US plan for military future in Iraq leaked.

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: Drift3r
and staying in Iraq will protect us against terrorist how exactly? Can someone please point out how being in Iraq is protecting us against the same folks who planned 9/11 and attacked us during 9/11? The 9/11 attacks were a plan that were not hatched out, molded or executed in Iraq or by Iraqis Yet somehow having our troops deployed there is going to protect us from terrorist attack in the future.

How did the 19 men who attacked us get to that point over their lifetimes?

Chuck

Possibly because we were always fucking with their families and their resources and their politics and just generally causing all kinds of hell for brwon people in general throughout history...

If this was what the English/West did to your people.. what would you think of them? This looks like terrorism and worse to me

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: Drift3r
and staying in Iraq will protect us against terrorist how exactly? Can someone please point out how being in Iraq is protecting us against the same folks who planned 9/11 and attacked us during 9/11? The 9/11 attacks were a plan that were not hatched out, molded or executed in Iraq or by Iraqis Yet somehow having our troops deployed there is going to protect us from terrorist attack in the future.

How did the 19 men who attacked us get to that point over their lifetimes?

Chuck

Possibly because we were always fucking with their families and their resources and their politics and just generally causing all kinds of hell for brwon people in general throughout history...

If this was what the English/West did to your people.. what would you think of them? This looks like terrorism and worse to me

Perhaps so, but I hardly think the US did that, so while the link is sensationalistic, it doesn't apply to US. Certainly us imposing sanctions though, causing 100k's to die, is not much better. Certainly us dropping a bomb on a target and wiping out an innocent family is not much better.

Still though...we can either wait for that region to join the rest of the world on their own time (which is effectively never), or, give them some help. If to help, and then how....two pretty hard questions to arrive at a 20/20 hindsight correct decision on...

Chuck

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: Drift3r
and staying in Iraq will protect us against terrorist how exactly? Can someone please point out how being in Iraq is protecting us against the same folks who planned 9/11 and attacked us during 9/11? The 9/11 attacks were a plan that were not hatched out, molded or executed in Iraq or by Iraqis Yet somehow having our troops deployed there is going to protect us from terrorist attack in the future.

How did the 19 men who attacked us get to that point over their lifetimes?

Chuck

Possibly because we were always fucking with their families and their resources and their politics and just generally causing all kinds of hell for brwon people in general throughout history...

If this was what the English/West did to your people.. what would you think of them? This looks like terrorism and worse to me

Perhaps so, but I hardly think the US did that, so while the link is sensationalistic, it doesn't apply to US. Certainly us imposing sanctions though, causing 100k's to die, is not much better. Certainly us dropping a bomb on a target and wiping out an innocent family is not much better.

Still though...we can either wait for that region to join the rest of the world on their own time (which is effectively never), or, give them some help. If to help, and then how....two pretty hard questions to arrive at a 20/20 hindsight correct decision on...

Chuck

Add this to the fun
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=operation+ajax

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: Drift3r
and staying in Iraq will protect us against terrorist how exactly? Can someone please point out how being in Iraq is protecting us against the same folks who planned 9/11 and attacked us during 9/11? The 9/11 attacks were a plan that were not hatched out, molded or executed in Iraq or by Iraqis Yet somehow having our troops deployed there is going to protect us from terrorist attack in the future.

How did the 19 men who attacked us get to that point over their lifetimes?

Chuck

Possibly because we were always fucking with their families and their resources and their politics and just generally causing all kinds of hell for brwon people in general throughout history...

If this was what the English/West did to your people.. what would you think of them? This looks like terrorism and worse to me

Perhaps so, but I hardly think the US did that, so while the link is sensationalistic, it doesn't apply to US. Certainly us imposing sanctions though, causing 100k's to die, is not much better. Certainly us dropping a bomb on a target and wiping out an innocent family is not much better.

Still though...we can either wait for that region to join the rest of the world on their own time (which is effectively never), or, give them some help. If to help, and then how....two pretty hard questions to arrive at a 20/20 hindsight correct decision on...

Chuck

Add this to the fun
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=operation+ajax

I'm slightly confused, and I'm sure you can help me here: What does that have to do with 19 young Muslim's flying into the WTC on 9/11? I'm talking about how these 19 (14 from SA) young men arrived to do that, and you're linking to a 1953 Iranian event.

