Question on military morale in Iraq.

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Corn

Diamond Member
Nov 12, 1999
6,389
29
91
The way that this Administration is making one stupid mistake after the other in foriegn policy....

Of course good leadership entails cowtowing to the whims of "the world" or our enemies regardless of our interests. Good leadership means that we become the world's bitch. I see.

 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
Just so everyone knows seven other countries are now sending forces, bringing the total to 13 countries with troops deployed as peacekeepers...

all part of our multilateral imperialism.....
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,327
6,040
126
The US believes in unilateral preemptive war and sharing the sh!t of quagmire after the plan goes bust. Any news on the size of the bribes and when the troops go in?
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
already on their way and they are there at the request of the British, not the result of US bribes. I don't think the US would have had a problem with a multilateral force gonig into Iraq, they did try to garner support remember.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Sorta like " We'll remove the missles out of Turkey in seven or eight months but if you say any thing we'll deny it..." '62 missle crisis..

No nation does anything altruistic any more.. If another nation supplies anything it has been negotiated in advance what the payoff is. The proof is in the fact that they will send troops and they are not altruistic.
 

drewshin

Golden Member
Dec 14, 1999
1,464
0
0
Originally posted by: Alistar7
already on their way and they are there at the request of the British, not the result of US bribes. I don't think the US would have had a problem with a multilateral force gonig into Iraq, they did try to garner support remember.

they barely tried to garner support and pretty much went through the motions, and didn't let inspectors completely do their jobs. hans blix said a few days ago that force most likely would have been used by the end of the year i believe. bush said that iraq was an "imminent" threat to the united states and that we had to act soon, which of course turned out to be false.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,327
6,040
126
Yup, we're going to attack you in an illegal and totally un-American, preemptive way, contradicting everything in the name of international justice we've ever stood for cause we went psycho over 9/11 and the pole numbers for Bush had been bad and WOOPS, no WMD. Just a minor mistake. Nothing of any importance at all. We just destroyed everything it took two hundred years to build, killed a bunch of people illegally with our own WMD, because the laughing stock of the world, but it's ok.
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,489
0
0
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Yup, we're going to attack you in an illegal
Since when is war legal or illegal? We acted within the laws and constitution of the US.

and totally un-American
In your san fran liberal opinion, not mine, or the majority of americans.

preemptive way
yup, very preemptive. We pre-empted, so Saddam would never have a chance to do all the nasty things he would have liked to do (and has done in the past).

contradicting everything in the name of international justice we've ever stood for
Like say, taking down Hitler, or Japan, or facing off USSR.

cause we went psycho over 9/11 and the pole numbers for Bush had been bad and WOOPS, no WMD. Just a minor mistake. Nothing of any importance at all.
9/11. Good reason to go psycho. I suggest we keep up the good work. Governments will think twice, maybe three times before they decide to cross paths with us. WMD or no.

We just destroyed everything it took two hundred years to build
Saddam's palaces and military took 200 years to build?

killed a bunch of people illegally
I say again, direct me to the statutes that our government broke.

with our own WMD
Oh we sprinkled anthrax, mustard gas, and nuclear weapons? I must have missed that in the news. Oh you define WMD as anything that doesn't meet your own approved list of weapons?

because the laughing stock of the world, but it's ok.
I reserve that position for you.

 

CaptnKirk

Lifer
Jul 25, 2002
10,053
0
71
Well Al-7, those countries you said signed up aren't on board yet, India is balking, and the negotiations
of how much they get paid are ongoing, plus they are saying that they will wait till the end of summer.
Bush blew it with world opinion, and his regime will pay for their arrogance, sadly, with American Soliiers lives.