T1B

It can withdraw and hand the region over to Iran.

False premise.

It is August 2010, which is the month when the last U.S. combat troops are scheduled to leave Iraq.

Nice going, Barry.

My close friend's nephew, who is my newest golfing buddy, is leaving for Iraq tomorrow (3rd time around). For another year, or so they told him.

Pretty strange to be departing for awar that's supposed to end in a couple of weeks.

Last couple of trips, he was the guy kicking down doors doing the house-to-house searches... what a party that must have been. No stress in that job, I wouldn't imagine.

They're not advisors, they are trainers. As in, kept on a short leash.

Papa Willie wrote:

War Wagon wrote:They're not advisors, they are trainers. As in, kept on a short leash.

They're soldiers. Period. I knew Barry would pull some shit on his promise. I guess changing their names makes him a fucking hero.... :D

SOunds like they are soldiers who are not as well armed as they ought be.

I smell another mogadishu debacle coming. Hope I'm wrong

Perhaps my point was a bit unclear.

What I meant is that the Iraqi civilian authorities and military will be kept on a short leash, not American soldiers, but by American soldiers. For quite a while.

Obama is trumpeting that the last combat troops are leaving. So? The 50,000 who are left won't exactly be pencil pushers. And should the need arise, I think they can cobble together a combat brigade or two.

Thanks to Obama, America is leaving with it's tail between it's legs.

Vietnam Part II

Oh, Iran called...They said "thanks" for the country.

Martyred wrote: Oh, Iran called...They said "thanks" for the country.

If Iran wants to take a couple swings at the Iraqi tar baby, they can go right ahead. I have to laugh at the notion that they will be welcomed with open arms.

Chocolates and rose petals, right?

mvscal wrote:
If Iran wants to take a couple swings at the Iraqi tar baby, they can go right ahead. I have to laugh at the notion that they will be welcomed with open arms.

Chocolates and rose petals, right?

The ayatollahs need not leave the comfort of Tehran. Sistani is their man on the scene.

Iranians, unlike Americans, are not complete and utter morons.

...and speaking of Sistani, this is a quote of his taken from Wikipedia:

Like most Shia marja, Ayatollah al-Sistani strictly forbids the practice of masturbation in all circumstances. Although it is allowed when one's spouse is involved:

Question: If my wife wants me to masturbate in front of her, is it then allowed?

Answer: [Not if] you masturbate using your own hand. If your wife helps you ejaculate, there would be no objection.



Seriously. How can you NOT like this guy?

Marty, Iraq is no Vietnam.

Afghanistan, however, well could be... if it's not already. Like herding cats there. We either go "all in" or just fold a shit hand dealt from a stacked deck.

War Wagon wrote:...fold a shit hand dealt from a stacked deck.

Funny. That's not how I recall Americans describing the USSR's exit from Afghanistan...

Martyred wrote: Sistani is their man on the scene.

Wrong. He and Khomeini hated each other. He also is adamantly opposed to direct clerical rule. Educate yourself, tard.

So...what exactly did we achieve in Iraq?

PSUFAN wrote:So...what exactly did we achieve in Iraq?

Aside from getting rid of a murderous, oppressive regime and protecting vital American oil interests, you mean?

:cracksknuckles:

That sound you heard was the sound of the military staying sharp. Despite teachers union protests, America and Americans are a warlike culture. We were born that way and will always be that way.

We like kicking ass and taking names. We don't allocate 750 billion dollars a year on defense budget so as to actually play defense. We've got all these cool toys we've bought and by God, we intend to use them.

If people get killed in the meantime, oh well. Collateral damage.

War Wagon wrote:

PSUFAN wrote:So...what exactly did we achieve in Iraq?

Aside from getting rid of a murderous, oppressive regime and protecting vital American oil interests, you mean?

:cracksknuckles:

That sound you heard was the sound of the military staying sharp. Despite teachers union protests, America and Americans are a warlike culture. We were born that way and will always be that way.

We like kicking ass and taking names. We don't allocate 750 billion dollars a year on defense budget so as to actually play defense. We've got all these cool toys we've bought and by God, we intend to use them.

If people get killed in the meantime, oh well. Collateral damage.

Wags, you are drunker than a road-kill skunk if you actually pretend to believe a word of that caricature redneck bluster.

We didn't win in Korea, we lost big time in Vietnam, and we've fucked up all our prospects in the Iraq nightmare.

Name me ONE war that America entered with any bearing or attitude of a "warlike culture." Which one? The Civil War? Spanish-American? WWI? WWII? Korea? Nam?

Each one required all manner of lies and manipulation--and even then we Americans entered kicking and screaming in protest. Dispute this basic fact of our true national culture? Bring it!

As for shitcanning Saddam, sure, but at what astronomical cost! And what was his supposed "threat"? Not oil, because he was selling as much as we wanted all those years and never threatened a boycott.