OBL didn't walk up to 14 SA young men and say, hey, look at this film of the Brits in India, and this 1953 Iranian thing, and tell me if you want to go fly some civilian airliners into civilian buildings in the US. What life journey and what life influences by who and how played on those 19 young men???

Understanding their life in detail, and the lives of those still alive and in the same situation, is what we should be spending efforts on...and then taking action to ensure that doesn't happen to the future generations.

Chuck

 

[biggestmuff]

What don't some of you get? The USA will always be in Iraq. We are still in Japan. We are still in Germany. We are still in Korea. What's not to understand?

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: Drift3r
and staying in Iraq will protect us against terrorist how exactly? Can someone please point out how being in Iraq is protecting us against the same folks who planned 9/11 and attacked us during 9/11? The 9/11 attacks were a plan that were not hatched out, molded or executed in Iraq or by Iraqis Yet somehow having our troops deployed there is going to protect us from terrorist attack in the future.

How did the 19 men who attacked us get to that point over their lifetimes?

Chuck

Possibly because we were always fucking with their families and their resources and their politics and just generally causing all kinds of hell for brwon people in general throughout history...

If this was what the English/West did to your people.. what would you think of them? This looks like terrorism and worse to me

Perhaps so, but I hardly think the US did that, so while the link is sensationalistic, it doesn't apply to US. Certainly us imposing sanctions though, causing 100k's to die, is not much better. Certainly us dropping a bomb on a target and wiping out an innocent family is not much better.

Still though...we can either wait for that region to join the rest of the world on their own time (which is effectively never), or, give them some help. If to help, and then how....two pretty hard questions to arrive at a 20/20 hindsight correct decision on...

Chuck

Add this to the fun
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=operation+ajax

I'm slightly confused, and I'm sure you can help me here: What does that have to do with 19 young Muslim's flying into the WTC on 9/11? I'm talking about how these 19 (14 from SA) young men arrived to do that, and you're linking to a 1953 Iranian event.

OBL didn't walk up to 14 SA young men and say, hey, look at this film of the Brits in India, and this 1953 Iranian thing, and tell me if you want to go fly some civilian airliners into civilian buildings in the US. What life journey and what life influences by who and how played on those 19 young men???

Understanding their life in detail, and the lives of those still alive and in the same situation, is what we should be spending efforts on...and then taking action to ensure that doesn't happen to the future generations.

Chuck

I am just telling you that we have done all we could to piss off their citizens ... those who are intelligent to recognize ... and quite possibly they see our lust for money as the central reason we are willing to kill them and remove their freedoms... FREEDOM TO VOTE was the 1953 link....

Do you think the WORLD trade center was chosen because the amount of people or because of the symbolic significance?

If you were a middle easterner would you be asking.. what is it that compels these 19 year old Americans to go to Iraq and kill 50,000 people when Iraq nor Iraqis NEVER attacked America?

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: dahunan

I am just telling you that we have done all we could to piss off their citizens ... those who are intelligent to recognize ... and quite possibly they see our lust for money as the central reason we are willing to kill them and remove their freedoms... FREEDOM TO VOTE was the 1953 link....

Kill them and remove their freedoms? We don't kill their civs unless we F up when going for an insurgent/terorrist. We don't remove their freedoms, we give them more than they ever had. Where do you get this stuff????

Do you think the WORLD trade center was chosen because the amount of people or because of the symbolic significance?

I think the WTC was chosen because it's the easiest target to pick in the biggest city in NY, and lots of $$$$$ is done there...when you're an inexperienced person flying a jumbo jet, it helps to have a huge target that's almost impossible to miss.

If you were a middle easterner would you be asking.. what is it that compels these 19 year old Americans to go to Iraq and kill 50,000 people when Iraq nor Iraqis NEVER attacked America?

If I were an Iraqi I'd be disgusted with my own people for p1ssing away an opportunity few countries in history have received.

As far as 19 year old Americans, again, they don't go around just shooting people. Unless their taking out insurgents/terrorists, or F up and miss and hit a civ, they're there to protect people, not kill them.

