So the Americans cant even sustain another 100K troops in iraq?
- Thread starter mahram
- Start date
It was North Korea that had the weapons of mass destruction. The only mass destruction in Iraq has been done to the Iraqi civilians and the thousands of American soldiers?
I know Bush is a idiot but did any of his 'advisors' tell him that chaos and anarchy are VASTLY different to democracy?
The current state of play result in Iraq was SO predictable back in 2003
I know Bush is a idiot but did any of his 'advisors' tell him that chaos and anarchy are VASTLY different to democracy?
The current state of play result in Iraq was SO predictable back in 2003
The reason US cannot win the war in Iraq is because it is a democracy and therefore cannot fight the war the way Iraqis are fighting it. Everybody knows that If this war were fought without any restraint on the US part, Iraq and Iraqis would join dinosaurs in the extinct section of the encyclopedia. So, do not let yourself be fooled, it is the rules and laws that we as a democratric country have placed and decided to follow that keep us from winning in Iraq, not the terrorists who would kill anybody to win.
I heartily agree. It is this sanitized motion of regulated warfare that we can't fight. And frankly, I don't know why we tried to. War is a brutal and ugly beast. And that's what we should have waged. You see that's what no one wants to fight. These managed skirmishes are BS (IMHO). 
So what was all this chest pounding about sending troops to nkorea and iran?
Only a complete idiot would think that we are considering sending troops to NK and Iran. Bombing those two countries into the stone age is what's on the agenda, it requires a lot of planes, bombs and missiles, it certainly does not require a lot of troops.
And you cant even send 100K more troops to iraq?
Only a complete idiot would think that we can't. Sure we can, we don't want to.
What are you going todo when the british bug out next year.
Only a complete idiot would think that it matters, the brits only have 5K-7K troops in Iraq so it's not a big deal. Anyway, most likely we will bug out next year too, maybe we'll leave a few military bases in the Kurdish area and screw the rest of that shithole. Let arabs kill arabs all they want, who cares.
___________________________________________
I know this will come as a shock but what you said is right on.
Maybe add to it by retaining some bases around Basra to give us sea access and possibly a corridor up to the Kurdish area along the eastern border by Iran. This addition would definitely enhance our support of the Kurd area bases and check the flow of Iranian support for the militias.
mahram forgets that we aren't even using our Air Force and Navy in Iraq. They make up roughly 2/3 of our total strength.
Quote from canyonman00:
I heartily agree. It is this sanitized motion of regulated warfare that we can't fight. And frankly, I don't know why we tried to. War is a brutal and ugly beast. And that's what we should have waged. You see that's what no one wants to fight. These managed skirmishes are BS (IMHO).
wait, i thought we went into Iraq because saddam was a brutal dictator that was a meanie head to his own people?
so the solution is to bomb these people into the stone age? so we aren't liberating them?
what was our purpose again?
Isnt that like saying, in the united states south central can be free of gangs, only if we allow the police to shoot all the black people. 
Quote from canyonman00:
I heartily agree. It is this sanitized motion of regulated warfare that we can't fight. And frankly, I don't know why we tried to. War is a brutal and ugly beast. And that's what we should have waged. You see that's what no one wants to fight. These managed skirmishes are BS (IMHO).