland projects. i live in a good neighborhood, but driving to work, i see a lot of things that could use some federal assistance, rather than rebuilding a country (read reigon) that has been in chaos since what....1200AD?

I dunno...i just hope there is a somewhat moderate in the white house in 08 and that the democrats send us someone better than john fucking kerry. i dont like my vote to be a "Well he's better than that guy" vote. I will say this though...a large percentage of the dead troops came from Ft. Hood TX, and a few were my friends...i say we just end the shit right here. let the middle east fix itself and concentrete on home.

I know yall are gonna say "it doesnt stop terrorists from comming into the country" but you know why they do it right...look at americas past in the middle east. iraq, iran, kuait, afghanistan (none of which were isolated affairs). i figure if we dont piss anybody off...its kinda hard for them to find a reason to attack us.
 
Not a surprise, for fuck sakes we're still in Germany and that ended what 60 years ago?

Bush will bring some troops home, but to ever think the last man will leave Iraq by 2008 is asinine by any stretch of the imagination. But being stationed in Iraq 10 years from now will be infanitly safer then being there now. It will prolly never be the two years of binge drinking and nailing british girl I had in the UK while I was in, but theres no reason it souldn't be as safe as being stationed in south korea/turkey by 2010. The press is bullshit, it's not as bad there as your told. My friend was there for 18 months, granted it's worseright now then it's been in a while, but progress will continue to be made
 
Silverchild79 @ Mar 22 2006 said:
Quoted post[/post]]
Not a surprise, for fuck sakes we're still in Germany and that ended what 60 years ago?

Bush will bring some troops home, but to ever think the last man will leave Iraq by 2008 is asinine by any stretch of the imagination. But being stationed in Iraq 10 years from now will be infanitly safer then being there now. It will prolly never be the two years of binge drinking and nailing british girl I had in the UK while I was in, but theres no reason it souldn't be as safe as being stationed in south korea/turkey by 2010. The press is bullshit, it's not as bad there as your told. My friend was there for 18 months, granted it's worseright now then it's been in a while, but progress will continue to be made
Click to expand...

:withstupid:
ive been saying the same thing for a LONG time now
 
Ultimately the popular concensus is coming my way. Islam needs to be crushed today is it did in the 1800s. And before then too.

You say "Bush isn't bringing troops home, he's leavin it for the next guy". That's paraphrasing and putting words in his mouth. He said that he will remain on target and keep troops there - and if the next president wants to being them home, that's their perogative (sic)"

Come on, stop doing that. You sound like Al Franken.
 
why don't they have 24/7 satellite surveillance of iraq?

then if i bomb goes off, its simple to find out who put it there, where they came from, and where they went...
 
uhm...

you think we should nuke the whole middle east because some nut job in a cave decided to send other nut jobs to fly planes into WTC and kill 3K people?

WHOLE middle east vs 3K people...

and if we didn't go into iraq this wouldn't even be an issue...

history repeats itself...

those lazy fuckers in congress need to write a no confidence vote into the books...
 
I didn't say nuke - and I also don't completely believe that some nutjob in a cave told someone to fly two planes into the WTC. It's not about payback, its about world stability. Ask Celerity on this one. Hes a pro.

Fuel-air dispersal = no fallout, but close to 1 megaton of destruction.
 
This was never about eye-for-an-eye. This about eliminating a serious threat.

note. Threat.

QUESTION: Sir, you said earlier today that you believe there's a plan for success. If you did not, you would pull the troops out.

And so my question is, one, is there a point at which having the American forces in Iraq becomes more a part of the problem than a part of the solution? Can you say that you will not keep American troops in there is they're caught in a crossfire and a civil war? And can you say to the American people -- assure them that there will come a day when there will be no more American forces in Iraq?

BUSH: The decisions about our troop levels will be made by General Casey and the commanders on the ground. They're the ones who can best judge whether or not the presence of coalition troops create more of a problem than a solution -- than be a part of the solution.

BUSH: Secondly, I've answered the question on civil war -- our job is to make sure that civil war doesn't happen, but there will be -- but if there is sectarian violence, that's the job of the Iraqi forces, with coalition help, to separate those sectarian forces.

BUSH: Third part of your question?

QUESTION: It was: Will there come a day -- and I'm not asking you when; I'm not asking for a timetable -- will there come a day when there will be no more American forces in Iraq?

BUSH: That, of course, is an objective. And that will be decided by future presidents and future governments of Iraq.

QUESTION: So it won't happen on your watch?

BUSH: You mean a complete withdrawal? That's a timetable.

I can only tell you that I will make decisions on force levels based upon what the commanders on the ground say.
 
I just dont like how you can grossly underestimate something ilke this and say "we'll only be there a few months" then approve all these things for the construction of major military bases and air strips, along with other military bases set up all across the country.
 
I just dont like how you can grossly underestimate something ilke this and say "we'll only be there a few months" then approve all these things for the construction of major military bases and air strips, along with other military bases set up all across the country.
Click to expand...

its called imperialism...
iraq is our newest colony :ph34r:
 
Everyone said that about Afghanistan, yet there they are - killing some man publically because he broke Sharia law. Liberals are WRONG, ignorant and simply stupid.

Don't give me that imperialist horseshit. We let Japan, Germany and Italy just be after WWII, shit we even kept Russia at bay when they wanted Japan. So fuck you, Fuck your friends and the fuck the donkey you rode in on.

We prove time and time again that we aren't imperalist. We prove time and time again that where the US flag flies, freedom can be enjoyed by everyone. Do nothing but good for this shit infested planet and get nothing but flak in return. Allah Akbar.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top