I think maybe you've got our servicepeople confused with the insurgents/terrorists...your beef is with the native ME population causing death and destruction over there, not US forces. I know it's really convenient to blame the US, but, try to keep it real...

Chuck

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: dahunan

I am just telling you that we have done all we could to piss off their citizens ... those who are intelligent to recognize ... and quite possibly they see our lust for money as the central reason we are willing to kill them and remove their freedoms... FREEDOM TO VOTE was the 1953 link....

Kill them and remove their freedoms? We don't kill their civs unless we F up when going for an insurgent/terorrist. We don't remove their freedoms, we give them more than they ever had. Where do you get this stuff????

Do you think the WORLD trade center was chosen because the amount of people or because of the symbolic significance?

I think the WTC was chosen because it's the easiest target to pick in the biggest city in NY, and lots of $$$$$ is done there...when you're an inexperienced person flying a jumbo jet, it helps to have a huge target that's almost impossible to miss.

If you were a middle easterner would you be asking.. what is it that compels these 19 year old Americans to go to Iraq and kill 50,000 people when Iraq nor Iraqis NEVER attacked America?

If I were an Iraqi I'd be disgusted with my own people for p1ssing away an opportunity few countries in history have received.

As far as 19 year old Americans, again, they don't go around just shooting people. Unless their taking out insurgents/terrorists, or F up and miss and hit a civ, they're there to protect people, not kill them.

I think maybe you've got our servicepeople confused with the insurgents/terrorists...your beef is with the native ME population causing death and destruction over there, not US forces. I know it's really convenient to blame the US, but, try to keep it real...

Chuck

You OBVIOUSLY didn't read the Operation Ajax link or any part of it... OR.. you think the US govt can always choose who they want to run someone elses nation...

We killed their people just by going there.. Was their military a true threat to us.. so.. if we killed a military person in a PRE-EMPTIVE attack... what does that tell you...

^^ I guess the deaths at Pearl Harbor are now justified in your mind

The planes were not hijacked on a moments notice.. this was PLANNED... DOH! .. "ooh.. big city.. tall building... go boom" << NOT

The dictators we helped prop up in nations not belonging to us did not have the peoples/citizens best interest in mind..

Our service people choose to follow orders and PRE-EMPTIVELY attack human beings who did not pose a threat to us or even our military...

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: dahunan

You OBVIOUSLY didn't read the Operation Ajax link or any part of it... OR.. you think the US govt can always choose who they want to run someone elses nation...

I'll go back and read it tonight, I can't right this second. That I'm sure it will have nothing to do with the 19 young men who flew into the WTC I'm almost sure of. I know, you're reaching, but I will go back and read the link...

We killed their people just by going there.. Was their military a true threat to us.. so.. if we killed a military person in a PRE-EMPTIVE attack... what does that tell you...

Saddam killed their people when he wouldn't yield to the 14th UN resolution and Bush called his bluff...something that hadn't been done the other 13 times he'd ignored the UN resolutions. Perhaps the next dictator will think twice about F'ing around with us....you'd hope so...

^^ I guess the deaths at Pearl Harbor are now justified in your mind

Well, Japan did declare war on us, it just got to us too late before the attack...so I guess in war attacking a military installation is justified. Tell me, exactly which part of the WTC was military? Out of the 3,000 people killed, what % of those were US forces? I could have sworn it was 0...but, I know you'll have the right numbers.....

The planes were not hijacked on a moments notice.. this was PLANNED... DOH! .. "ooh.. big city.. tall building... go boom" << NOT

You're BDS'ing out here...please, bring it back together...

The dictators we helped prop up in nations not belonging to us did not have the peoples/citizens best interest in mind..

Yes, I realize this. So which dictator are we propping up in Iraq right now? Which Parliment are we propping up there? It's so confusing...because I could have sworn the Iraqi's had elections...I must be wrong though, we're Proppers, must keep remembering that...

Our service people choose to follow orders and PRE-EMPTIVELY attack human beings who did not pose a threat to us or even our military...

They did pose a threat when we went into Iraq, because they were shooting at us. We even took great pains to scatter leaflets telling the Iraqi's to not point weapons at us etc. so we would not mistake them as a hostile. I can't think of much more we could have done when going in to not cause more casualties then necessary.