What planet are you on, you idiotic hillbilly?

All we're doing with this heinous fuck up is catering to the hysterical nervous odor of the Knesset.

WAKEY WAKE

I never suggested the Iraq nightmare was past tense. And we're in a lot more than 50,000 guarding the largest embassy in the world. But what are we in?

Go ahead, P-will, name a war America entered not kicking and screaming...

Wake the fuck up..

Papa Willie wrote:

LTS TRN 2 wrote:I never suggested the Iraq nightmare was past tense. And we're in a lot more than 50,000 guarding the largest embassy in the world. But what are we in?

Go ahead, P-will, name a war America entered not kicking and screaming...

Wake the fuck up..

Your Democratic heroes have by far and away killed more American troops than Republicans have in the past 100 years. Your current hero was supposed to get us out of Iraq, remember? All he's doing is changing their names, because he knows that dumbasses (like you) will fall for it.

Exactly..and it all started when Cliton let the Somolia's get away with the shit in Mogadishu bleams ago. Too busy gakking all over Monicas dress to worry about dead American troops being dragged through the streets.

Should have wiped them cocksuckers and all their Muslim homies from the face of the earth...but Nooooo...we can't do that...hence 9/11, hence Iraq , hence Afghanistan...

Derron wrote: Should have wiped them cocksuckers and all their Muslim homies from the face of the earth...but Nooooo...we can't do that...hence 9/11, hence Iraq , hence Afghanistan...

The Islamists (ICU) came in after Clinton turned Somalia into dust.

Read a fucking newspaper once in a while, you dullard.

Martyred wrote:
The Islamists (ICU) came in after Clinton turned Somalia into dust.

Rightttt.....go ahead and show us how he "turned Somalia into dust "....bwwaaahhaaa

Derron wrote:

Martyred wrote:
The Islamists (ICU) came in after Clinton turned Somalia into dust.

Rightttt.....go ahead and show us how he "turned Somalia into dust "....bwwaaahhaaa

Do you even know what happened there in the 90's?

How fucking stupid are you? I mean, I've heard the rumours, but...wow...

mvscal wrote:

Martyred wrote: Sistani is their man on the scene.

Wrong. He and Khomeini hated each other. He also is adamantly opposed to direct clerical rule. .

That's likely to change- especially if he gets to be the cleric in charge.

Cuda wrote:

mvscal wrote:

Martyred wrote: Sistani is their man on the scene.

Wrong. He and Khomeini hated each other. He also is adamantly opposed to direct clerical rule. .

That's likely to change- especially if he gets to be the cleric in charge.

He's 80 years old. He's all of sudden just going to discard everything he ever believed in for his entire life? Not fucking likely. If he wanted direct political power, it was his for the taking in Iran.

mvscal wrote:Chocolates and rose petals, right?

Dunno for sure, I think you should ask your boy Cheney about that one.

Derron wrote: Exactly..and it all started when Cliton let the Somolia's get away with the shit in Mogadishu bleams ago.

Actually, it started with Carter pissing away Iran and continued with Reagan who bolted out of Lebanon like a raped ape.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

mvscal wrote:Chocolates and rose petals, right?

Dunno for sure, I think you should ask your boy Cheney about that one.

You really are a fucking dolt, aren't you?

Martyred wrote:

Derron wrote: Should have wiped them cocksuckers and all their Muslim homies from the face of the earth...but Nooooo...we can't do that...hence 9/11, hence Iraq , hence Afghanistan...

The Islamists (ICU) came in after Clinton turned Somalia into dust.

Read a fucking newspaper once in a while, you dullard.

Sorry to break this to you, but Somalia was dust long before we showed up.

mvscal wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

mvscal wrote:Chocolates and rose petals, right?

Dunno for sure, I think you should ask your boy Cheney about that one.

You really are a fucking dolt, aren't you?

No, I'm merely cracking on you using (almost) the exact words of the guy you spent eight years going Indy Fellatio on.

That you (maybe?) changed your opinion now shows only that it was you who was horribly late to the party.

Oh, is that what you think you're doing?

mvscal wrote:

Derron wrote: Exactly..and it all started when Cliton let the Somolia's get away with the shit in Mogadishu bleams ago.

Actually, it started with Carter pissing away Iran and continued with Reagan who bolted out of Lebanon like a raped ape.

Rack.

Carter actually got off to a nice start with getting egypt and israel to sit down and talk. actually, that all of that credit goes to anwar who likely knew he was signing his death warrant at the time. if carter didn't complete fukk away iran, the entire middle east might look a lot different today. iran could be a strong modern non-religious nutjob ally today. if they were, iraq would likely have eventually followed along just to keep up. and yes, ronnie does deserve any criticism he gets for running like a little bitch in lebanon. we should have used that episode to clean syria's clock at the time.

smackaholic wrote:iran could be a strong modern non-religious nutjob ally today. if they were, iraq would likely have eventually followed along just to keep up.