Of course, now that that's 5 years in the past, and we kill Iraqi's only be mistake or when they're a threat, the numbers we've killed are low.

If you want to lament from the rooftops on dead Iraqi's, go jump on an Iraqi forum and blame them....they're (and their ME brethern) the ones killing each other, not us.

Funny how it's always the US though huh? Never the people actually causing problems.....

Chuck

 

[orangat]

Originally posted by: chucky2
......
I'm slightly confused, and I'm sure you can help me here: What does that have to do with 19 young Muslim's flying into the WTC on 9/11? I'm talking about how these 19 (14 from SA) young men arrived to do that, and you're linking to a 1953 Iranian event.

OBL didn't walk up to 14 SA young men and say, hey, look at this film of the Brits in India, and this 1953 Iranian thing, and tell me if you want to go fly some civilian airliners into civilian buildings in the US. What life journey and what life influences by who and how played on those 19 young men???

Understanding their life in detail, and the lives of those still alive and in the same situation, is what we should be spending efforts on...and then taking action to ensure that doesn't happen to the future generations.

Chuck

Its true that one lone regime change fiasco 50+yrs ago might not seem to have much to do with the 19 hijackers. The short answer is that the US has supported and fostered a political climate of repressive dictatorships, military juntas and oil monarchies in the middle east (and all over the world). Also given are billions in military aid yearly and intelligence assistance. Combine that with bad and deteriorating living conditions and firebrand clerics and you've got an bad situation.

The US supported coups in Iran (the 2 Shahs), Iraq (Gen Qasim, Baath), Syria (Gen Zaim), Libya (Qaddafi), got involved in a civil war in 80s Lebanon by bombing one side, propped up Israel with economic+military aid to the tune of ~$3billion/yr for the last 30yrs.

The British MI6 had a big role in overthrowing Mossadegh in Iran 1953 because they felt that Mossadegh would threaten the obscene profits that the British AIOC (Anglo Iranian Oil) were raking in. The British govt got more more money from taxing the AIOC than Iran did from from oil concession royalties. Britain was the major bad guy in the ME until after the 1956 Suez war when it withdrew.

Every year the US and Israel are usually the only countries who vote against UN resolutions pertaining to Israeli abuses on Palestinians. The only 1-2 countries who join US and Israel are those badly needing a favour that year or small island states who rely on US aid like Micronesia.

The contempt which the Reagan admin shows Iran is exemplified by the reaction when USS Vincennes shoots down a civilian Iranian airliner in 1988 by mistake, the crew back home are greeted with Chariots of Fire theme and showered with medals.

Operation Ajax is the tip of the iceberg. Some others are Success(Guatemala), Condor(Latin America), Phoenix(Vietnam). US has supported dictatorships, military juntas, destabilized and undermined democracies in Europe, Latin America, ME, Asia.

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: orangat

Originally posted by: chucky2
......
I'm slightly confused, and I'm sure you can help me here: What does that have to do with 19 young Muslim's flying into the WTC on 9/11? I'm talking about how these 19 (14 from SA) young men arrived to do that, and you're linking to a 1953 Iranian event.

OBL didn't walk up to 14 SA young men and say, hey, look at this film of the Brits in India, and this 1953 Iranian thing, and tell me if you want to go fly some civilian airliners into civilian buildings in the US. What life journey and what life influences by who and how played on those 19 young men???

Understanding their life in detail, and the lives of those still alive and in the same situation, is what we should be spending efforts on...and then taking action to ensure that doesn't happen to the future generations.

Chuck

Its true that one lone regime change fiasco 50+yrs ago might not seem to have much to do with the 19 hijackers. The short answer is that the US has supported and fostered a political climate of repressive dictatorships, military juntas and oil monarchies in the middle east (and all over the world). Also given are billions in military aid yearly and intelligence assistance. Combine that with bad and deteriorating living conditions and firebrand clerics and you've got an bad situation.

The US supported coups in Iran (the 2 Shahs), Iraq (Gen Qasim, Baath), Syria (Gen Zaim), Libya (Qaddafi), got involved in a civil war in 80s Lebanon by bombing one side, propped up Israel with economic+military aid to the tune of ~$3billion/yr for the last 30yrs.