No, they would have been wiped off the face of the earth after attacking Iran.

Dinsdale wrote:

smackaholic wrote:iran could be a strong modern non-religious nutjob ally today. if they were, iraq would likely have eventually followed along just to keep up.

No, they would have been wiped off the face of the earth after attacking Iran.

wow.

just...fukking...wow.

i'm dissapointed in you, dins. i thought you actually had a clue historically speaking.

if iran doesn't go to shit during carter's watch, saddam doesn't even think about blinking in iran's direction as he knew that iran's very well funded and trained military with a few squadron's worth of shiney new f-14s would butt fukk him in the mouf in short order.

he attacked iran because he felt they were weaker than they actually were as a result of that little islamic revolution thingie they were in the middle of.

smackaholic wrote:we should have used that episode to clean syria's clock at the time.

Why?

What fight do you have with Syria?

Martyred wrote:

smackaholic wrote:we should have used that episode to clean syria's clock at the time.

Why?

What fight do you have with Syria?

An easy win- like Nebraska playing Baylor

smackaholic wrote:if iran doesn't go to shit during carter's watch, saddam doesn't even think about blinking in iran's direction as he knew that iran's very well funded and trained military with a few squadron's worth of shiney new f-14s would butt fukk him in the mouf in short order.

he attacked iran because he felt they were weaker than they actually were as a result of that little islamic revolution thingie they were in the middle of.

All speculation, and I'm certainly not in complete disagreement with your assertions.

I was working under the hypothetical that Saddam would have attacked Iran regardless, since he was kind of in attack mode at the time, what with Rummy sucking his dick at the time.

Martyred wrote:

smackaholic wrote:we should have used that episode to clean syria's clock at the time.

Why?

What fight do you have with Syria?

Syria was a chief instigator in lebanon.

They were ripe for a good bitch slapping.

Instead we were all [monty python voice] RUNAWAY!!!!!RUNAWAY!!!!! [/monty python voice].

Dinsdale wrote:

smackaholic wrote:if iran doesn't go to shit during carter's watch, saddam doesn't even think about blinking in iran's direction as he knew that iran's very well funded and trained military with a few squadron's worth of shiney new f-14s would butt fukk him in the mouf in short order.

he attacked iran because he felt they were weaker than they actually were as a result of that little islamic revolution thingie they were in the middle of.

All speculation, and I'm certainly not in complete disagreement with your assertions.

I was working under the hypothetical that Saddam would have attacked Iran regardless, since he was kind of in attack mode at the time, what with Rummy sucking his dick at the time.

Saddam became as brazen as he did after watching us let the shah fall like we did. he figured that we were all done with backing foreign allies given the way we handled vietnam and then iran.

ofcourse, given saddam's pertty much suicidal behavior later on, maybe you are right. maybe he would have attacked and the shah would have had his head on a pike sometime around 1982 which would have saved a lot of people a lot of trouble.

i doubt this would have been the case though. as with most ruthless aggressors, an early bitch slapping would have sufficed.

mvscal wrote:

Derron wrote: Exactly..and it all started when Cliton let the Somolia's get away with the shit in Mogadishu bleams ago.

Actually, it started with Carter pissing away Iran and continued with Reagan who bolted out of Lebanon like a raped ape.

This is "fleeing" Lebanon?


And as for "pissing away" Iran...??? What makes you think we had any chance whatsoever to control Iran? Or that we had any right whatsoever to attempt to do so?

Are you some kind of wind-up junior fascist spitting out nasty seething insults at everyone who comes near your cage?...Oh yeah... :wink:

Dinsdale wrote: I was working under the hypothetical that Saddam would have attacked Iran regardless, since he was kind of in attack mode at the time, what with Rummy sucking his dick at the time.

Wrong

LTS TRN 2 wrote:

mvscal wrote:

Derron wrote: Exactly..and it all started when Cliton let the Somolia's get away with the shit in Mogadishu bleams ago.

Actually, it started with Carter pissing away Iran and continued with Reagan who bolted out of Lebanon like a raped ape.

This is "fleeing" Lebanon?

Are you fucking retarded or something? We're talking about the Hezbollah bombing of the Marine barracks in Beruit in 1983 and you post a picture of the Israeli-Lebanese conflict in 2006.

http://www.nowlebanon.com/Sub.aspx?ID=1 ... ParentID=3

What, exactly, is your malfunction?

Well, guess what? It looked the same in '06 as it did in '83.

Do you want a picture of the carnage of 1983? Will that help you realize that we didn't "flee" at all but ravaged the tiny nation with and on behalf of the ZioNazis.

Okay..
Beruit 1983


Happy now?

Now, explain how this constitutes "fleeing," and what would "staying" entail?

And don't think you can hide from your idiotic suggestion that we "pissed away" Iran. You're such a squirming worm.