The British MI6 had a big role in overthrowing Mossadegh in Iran 1953 because they felt that Mossadegh would threaten the obscene profits that the British AIOC (Anglo Iranian Oil) were raking in. The British govt got more more money from taxing the AIOC than Iran did from from oil concession royalties. Britain was the major bad guy in the ME until after the 1956 Suez war when it withdrew.

Every year the US and Israel are usually the only countries who vote against UN resolutions pertaining to Israeli abuses on Palestinians. The only 1-2 countries who join US and Israel are those badly needing a favour that year or small island states who rely on US aid like Micronesia.

The contempt which the Reagan admin shows Iran is exemplified by the reaction when USS Vincennes shoots down a civilian Iranian airliner in 1988 by mistake, the crew back home are greeted with Chariots of Fire theme and showered with medals.

Operation Ajax is the tip of the iceberg. Some others are Success(Guatemala), Condor(Latin America), Phoenix(Vietnam). US has supported dictatorships, military juntas, destabilized and undermined democracies in Europe, Latin America, ME, Asia.

I don't disagree with any of that, however it takes more than even all that (since that is spread out over such a period of time) to get people to give up what they themselves have been affected by to go fly airplanes into civilian towers.

No doubt the US should change policies and its ways...but there is also no doubt that left unchecked, these brainwashers will continue to warp minds over there faster than 'diplomacy' can change things.

At some point, you need to put a Pit down...it's not saveable...

Chuck

 

[orangat]

Those incidents may be spread out over a long period but poverty, poor economic prospects, police state abuses are constant reminders of how western powers have screwed up the ME since the Ottomans.

The US gave billions to its proxy Pakistan to build up the Taliban in the 80s despite the anti-western kill dem infidel sentiments the Taliban were already spewing out, then supported Muslim terrorists in former Yugoslavia in the 90s during Clintons time and probably ran out of places to dump these terrorists in before Sept 2001.

 

[zephyrprime]

The US never leaves the countries that it gets involved with militarily. We're still in Korea and Germany. It's no surprise that we would stay in Iraq also.

 

[ayabe]

Well guys, looks like we are free to begin full scale withdrawal:

"The renewed violence coincided with the Congressional testimony of the Bush administration's top two officials in Iraq ? Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker. Petraeus recommended a pause in drawing down U.S. troops in Iraq while the security situation remains unstable and President Bush is expected to follow his recommendation.

But Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki disagreed with Petraeus' proposal to delay further U.S. troop withdrawals, citing the growing capabilities of Iraq's own security forces.

Petraeus wants the U.S. to complete by the end of July the withdrawal of the 20,000 troops that were sent to Iraq last year, leaving about 140,000 in the country. Beyond that, the general proposed a 45-day evaluation period to be followed by an indefinite period of assessment before any further pullouts.

Al-Maliki, however, has said he disagrees with that decision.

The prime minister told Bush during a 20-minute telephone conversation on Wednesday that Iraqi security forces are capable of carrying out their duties and U.S. troops should be pulled out as the situation permits, according to a senior government adviser who sat in on the phone conversation. He spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to disclose the confidential details.

Text

That looks like a green light to me, let's get the fuck out.

 

[Brigandier]

So, if the democratice government of Iraq wants us out, and we don't leave, is it reconstruction or forceful occupation?

 

[Modelworks]

I really don't like how , especially in the past week, they are talking more and more about Iran when they talk about Iraq.
Uhm, lets get the hell out now, before that crazy man in the white house starts another 'conflict'

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: Modelworks
I really don't like how , especially in the past week, they are talking more and more about Iran when they talk about Iraq.
Uhm, lets get the hell out now, before that crazy man in the white house starts another 'conflict'

Bush is more than capable of attacking Iran. Every day he remains in office is a disaster for the US.

I think there will be another major economic downturn in the US economy around August/September and that the Bush administration will attack Iran under some pretext then. Bush did that with Iraq when the DOW was floundering in 2002/2003.

 

[blackangst1]

Im not understanding why this is news...we're still in Japan right? How many years is that?